posted
The ethnicity of these invaders of ancient Egypt is said to be problematic and enigmatic.
I would like to know if the Hyksos were Blacks. I've noticed that the origin of Blacks in antiquity is sometimes hidden and said to be unknown. The case of the dark-skinned Sumerians is a case in point.
I did some research and according to Flinders Petrie in his History of Ancient Egypt, the Hyksos appropriated some sphinxes and inscribed their names on them. It is a fact that all the sphinxes have Black visages.
Now, if the Hyksos were not Blacks, why would they appropriate Black sphinxes?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hanni - Hyksos (meaning foreign Kings or Shepherd kings) depending on who you ask, is the name given to foreigners who over time, migrated into northern Egypt and eventually gained control. Before, and after, their period of rule (the 15th-17th dynasty's), they were known as Hapiru (one who sells his services).
This is the only known statue of a Hyksos. Of course that doesn't mean that there aren't more - there must be - but as you can see, this is obviously a Black woman. The White people who call themselves "Jews" wouldn't want to see too many pictures like this (it is generally accepted by all that Hyksos were in whole or part - Hebrews). Note also, that she is always shown in profile, (just to leave a little doubt).
Hapiru; or as they later became known: Hebrews were part of a larger confederation of nomadic peoples of southeastern Anatolia and northern Syria, commonly called Amorites.
Sumerian History: Sumerian and Akkadian inscriptions of the latter part of the 3rd millennium B.C, refer to a people called (MAR.TU-Sumerian) or (Amurru-Akkadian), later called Amorite.These seem to have been a nomadic desert people, who moved systematically in from the west. Their homeland was northwest of Sumer in the area stretching from the west bank of the Euphrates River on westward along the northern fringe of the Syrian Desert. The Sumerians called this land "Tidnum". In Sumer (Mesopotamia), they settled, and under their king Hammurabi, they seized power and established a dynasty that lasted about 300 years.
At the same time, they had headed west into Canaan and Egypt, note the Biblical history of Abraham. Later in their homeland of southeastern Anatolia and northern Syria, they established a new kingdom called "Aram" and they became known as Aramaeans. Over the following centuries, Amorites continued to play a leading role in middle-eastern history. Many Mesopotamian rulers were Amorites, and their language became the standard for international correspondence.
posted
^ I do agree with you that there are Black Asiatics [Aamu - which is how the Hyksos were referred to in mdw ntr - means Asiatic].
I would like some historical references or painted iconography of Hyksos to bolster any claim regarding their skin color. [we only know from AE texts that they are Asiatics]
But I agree with you that if that statuette were found in say - Sudan, it would be tagged as self evidently *Nubian* in a minute.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There most likely was a few blacks among them, but they were largely for the most part an Asiatic, nomadic people.
Hyksos were never depicted anything other than a yellow or light tan hue by the Egyptians, so we can rule them about being the same race of the Egyptians.
Posts: 105 | From: Japan | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
HistoryFacelift - I see that you are a junior member, but already you have mastered the art of talking out of something other than your mouth.
I believe that I mentioned something about them being nomadic people, but you also said this: Hyksos were never depicted anything other than a yellow or light tan hue by the Egyptians, so we can rule them about being the same race of the Egyptians.
Please show any such depiction of Hyksos.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, you know, black is a color and Asiatic is a regional descriptor. So the latter has no bearing on the former. What I mean is any blacks among the Hyksos are "Asiatic" by definition.
Can you please share the depictions you speak of? We'd all love to see them. Thnaks.
quote:Originally posted by HistoryFacelift: There most likely was a few blacks among them, but they were largely for the most part an Asiatic, nomadic people.
Hyksos were never depicted anything other than a yellow or light tan hue by the Egyptians, so we can rule them about being the same race of the Egyptians.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ What you or anyone believes is irrelevant to what is.
I agree with both Takruri and Rasol however, that 'Asiatic' only references a geographic area a people is from and not how they looked like. We know there are black Asiatics such as the Elamites but whether the Hyksos in particular were black is another question.
quote:Originally posted by HistoryFacelift: There most likely was a few blacks among them, but they were largely for the most part an Asiatic, nomadic people.
Hyksos were never depicted anything other than a yellow or light tan hue by the Egyptians, so we can rule them about being the same race of the Egyptians.
I think you confuse Hyksos depictions with Aamu (Asiatic) depictions in general. As far as we know there is no painted depiction of Hyksos, but even with Asiatics you are wrong in that there are some Asiatics depicted darker-skinned and not just 'yellow'.
I will say however that that black Africans being present in the Levant from Mesolithic times is a fact. So did the Hyksos have any African ancestry? It is likely. Were there any black Hyksos? There's a probability.
This brings to mind Takruri's depiction of the Lachish people of Judah as well as their cranial remains.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hanni - I really didn't mean to be equivocal, the fact is that at this time in history, the were NO "Whites" yet present in the middle east. You might want to track the "Faience tiles from Medinet Habu" thread, I expect it to have bearing on your question.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Are you sure about such a claim? What about the Indo-European Mitanni and their predecessors? Several sources state they were not only the source of chariot technology but the reason for the Asiatic incursion into Egypt.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Are you sure about such a claim? What about the Indo-European Mitanni and their predecessors? Several sources state they were not only the source of chariot technology but the reason for the Asiatic incursion into Egypt.
The Mitanni did not speak an Indo-European language. They spoke a language similar to the Dravidian group.
An important group in Anantolia in addition to the Hatti, were the Hurrians. The Hurrians enter Mesopotamia from the northeastern hilly area . They introduced horse-drawn war chariots to Mesopotamia .
Hurrians penetrate Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine between 1700-1500 BC. The major Hurrian Kingdom was Mitanni, which was founded by Sudarna I (c.1550), was established at Washukanni on the Khabur River. The Hurrian capital was Urkesh, one of its earliest kings was called Tupkish.
Linguistic and historical evidence support the view that Dravidians influenced Mittanni and Lycia. (Winters 1989a) Alain Anselin is sure that Dravidian speaking peoples once inhabited the Aegean. For example Anselin (1982, pp.111-114) has discussed many Dravidian place names found in the Aegean Sea area.
Two major groups in ancient Anatolia were the Hurrians and Lycians. Although the Hurrians are considered to be Indo-European speakers, some Hurrians probably spoke a Dravidian language.
The Hurrians lived in Mittanni. Mittanni was situated on the great bend of the Upper Euphrates river. Hurrian was spoken in eastern Anatolia and North Syria.
Most of what we know about Hurrian comes from the Tel al-Armarna letters. These letters were written to the Egyptian pharaoh. These letters are important because they were written in a language different from diplomatic Babylonian.
The letters written in the unknown language were numbered 22 and 25. In 1909 Bork, in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft, wrote a translation of the letters.
In 1930, G.W. Brown proposed that the words in letters 22 and 25 were Dravidian especially Tamil. Brown (1930), has shown that the vowels and consonants of Hurrian and Dravidian are analogous. In support of this theory Brown (1930) noted the following similarities between Dravidian and Hurrian: 1) presence of a fullness of forms employed by both languages; 2) presence of active and passive verbal forms are not distinguished; 3) presence of verbal forms that are formed by particles; 4) presence of true relative pronouns is not found in these languages; 5) both languages employ negative verbal forms; 6) identical use of -m, as nominative; 7) similar pronouns; and 8) similar ending formations:
Dravidian Hurrian a a -kku -ikka imbu impu
There are analogous Dravidian and Hurrian terms:
English Hurrian Dravidian mountain paba parampu lady,woman aallay ali King Sarr,zarr Ca, cira god en en give tan tara to rule irn ire father attai attan wife,woman asti atti
Some researchers have noted the presence of many Indo-Aryan words. In Hurrians. This has led some researchers to conclude that Indo Europeans may have ruled the Hurrians. This results from the fact that the names of the Hurrian gods are similar to the Aryan gods:
There are other Hurrian and Sanskrit terms that appear to show a relationship:
English Hurrian Sanskrit Tamil One aika eka okka together Three tera tri Five panza panca aρcu Seven satta sapta Nine na nava onpatu
Other Hurrian terms relate to Indo-Aryan:
Enlglish Hurrian I-A Tamil Brown babru babhru pukar
Grey parita palita paraitu old
Reddish pinkara pingala puuval
English Mitanni Vedic Tamil
Warrior marya marya makan, maravan
Although researchers believe that the Hurrians-Mitanni were dominated by Indo-Aryans this is not supported by the evidence. Bjarte Kaldhol found that only 5 out of 500 Hurrian names were I-A sounding .
The linguistic evidence discussed above is consistent with the view that the only Indian elements in Anatolian culture were of Dravidian ,rather than Indo-Aryan origin. This evidence from Mittanni adds further confirmation to the findings of N. Lahovary in Dravidian Origins and the West, that prove the earlier presence of Dravidian speakers in Anatolia.
posted
Clyde - It seems that you concur that the Hurri arrived in Anatolia via northern Elam. Have you given consideration to the possibility that they may be the lost people of the Indus Valley? Same question of the Hayk, as the 7th. century B.C. Armenians called themselves.
For those unfamiliar, some ancient Anatolian (Turkey) statues and relief's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clyde - It seems that you concur that the Hurri arrived in Anatolia via northern Elam. Have you given consideration to the possibility that they may be the lost people of the Indus Valley? Same question of the Hayk, as the 7th. century B.C. Armenians called themselves.
For those unfamiliar, some ancient Anatolian (Turkey) statues and relief's.
Not really. The Indus Valley people or Harappans spoke Tamil. They presently live in South India.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mike 111
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clyde - It seems that you concur that the Hurri arrived in Anatolia via northern Elam. Have you given consideration to the possibility that they may be the lost people of the Indus Valley? Same question of the Hayk, as the 7th. century B.C. Armenians called themselves.
Not really. The Indus Valley people or Harappans spoke Tamil. They presently live in South India.
That leaves just three unaccounted-for-people of the area east, Guitians, Lullulbi and Kassites . What is your guess for the Hurri?
(Guitians and Kassites actually conquered and ruled Sumer at one time, thus demonstrating an already advanced civilization).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Mitanni did not speak an Indo-European language. They spoke a language similar to the Dravidian group.
No. The Mitanni, at least the ruling class spoke an Indo-Aryan language similar to Sanskrit. The rest of the people who were native spoke Hurrian languages. Non spoke Dravidian and Dravidian itself is Asian in origin NOT African as you want to believe. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
And sorry we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot!
Yes I am a junior member, and am not very well studied in Egyptology, by that I admit I may have been caught in the "google trap" where yellow or light tanned people came under "Hyskos" as so-called painted by the Egyptians themselves, I wasn't aware until now that there were no depictions of them.
I am glad to see I was promptly corrected, this forum is definitely the right place for me to learn. I do support a popular opinion on the race of the Ancient Egyptians, hopefully this forum will continue to provide insightful support on that.
Posts: 105 | From: Japan | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Mitanni did not speak an Indo-European language. They spoke a language similar to the Dravidian group.
No. The Mitanni, at least the ruling class spoke an Indo-Aryan language similar to Sanskrit. The rest of the people who were native spoke Hurrian languages. Non spoke Dravidian and Dravidian itself is Asian in origin NOT African as you want to believe.
Please post the linguistic data that dispute the above. If you don't have any Clarence, please shut up.
posted
HistoryFacelift - Doesn't it strike you funny, that a people could have ruled half of Egypt for several hundred years. While adopting all Egyptian cultural customs, including worshiping Egyptian Gods. And yet, the only physical evidence of their existence is one lone statue. White people have been up to something.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde Winters quote: The Gutians were Proto-Arab nomadic tribes that lived in the mountains. Based on the linguistic data the Kassites were Dravidian speakers.
So I take it that your vote goes to the Kassites as being the forbearer's of the Hurri/Mitanni?
How about the Gutians as the forbearer's of that other mysterious group; the Assyrians.
While on the subject of the Gutians, I have seen in previous posts where you identified these people as Gutians. May I ask what evidence led you to that conclusion? By appearance, they don't seem to match the Sumerians description.
Sumerian description; From "The cursing of Agade" Poem (3,000 B.C.): Enlil, the roaring storm that subjugates the entire land, the rising deluge that cannot be confronted, was considering what should be destroyed in return for the wrecking of his beloved E-kur. He lifted his gaze towards the Gubin mountains, and made all the inhabitants of the broad mountain ranges descend. Enlil brought out of the mountains those who do not resemble other people, who are not reckoned as part of the Land, the Gutians, an unbridled people, with human intelligence but canine instincts (some mss. have instead: feelings) and monkeys' features. Like small birds they swooped on the ground in great flocks. Because of Enlil, they stretched their arms out across the plain like a net for animals. Nothing escaped their clutches, no one left their grasp. Messengers no longer travelled the highways, the courier's boat no longer passed along the rivers.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: HistoryFacelift - Doesn't it strike you funny, that a people could have ruled half of Egypt for several hundred years. While adopting all Egyptian cultural customs, including worshiping Egyptian Gods. And yet, the only physical evidence of their existence is one lone statue. White people have been up to something.
^ Kemetians themselves destroyed supposedly a great amount of the evidence of Hyksos reign.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kemetians liked the Hyksos, it was Kamose who didn't like having foreigners rule Egypt. Did the subsequent Pharaohs have all of their graves dug up, and the statues destroyed? What about the buildings and temples that they constructed over the centuries?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Sumerians were differentiating themselves from the Gutians.
Gutian ..... Sumerian
Gutian
Sumerian King Gudea
Note the different handshake of the Sumerian and the Gutians. Much of the art published relating to Sumerians, are often pictures of the Gutians when they ruled Lagash.
No Gutian kings of Lagash are mentioned in the Sumerian King List.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
History as written today is nothing but falsehood. Some people claim that races do not exist, because they know that the absence of the concept of race allows the status quo to claim that all the ancient nations were founded by Asians and Europeans.
For example, here is a Sumerian:
But instead of showing Sumerians in textbooks scholars provide pictures of Gutians from Lagash:
Without the concept of race the lie being taught that the Sumerians were non-Blacks--Gutians-- would exist forever, since text book publishers only publish what they want us to believe.
We can not continue to follow the Eurocentrists propaganda that erases Blacks from ancient history--I would rather stick to reality.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
So I take it that your vote goes to the Kassites as being the forbearer's of the Hurri/Mitanni?
How about the Gutians as the forbearer's of that other mysterious group; the Assyrians.
No. The Kassites and Mitanni were two different Kushite groups .
The Gutians may be the ancestors of the Assyrians. The Gutians made a habit of adopting whatever culture and langauge was dominant in Mesopotamia.
. Many Kushites settled Anatolia. Some of the major Anatolian Kushite tribes were the Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).
The Hattic people, may be related to the[b] Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example:
English Hattic ..Egyptian .. Malinke (Mande language)
powerful ur . wr'great,big' fara
protect .. $uh swh solo-
head tup tp tu 'strike the head'
up,upper .. tufa ..tp dya, tu 'raising ground'
to stretch put pd pe, .. bamba
o prosper .falfat ..-- ..find'ya
pour duq .--- .. du 'to dispense'
child ..pin ,pinu den
Mother ..na-a -- .. na
lord .sa ..-- . sa
place .-ka -ka
The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his father's house'. This suggest that the first Anatolians were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
While the mande speakers were settling Greece and Crete another group of Africans belonging to the same C-Group people as the Mande began to settle Anatolia.
In the ancient literature Blacks associated with the C-Group Culture were called Kushites. Using boats the Kushites moved down ancient waterways many now dried up, to establish new towns in Asia and Europe after 3500 BC. The Kushites remained supreme around the world until 1400-1200 BC. During this period the Hua (Chinese) and Indo-European (I-E) speakers began to conquer the Kushites whose cities and economies were destroyed as a result of natural catastrophes which took place on the planet between 1400-1200 BC.
Later, after 500 AD, Turkish speaking people began to settle parts of Central Asia. This is the reason behind the presence of the Kush element in many place names in Asia e.g., Kashgar, HinduKush, and Kosh. The HinduKush in Harappan times had lapis lazuli deposits.
The Greeco-Roman writers made it clear that Kushites lived in Asia and Africa. Rawlinson confirmed the textual evidence when he deciphered the cuneiform writing. Proto-Saharans/Kushites expanded into Inner Asia from two primary points of dispersal : Iran and Anatolia.
In Anatolia the Kushites were called Hattians and Kaska. In the 2nd millennium BC, the north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non-I-E speakers.
Hattians
Anatolia was occupied by many Kushite groups,including the Kashkas and or Hatti. The Hatti like the Dravidian speaking people were probably related . The Hatti were probably members of the Tehenu tribes.
The Tehenu was composed of various ethnic groups. One of the Tehenu tribes was identified by the Egyptians as the Hatiu or Haltiu.
The Kushite people of Central Asia were members of the Tehenu people. The Tehenu, are associated with the C-Group people of Kush. During the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (2563-2423), namely during the reign of Sahure there is mention of the Tehenu people. Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader Hati Tehenu .(1) These Hatiu, may correspond to the Hatti speaking people of Anatolia. The Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas or Kaskas. Anatolia was divided into two lands the land of Kanis and the land of Hatti. The Hatti were related to the Kaska people who lived in the Pontic mountains. Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains.
Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place-names .(2) The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.
Singer (1981) has suggested that the Kaska, are remnants of the indigenous Hattian population which was forced northward by the Hittites. But at least as late as 1800 BC, Anatolia was basically settled by Hattians (3)or Kushites. The Hatti controlled the city state of Kussara. Kussara was situated in southern Anatolia.
References:
1. El Mosallamy,A.H.S. Libyco-Berber relations with ancient Egypt:The Tehenu in Egyptian records. In (pp.51-68) 1986, p.55; and L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Sahure. Vol. II, Table 1.
2. Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), pp.119-149.
3. Gerd Steiner, The role of the Hittites in ancient Anatolia, Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2)(1981), 119-149.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The history of Central Asia and Anatolia make it clear that Turkic and Kurd speaking people were late comers in the History of these areas. Prior to their migration into many parts of these areas Dravidian, Kushite (the Hattic, Mittanni, Kaska and etc. speaking groups) and Sumerian speaking people left numerous inscriptions in non-Turkic and European languages, as well as Egyptian and Hittite documents testifying to the absence of Turkic speaking nationalities inhabiting the area. All of these languages are genetically related to Tamil, like Sumerian and Elamite.
The history of the Turkish languages and the earlier presence of Sumerian and Tamil speaking people in Central Asia and Anatolia, explains any relationship you might find between Turkish and the Sumerian and Tamil languages. Moreover, the fact that the Greeks were in India when Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, explains the Greek relationship with Sanskrit.; and the Elamite speaking Achaemenids (and Persians)also ruled India for years and thus placed Persian and Elamite Arya and Hindi Arya in intimate contact for hundreds of years.
The relationship between the Hindi and Iranian languages is best explained by history rather than some ancient Indo-Iranian group of languages.
Achaemenid records make it clear that by 559 BC, Persian speakers were ruling the Hindus. Given the fact that their is historical evidence of Persians ruling Hindus can explain the relationship between the speakers of these languages instead of the Indo-European hypothesis. These Persians also ruled the Greeks and the Dravidian speaking Lycians in Europe.
The Achaeminids spoke Persian and Elamite. Since they were rulers of the Indians would have been natural for the Hindus to adopt many Persian terms and vice versa during a period of bilingualism in North India. Since the Elamite and Dravidian speakers spoke genetic languages there was little need for a lingua franca to allow communication between the diverse groups under Achaeminid rule.
King Darius
King Darius (521-486) made it clear he was an Arya "nobleman". The first use of Arya had nothing to do with race. Darius , in an inscription at Naghsh-Rostam (near Shiraz in present-day Iran) noted that:
"I am Darius the great king, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, and having Aryan lineage."
Darius later conquered Macedonia. This led to Achaeminid people speaking Elamite and Persian may have contributed lexical items to ancient Ionian (Greek). Since we have historical evidence of a close relationship between Hindus and Persians by the 6th Century BC, there is no need to claim that the relationship between Indo-Iranian began in 1200 BC,when the historical evidence indicates interaction between these groups by 589 BC, not 1200 BC. As a result of the Persians living in Iran, up until the Achaeminid Empire, there is no way anyone can claim that the Indo-Iranian homeland was in India. There was no Indo-Iranian homeland, the relationship between these languages was probably the result of the Achaeminid rule of India.
The Persians also ruled the Greeks. The Greeks later conquered India, and Panini mentions Greeks in his grammar of Sanskrit. This suggest that Greeks lived in large numbers in India at this time.The fact that the Greeks, Hindus and Persians lived in intimate contact for hundreds of years naturally led to the adoption of many terms by the Greeks and Hindus of Persian, and later the adoption of many Greek terms by the Hindus. These states of bilingualism in North India, explains why the Indo-Iranian languages form one family , and are linked to the Indo-European languages via Greek.
The Harappans spoke a Dravidian language, Indo-Iranian probably originated after 589 BC. This is made clear by Darius in the Behistun inscription where he claims that he was the first to write in the Ariya language. Darius'- evidence for the first writing of Ariya, indicates that the idea of the continuity of Hindu civilization in India is a myth. The original inhabitants of India spoke Dravidian languages. Over time, the Dravidians were forced to adopt Hindi and other Indo-Iranian languages, yet remnants of these Dravidians in North India remain.
This is why we find no evidence of the Vedic language until the Naga (Ethiopians) invented Sanskrit. It also explains the variations in the Vedic and Avestan manuscripts, which in the case of the later group date back only to 1288 AD.
The tradition of writing in North India date to the Achaeminids, and may explain the origin of Brahmi. The fact that Brahmi has signs that relate to the Harappan writing may be the result of the fact that the Elamites of the Achaeminid Empire were familiar with the writing system of the Dravidians, and the Naga (Ethiopians) who used a system of writing similar to Phonesian.
The Dravidians have their own tradition of writing. It would appear that the Dravidians introduced writing to the Indus Valley. They continued to use this writing on their pottery in South India and later punchmarked coins. This is supported by the discovery of writing in South India dating back to before 600 BC.
The history of contact between Iranian and Indian speakers during Achaemenid rule , would explain the Indo-Iranian relationship, not the existence of a Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland in India. This history of Turkic, Persian, Sumerian, Elamite, Tamil, Ethiopic (/Naga)and Hindi speaking people living in diverse North Indian communities, is the most logical explanation of the relationships that exist between and among these languages. The history of linguistic contact between the speakers of these languages make it clear that the Harappans were not Indo-Aryan speakers. This would place the origin of the major Vedic and Avestan text back to maybe 800 BC, and more than likely 600-500 BC not the 1200 BC or earlier date assigned these text by some researchers. Let's not forget that some researchers claim that most editions of the Aestan, date back to an original copy of this text dating only to 1200 AD.
In summary India was not the home land of the Indo-Iranian family of languages. The linguistic relationship between Persian and Greek result from the rule of these areas by the Achaeminid and later Greek rulers of India. This may explain why the Achaeminids depicted the Nubians (of Africa), the Hindus and King Darius with Africoid features.
The ability to explain the relationship of Sanskrit to Greek, and the Indo-Iranian linguistic relationship due toPersian/ Elamite and Hindi contact, resulting from the historical connections between the speakers of these languages and bilingualism within North-India and Afganistan. This hypothesis supports the view that the Indo-European connection to Indian languages goes back to the Greek rule of India, not some hypothetical date millennia ago.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde My question really relates to your seeming acceptance of these statues as legitimate. Most reputable institutions carefully list their provenance as Unknown.
For my own part, I lean more to them being just more bogus trash intended to suggest a White or White-like presence in the ancient Middle East. As you correctly pointed out, they bear no resemblance to authentic Sumerian statues, especially early ones like this.
And even those with a similar look, originally looked like this.
As far as I can see, the only opportunity for them to be authentic would be if they were early Assyrian works. That would explain the break in artistic quality (Assyrians were never known for their artistic abilities), and it would also explain the hairstyle.
posted
Thanks a lot for the info. Clyde. I read "Ancient Iraq" by Georges Roux and he says that the Hurrian language was neither 'Semitic' nor Indo European. This has led me to draw the conclusion that they spoke a Hamitic language. In other words the Hurrians were Blacks.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also read "The Mediterranean Race" by the Italian anthropologist Sergi, and he seems to believe that the Hyksos were Hittites, who he called Pelasgians and they were Blacks.
"For De Cara the Hittites are Pelasgians, and one with the Hyksos who invaded Egypt ; this he seems to me to have proved. He considers that their primitive scat was in the high regions_of_Syria,and that their dominion included Syria, Asia Minor, Armenia, the Black Sea district, and southern Scythia that is to say, around the Black Sea and Sea of Azov ; these regions being independent of the other more westerly countries, Greece and Italy. In his opinion, the Hittite stock peopled the Mediterranean, at least as far as Italy, setting out from its eastern coast, or Western Asia. (p. 145)
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hanni - A few problems here: There was no Hittite Empire, and there is no such thing as a Mediterranean Race. All of the non-Black and non-White people of the area owe their appearance to the mixture of the two - there is no mystery. Hamitic is a Biblical term, if you are that religious, you probably shouldn't be here. While perhaps well intentioned, Sergi is still full of it.
According to Sergi, the Mediterranean race arose from primal populations in North Africa, and was related to Hamitic peoples. Sergi claimed that the Mediterraneans, the Africans and the Nordics all originated from an original "Eurafrican Race". According to Sergi the Mediterranean race, the "greatest race of the world", was responsible for the great civilisations of ancient times, including those of Egypt, Carthage, Greece and Rome. These Mediterranean peoples were quite distinct from the peoples of northern Europe. To Sergi the Semites were a branch of the Eurafricans who were closely related to the Mediterraneans.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic