Robin Walker speaks about Hannibal and Indian Elephant coin at ACH discussion group
Just as in America there is an attempt to rewrite the history of Tutankhamen to remove the Blacks from that history, a television documentary in Britain attempted to rewrite the history of Carthage to remove the Blacks from that history too.
First I present Channel Five's attempt to justify their dishonesty. Secondly, my answer is given below.
Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding Hannibal Of The Alps: Revealed. Hannibal Barca was indeed born in Carthage but his appearance and ethnic background have been an endless source of speculation amongst academic s over the years. There is only one contemporary image of Hannibal. It appears on a coin which is in the possession of the British Museum. However, even that coin is not 100% positively attributed to the period. (A good photographic image of it is available at http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/hannibal-command-spain.htm). You will see from the coin that Hannibal has what appear to be Caucasian features. Similarly there is scant documentary reference to his appearance. The only ‘contemporary’ commentator wrote 100 years after Hannibal’s death and gave little regard to a physical description of the man other than his size and strength.
In the present day there is a huge ethnographic variation across the continent of Africa so to say Hannibal would have looked ‘African’ would we believe, have also been misleading. After all, Omar Sharif and Nelson Mandela are both ‘African’ but no-one would think of them as being ethnically related. From the information we have available it is possible that Hannibal’s mother may have been Spanish. This would lead us to believe that it is likely that Hannibal would have be en olive skinned. Hannibal’s army was also made up of a huge variety of races of men he picked up on his travels through Europe. All colours of skin would have been in his army.
Our overriding aim was to provide an accurate historical narrative which would relate the life of an extraordinary general. This we believe we achieved. At no time did we intend to mislead the viewers of this film into thinking Hannibal was anything other than Carthaginian. < /DIV> Thank you for your interest in Five.
I am wholly unimpressed with your treatment of the Hannibal issue.
On Hannibal’s Surus Sir Gavin De Beer, author of Hannibal: The Struggle for Power in the Mediterranean, wrote that:
Hannibal . . . rode the sole surviving elephant, an animal which may have found its way into history, for some years later Cato the Elder recorded that the elephant which fought most bravely in the Second Punic War was called Surus. This name means the Syrian, and Syria was where the Ptolemies had captured Indian elephants, some of which they must have given to Carthage. A bronze coin found in the valley of the Clanis (Chiana), on Hannibal’s route to Lake Trasimene, bears on the obverse a Negro’s head . . . and on the reverse an equally obvious Indian elephant. It is believed to have been minted at just about this time, 217 BC; and as Pyrrhus never came this way with his elephants, the coin probably bears a representation of Hannibal’s sole surviving elephant, the Indian Surus. (UK, Thames and Hudson, 1969, page 191)
From this data, we are specifically told that: • Hannibal rode the sole surviving elephant • That elephant was of Indian origin • A coin exists with this Indian elephant depicted on it
On page 190 of this same book, Sir Gavin reproduces the coin.
(See Picture 1 below)
It was from the British Museum and the caption reads as follows:
Bronze coin from the Chiana valley, c.217 BC, showing (obverse) a Negro’s head, and (reverse) an Indian elephant, perhaps Hannibal’s Surus.
There are however three weaknesses in Sir Gavin De Beer’s account • He is remarkably reluctant to identify the Negro • He erroneously gave the impression that there is only one such coin • He did not comment on the Phoenician or Punic character under the elephant
Elsewhere in the same book (pages 104-105) Sir Gavin takes to task those “modern commentators who were ignorant of the differences between the bush and the forest varieties of African elephants.” He continues: < FONT face="Times New Roman"> Polybius’s account has been completely vindicated; the heights at the shoulder of the three elephants are approximately 7 feet 9 inches for the African forest elephant, 9 feet 6 inches for the Indian elephant, and 11 feet for the African bush elephant. The size of the Indian elephant made it possible to mount howdahs or ‘castles’ on its back, containing archers. The African forest elephant was too small . . . Indian and African elephants have been depicted on coins and mosaics, and the following differences between them are so clear-cut that they can easily be distinguished. The African forest elephant differs from the Indian in the following features: 1, the ear is enormous, whereas the Indian elephant’s ear is small; 2, the back has a concave dip between a high point over the shoulder and a nother high point over the hind quarters, whereas the back of the Indian elephant is an unbroken convex dome from front to rear; 3, the hind quarters are almost flat, whereas the Indian elephant’s hind quarters project backwards at a fairly sharp angle; 4, the head is carried high, while the Indian elephant carries its head low; 5, the forehead is flat, instead of showing the Indian elephant’s concave profile; 6, the trunk is marked by transverse ridges, instead of being smooth; 7, the tip of the trunk has two ‘fingers’ instead of only one as in the Indian elephant; 8, the upper part of the front edge of the hind leg is masked by a fold of skin forming a skirt, whereas the front edge of the hind leg of the Indian elephant is uncovered right up to the groin.
Keith Hart, a veterinarian, wrote a recent article for the journal Amphora: Volume II, entitled On Hannibal and Elephants. Part of the paper reads as follows:
Syria (now Iraq) once harbored the largest Asian subspecies (now extinct) hunted by the pharaohs 3,000 years ago. It is possible that the Ptolemies in Egypt were still able to obtain Syrian elephants in Hannibal’s time, and this may have been the original source of Hannibal’s one surviving animal. In any case, while the majority of Hannibal’s elephants were probably of North African origin, at least one may have been an Asian elephant. It is highly likely that the surviving elephant, emerging from the Apennines with the great Carthaginian on his back, was none other than Surus. Pliny the Elder tells us that he was not only the bravest of the elephants but that he also had one broken tusk. Scullard suggests that this eleph ant, which could have been a large, male, Asian elephant from Syria, was a gift from Ptolemy to his ally, the great Carthaginian general Hamilcar Barca (174). Hannibal was Hamilcar’s son and may have formed a relationship with Surus from childhood . . . I visualize Hannibal riding Surus into Etruria at the head of a bedraggled but victorious army. Scullard sheds one final light on the scene by turning our attention to Etrurian bronze coins issued around 217 B.C. when Hannibal passed through (176). The coin s clearly depict an Asian elephant. As Scullard points out, the coins could have nothing to do with Pyrrhus and his Asian elephants, who failed to reach as far north as Rome. The only other reasonable explanation is that the coins depict Surus, as he passes through Etruria and disappears into the mists of history. (US, American Philological Association, Volume 2, Issue 2, Fall 2003, page 6)
From this data, it is impossible to confuse an Indian with either variety of the African elephant.
Conclusion One: The coin that you claim is of Hannibal has the wrong type of elephant depicted on it. The caption associated with your coin reads:
Coin from Cartago Nova AR quarter shekel, (1.58g) c. 215 BC, Male head (of Hannibal?) left. / African elephant walking to right, dotted border
(See Pictures 2a and 2b below)
On the Carthaginian Origin of the Coins P. Raffaele Garrucci, author of Le Monete Dell’Italia Antica, reproduces 5 coins found in Italy. O n page 58, he wrote the following:
11-14. Museo Kircheriano. Testa di moro con anello all’orecchio volta a d. R. Elefante asiatico con la squilla al collo stante, volto a destra. I bronzi che portano questi tipi si distinguono fra loro per quattro diverse lettere alfabetiche . . . 15. Nella collezione Strozzi. Questa monetina ha i tipi predetti e per lettera distinctiva . . . (Rome, 1885)
From this data, we are specifically told that: • Coins 11-14 are in the Museo Kircheriano • Coin 15 is in a private collection • The coins are distinguished by different Phoenician or Punic characters written on them (See Appendix) • The elephants are described as “asiatico” - meaning Indian in origin
On plate T. LXXV of the same book are reproductions of these coins.
(See Picture 3 below)
Conclusion Two: The coin that you claim is of Hannibal does not contain any Phoenician or Punic characters. There is thus nothing to connect your coin with Carthage other than conjecture.
On the Peopling of Carthage Stephane Gsell, author of the voluminous Histoire Ancienne de L’Afrique du Nord, wrote that:
Plusieurs crânes, recueillis dans les cimetières, offrent des caractères propres aux nègres. (Volume IV, Franc e, Librairie Hachette, 1920, pages 173-4)
In the same book we read that:
On ne paraît pas avoir recontré jusqu’à present à Carthage, non plus qu’à Sidon, le type dit sémitique, fréquent chez les Juifs at les Arabes; face longue, en ovale régulier, nez mince at aquiline, crâne allongé et très renflé au-dessus de la nuque. (page 177)
From this data, we are specifically told that: • Craniometric remains typical of Negroes have been found in Carthaginian cemeteries • Craniometric remains typical of Semites have not been found in Carthaginian cemeteries Eugène Pittard, an anthropology professor, reported in his Race and History: An Ethnological Introduction to History, that:
Other skeletal remains found in Punic Carthage and deposited in the Lavigerie Museum are from specimens discovered in private tombs that very likely belonged to the Carthaginian elite. The skulls are nearly all dolichocephalic. (UK, Kegan Paul reprint edition, 2003, page 335)
As an example:
Those who have visited the Lavigerie Museum at Carthage . . . will remember the magnificent sarcop hagus of the priestess of Tanit discovered by Père Delattre. This sarcophagus, the most highly decorated and artistic of those found, and whose outer image probably represents the goddess herself, must have been the coffin of a very great ecclesiastical personage. And the woman it contained exhibited Negroid characters. She was an African by race! (page 334)
From this data, we are specifically told that: • Craniometric remains typical of the Carthaginian elites were dolichocephalic. Dolichocephaly (i.e. having a long skull) is generally typical of tropically-adapted populations
Conclusion Three: The coin that you claim is of Hannibal contains a Caucasian face. This is not consistent with the known anthropological facts.
In Closing North Africa today cannot be used to discuss North Africa in ancient times. The Arabians who are there today conquered North Africa after 639 AD. The light-skinned Berbers are descended from the Vandal conquest of the fifth century AD and the Roman conquest of Carthage in 146 BC. As Carthage was founded in 814 BC it therefore contained no Arabians nor White Berbers.
In North Africa today Negro Berbers still exist such as the Harratin and the Chouchen. They are descended from the earliest inhabitants of North Africa. Their ancestors (called “Libyans”) were the numerically dominant population in Carthage from the elite down to the commoners.
The coin that you claim is Hannibal • Has a face that is inconsistent with the k nown anthropological and historical facts • Contains an elephant that is of the wrong type • Lacks Phoenician or Punic writing
On the other hand I have shown that there are six different coins associated with Hannibal and all of them show him to be a Negro.
How did you manage to make a historical documentary and be totally oblivious of the key evidence?
Robin Walker
Appendix 1 It is not at all obvious that the people of Spain two thousand years ago were uniformly olive skinned nor were they uniformly of Caucasian appearance. The Annals of Human Genetics (Volume 67: Issue 4, July 2003) carried an interesting article entitled Joining the Pillars of Hercules: mtDNA Sequences Show Multidirectional Gene Flow in the Western Mediterranean by S. Plaza, F. Calafell, A. Helal, N. Bouzerna, G. Lefranc, J. Bertranpetit and D. Comas. In the article, they revealed the following data:
Out of 23 different L sequences in Iberia, two were also found in NW Africa (as well as in sub-Saharan Africa), and 7 others were found in sub-Saharan Africa (in a dataset comprising 1,158 individuals from 20 populations; Graven et al. 1995, Pinto et al. 1996; Watson et al. 1996; Mateu et al. 1997; Rando et al. 1998; Krings et al. 1999; Pereira et al. 2001; Brehm et al. 2002) but not in NW Africa. Treating the set of L sequences in Iberia as if it were a population reveals genetic distances from some W African populations, such as the Senegalese and Yoruba, that are slightly smaller than those between L sequences in Iberia and NW Africa. Thus, it may be the case that gene flow from NW Africa is not entirely responsible for the presence of L sequences in Iberia.
These authors are surprised by the presence of sub-Saharan genetic material in Iberia that they, of course, cannot comfortably explain. What this evidence implies, however, is that claiming Hannibal to have been Spanish of Half-Spanish is simply not a good enough get-out clause to remove his Negro ancestry.
Museo Kircheriano, Lavigerie Museum at Carthage, the British Museum, . .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: The subtotal of your "contribution" to Egyptsearch is to coat-tail posters you have an attraction for and parrot their nonsense.
Alive box writes: "^No one cares. (about your lame ass trolling - those with a mind are free to check the archives for themselves). no offense though."
Marc writes: Ahh hah! Well. Now isn't this interesting. You appear out of the blue responding with the same intense anger at the same stimulus.
Now, here is what, er um, Djehuti wrote to me, "Who cares what you profess … You're a nutcase!"
I think we picked-up on another of your schizoid alias' Djehuti with you responding so instantaneously and vehemently to this comment on your many persona.
We see some projectionism going on here, too, as you accuse me of trolling whereas, isn't it "you" (whichever one it is, that is) who is "hiding" and "stalking"?
You need medical attention, friend.
HANNIBAL THE AFRICAN WARRIOR
(From Runoko Rashidi’s site)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. The relief in question is known to be of Lydians. Uncareful fact checkers or a plain old mistake in scholarship of a webmaster acting in solo may be those who generally accept it as depicting Phoenicians.
Your source "RealHistory" is confused. Their fuller presentation labels the tribute bearers as Phoenicians then turns around and labels a zoom of the lead tribute bearer as a Lydian.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: alTakruri - The relief above is generally accepted as depicting Phoenicians.
. . . .
And if your point is that the Phoenicians look very much the same as what are identified as Lydians from Anatolia in some sources - I have no answer, its all a guess.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My earliest venture into the art came from J. A. Rogers. Since then I perused numerous art books specifically devoted to the people, era, or art style under examination.
Buddhist lore tells of snails covering the Buddha's head to protect him from sunstroke on an occasion when he was involved in extensive protracted meditation.
I don't call woolly hair snail shells. But as you pointed out, some claim that what looks like woolly hair on some Buddha icons are these snails. I leave that discussion there.
As for wooly hair representations in Persian art some is natural woolly hair and some is wooly by artifice. Looking at the root tells which one is depicted. In the pics Mike posted notice that the the Lydian's beard is straight and the roots of his hair is wavy(?) unlike that of the "unknown" individual who has natural woolly hair. The other examples Mike posted also have artificially woolly hair as revealed in the details I pointed out about the Lydian.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Phoenicians and Snail's shell: It was Bro al Takruri who familiarized me with use of the term (something like) snail's shell for the way the woolly hair of Buddha was portrayed. Interesting is that the above Phoenicians also have the "snail's shell" for portraying woolly hair.
Interesting that Buddha iconography and lineage could harken back to Phoenicians (they who were the traders among the Canaanites where Canaanites are also Semites and Hibaru - ultimately descendents of Ham - and if Hannibal has Phoenician ancestry, he would trace roots to Ham, be African, black) Buddha might through the Phoenicians (e.g. same "snail shell" iconography) be related to Hannibal and them both to Ham.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Al Takruri - The Oriental Institute - University of Chicago, also identifies them as Syrian aka Phoenicians. Since, I believe, The Oriental Institute was the original lead researcher at the site, I have to go with them on this one - sorry. But I find your work on the hair thing fascinating, can you give a source for the Buddha quote?
posted
Syrian does not equal Phoenician. Though parts of Phoenicia included what's now the nation state of Syria, our Lebanon best represents Phoenicia. You may want to look into Lydia's location and a people identified in ancient times as Leuco-Syrians.
I don't have time to look for it now and GOOGLE doesn't have the thread I may have posted it to in their cache but try a net search on the words Buddha and snails. I was very young when a lady friend nicknamed Buddha told me about the snails after I told her the Buddha had nappy hair.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri - I apologize for once again correcting you; But if you would go to an encyclopedia - even Wiki will do - and look-up the Etymology of the words Syria and Phoenicia, I am sure that you will see your mistake. Note should also be taken, that ALL researchers by convention; equate ancient references to Syria, as referencing Phoenicia. The Etymology of the words will explain why that is. Additionally, as you can see from the map below, Lydia is not even close enough to Syria to be a part of the discussion.
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Mike, why is the image on the coin not heroic?
Congratulations argyle104, a civilized question deserves a civilized answer.
The current style of modern Black men (especially AAs) of unkempt hair, is new. Probably as the result of the ignorant belief that the rudiments of civilized behavior and grooming are a White invention. (That is why I had no answer for TheAmericanPatriot above - he had me and I knew it).
But the facts are quite the opposite; Black people are the inventors of civilization, and the rudiments therein. Ancient Black elites were fastidious about grooming. Their hair was always either completely cut off or carefully coiffured.
The Phoenicians were amount the ancient worlds wealthiest, most civilized, and most cosmopolitan people - please note the other reliefs of Phoenicians. Therefore, the suggestion that one of Phoenicia's greatest kings, would be depicted on his coin with unkempt hair, is to me preposterous, and not in keeping with other depictions of Phoenicians.
Please note how other Black kings (in this case, Persian kings) of similar times depicted themselves on their coins. As you can see, there is an effort to make the subject appear noble and heroic.
posted
No need to apologize for what you haven't done.
Have it your way but you're quite mistaken in conflating two separate nations as one.
The distance between Syria/Phoenicia on the one hand and Lydia on the other adds to the proofs of the people in the contested relief being other than Syrian. That however has nothing to do with distinguishing Syrians from LeucoSyrians. And if Lydians are going to be mistaken for Syrians then LeucoSyrians are the only kind they could remotely be.
Again, Phoenicia is now Lebanon and was once Canaan.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: alTakruri - I apologize for once again correcting you; But if you would go to an encyclopedia - even Wiki will do - and look-up the Etymology of the words Syria and Phoenicia, I am sure that you will see your mistake. Note should also be taken, that ALL researchers by convention; equate ancient references to Syria, as referencing Phoenicia. The Etymology of the words will explain why that is. Additionally, as you can see from the map below, Lydia is not even close enough to Syria to be a part of the discussion.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are numerous depictions of ancient world blacks with what you call unkempt hair. Far from the shame you see in naturally nappy hair Africans who carefully develop and tend their twisted strands of hair are quite proud of it, from then until now. See The Image of the Black in Western Art Vol 1 for example after example of this style of hair written of in ancient texts as twisted and curled (many a noble "Punic" Afer, like the emperor Juba of Numidia, sported it.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Mike, why is the image on the coin not heroic?
Congratulations argyle104, a civilized question deserves a civilized answer.
The current style of modern Black men (especially AAs) of unkempt hair, is new. Probably as the result of the ignorant belief that the rudiments of civilized behavior and grooming are a White invention. (That is why I had no answer for TheAmericanPatriot above - he had me and I knew it).
But the facts are quite the opposite; Black people are the inventors of civilization, and the rudiments therein. Ancient Black elites were fastidious about grooming. Their hair was always either completely cut off or carefully coiffured.
The Phoenicians were amount the ancient worlds wealthiest, most civilized, and most cosmopolitan people - please note the other reliefs of Phoenicians. Therefore, the suggestion that one of Phoenicia's greatest kings, would be depicted on his coin with unkempt hair, is to me preposterous, and not in keeping with other depictions of Phoenicians.
Please note how other Black kings (in this case, Persian kings) of similar times depicted themselves on their coins. As you can see, there is an effort to make the subject appear noble and heroic.
Bahram I 273 to 276
Narseh 293 to 302
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri - you will recall that I did suggest that you go to an encyclopedia and look-up the Etymology of the words Syria and Phoenicia to see your mistake. But since you didn't do that, then perhaps this map of ancient Syria - from The Oriental Institute - University of Chicago - will help you.
posted
I didn't become aware of this yesterday. I've studied these things for years upon years.
The mistaken Greek etymolgy of Syria from Tsur(Tyre) has no bearing on the fact that Syrians (Aramaics) were not Phoenicians (Canaanitics).
Pay attention to the map you just posted and see the difference between Lebanon and Syria. Where are the famous Phoenician cities of Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre located?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri - You seriously compare Phoenicians with rabble in Algeria?? But to your point, that head appears tied and arranged - possibly with some sort of head gear. "Civilized" people groom themselves; low-life do not. That is irrespective of race.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a matter of agreeing with whom I assume you mean to mean myself. It's a matter of recognized factual nomenclature of historical geography and ethnology.
It is only well after the collapse of Phoenicia that Syrians from the northernmost Levantine shore took Canaan by conquest making it a Syrian province many a century after the era under discussion.
The Persian relief depicts Lydians not Phoenicians and should such Lydians be monikered Syrian it can be due to their proximity of the habitation of the people dubbed LeucoSyrian who were Anatolians not any kind of Arabian Plate/Mesopotamian/Levantine folk.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ i have to agree with great black jew here mike.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Have you BOTH lost it???? The TITLE OF THE MAP IS ANCIENT SYRIA!!!! The MODERN names of countries is to provide reference - the ENTIRE AREA WAS SYRIA. There was no Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey etc. etc. in those days!!!!!! DAMN!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri - If you intend to continue with this silliness, then please provide material to support your positions. So far, you have been generous with your opinions, but provided nothing else - it has become tedious.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stop distracting. This part of the discussion centers on woolly hairstyles, that of the presumed Carthaginian Punic Afer on the one coin and that of the known Numidian emperor Juba.
Your point of view on the hair of the man on the coin with the elephant as uncivilized speaks to your racism.
Your ignorance of ancient texts and images and your anti-African bias cause your prejudiced eyes to see as as unkempt what is a carefully tended hairstyle and one which suits a military man quite well.
You introduction of Persian coins is the butt of ridicule. Rather than recognize the valuable civilizations of Africa you introduce non-African non-black Persians as the heroic idea.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: alTakruri - You seriously compare Phoenicians with rabble in Algeria?? But to your point, that head appears tied and arranged - possibly with some sort of head gear. "Civilized" people groom themselves; low-life do not. That is irrespective of race.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike Canaan was part of the Egyptian sphere of power well up until the late period in about 800 BC. The Egyptians identified Syria as being North of Canaan. So greater Syria as you call it did not exist. The reliefs in question are part of a palace built in 500 B.C. when Persia ruled much of what is now Syria into Egypt proper. So, whatever maps exist now can only be called generalizations of what was considered as the extent of Syria, which is why the map you posted has no precise boundaries. This only reflects that there isn't enough information to place exact boundaries on the map for that time period. The region between Syria and Canaan was ruled by various empires from the Egyptians to the Persians, the Greeks and then Romans after that came various Islamic empires, including the Ottomans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your total presentation is irrational. You haven't presented a thing that backs your position which is totally destroyed by a simple school child's knowledge of the people period and place being discussed.
I've shown how you arrived at error due to reliance on "RealHistory" to start with, nothing personal about.
Should you chose to adhere to a fictitious history and identification, go ahead, knock yourself out, but I won't allow you to confuse surfers coming here for factual accuracy.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: alTakruri - If you intend to continue with this silliness, then please provide material to support your positions. So far, you have been generous with your opinions, but provided nothing else - it has become tedious.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am having a hard time digesting the ignorance on what I though to be, common knowledge. More so that some would presume to know more than the Oriental Institute of Chicago University. But knowing that Wiki is the Bible for those too lazy to research - Perhaps this will put an end to this foolishness.
From Wiki - Syria
The name Syria derives from the ancient Greek name for Syrians, Σύριοι Syrioi, which the Greeks applied without distinction to various Assyrian people. Modern scholarship confirms the Greek word traces back to the cognate Ἀσσυρία, Assyria, ultimately derived from the Akkadian Aššur.
The area designated by the word has changed over time. Classically, Syria lies at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, between Egypt and Arabia to the south and Cilicia to the north, stretching inland to include Mesopotamia, and having an uncertain border to the northeast that Pliny the Elder describes as including, from west to east, Commagene, Sophene, and Adiabene, "formerly known as Assyria".
By Pliny's time, however, this larger Syria had been divided into a number of provinces under the Roman Empire (but politically independent from each other): Judaea, later renamed Palaestina in AD 135 (the region corresponding to modern day Palestine, Israel, and Jordan) in the extreme southwest, Phoenicia corresponding to Lebanon, with Damascena to the inland side of Phoenicia, Coele-Syria (or "Hollow Syria") south of the Eleutheris river, and Mesopotamia.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Stop distracting. This part of the discussion centers on woolly hairstyles, that of the presumed Carthaginian Punic Afer on the one coin and that of the known Numidian emperor Juba.
Your point of view on the hair of the man on the coin with the elephant as uncivilized speaks to your racism.
Your ignorance of ancient texts and images and your anti-African bias cause your prejudiced eyes to see as as unkempt what is a carefully tended hairstyle and one which suits a military man quite well.
You introduction of Persian coins is the butt of ridicule. Rather than recognize the valuable civilizations of Africa you introduce non-African non-black Persians as the heroic idea.
alTakruri - Once again, I have to ask you: ARE YOU SERIOUS?????
Non-African non-black Persians ??????????????
I have a suggestion for you - First look at the pretty pictures - then take a pill and go back to sleep. That is appearently what you have been doing all along anyway.
posted
Marc - If you wish to look like a San Bushman - that is your right. Personally - I prefer the Sassanian look.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri - You are right - I AM RACIST - not because I want to be "White". But rather, because I want the low-life that can't be bothered to groom themselves, to be "White". That way, they don't disgrace the Black race or Me!!
Additionally - the poor San in the bush, have neither access to water or grooming aids. They do the best that they can. That a person in the middle of plenty and civilization, would want to emulate them in their poor circumstance - is truly bizarre. And speaks to the ignorance and confusion common to so many.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mike, you write, "Marc - If you wish to look like a San Bushman - that is your right. Personally - I prefer the Sassanian look."
Honestly, I think we can have it both ways as the San (and Pygmy) were the foundation for all later peoples including the Sassian. Nice picture, by the way. I'll add it to the collection!
TOPIC OF THIS POST: Snail's Shell hair, the San, and the Lydians
The snail's hair has some interesting ramifications as it seems it could ultimately be stylized peppercorn (cabbage patch) hair. And if so, that could / would mean that the Lydians are San. The following discusses that.
The Ancient San: The San are described as having peppercorn (cabbage patch – so single tufts) hair and less pronounced African features. From the link below, I’d consider Ur Nammu (#1) and Shulgi to be San. And note how Ur Nammu resembles the San (#s 2, 3, 4) who seem to number among the Babylonians. Consider: http://www.beforebc.de/Related.Subjects/Hammurabi.&.10.C/02-16-500-00-03.html
[Note: the San, with hairless bodies, high cheekbones, and broad foreheads are the forerunner of the Chinese and other Asians. It’s whites mixing with San in the Steppes that produced the straight hair of today’s Asians turning originally dark skin light as we now see it.]
With the San so widespread many thousands of years before whites radiated from the Steppes and entered the Ancient Near East, San and Pygmy were ubiquitous. And, their intermixture would produce greater varieties of Africans.
Stylized snail shell hair – the roots?
Being African (in my case, Afro-American, black), my own hair is woolly, kinky. A single strand naturally spirals like a snail's shell. Could be that the Lydians being San who’d evolved a fuller head of hair sytlized it was the snail’s shell. The hair of Jess has been compared to lamb’s wool and it’s interesting to note that in the New Kingdom in the Avenue of the Ram’s its wool was exactly like stylized snail shells as seen in Buddha’s hair (just an aside).
Other points
1. I agree that there is a mixture in Achaemean / Persian / Darius age art of those who naturally had woolly hair (below: #6, 8, 9, 10) sometimes wearing wigs on top of it (see #6 and 9 below)
2. and those wearing snail's shell wigs with wavy or else straight hair underneath as pictures shown earlier in this thread have shown. I'd say that the straight/wavy hair was due to an influx of whites from the Steppes who'd begun to dilute and produce progeny with the initial African population (a population now nearly non-existant in those regions).
posted
. . Hi Mike. I hear the way you speak of the San. However, Gerald Massey for one, and back in 1914, spoke with lamentation about the San. He said something like this:
"They who started at the mountain top of civilization when the western world was still in caves, and gave us Egypt and the other great civilizations, have tragically been marching the long and ever downward trek from their illustrious past having given the world all it possesses and those nations and the West which have become great taking their greatness from them should intercede in their pathetic descent and save them the honor they are due but which has been taken from them.
By some counts, it was the Bushman, the San, who was the basal Egyptian 4000 BC. The San who gave the early hymns and religion and earliest grandest Egypt.
It is documented that the San were once plentiful throughtout Africa and only starting near 1800 BC slowly pushed ever further South by the Bantu agricultural migration. And before the whites came to South Africa and forced them into their arid, dusty environs of today, they thrived back then. They were a culturally advanced and gracious people.
In fact, when the first whites arrived in South Africa, it is documented that a 100 person orchestra of flutes came to the shores to welcome them. After that, they were slaughtered and their lands taken. The San you see today came from that history.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never assumed you want to be white. I, since my very first response to you months ago, presume that you are white. Nothing about your topics or your writings strike me as anything other than originating and authored by the mind of a white person.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: alTakruri - You are right - I AM RACIST - not because I want to be "White". But rather, because I want the low-life that can't be bothered to groom themselves, to be "White". That way, they don't disgrace the Black race or Me!!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri - You are doing it again - THINKING. It always gets you in trouble. It is far better for you to go back to sleep and dream of your mythical "White" Persians.
BTW - doesn't that suggest that it is YOU who are not quite of a Black mind? I mean, I think of "Black" Persians - which was reality. And then, why would Black people invent those civilized behaviors, if it was not a good thing? All that I am saying is that Blacks should always wash and comb their hair. You on the other hand, encourages the indolent in their behavior. Seems to me, that is the kind of thing that an "evil White person" would want for Black people - is that what you REALLY are?? Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't sweat it Marc. Mike makes the typical loser response when wrong on a topic. Speculation, no one can judge its validity. Facts on the other hand. He just proves he's unaware of all the ancient texts and art of blacks with twisted hair which is not unkempt but actually a well tended hairstyle as the coin reveals. Nor does he seem willing to invest the time to research the matter by perusing the book I suggested (to which I can add the works of Frank Snowden).
posted
i don't think the hair should be a great issue. First of all Hannibal was in a war situation and moreover the hairstyle may be in vogue at that time. What matters is that all the evidence points to the image on the coin as being that of Hannibal. marc Washington has explained the situation well.
1. Some say that the coin is that of Pyrrhus but the dating of the coin proves it was minted several decades after Pyrrhus' arrival in Italy.
2. the ptolemies of Egypt did have access to Indian elephants which they otained from ancient Syria. According to Cato the Elder, Hannibal's favourite elephant was called Surus, which means "syrian." Thus Hannibal's elephant was Indian and not African.
3. According to Polybius at the time of the Battle of Trasimene (or Trasimeno) there was only one elephant left, which Hannibal rode. the coin in question dates from that era.
posted
i don't think the hair should be a great issue. First of all Hannibal was in a war situation and moreover the hairstyle may be in vogue at that time. What matters is that all the evidence points to the image on the coin as being that of Hannibal. Marc Washington has explained the situation well.
1. Some say that the coin is that of Pyrrhus but the dating of the coin proves it was minted several decades after Pyrrhus' arrival in Italy.
Also, according to ancient writers like Diodorus Siculus, the Phoenicians did mix with the locals among whom were Moors. In the index of his "Wars" Procopius described Moors as "A Black African race." Thus even if the Phoenicians were Whites, mixing for centuries with the local Black inhabitants would have made them Black.
2. The ptolemies of Egypt did have access to Indian elephants which they otained from ancient Syria. According to Cato the Elder, Hannibal's favourite elephant was called Surus, which means "Syrian." Thus Hannibal's elephant was Indian and not African.The elephant portrayed on the coin is Indian.
3. According to Polybius at the time of the Battle of Trasimene (or Trasimeno) there was only one elephant left, which Hannibal rode. The coin in question dates from that era.
Hannibal was Black.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
On the issue of the coin; though Hannibal was young (age 26) when he came to power in 221 B.C. The image on the coin appears to me, to be that of a boy. Also, it seems to me, that a person so great as Hannibal would have a much more heroic type image on his coin.
Dear Mike111, you were absent and missed. This is a valid remark, to show that we cannot fly blindly on images alone. He could be a boy or a boyish young man. Those kinds of men which never seem to age. Perhaps the image was made in an 'Amarna-type' of style with exaggerated features. From my BLUE BLOOD IS BLACK BLOOD research I became aware of 'beautifying' of people to make their looks conform to the Greek ideal, which is seldom seen in real people, and reserved for gods and godlike heroes. Snowden shows images of mixed race Blacks or Blacks with Nilotic looks, to proof that the Classical Greeks were aware of those types as well.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Cover the name and one could pass for the other. In a dozen ways, they are the same:
deal with same issues
same affinity to genetics
same use of sarcasm even to identical expressions
same type of hostility towards anyone seeing African prominence
same arguments
same alliances
same carriage of white supremacy and racism
same foibles/behavior/attitude
same allegiances
Doug M is certainly cut in the cloth of Djehuti/Elmer. I'd not be surprised if they were not one-in-the-same; or a schizoid half-a-dozen in-the-same.
. .
Raymond Djehuti is Alive (What Box) is JMT is Doug M. THE ENEMY OF THE NEGRO IS THE NEGRO HIMSELF. He shows great disdain for Blacks by playing us for fools. I wish for god to curse him. For god to curse his name and his house. For god to curse all that he undertakes. I wish for god to cut him down for the harm he does to the few Blacks on this site who think independently. He shows the ridiculing behaviour which is the same as racist Whites toward Black people who do not want to toe the White supremacist line. Raymond Djehuti is a sicko, he makes a mockery of Afrocentrism with his twenty or more nicks on egyptsearch. He is not a Philipino but a Surinamese con-artist living in Amsterdam, and he has a ugly high pitched voice.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Alive Box says: "^No one cares. (about your lame ass trolling - those with a mind are free to check the archives for themselves). no offense though."
Marc writes: Ahh! Ahh! Now isn't this interesting. You appear out of the blue responding with the same intense anger at the same stimulus.
Now, here is what, er um, Djehuti wrote to me, "Who cares what you profess … You're a nutcase!"
I think we picked-up on another of your schizoid alias' Djehuti with you responding so instantaneously and vehemently to this comment on your many persona.
We see some projectionism going on here, too, as you accuse me of trolling whereas, isn't it "you" (whichever one it is, that is) who is "hiding" and "stalking"?
You need medical attention, friend.
. .
Good going Marc Washington, you show yourself to be a real researcher using common sense. We do not have to agree on everything but I highly respect you.
There are only three of us who use our real names on this site. So I still wonder what the others have to hide. I publish under my own name and I operate under my own name. Are we like criminals who need aliases for speaking our own minds?
A con-artist like Raymond Djehuti does not have to be clever, he just preys on the goodwill of Blacks.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Hanni - Though White people have undoubtedly destroyed all images of Hannibal, and replaced them with fakes - All is not lost. As you have seen, it is possible to cross-reference artifacts and history, in order to get at the truth.
Dear Mike111, this complaint also goes for the images of the European Black Nobility and Black Kings (1500-1789) in my research. But there are other more convincing images on paper, not in Google. I will find a way to scan and publish online. A few have already disappeared from sites which sell old prints and engravings, after I discussed them online. So the hiding of images goes on, even today by these civilized, friendly smiling curators. I have relied on your research about Whites arriving only 5000 years ago in Europe. So my BLUE BLOOD IS BLACK BLOOD research is probably also about autochthonous European Blacks as well. Not all of them confirmed to the Classical African type, but they were Blacks all right: a intermarrying, fixed Mulatto race. To preserve the black and brown colour because this stood for Blue blood.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: alTakruri - You seriously compare Phoenicians with rabble in Algeria?? But to your point, that head appears tied and arranged - possibly with some sort of head gear. "Civilized" people groom themselves; low-life do not. That is irrespective of race.
[Moorish Warrior with dreadlocks and even a dreadlocked beard: A Garamante? Found in England]
[Snailshell's?]
[Dreads on Eric Benet]
Now mind you, this is not an attack because I respect you and your research. Some races, according to Coon's ‘The races of Europe,’ (1961) will use headgear and head shaving to emphasise their peculiar traits. I see young Moroccans in Holland today shaving their temples just like their ancestors did, to make the head look narrower. They appear fierce and in a group, they resemble an army of unsettling look-alikes. As a proud Surinam Black who for many years had dreadlocks, I do not follow you in calling dreadlocks 'unkempt.' To me they were initially a fashion statement, as I would combine them with classic cashmere coats, Italian suites, silk ties, formal shoes and fine kid leather gloves. The casualness of the hair: washed, creamed, greased with a drop of baby oil and perfumed by Chanel or Guerlaine or Dior. My dreads balanced the severe formality of my formal drag. Later, when I discovered afro centricity through J.A. Rogers, my frizzled hair became a source of pride and defiance. The most amazing thing with Black hair is its versatility, how it can be sculpted. I have read Mike Nassau about the Garamantes (50 BC), and then found out they wore their hair in a 'crest' meaning dreadlocks. It made them look fierce and powerful, not 'unkempt.' Did you see this movie with Governator Schwarzenegger, about this alien who hunts earth people. The name eludes me for now, but the alien has great, fierce dreadlocks and was created by a Black artist.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: alTakruri - You are right - I AM RACIST - not because I want to be "White". But rather, because I want the low-life that can't be bothered to groom themselves, to be "White". That way, they don't disgrace the Black race or Me!!
Additionally - the poor San in the bush, have neither access to water or grooming aids. They do the best that they can. That a person in the middle of plenty and civilization, would want to emulate them in their poor circumstance - is truly bizarre. And speaks to the ignorance and confusion common to so many.
You are doing okay, but keep Pan-Africanism in mind and desist from being so extreme judgemental on cultural practices, which appear strange to you. In my PASTORAL YES, BUT DRINKING COW'S BLOOD thread we touched on unusual food practices like feasting on animal blood and eating live beetles with rice. I have read that Eskimo women use (or used) urine to style their hair. Is it true? Baby Suggs used Sethe’s urine to clean her babies’ eyes! A Winti healer would sometimes pee on a patient to drive a demon away.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say: they are a goddess, who does not have a body but represents an idea, and he is a Nilotic Black!
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egmond - My ire, thou unpleasant, was multifaceted, and I think, justified. First there was the foolishness with Syria - I got ticked because during the course of that ridicules exchange, nobody even bothered to Wiki it, to see if I was right - all they wanted to do was argue. After all these years, of what was suppose to be information exchange, that's where we are? Black people seem intent on finding the LOWEST common denominator.
On the hair thing - When I first saw the movie "The Brother from Another Planet" (1984) - starring Joe Morton - Interesting movie - not good, just interesting; I had the feeling that it would only be a matter of time before a "historical culture starved" AA clientele would latch onto the look - it took twenty years, but sure enough, there it was.
As I watched the movie back then, I recall thinking; why is the brothers hair not combed? And as I watched the movie, I looked for a reason in the plot why his hair was not combed - there was none.
Stranger still - how odd that an advanced creature, capable of traveling to Earth from a distant planet, wouldn't know to groom himself.
The mystery was solved by noting the writer/director - John Sayles. A White man, this is HIS concept of what advanced Black people look like. And of course AAs, being the Sheep that they are, had to pickup on it. BTW - Have you ever noticed how much of AA behavior and mannerisms is based on what White people expect, rather than what they would normally do.
I had occasion to witness that very thing, many years ago, and it has stuck with me. I was in a large room filled with mostly young White men. A young Black man entered the room, and immediately went into a "Huggy Bear" type routine; Antonio Fargas (mid-'70s television series Starsky and Hutch). It struck me, because I was thinking at the time - Blacks don't really talk or act like that with each other, that's a show for White people - It was a gathering of Military personnel.
Fast forward to the present - As I travel about on public transit, I am continually offended by mostly young Black men, with short hair, who obviously have never put brush or cream to head - It is unsightly! And an embarrassment - just because your hair is short, doesn't mean that you don't have to groom it - how mindless!
But I hasten to add; DREADS are definitely NOT included in my criticism. First off, good Dreads require a good bit of maintenance, and on some they look very good. I would of course, prefer that they be styled more similar to the way the inventors of Dread locks - the Minions (the original Greeks) styled theirs. As you can see below - they were quite beautiful.
Well Mike, thank you for responding in the way you did. I remember this movie, but it’s not the one I’ am thinking about. The movie I mentioned is Predator I, II, III. I was alone with a White stranger in the cinema and could not contain myself when I saw Dee Dee Bridgewater. Who I had met in Paris a week earlier, with some family I used to have living and dancing in Paris. I had to tell this stranger! A poor and simple man, as I am, usually does not meet these fancy people, however. But I think you are a bit old-fashioned. At that time dreadlocks for middle class Blacks, nice mainstream folks, who did not smoke this evil stuff which the Dutch government gives to the youth to keep them away from politics; was still new. He came across as a Race-Man, modern, conscious, urban, good. I usually look with great horror and dismay at the sagging pants young man wear these days. The more it sags, the more imbecile they seem! But I try to ignore or accept, depending how strong I feel that day. Knowing well that this is an argument I cannot win. Now some Africans put mud on their hair to fashion some type of helmet. There is no telling what people like and find useful.
[ The main attraction of Predator, not a beauty, though. I remember a young man shouting out in wonder in the darkened cinema in Surinam: 'He is a Rastaman!' Somehow we felt more connected to the story. Perhaps because a 'Black man' was in the lead? At least Blacks were not ignored or presented as 'second class.']
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egmond - I would remind you, that we are talking about people in the middle of the worlds greatest civilization - in material terms. And as I said, Dreads are exempt.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pulp - Please note my quote above: Quote "In my own experience; when White people lie, it is generally to replace a Black person with a White person."
So I ask you; how do you know that the coins that you posted, are what you and they, say they are? What manner of proof can you supply? We know that the Romans conquered Carthage - and the coins appear to feature Romans - and are in the Roman style.
But more to the point:
The Oriental Institute - University of Chicago, says that these people are Phoenicians.
The British Museum, says that these people are Phoenicians.
As you can clearly see, these people are obviously Black people. As you should know, Carthaginians (Hannibal's people) are ethnically Phoenicians. So please explain how Hannibal's kin could be Black, but he be White. Now please go back to my quote above, and memorize it. And always remember that in all things related to ancient history - which is necessarily Black history - "White people lie".Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic