posted
Before eveyone jumps in and posts a bunch of pictures lets keep this thread academic and completly unbias. I know, very difficult for the bias posters here.
If Egypt is non-African in origins and the people of foreign ancestry, what evidence supports this view?
Please non-inflammatory view points only and please no name calling. Also, please don't give strawmans such as - they had red hair and narrow noses since evolution being what it is can produce those variation in situ North Africa.
What we are looking for is Neolithic movements of people from the Levant into Northeast Africa in such a way that would result in population, language and cultural replacement. Those groups of invading people should still exist today and have some cultural, linguistic and genetic ties to these people and should have a higher concentratation of these attributes.
Here are some givens to avoid wasted time:
West Africans split from the Nilotic people of East Africa well before the first dynasty. Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt. Posters should not have an emotional bias in this discussion since it is not based on the defunct racist terms of Black and White. Fact, what most people consider to be European (English, German, Swedes, etc) are significantly differentiated from Egyptians in the same way most (not all) West Africans are. West Europeans split from a common Egyptian ancestor some 20years before the 1 dynasty.
So lets deal with East African heritage and its origins. Not Nordes and Bantus, which is the heritage of most posters here that seem to be unable to get beyond biasness.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread should be DELETED. Nothing new will come of it. We will be rehashing the same stuff. Same threatment as the thread White Nord attempted to start . . .and was removed by the mods.
The poster should read the sticky thread on above. If he/she has anything "new" that is fine . . . then start off with the new material. Don't pose a "bait" question. . .especially one that has been discussed a thousand time.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first link on this forum (Ancient Egypt and Egyptology),reads "The Race of the Ancient Egyptians" ...
Please read it ... the start of this thread was a waste of space, time and finger strokes ...
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL You complain about bias in this forum, but speak for yourself!! Most of the people here are NOT as you claim "Nordic" or "Bantu".
So already you lose credibility.
From what I have read, we have a significant number of African American posters: ie - West African/Native American w/ some European heritage. Then we have some belligerant European posters with a Nordiccentric viewpoint. Of course we have a few outlanders such as yourself being of Melanesian or Polynesian heritage.
What we don't seem to have much of are actual East African posters though they being so Islamiccentric are not likely to be non-bias.
Okay I must admit, a Melanesian/Polynesian person is more likely to as unbias as we can get.
So let the discussion begin. Is it possible that the elite Egyptians (non-Fellahin) are actually of foreign ancestry perhaps Summerian? If that was true what would we expect to see as evidence?
There would be archaelogical evidence: pottery, religious artifacts and certain tools used for agriculture etc.
Is there really not a connection between Summeria and Egypt in this way?
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: The first link on this forum (Ancient Egypt and Egyptology),reads "The Race of the Ancient Egyptians" ...
Please read it ... the start of this thread was a waste of space, time and finger strokes ...
Lets see, from what I have read the Natufians lived in the Levant but arguably more related to Sub-Saharans than Eurasians. This isn't about race its about origins of culture.
Hawas has made an interesting comment: Egyptians are not Africans but are in Africa.
Why would he believe that?
Berbers are considered African regardless of the phenotype. Why would Hawas need to state that Egyptians are not African unless he had evidence support a migration of neolithic farmers into the Delta during neolithic times. Does not even Keita allude to the possibility?
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: From what I have read, we have a significant number of African American posters: ie - West African/Native American w/ some European heritage. Then we have some belligerant European posters with a Nordiccentric viewpoint. Of course we have a few outlanders such as yourself being of Melanesian or Polynesian heritage.
What we don't seem to have much of are actual East African posters though they being so Islamiccentric are not likely to be non-bias.
Okay I must admit, a Melanesian/Polynesian person is more likely to as unbias as we can get.
So let the discussion begin. Is it possible that the elite Egyptians (non-Fellahin) are actually of foreign ancestry perhaps Summerian? If that was true what would we expect to see as evidence?
There would be archaelogical evidence: pottery, religious artifacts and certain tools used for agriculture etc.
Is there really not a connection between Summeria and Egypt in this way?
I am Filipino NOT Polynesian or Melanesian, and it really shouldn't matter what a person's ancestry is. It is irrelevant to and is not going to change the FACTS!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Berbers are considered African regardless of the phenotype. Why would Hawas need to state that Egyptians are not African unless he had evidence support a migration of neolithic farmers into the Delta during neolithic times. Does not even Keita allude to the possibility?
Keita declares it 'conceptually wrong to say that "Africans" split from "Caucasians", "Mongoloids", "Australoids" etc. ad nauseam, as has sometimes been done, or even the reverse, because these terms carry certain stereotyped physical trait associations'. An understanding of this concept shows us clearly that 'there is no evidence that the region was empty and primarily colonised by non-African outsiders, who had differentiated outside and then returned to Africa' (emphasis in original). Keita's summary position is that 'It is not a question of "African" "influence"; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not "Afrocentric," but simply correct' (emphasis added). - Click
^Nuff said....
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: From what I have read, we have a significant number of African American posters: ie - West African/Native American w/ some European heritage. Then we have some belligerant European posters with a Nordiccentric viewpoint. Of course we have a few outlanders such as yourself being of Melanesian or Polynesian heritage.
What we don't seem to have much of are actual East African posters though they being so Islamiccentric are not likely to be non-bias.
Okay I must admit, a Melanesian/Polynesian person is more likely to as unbias as we can get.
So let the discussion begin. Is it possible that the elite Egyptians (non-Fellahin) are actually of foreign ancestry perhaps Summerian? If that was true what would we expect to see as evidence?
There would be archaelogical evidence: pottery, religious artifacts and certain tools used for agriculture etc.
Is there really not a connection between Summeria and Egypt in this way?
I am Filipino NOT Polynesian or Melanesian, and it really shouldn't matter what a person's ancestry is. It is irrelevant to and is not going to change the FACTS!
Recent studies into paternal Y chromosome analysis shows that Polynesians are also genetically linked to peoples of Melanesia Therefore it is current belief that the Polynesian people are a hybrid ethnicity between indigenous peoples of parts of Southeast Asia and peoples of Melanesia. Being that the original inhabitants of the Phillipine Islands are remnants of the first migratory wave from East Africa to Australia and are commonly referred to as being of the Melanesian ethnicity (though technically incorrect), it is not entirely incorrect to refer to people of the Phillipines as Polynesian since technically they are gentetically equivalent.
As for intepretation of facts being bias, as you have many times lamented, a so called Eurocentric bias does exist in the literature on Egyptian history. Such said bias is political in nature and is not inherent to a particular ethnicity and thus African Americans can exhibit the same flaw in judgement.
Consequently, have we really examined the evidence in it totality here or is it skewed. What trade, what migration patterns supports a link between Egypt and the Levant pre-dynastic?
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
Berbers are considered African regardless of the phenotype. Why would Hawas need to state that Egyptians are not African unless he had evidence support a migration of neolithic farmers into the Delta during neolithic times. Does not even Keita allude to the possibility?
Keita declares it 'conceptually wrong to say that "Africans" split from "Caucasians", "Mongoloids", "Australoids" etc. ad nauseam, as has sometimes been done, or even the reverse, because these terms carry certain stereotyped physical trait associations'. An understanding of this concept shows us clearly that 'there is no evidence that the region was empty and primarily colonised by non-African outsiders, who had differentiated outside and then returned to Africa' (emphasis in original). Keita's summary position is that 'It is not a question of "African" "influence"; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not "Afrocentric," but simply correct' (emphasis added). - Click
^Nuff said....
Keita states that the region was not primarily colonized by non-Africans. This alludes to SOME colonization by non-Africans.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
Berbers are considered African regardless of the phenotype. Why would Hawas need to state that Egyptians are not African unless he had evidence support a migration of neolithic farmers into the Delta during neolithic times. Does not even Keita allude to the possibility?
Keita declares it 'conceptually wrong to say that "Africans" split from "Caucasians", "Mongoloids", "Australoids" etc. ad nauseam, as has sometimes been done, or even the reverse, because these terms carry certain stereotyped physical trait associations'. An understanding of this concept shows us clearly that 'there is no evidence that the region was empty and primarily colonised by non-African outsiders, who had differentiated outside and then returned to Africa' (emphasis in original). Keita's summary position is that 'It is not a question of "African" "influence"; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not "Afrocentric," but simply correct' (emphasis added). - Click
^Nuff said....
Common core cultural traits are noted in the Saharan neolithic and Nile Valley predynastic sites, with some Near Eastern influence in the north (Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Hassan, 1988).
--------------------
If you are really unbias don't you want to know what these Near Eastern influences are to determine if they later became the dominate cultural influences?
So again, what are the Near Eastern influences in Egypt and is it enough to make one say: Egypt is not African?
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Keita states that the region was not primarily colonized by non-Africans. This alludes to SOME colonization by non-Africans.
^^Well, since Keita made no mention of this explicitly, the burden of proof would be on you to establish what the non-African presence was, if there was one. By my understanding, 'primarily', as opposed to secondarily, basically means mostly, so why would we be emphasizing a probability of a minority population that MAY have been present, yet can't be established with any certainty?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mesopatamian influence in stone tools? Is this assumption only or is there supporting direct evidence?
-------
Some scholars agree that the shift from Naqada I to Naqada II was the result of more intense interaction and trade with foreign groups from west Asia. The cultural group spreads with settlements stretching from Nubia to as far north as the Delta. These settlements are now larger, with the usual round huts now being joined by rectangular red stone houses. A greater improvement in variety of artefacts represents a new socio-economic shift. The characteristic red pottery with a black rim first seen at Naqada is now found in use as far north as Buto. Indeed the spread of Naqada culture into Lower Egypt is more likely to be the result of a more cohesive Egypt, rather than invading stronger southern groups conquering over the north. Copper and gold sources in the Eastern Desert are being exploited to produce copper tools and worked gold objects. Extremely well accomplished stone tools and a greater amount of mud-brick buildings reflect an increasing Mesopotamian influence. Evidence would suggest that these large settlements are regions of strong influence, with more lavish tombs belonging to a chief figure of the community.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: [QB] Mesopatamian influence in stone tools? Is this assumption only or is there supporting direct evidence?
-------
Some scholars agree that the shift from Naqada I to Naqada II was the result of more intense interaction and trade with foreign groups from west Asia. The cultural group spreads with settlements stretching from Nubia to as far north as the Delta. These settlements are now larger, with the usual round huts now being joined by rectangular red stone houses. A greater improvement in variety of artefacts represents a new socio-economic shift. The characteristic red pottery with a black rim first seen at Naqada is now found in use as far north as Buto. Indeed the spread of Naqada culture into Lower Egypt is more likely to be the result of a more cohesive Egypt, rather than invading stronger southern groups conquering over the north. Copper and gold sources in the Eastern Desert are being exploited to produce copper tools and worked gold objects. Extremely well accomplished stone tools and a greater amount of mud-brick buildings reflect an increasing Mesopotamian influence. Evidence would suggest that these large settlements are regions of strong influence, with more lavish tombs belonging to a chief figure of the community.
Outdated Pseudo-science
The theory of the dynastic race, a 'master' race of invaders from the east, thought to be responsible for imposing civilization on the 'primitive' and unsophisticated indigenous Egyptians - had been articulated by Petrie only ten years before and was still being expoused enthusiastically by scholars such as Emery and Edwards two decades after the publication of Massoulard's work. The recognition of the indigenous roots of classical Egyptian civilization emphasized the continuities between predynastic and early dynastic culture. The achievements of the first dynasty, it was realized, was a long period of cultural and political development, rather than a newly formed order imposed from outside. This change of perception undoubtably influenced the course of Early dynastic scholarship, and now has totally replaced the discredited Dynastic race theory. - Wilkinson: Early Dynastic Egypt (1999)
Keita again:
In his presentation, Keita outlined four ways in which one can formulate an answer to the question of whether Egypt was an African culture, through evidence from geography, language, archaeology and biology. Geographical evidence suggests that 'Nilotic flora and fauna are well integrated into the culture of the early Egyptians; this suggests that the people were indigenous, or at least that the culture developed locally and was not an import'. Ancient Egyptian is universally accepted as part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, the origins of which are in the Horn of Africa. The archaeological record shows that 'the sequence of cultures which clearly leads to dynastic Egypt is found in southern Egypt' and that pre-dynastic Egypt 'arose most directly from a Saharo-Nilotic base'. - ClickPosts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Keita states that the region was not primarily colonized by non-Africans. This alludes to SOME colonization by non-Africans.
^^Well, since Keita made no mention of this explicitly, the burden of proof would be on you to establish what the non-African presence was, if there was one. By my understanding, 'primarily', as opposed to secondarily, basically means mostly, so why would we be emphasizing a probability of a minority population that MAY have been present, yet can't be established with any certainty?
Ghanians drive cars, fly planes and wear Nike tennis shoes and yet there are very few Westerners living in Ghana Africa. Trade does not require population replacement. Look at the Japanese or most of the world in general. Trade! However, Hawas did say that Egypt was not African which suggests the people were of non-African origin not just the culture.
That would most likely be Mesopatamian.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
Ghanians drive cars, fly planes and wear Nike tennis shoes and yet there are very few Westerners living in Ghana Africa.
1) We have proof that Ghana is a post-colonial society in which westerners have settled.
2) Tennis shoes and air planes are merely but a few aspects of Ghanian daily life and it certainly doesn't dominate the culture.
quote:Trade does not require population replacement. Look at the Japanese or most of the world in general. Trade! However, Hawas did say that Egypt was not African which suggests the people were of non-African origin not just the culture.
What is your point? I mean, it is the 21rst century isn't it? Are we disputing that America is an American empire in light of these facts (that East Asia contributes a lot to world commerce?)
quote:That would most likely be Mesopatamian.
1) If Hawass never mentioned Mesopotamia, then why would you?
2) I've provided sources which says that Mesopotamia basically had nothing to do with Egypt.
What should we expect from you in response? A way to spin it, using your own half thought out speculation?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:This alludes to SOME colonization by non-Africans.
No it doesn't actually.
Proof that set X is not primarily positive, does not imply that some of set X is negative.
However Africa, Europe and Asia have all had some colonisation by non Africans, non Europeans and non Asians, so that observation is trivial.
Keita is correctly denoting that the set quantity definition of African, Asian and European are based on -PRIMARY- affinity, not on absolute purity.
A conception that restricts African, Asian or Europen to purity means that African, Asian and European cannot exist, where purity cannot be proven. Which effectively mean -> they cannot exist.
Such conception in biohistorical discourse is typically hypocritical as Eurocentrists attempt to expand the concept of what is European regardless of often quite staggering evidence of massive mixtures [East Asian, South West Asian, and African].
Meanwhile they attempt to dilute the concept of what is non European by applying a ludicrous [impossible] standard of purity.
It's a phony argument.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Ghanians drive cars, fly planes and wear Nike tennis shoes and yet there are very few Westerners living in Ghana Africa.
1) We have proof that Ghana is a post-colonial society in which westerners have settled.
2) Tennis shoes and air planes are merely but a few aspects of Ghanian daily life and it certainly doesn't dominate the culture.
quote:Trade does not require population replacement. Look at the Japanese or most of the world in general. Trade! However, Hawas did say that Egypt was not African which suggests the people were of non-African origin not just the culture.
What is your point? I mean, it is the 21rst century isn't it? Are we disputing that America is an American empire in light of these facts (that East Asia contributes a lot to world commerce?)
quote:That would most likely be Mesopatamian.
1) If Hawass never mentioned Mesopotamia, then why would you?
2) I've provided sources which says that Mesopotamia basically had nothing to do with Egypt.
What should we expect from you in response? A way to spin it, using your own half thought out speculation?
I am somewhat perplexed. How can someone like Hawas say that Egypt is non-African and yet there is only speculative evidence? So many scholars saying the same thing but it is all speculative?
So lets talk about the stone tools that was mentioned as being Mesopatamian influenced in the so called pseudo-science post I gave.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:This alludes to SOME colonization by non-Africans.
No it doesn't actually.
Proof that set X is not primarily positive, does not imply that some of set X is negative.
However Africa, Europe and Asia have all had some colonisation by non Africans, non Europeans and non Asians, so that observation is trivial.
Keita is correctly denoting that the set quantity definition of African, Asian and European are based on -PRIMARY- affinity, not on absolute purity.
A conception that restricts African, Asian or Europen to purity means that African, Asian and European cannot exist, where purity cannot be proven. Which effectively mean -> they cannot exist.
Such conception in biohistorical discourse is typically hypocritical as Eurocentrists attempt to expand the concept of what is European regardless of often quite staggering evidence of massive mixtures [East Asian, South West Asian, and African].
Meanwhile they attempt to dilute the concept of what is non European by applying a ludicrous [impossible] standard of purity.
It's a phony argument.
Egypt was no more in complete isolation than Greece. However, I have never heard anyone claim that Greece is in Europe but is not European even with genetic evidence supporting Near Eastern influence.
Is Hawas acting like Djehuti? "I am Fillipino not Polynesian!" Nevermind the historical relationship between Polynesians and the Phillipines - is that not the same reaction Hawas has to Egyptians being considered African?
I have dug around and kind find only minor pottery patterns that seem to be imported from Mesopatamia but nothing in the way of significant tool design and manufacturing of stone vessels. We also have a South to North cultural expansion of the Naqada culture.
Where is the supposed Mesopatamian link?
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
Ghanians drive cars, fly planes and wear Nike tennis shoes and yet there are very few Westerners living in Ghana Africa.
1) We have proof that Ghana is a post-colonial society in which westerners have settled.
2) Tennis shoes and air planes are merely but a few aspects of Ghanian daily life and it certainly doesn't dominate the culture.
quote:Trade does not require population replacement. Look at the Japanese or most of the world in general. Trade! However, Hawas did say that Egypt was not African which suggests the people were of non-African origin not just the culture.
What is your point? I mean, it is the 21rst century isn't it? Are we disputing that America is an American empire in light of these facts (that East Asia contributes a lot to world commerce?)
quote:That would most likely be Mesopatamian.
1) If Hawass never mentioned Mesopotamia, then why would you?
2) I've provided sources which says that Mesopotamia basically had nothing to do with Egypt.
What should we expect from you in response? A way to spin it, using your own half thought out speculation?
I am trying to understand how we can conclude that Egypt is non-African. I have heard that for most of my life and it is rather perplexing except when looked at like the history of American. America is in America but it is non-American. Simply put, the indigenous people of America did not create America as we understand it. In fact, the indigenous people of America have been almost annhilated. When looking at American history it is straightforward to see the connection between it and European history.
Language/Culture/Religion
For Hawas to say that Egpt is non-African then where did it come from - Mars?
Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from. Lets explore that possibility. What would we expect to find if there was a connection.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: I am somewhat perplexed. How can someone like Hawas say that Egypt is non-African and yet there is only speculative evidence? So many scholars saying the same thing but it is all speculative?
This is false and even if true, it is irrelevant. What I am asking for from you is evidence of the proposal that Egyptian culture was a Mesopotamian transplant, or that they were "heavily influenced" by non-Africans. Instead, you cite a non-archaeologist, slash biased Arab Egyptian as the root of "so many scholar's speculation", when I have directly cited a premiere archaeological source in Wilkinson (who indeed represents the established consensus) showing you that AE civilization was indigenous. Yet you choose to ignore this by appealing to imaginary scholars and politically motivated quacks like Hawass. Why?
quote:So lets talk about the stone tools that was mentioned as being Mesopatamian influenced in the so called pseudo-science post I gave.
What stone tools? That little excerpt you've provided doesn't elaborate in the least, in addition, the evidence proposed is the same evidence rejected by mainstream Egyptologists who note such dynastic theories to basically be rooted in nonsense. It wouldn't be at all surprising that a few Mesopotamian items turn up through trade, but again, it has nothing to do with enough influence that needs to be emphasized or noted as undermining the African creation and sustainment of the said civilization. It seems that you're reaching to find a missing link that isn't there. With out evidence, your fringe theories and obscure citations will get no airtime here.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from. Lets explore that possibility. What would we expect to find if there was a connection.
There never has been a 'Mesopotamian' people, state, language, ruling class, culture, etc. Mesopotamia only relates to the the cultures and peoples who live/have lived between the Tigris and Eurphrates rivers. Ancient Egypt is NOT a derivative of the various cultres that existed in Ancient 'Mesopotamia'...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: I am trying to understand how we can conclude that Egypt is non-African.[QUOTE]
Who are "WE"? WE, on this forum couldn't care less about the unsubstantiated ideas of Zahi Hawass or anyone else who makes bogus claims that are both devoid of sense and lack elaboration/evidence. If you're interested in socio-politics or psychology, then I suggest you try a forum pertaining to such issues.
[QUOTE]I have heard that for most of my life and it is rather perplexing except when looked at like the history of American.
The fact that you've bought into it while being too lazy to dive face in and do your own research sounds like a personal problem, but please don't impose your life experiences onto us here, by creating such threads but being reluctant to except the information provided, or not being satisfied enough to merely adhere the advice of other members and check the thread at the very top of the forum page.
quote:America is in America but it is non-American. Simply put, the indigenous people of America did not create America as we understand it. In fact, the indigenous people of America have been almost annhilated.
How does this relate to the history of the nile valley, especially seeing as how the indigenous people were never annihilated?
quote:When looking at American history it is straightforward to see the connection between it and European history.
Similar to how when one looks at culture in ancient Egypt, "it is straightforward to see the connection between it and other African cultures"..
quote:Language/Culture/Religion
All shared with Egypt and other Nile valley inhabitants.
quote:For Hawas to say that Egpt is non-African then where did it come from - Mars?
What ever occurs in Hawass' world is irrelevant to the data already put before you..
quote:Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from.
Nonsense! Have you ever heard of a place called "Africa"..
quote:Lets explore that possibility.
For what? It has as much substantiation as a colonization from Mars..
quote: What would we expect to find if there was a connection.
Irrelevant. What we have found indicates indigenous development. Nuff said.
Now let's discuss the probable colonization of Greece by mainland Africans/ancient Egyptians, shall we?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: I am somewhat perplexed. How can someone like Hawas say that Egypt is non-African and yet there is only speculative evidence? So many scholars saying the same thing but it is all speculative?
This is false and even if true, it is irrelevant. What I am asking for from you is evidence of the proposal that Egyptian culture was a Mesopotamian transplant, or that they were "heavily influenced" by non-Africans. Instead, you cite a non-archaeologist, slash biased Arab Egyptian as the root of "so many scholar's speculation", when I have directly cited a premiere archaeological source in Wilkinson (who indeed represents the established consensus) showing you that AE civilization was indigenous. Yet you choose to ignore this by appealing to imaginary scholars and politically motivated quacks like Hawass. Why?
quote:So lets talk about the stone tools that was mentioned as being Mesopatamian influenced in the so called pseudo-science post I gave.
What stone tools? That little excerpt you've provided doesn't elaborate in the least, in addition, the evidence proposed is the same evidence rejected by mainstream Egyptologists who note such dynastic theories to basically be rooted in nonsense. It wouldn't be at all surprising that a few Mesopotamian items turn up through trade, but again, it has nothing to do with enough influence that needs to be emphasized or noted as undermining the African creation and sustainment of the said civilization. It seems that you're reaching to find a missing link that isn't there. With out evidence, your fringe theories and obscure citations will get no airtime here.
You sound a bit bias. I am not making conclusions I am only asking questions. Are you afraid for someone to ask questions?
What about agriculture? Isn't it of West Asian origins practiced by the Natufians well before it was practiced by the Egyptians? From cranial measurements they appear to be similar to West Africans. Could they have introduced agriculture to their neighbors? Is there a Natufian / Egyptian link?
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun:Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from. Lets explore that possibility. What would we expect to find if there was a connection.
There never has been a 'Mesopotamian' people, state, language, ruling class, culture, etc. Mesopotamia only relates to the the cultures and peoples who live/have lived between the Tigris and Eurphrates rivers. Ancient Egypt is NOT a derivative of the various cultres that existed in Ancient 'Mesopotamia'...
Irrelevant. I said "place" and not "state" of Mesopatamia.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: I am trying to understand how we can conclude that Egypt is non-African.[QUOTE]
Who are "WE"? WE, on this forum couldn't care less about the unsubstantiated ideas of Zahi Hawass or anyone else who makes bogus claims that are both devoid of sense and lack elaboration/evidence. If you're interested in socio-politics or psychology, then I suggest you try a forum pertaining to such issues.
[QUOTE]I have heard that for most of my life and it is rather perplexing except when looked at like the history of American.
The fact that you've bought into it while being too lazy to dive face in and do your own research sounds like a personal problem, but please don't impose your life experiences onto us here, by creating such threads but being reluctant to except the information provided, or not being satisfied enough to merely adhere the advice of other members and check the thread at the very top of the forum page.
quote:America is in America but it is non-American. Simply put, the indigenous people of America did not create America as we understand it. In fact, the indigenous people of America have been almost annhilated.
How does this relate to the history of the nie valley, especially seeing as how the indigenous people were never annihilated?
quote:When looking at American history it is straightforward to see the connection between it and European history.
Similar to how when one looks at culture in ancient Egypt, "it is straightforward to see the connection between it and other African cultures"..
quote:Language/Culture/Religion
All shared with Egypt and other Nile valley inhabitants.
quote:For Hawas to say that Egpt is non-African then where did it come from - Mars?
What ever occurs in Hawass' world is irrelevant to the data already put before you..
quote:Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from.
Nonsense! Have you ever heard of a place called "Africa"..
quote:Lets explore that possibility.
For what? It has as much substantiation as a colonization from Mars..
quote: What would we expect to find if there was a connection.
Irrelevant. What we have found indicates indigenous development. Nuff said.
Now let's discuss the probable colonization of Greece by mainland Africans/ancient Egyptians, shall we?
Interesting emotionalism and assumptions on your part. I never stated my position. Perhaps I am playing devils advocate?
Are you sure you have been unbias in your search for knowledge on this subject?
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Recent studies into paternal Y chromosome analysis shows that Polynesians are also genetically linked to peoples of Melanesia Therefore it is current belief that the Polynesian people are a hybrid ethnicity between indigenous peoples of parts of Southeast Asia and peoples of Melanesia. Being that the original inhabitants of the Phillipine Islands are remnants of the first migratory wave from East Africa to Australia and are commonly referred to as being of the Melanesian ethnicity (though technically incorrect), it is not entirely incorrect to refer to people of the Phillipines as Polynesian since technically they are gentetically equivalent.
You are correct. But here is a map to give a clearer picture:
The predominant Y-chromosomal lineage for Filipinos is O which is also common among other parts of eastern Asia. Of course there are older lineages present as well like C which Polynesians display higher frequencies of than O as well as other older lineages. Polynesians are a more 'mixed' with black aboriginal groups of course this isn't to say Filipinos aren't. But all of his is besides the point of your thread.
quote:As for intepretation of facts being bias, as you have many times lamented, a so called Eurocentric bias does exist in the literature on Egyptian history. Such said bias is political in nature and is not inherent to a particular ethnicity and thus African Americans can exhibit the same flaw in judgement.
LOL That is and understatement.
quote:Consequently, have we really examined the evidence in it totality here or is it skewed. What trade, what migration patterns supports a link between Egypt and the Levant pre-dynastic?
There is plenty of evidence of trade, but migration is another issue.
We have evidence via skeletal remains as well as genetics of populations migrating from Africa into the Levant during the mesolithic. We have only a little genetic evidence of the other way around occuring in the Neolithic.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun:Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from. Lets explore that possibility. What would we expect to find if there was a connection.
There never has been a 'Mesopotamian' people, state, language, ruling class, culture, etc. Mesopotamia only relates to the the cultures and peoples who live/have lived between the Tigris and Eurphrates rivers. Ancient Egypt is NOT a derivative of the various cultres that existed in Ancient 'Mesopotamia'...
Irrelevant. I said "place" and not "state" of Mesopatamia.
Ok. If Egypt were influenced by cultures from Mesopotamia then please identify which cultures...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: You sound a bit bias.
You started accusing people of that before you even started ranting, basically preparing yourself for the use of silly ad hominem attacks before your position is eventually destroyed by verified facts, inferred from the evidence according to mainstream scholarship. You even appealed to ethnicity which is beyond ignorant.
quote:I am not making conclusions I am only asking questions.
You are asking questions and making ridiculous conclusions on top of them, by asserting that based on what Hawass said, AE society could have only came from Mesopotamia, and other nonsense like that. Your questions are also for the most part rhetorical, and it is mainly under this guise where you promote your bunk Mesopotamian theory, though without credible citations and evidence to make a case, so you use semantics and flimsy logic.
quote:Are you afraid for someone to ask questions?
Why is that when they have all been answered in part here, and mostly in the thread at the top of the forum page which you refuse to or are too lazy or illiterate to read.
quote:What about agriculture? Isn't it of West Asian origins practiced by the Natufians well before it was practiced by the Egyptians? From cranial measurements they appear to be similar to West Africans. Could they have introduced agriculture to their neighbors? Is there a Natufian / Egyptian link?
Most likely there is a Natufian/Egyptian link, as noted through geography and agriculture, though there is no cultural continuity between them as far as I'm aware.
Though, this abstract should help answer your question:
Male Badarian crania were analyzed using the generalized distance of Mahalanobis in a comparative analysis with other African and European series from the Howells’s database. The study was carried out to examine the affinities of the Badarians to evaluate, in preliminary fashion, a demic diffusion hypothesis that postulates that horticulture and the Afro-Asiatic language family were brought ultimately from southern Europe. (The assumption was made that the southern Europeans would be more similar to the central and northern Europeans than to any indigenous African populations.) The Badarians show a greater affinity to indigenous Africans while not being identical. This suggests that the Badarians were more affiliated with local and an indigenous African population than with Europeans. It is more likely that Near Eastern/southern European domesticated animals and plants were adopted by indigenous Nile Valley people without a major immigration of non-Africans. There was more of cultural transfer. - SourcePosts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: You sound a bit bias.
You started accusing people of that before you even started ranting, basically preparing yourself for the use of silly ad hominem attacks before your position is eventually destroyed by verified facts, inferred from the evidence according to mainstream scholarship.
quote:I am not making conclusions I am only asking questions.
You are asking questions and making ridiculous conclusions on top of them, by asserting that based on what Hawass said, AE society could have only came from Mesopotamia, and other nonsense like that. Your questions are also for the most part rhetorical, and it is mainly under this guise where you promote your bunk Mesopotamian theory, though without credible citations and evidence to make a case, so you use semantics and flimsy logic.
quote:Are you afraid for someone to ask questions?
Why is that when they have all been answered in part here, and mostly in the thread at the top of the forum page which you refuse to or are too lazy or illiterate to read.
quote:What about agriculture? Isn't it of West Asian origins practiced by the Natufians well before it was practiced by the Egyptians? From cranial measurements they appear to be similar to West Africans. Could they have introduced agriculture to their neighbors? Is there a Natufian / Egyptian link?
Most likely there is a Naufian/Egyptian link, as noted through geography and agriculture, though there is no cultural continuity between them as far as I'm aware.
Though, this abstract should help answer your question:
Male Badarian crania were analyzed using the generalized distance of Mahalanobis in a comparative analysis with other African and European series from the Howells’s database. The study was carried out to examine the affinities of the Badarians to evaluate, in preliminary fashion, a demic diffusion hypothesis that postulates that horticulture and the Afro-Asiatic language family were brought ultimately from southern Europe. (The assumption was made that the southern Europeans would be more similar to the central and northern Europeans than to any indigenous African populations.) The Badarians show a greater affinity to indigenous Africans while not being identical. This suggests that the Badarians were more affiliated with local and an indigenous African population than with Europeans. It is more likely that Near Eastern/southern European domesticated animals and plants were adopted by indigenous Nile Valley people without a major immigration of non-Africans. There was more of cultural transfer. - Source
At least a portion of your post was useful. Domesticated animals and plants are non-indigenous? I am not sure if I agree with this but lets go on since even if it wasn't indigenous the people that most likely introduced it were essentially African themselves to a large degree consequently if there was a migration of people it would have been a population that appeared somewhat similar to the indeginous people (perhaps actually more tropically adapted).
We also see a change in the way housing is built between the Naqada I and Naqada II periods. The typical African round huts start taking on auxillary square mud adjuncts. This is actually intriguing. At the same time we start seeing stone vessels. It appears as if a social class is born. I have yet to find evidence that supports this as being of foreign design.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun:Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from. Lets explore that possibility. What would we expect to find if there was a connection.
There never has been a 'Mesopotamian' people, state, language, ruling class, culture, etc. Mesopotamia only relates to the the cultures and peoples who live/have lived between the Tigris and Eurphrates rivers. Ancient Egypt is NOT a derivative of the various cultres that existed in Ancient 'Mesopotamia'...
Irrelevant. I said "place" and not "state" of Mesopatamia.
Ok. If Egypt were influenced by cultures from Mesopotamia then please identify which cultures...
Did I say it was influenced? I asked a question - IF it was influenced what should we be able to find?
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Did I say it was influenced? I asked a question - IF it was influenced what should we be able to find? [/QB]
We should be able to find solid EVIDENCE of said influence. Evidence which does not exist.
EDIT: And BTW, IF Egypt is a product of 'Mesopotamia', please identify which Mesopotamian culture or people gave rise to Egypt...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Are you sure you have been unbias in your search for knowledge on this subject?
About as sure as I am that you're a troll..
Resorting to name calling. Don't be so shy tell me how you really feel?
I suppose for African Americans this is an issue of offense. For someone to deny what is obvious - an African Egypt, must appear as being largely a racist begotry to such a great degree. From their point of view we have someone with a great deal of authority distorting facts with a great deal of racist intent.
Get beyond the emotional and lets deal with all the evidence.
Is there anything that supports a non-indigenous origination of Egypt? Have you really looked?
I have looked and found nothing and I am wondering if anyone has found anything. It used to be taken for granted that Egypt was non-African. It reminds me of the flat world belief - just taken for granted based on superficial understandings.
How do people like Hawas maintain their scientific standings without scientific data?
Again, I want to explore the evidence. Round huts to Square mud huts - is this evidence?
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Did I say it was influenced? I asked a question - IF it was influenced what should we be able to find?
We should be able to find solid EVIDENCE of said influence. Evidence which does not exist.
EDIT: And BTW, IF Egypt is a product of 'Mesopotamia', please identify which Mesopotamian culture or people gave rise to Egypt... [/QB]
What would that solid evidence look like? I am expecting to find tools since what makes Egypt intriguing is their craftmanship. Perhaps at least some writting and certainly religious icons. Perhaps Egypt isn't the place to look. We could look else where further into the Sahara perhaps.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: At least a portion of your post was useful.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same in your case, but in any event..
quote:Domesticated animals and plants are non-indigenous?
No.. See, this is why it is always good to pay attention or at least have some kind of idea what you're talking about before you address a topic. There are certain plants and animals that were domesticated in Egypt, thought to have been indigenous to the near east, as some of the same plants (like barley) were first domesticated in the near east, and then somehow made its way into the Nile valley by cultural exchange or seed transportation, but population replacement has been ruled out. Animal domestication is now thought to have come from the south and southwest.
quote:I am not sure if I agree with this
I'm not concerned with your unqualified and random disagreement.
quote:but lets go on since even if it wasn't indigenous the people that most likely introduced it were essentially African themselves to a large degree consequently if there was a migration of people it would have been a population that appeared somewhat similar to the indeginous people (perhaps actually more tropically adapted).
This makes no sense. While it indeed can be probable, your reasoning is flawed. The only thing to be inferred from the abstract is that plants not indigenous to Egypt somehow made their way into Egypt, but the earliest Egyptian remains from this period suggest relationships with tropical Africans, therefore we can only conclude that whomever helped bring food production into the Nile valley had no influence on the biological make-up of the indigenous inhabitants, unless these agriculturalists were indeed Africans themselves, though this is not the only probable option. Either way, it doesn't matter, now does it?..
quote:We also see a change in the way housing is built between the Naqada I and Naqada II periods.
Changes from Naqada I to Naqada II were gradual and again, not the result of peoples who were biologically akin to people in the Sumerian region. Naqada groups were found to be most similar to Kerma Nubians (Click here) , while individual high status elites buried in the region closely resembled A-group Nubians. (Click here)
* Please provide a citation which states that the typical African housing structure consists of round huts.
* Please provide a citation that states Egyptians lived in these said huts during Naqada I phase..
* Please provide evidence that any such change in Egyptian architectural design was abrupt and not gradual, with continuity, like Wilkinson says
You seem to be unaware that you are promoting a discarded theory called "the Dynastic race" theory.
The Egyptologists of the early 20th century concluded that the classic ancient Egyptian civilization had been brought to the Nile Valley by a "dynastic race" of invaders. They believed that the invaders were both culturally and politically superior to the native Prehistoric Egyptians, and that they swiftly established themselves as rulers of the country. At the time, the dubious science of cranial metrology, that is, using skull measurements to attempt to determine racial characteristics, was fashionable. It was also used in support of this "superior race" theory in Egypt.
These superior, invading people were believed to have come from a land to the east of Egypt, reflecting the widespread view that the Orient was a primary source of early culture. The royal art of Egypt during the 1st Dynasty was thought to be similar to that found in Mesopotamia, and so many believed that the earliest kings of Egypt came from present day Iraq. In the 1930s, this theory was given further credence by Hans Winkler, a German who became well known in Egyptology for his exploration of the Eastern Desert. There, he found an abundance of ancient rock art between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea. Significantly, numerous images of boats were especially striking, and were also very similar to water crafts found in early Mesopotamian art.
However, in the early 20th century, the chronology of the ancient world was still very poorly understood, and so Winkler did not know at the time that these Egyptian boats predated their Mesopotamian counterparts by many centuries. Hence, he argued that the Mesopotamians invaded Egypt by way of the Red Sea, leaving traces of their passage on the rocks as they traveled to the Nile River.
This invasion theory was very much a product of its time. Individuals such as Hitler encouraged this approach, but in fact diffusionist theories involving superior racial groups bringing civilization to indigenous peoples were popular among many of the colonial powers of western Europe. At the time, Africa was known as "the heart of darkness", and was thought to be incapable of producing an advanced culture without outside influence. In fact, it was the defeat of Nazism, and the granting of independence to many of the former European colonies in Africa, that would finally drive such theories from popularity.
Though invasion theories would persist among a few Egyptologists for some time, and even see a resurrection in popular works as late as the 1990s, most scholars abandoned their search for the foreign origins of Egyptian civilization. Today, we look instead for indigenous development and the roots of dynastic Egyptian culture within the Nile Valley itself and the immediate territory surrounding this cradle of civilization. - The Origin of Egyptian Civilization
quote:This is actually intriguing.
Only to those not caught up..
quote:At the same time we start seeing stone vessels. It appears as if a social class is born. I have yet to find evidence that supports this as being of foreign design.
Well, instead of pondering on your own original research, it would be nice if you'd provide some kind of credible citations that would help support some of your assumptions. If you merely wanted to ask questions, they've been answered. What else do you have?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Is there anything that supports a non-indigenous origination of Egypt? Have you really looked?
Yes, I've been looking for years and haven't found anything, and obviously you haven't either. Which is why naturally I'm of the contention that ancient Egypt was irrefutably an African civilization. Why in the world would I break my neck to contradict the obvious? The burden of proof is not on me, since my position is already established, and lacking evidence, all those opposed only open themselves up for ridicule by making foolish claims to the contrary, yet providing nothing by way of substantiation. The difference is, I don't put too much energy into things that are fringe.
Why haven't I looked high and low for evidence of something where that evidence is lacking? Well, I've considered the evidence, found none, and therefore it isn't worth my time to dwell on it, or anyone else's' time who bases their views from available evidence.
quote:Originally posted by osiriun:
Again, I want to explore the evidence. Round huts to Square mud huts - is this evidence?
Evidence of Egyptian ingenuity, yes..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Resorting to name calling. Don't be so shy tell me how you really feel?
I suppose for African Americans this is an issue of offense. For someone to deny what is obvious - an African Egypt, must appear as being largely a racist begotry to such a great degree. From their point of view we have someone with a great deal of authority distorting facts with a great deal of racist intent.
One does not have to be of African descent to see and know that indeed it is racism.
quote:Get beyond the emotional and lets deal with all the evidence.
Of course. So where is it?
quote:Is there anything that supports a non-indigenous origination of Egypt? Have you really looked?
Well the experts have certainly looked and have been looking since the inception of Egyptology. It was first thought Nile Valley civilization arose from immigrants from Asia, but all the archaeological, anthropological, and historical data show otherwise.
quote:I have looked and found nothing and I am wondering if anyone has found anything. It used to be taken for granted that Egypt was non-African. It reminds me of the flat world belief - just taken for granted based on superficial understandings.
How do people like Hawas maintain their scientific standings without scientific data?
I don't know. Why not ask Hawass yourself when you see him?
quote:Again, I want to explore the evidence. Round huts to Square mud huts - is this evidence?
I don't thinks so since both round thatched huts as well as square mud ones are found in Africa.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is there anything that supports a non-indigenous origination of Egypt? Have you really looked?
Yes, I've been looking for years and haven't found anything, and obviously you haven't either. Which is why naturally I'm of the contention that ancient Egypt was irrefutably an African civilization. Why in the world would I break my neck to contradict the obvious? The burden of proof is not on me, since my position is already established, and lacking evidence, all those opposed only open themselves up for ridicule by making foolish claims to the contrary, yet providing nothing by way of substantiation. The difference is, I don't put too much energy into things that are fringe.
Why haven't I looked high and low for evidence of something where that evidence is lacking? Well, I've considered the evidence, found none, and therefore it isn't worth my time to dwell on it, or anyone else's' time who bases their views from available evidence.
quote:Originally posted by osiriun:
Again, I want to explore the evidence. Round huts to Square mud huts - is this evidence?
Evidence of Egyptian ingenuity, yes..
Some people don't get sarcasm!
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: At least a portion of your post was useful.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same in your case, but in any event..
quote:Domesticated animals and plants are non-indigenous?
No.. See, this is why it is always good to pay attention or at least have some kind of idea what you're talking about before you address a topic. There are certain plants and animals that were domesticated in Egypt, thought to have been indigenous to the near east, as some of the same plants (like barley) were first domesticated in the near east, and then somehow made its way into the Nile valley by cultural exchange or seed transportation, but population replacement has been ruled out. Animal domestication is now thought to have come from the south and southwest.
quote:I am not sure if I agree with this
I'm not concerned with your unqualified and random disagreement.
quote:but lets go on since even if it wasn't indigenous the people that most likely introduced it were essentially African themselves to a large degree consequently if there was a migration of people it would have been a population that appeared somewhat similar to the indeginous people (perhaps actually more tropically adapted).
This makes no sense. While it indeed can be probable, your reasoning is flawed. The only thing to be inferred from the abstract is that plants not indigenous to Egypt somehow made their way into Egypt, but the earliest Egyptian remains from this period suggest relationships with tropical Africans, therefore we can only conclude that whomever helped bring food production into the Nile valley had no influence on the biological make-up of the indigenous inhabitants, unless these agriculturalists were indeed Africans themselves, though this is not the only probable option. Either way, it doesn't matter, now does it?..
quote:We also see a change in the way housing is built between the Naqada I and Naqada II periods.
Changes from Naqada I to Naqada II were gradual and again, not the result of peoples who were biologically akin to people in the Sumerian region. Naqada groups were found to be most similar to Kerma Nubians (Click here) , while individual high status elites buried in the region closely resembled A-group Nubians. (Click here)
* Please provide a citation which states that the typical African housing structure consists of round huts.
* Please provide a citation that states Egyptians lived in these said huts during Naqada I phase..
* Please provide evidence that any such change in Egyptian architectural design was abrupt and not gradual, with continuity, like Wilkinson says
You seem to be unaware that you are promoting a discarded theory called "the Dynastic race" theory.
The Egyptologists of the early 20th century concluded that the classic ancient Egyptian civilization had been brought to the Nile Valley by a "dynastic race" of invaders. They believed that the invaders were both culturally and politically superior to the native Prehistoric Egyptians, and that they swiftly established themselves as rulers of the country. At the time, the dubious science of cranial metrology, that is, using skull measurements to attempt to determine racial characteristics, was fashionable. It was also used in support of this "superior race" theory in Egypt.
These superior, invading people were believed to have come from a land to the east of Egypt, reflecting the widespread view that the Orient was a primary source of early culture. The royal art of Egypt during the 1st Dynasty was thought to be similar to that found in Mesopotamia, and so many believed that the earliest kings of Egypt came from present day Iraq. In the 1930s, this theory was given further credence by Hans Winkler, a German who became well known in Egyptology for his exploration of the Eastern Desert. There, he found an abundance of ancient rock art between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea. Significantly, numerous images of boats were especially striking, and were also very similar to water crafts found in early Mesopotamian art.
However, in the early 20th century, the chronology of the ancient world was still very poorly understood, and so Winkler did not know at the time that these Egyptian boats predated their Mesopotamian counterparts by many centuries. Hence, he argued that the Mesopotamians invaded Egypt by way of the Red Sea, leaving traces of their passage on the rocks as they traveled to the Nile River.
This invasion theory was very much a product of its time. Individuals such as Hitler encouraged this approach, but in fact diffusionist theories involving superior racial groups bringing civilization to indigenous peoples were popular among many of the colonial powers of western Europe. At the time, Africa was known as "the heart of darkness", and was thought to be incapable of producing an advanced culture without outside influence. In fact, it was the defeat of Nazism, and the granting of independence to many of the former European colonies in Africa, that would finally drive such theories from popularity.
Though invasion theories would persist among a few Egyptologists for some time, and even see a resurrection in popular works as late as the 1990s, most scholars abandoned their search for the foreign origins of Egyptian civilization. Today, we look instead for indigenous development and the roots of dynastic Egyptian culture within the Nile Valley itself and the immediate territory surrounding this cradle of civilization. - The Origin of Egyptian Civilization
quote:This is actually intriguing.
Only to those not caught up..
quote:At the same time we start seeing stone vessels. It appears as if a social class is born. I have yet to find evidence that supports this as being of foreign design.
Well, instead of pondering on your own original research, it would be nice if you'd provide some kind of credible citations that would help support some of your assumptions. If you merely wanted to ask questions, they've been answered. What else do you have?
Lets see, unpopular invasion theories that have proven to be correct. Hmm, Sabeans and the Ethiopians? Clear genetic and achaeological evidence supporting the fact that the pre-Aksumite kingdoms of Ethiopia had significant Sabean influence.
AGAIN I AM NOT PROMOTING ANYTHING. If there is some form of evidence I want to know about it. Mesopatamia has been taught as the origin of civilization not because of a simple racist agenda but because of religious belief. Irregardless, we definately know agriculture was introduced. What else if anything?
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Lets see, unpopular invasion theories that have proven to be correct. Hmm, Sabeans and the Ethiopians? Clear genetic and achaeological evidence supporting the fact that the pre-Aksumite kingdoms of Ethiopia had significant Sabean influence.
What is it with you kids now a days? Is your main goal here to question every pocket of civilization that occurred on African soil and attribute it to someone else? I mean, you've been rebutted by way of direct citation and modern evidence in that your assumptions on ancient Egypt was shown wrong, so now in a last attempt of desperation you jump more than a thousand miles up the Nile in order to scrutinize indigenous Ethiopian development, even though this thread has absolutely nothing to do with Ethiopia?
In reference to that, there is indeed evidence of Sabean penetration on the Northern fringes of the Ethiopian plateau; however, there is also evidence that they only stayed for a few decades, most likely as occupants for trade. In addition, the language of Askum, Geez, is an indigenous Ethiopian tongue, spoken by the inhabitants of Ethiopia which did not descend from Sabean. Also, local pottery in the region most closely resembled the native pottery of Meroe. - Ethiopia’s Historic Ties with Yemen
Noteworthy as well is that the ancient Roman historians (namely Procopius of Caesarea) described the Axumites as Ethiopians, which has always been a generic term for mainland Africans, mostly from East Africa. - Accounts of Meröe, Kush, and Axum
Finally, Mtdna studies suggest that the genetic interaction that did occur between Yemen and Ethiopia was prolonged steadily over millenia, and not rooted in some theoretical Sabean colonization some centuries before the time of Christ.
^Far from confirmed and more along the lines of being totally discarded in the near future as even Encyclopedia Britannica (2007) recognizes the indigenous origins of Askum, citing such previous theories as outdated.
Now stop reaching..
quote:AGAIN I AM NOT PROMOTING ANYTHING.
quote:If there is some form of evidence I want to know about it.
Well go find it and come back.. Stop begging for evidence that we obviously don't have and most of us believe doesn't exist.
quote:Mesopatamia has been taught as the origin of civilization not because of a simple racist agenda but because of religious belief.
Mesopotamia can be the origin of whatever it wants to be, but that doesn't at all suggest simply because they were the first to create an organized way of life according to the criteria of whoever defines civilization, that they were the only people capable of such creativity and ingenuity. Your logic is absurd.
quote:Irregardless, we definately know agriculture was introduced. What else if anything?
What is your point? The title of your thread is "Egyptians Were Not Africans?".. You have been addressed accordingly, given useful information that put an end to that silly question. Of course they were Africans. Now if you'd like to create another thread topic about Mesopotamia, I recommend that you register to a forum that caters to Mesopotamia unless you have a means by which to establish a connection with ancient Egypt or updated evidence which contradicts the citations already presented to you, which you choose to ignore in favor of your own rants and stupid questions.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: This alludes to SOME colonization by non-Africans.
quote:rasol writes: No it doesn't actually.
Proof that set X is not primarily positive, does not imply that some of set X is negative.
However Africa, Europe and Asia have all had some colonisation by non Africans, non Europeans and non Asians, so that observation is trivial.
Keita is correctly denoting that the set quantity definition of African, Asian and European are based on -PRIMARY- affinity, not on absolute purity.
A conception that restricts African, Asian or Europen to purity means that African, Asian and European cannot exist, where purity cannot be proven. Which effectively mean -> they cannot exist.
Such conception in biohistorical discourse is typically hypocritical as Eurocentrists attempt to expand the concept of what is European regardless of often quite staggering evidence of massive mixtures [East Asian, South West Asian, and African].
Meanwhile they attempt to dilute the concept of what is non European by applying a ludicrous [impossible] standard of purity.
It's a phony argument.
quote:Egypt was no more in complete isolation than Greece.
Another phony argument.
No part of Europe has been in isolation since the melting of the glaciers.
Isolation is just another word for purity.
Purity is the shared racial fallacy of mixed and pure race advocates.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have dug around and kind find only minor pottery patterns that seem to be imported from Mesopatamia
Pottery develops in the southern Sahara 2,500 years before Middle Eastern pottery. - Christopher Ehret.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lets see, unpopular invasion theories that have proven to be correct.
Actually, all theories of European or SouthWest Asian invasions to other parts of the world are -popular- in the ws.t because they appeal to white racism.
In fact this appeal is the key to the advancement of theories that would in any other context, certainly be dismissed as speculative at best and utterly ridiculous at worst.
In contrast, the most unpopular theories of demic diffusion [invasion is a needlessly childish provocation/term], are those that document Black and African migrations into Europe and SouthWest Asia.
Want to claim credit for advancing -unpopular- ideas based upon fact?
Start here ->
This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara. - European Journal of Medical Genetics Volume 49, Issue 1, January-February 2006, Pages 43-56
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Did I say it was influenced? I asked a question - IF it was influenced what should we be able to find?
We should be able to find solid EVIDENCE of said influence. Evidence which does not exist.
EDIT: And BTW, IF Egypt is a product of 'Mesopotamia', please identify which Mesopotamian culture or people gave rise to Egypt...
What would that solid evidence look like? I am expecting to find tools since what makes Egypt intriguing is their craftmanship. Perhaps at least some writting and certainly religious icons. Perhaps Egypt isn't the place to look. We could look else where further into the Sahara perhaps. [/QB]
Ok. Come back when you find something worth while. Until then, there is no reason to chase after wild geese [read: look for the Mesopotamian origins of Ancient Egyptian culture].
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lets see, unpopular invasion theories that have proven to be correct.
Actually, all theories of European or SouthWest Asian invasions to other parts of the world are -popular- in the ws.t because they appeal to white racism.
In fact this appeal is the key to the advancement of theories that would in any other context, certainly be dismissed as speculative at best and utterly ridiculous at worst.
In contrast, the most unpopular theories of demic diffusion [invasion is a needlessly childish provocation/term], are those that document Black and African migrations into Europe and SouthWest Asia.
Want to claim credit for advancing -unpopular- ideas based upon fact?
Start here ->
This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara. - European Journal of Medical Genetics Volume 49, Issue 1, January-February 2006, Pages 43-56
I didn't mean generally popular, I mean popular in terms of this message board.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt.
Evergreen Writes:
This statement is inaccurate. "Western" heritage in general is based upon a Nile Valley foundation. African-American's are not distinct in this regard.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt.
Evergreen Writes:
This statement is inaccurate. "Western" heritage in general is based upon a Nile Valley foundation. African-American's are not distinct in this regard.
I don't mean indirect cultural heritage, I meant Egyptian heritage as in ancestry. Though the term African American is inclusive of Somalian, Ethiopians, etc, so you could stretch it a bit I suppose.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic