posted
lioness, would you be so kind as to gently remove yourself from my nut sac. I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quote is given in David Rohl's book 'Legend: the Genesis of Civilization'. It actually compares the types of skull found from people of the Naqada I and II era burials from the same site.[/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]a review in Amazon summarizing Rohl's alternative theory book:
By Emmet Sweeney - See all my reviews This review is from: Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation (Paperback) This book is an enjoyable and informative read, with David Rohl displaying his usual erudition and flair for explanation. The chapters dealing with the rise of the first civilizations are particularly intriguing, and the proofs listed of early Mesopotamian influence on Proto- and Early Dynastic Egypt have arguably put the question of Egyptian origins beyond dispute. Unlike most mainstream Egyptologists, Rohl is not afraid to question conventional dates and dating-systems, and his own "New Chronology" would subtract about three and a half centuries from Egyptian dates as found in the textbooks. But this is overly cautious, and Rohl ignores a great body of evidence demanding a much more radical reduction in timescales. Take for example the Mesopotamian influence on early Egypt. This sounds remarkably like the culture-bearing migration from Mesopotamia to Egypt and Canaan recorded in the biblical story of Abraham. The two were never connected, of course, because the Abraham story is placed by conventional historians a thousand years after the founding of Egypt's First Dynasty. Yet it can be shown that everything, absolutely everything, about the Patriarch epoch, the epoch of Abraham, Joseph and Moses, indicates that it belongs in the Early Bronze Age. The Patriarch narratives are full of references to cultural and religious practices which point clearly in this direction. Among the most notable of these are: (a) Human sacrifice (mentioned in the Abraham story and the birth legend of Moses); (b) Religious use of ziggurats and pyramids (Jacob's "stairway to heaven", at the top of which was the "house of God".); (c) Mention of cosmic catastrophes (In Abraham, Joseph and Moses narratives); (d) References to Cosmic Pillar or Tower, and its destruction (In Abraham narrative). It is in fact with Abraham that Hebrew history first connects with Egypt - and the connection was established, it appears, right at the beginning of the histories of the two peoples. We might note, for example, the striking phallic associations of both Abraham and Menes, the first pharaoh. The name Abraham actually means "father of many", and the Patriarch initiates the custom of circumcision, whilst the Egyptian Menes (or Mena or Min) clearly takes his name from the phallic god Min, who was also associated with circumcision and was perhaps the most important deity in Egypt at the beginning of the First Dynasty. Similarly, Jewish legend recalls that Abraham entered Egypt during the reign of the first pharaoh, and emphasizes that, when he arrived, the Egyptians were virtual barbarians, and to the Patriarch went the credit of teaching them the rudiments of civilization. (See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews). All this dramatically calls to mind the evidence of archaeology, which has revealed a culture-bearing migration from Mesopotamia to Egypt just before the beginning of the First Dynasty, which David Rohl has so ably illustrated. If "Abraham" then, or the Abraham epoch, was contemporary with Menes, the first pharaoh, this has dramatic consequences for the whole of Egyptian and Hebrew history. Most immediately, it implies that the Patriarch Joseph, who brought the Hebrew tribes into Egypt, be identified with the Egyptian seer Imhotep, who laboured for pharaoh Djoser at the start of the Third Dynasty. Imhotep was the greatest and most celebrated of all Egyptian seers, who solved the crisis of a seven-year famine by interpreting Djoser's dream. In precisely the same way, biblical history tells us that, about two centuries after Abraham, a young Hebrew seer named Joseph became vizier to the pharaoh after solving the crisis of a seven-year famine by interpreting the king's dream. Removing a thousand years from Egyptian chronology therefore seems to have the effect of producing a precise match between the histories of the two neighbouring peoples. And the matches continue through subsequent centuries. These however are missed by Rohl because he remains too cautious.
________________________________________________
The ‘Dynastic Race’ By David Rohl
The birth of Egyptian civilisation have always been a bit of a mystery. How did it come about? And who were the first pharaohs? Were they indigenous North Africans or Sumerians coming from the east? That thorny question had been a subject of heated debate amongst academics over the last 100 years … that is until fairly recently when our tendency towards political correctness deemed that such difficult issues should be swept under the scholarly carpet. But the question of pharaonic origins still remains one of the great puzzles of Egyptology.
Following the abandonment of the Tower of Babel, the biblical story tells of a great migration of the 'sons' of Noah. His eldest, Ham, was the father of Cush who journeyed to north-east Africa in order to establish a kingdom in the lands of Ethiopia and Sudan. The Egyptians knew this area as the 'land of Kush' – after Noah's grandson. Cush had a younger brother called Mizraim and he was the traditional founder of the Egyptian civilisation. The '-im' ending of this name is a West Semitic pluralisation. Thus the original name of Noah's second 'grandson' was Mizra. It is therefore interesting to note that the Assyrians referred to Egypt as Musri whilst a modern Egyptian calls himself a Masri ('one of Masr'). The biblical tradition of an eponymous ancestor of the pharaonic state called Mizra/Musri/Masr thus has extra-biblical confirmation.
I think we can make one further important connection between the Genesis/Koran text, Sumerian tradition and pharaonic royal mythology. The Egyptians believed that their first king was called Horus. Now this name means 'the distant one' suggesting someone who came from afar. It is surely more than an extraordinary coincidence, then, that the Mesopotamian flood heroes, Ziusudra (Sumerian), Atrahasis (Akkadian) and Utnapishtim (Babylonian), all bear the same epithet 'the distant one'? Could it be that the legendary Horus of Egypt was none other than the biblical flood hero and that his descendants, through Ham and Mizraim, settled in Egypt as the Followers of Horus (i.e. 'the ones descended from Horus, 'the distant one')?
Given this extraordinary possibility, perhaps we should investigate how some of the other primeval gods of Egypt might fit into the picture.
It was well known in the ancient world that the Egyptian goddess of love and fertility, Isis (written Iset), was the equivalent of Mesopotamian Ishtar and Canaanite Astarte (biblical Ashtaroth). She is regularly depicted at the head of Pharaoh's sarcophagus, arms raised in the act of prayer. This striking image is identical to the 'dancing goddess' figure found in the Eastern Desert rock drawings and on the Nakada II pottery. So, could this predynastic goddess, associated with the invaders, be the earliest form of Isis/Ishtar? The answer perhaps lies with her husband, Osiris.
In a previous article I proposed that the discovery of hundreds of prehistoric rock carvings in the Eastern Desert between the Nile and the Red Sea was evidence of a foreign invasion which occurred just a couple of centuries before the rise of the 1st Dynasty in Egypt. These amazing drawings show fleets of ships carrying warriors, chieftains, 'dancing goddesses' and what appear to be the standards of Sumerian gods. Many of the boats are being dragged by their crews, suggesting transportation of the vessels across the desert from the Red Sea to the Nile. It's time, then, to go in search of these 'people from the east' in the tombs, temples, hieroglyphs and paintings of ancient Egypt.
An hour's drive north of Luxor, on the west bank of the Nile, there is a vast necropolis of 2000 predynastic graves. The place is called Nakada after the nearby village. Nakada turned out to be one of the most important excavation sites in Egypt because of the light it sheds upon the origins of the pharaonic state. Its excavator was the 'father of Egyptian archaeology', Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, the first British professor of Egyptology and founder of University College London's Egyptology Department where I myself studied and obtained my degree.
The cemetery at Nakada turned out to be the necropolis of the town of Nubt ('Gold Town') which grew up as a result of early gold-mining activities in the Wadi Hammamat region, just across the river in the Eastern Desert. 'Gold Town' was the Klondyke of predynastic Egypt.
What Petrie found in this vast cemetery were two groups of people which he designated Nakada I and Nakada II (and III). The people of Nakada I culture were the earliest occupants of the cemetery, whilst Nakada II superseded them and were therefore chronologically later. The burial goods and distinctive structures of the graves made Petrie realise, almost from the start, that he was dealing with two very different groups. The evidence seemed to indicate the arrival of newcomers in the Nile valley marked by the Nakada II graves which were soon shown, on stylistic grounds, to be contemporaneous with the rock art of the 'invaders' found in the Eastern Desert. Based on the evidence of the Nakada II graves, Petrie developed a theory of an incursion of easterners from Sumer who had taken over southern Egypt and subjugated the indigenous Nakada I population. These invaders, with their superior weapons and technology, eventually came to dominate the whole Nile valley and gave rise to what he called the 'Dynastic Race'.
Up until the 1950s Petrie's Dynastic Race theory received widespread support in Egyptological circles. Indeed, one of its proponents even began to refer to the predynastic invaders as a 'Super Race'. Petrie and his followers were very much of their age. They believed in the superiority of western civilisation over what we today call the Third World. They were colonialists with a colonial view of history. The idea of an intellectually superior race, invading Africa and civilising the region, was quite natural from their political perspectives. The Second World War, the Holocaust and the Arab/Israeli wars put an end to this way of thinking within ancient world studies.
In the politically correct world of late-twentieth-century scholarship the Dynastic Race theory has been quietly forgotten. As a result, it is very rare these days to find an Egyptologist prepared to give credence to the idea of foreign invaders at the dawn of Egyptian history. But should we reject the basic evidence because of the political views of past archaeologists? Nobody disputes that Petrie found what he found. So perhaps we should look again at the Dynastic Race theory – but this time without the rhetoric of pre-war colonialism. It is obvious that we cannot rewrite ancient history in the light of events in our own century. It is surely the historian's job to construct a coherent picture of the past based on the archaeological evidence – wherever it leads.
So, what does that evidence tell us about Egypt's origins?
Petrie found several new elements in the Nakada II graves. First, unlike the earlier Nakada I burials, many of the grave pits themselves were lined with mud bricks. This was the first time that bricks had been used in Egypt and archaeologists have determined that mud brick technology was a Sumerian invention.
Second, the pottery shapes and techniques of decoration were also new – again with clear precursors in Mesopotamia.
Third, the Nakada II warriors were buried with a new type of weapon known as the 'pear-shaped mace'. This was in contrast to the Nakada I people who used 'disk-shaped maces'. Interestingly, not only do the Eastern Desert rock-drawings show the chieftains holding the round-headed weapon but it also became the weapon par excellence of the later pharaohs who were regularly depicted smiting their enemies with the pear-shaped mace.
Fourth, lapis lazuli appears amongst the grave goods for the first time in Nakada II. This beautiful dark blue stone comes from Badakhshan in Afghanistan and was traded across land and by sea (via the Persian Gulf) to Sumer where it was greatly prized. Its sudden appearance in Egypt thus confirms contact with the Sumerians of southern Iraq.
Fifth, the complex niched-facade mudbrick architecture which develops out of Nakada III culture is identically paralleled in Sumer where it was used to decorate the temples of the gods. In Egypt it became a standard design feature of the early pharaohs' tombs. The design is so complex that it is hard to believe the niched-facade structure could have been independently invented in the two regions. All authorities accept that such architecture originated in Sumer and was 'exported' to Egypt.
These are just some of the technologies and artefacts which clearly point to contact between Mesopotamian and Egypt. However, this does not prove that there was a military conquest (rather than simple trade) or if the Sumerian settlers in the Nile valley went on to become the first pharaohs. Here there are more tantalising clues.
A magnificent ivory knife handle was discovered near Nakada, at the turn of the century, which shows a Sumerian hero figure controlling two great lions on one side and a battle on the other between long-haired warriors (one of whom carries a pear-shaped mace) and short-haired opponents who are getting the worst of the conflict. The long-haired victors are associated with high-prowed boats, just like the ones found in the desert rock art, whilst the short-haired losers are represented by sickle-shaped boats made of papyrus and associated with the River Nile. The Gebel el-Arak predynastic knife (now in the Louvre) is not only an amazing 5000-year-old artefact but it appears to depict Sumerian invaders with their high-prowed ships in the very act of conquering the Nile valley.
The evidence for Mesopotamians in Egypt is even more compelling at the site of Butu (ancient Pe-Dep) in the western delta. There, German archaeologists have recently unearthed coloured clay cones which, if their counterparts in Sumer are anything to go by, were used to decorate buildings. This decorative cone technique is so striking that it is hard to imagine it being invented independently in Egypt after it had come into use in Mesopotamia.
Did this élite Sumerian clan eventually come to dominate the whole of Egypt and establish the first pharaonic dynasty? An important clue is found in the fact that the later nobility of Egypt called themselves by a special name. They were known as the 'Pat' or the iry-Pat ('belonging to the Pat') – a term which implied membership of a special clan or blood-line. This term was reserved for members of the royal family, courtiers and high officials. Interestingly, a text from the Middle Kingdom (1000 years after the unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty) refers to a man who reached high office 'in spite of the fact that he was not iry-Pat', suggesting that the ruling class were expected to have been directly descended from an ancestral élite. These great founding ancestors were also known by another title. The later hieroglyphic texts refer to the 'Followers of Horus' who first established kingship in the Nile valley. They are shown in predynastic and early dynastic carvings carrying their standards into battle in support of kings who bore the title of 'Horus' as part of their names. So, was the first Horus-king a real person who later became deified. Could there have been an original human Horus and, if so, was he African or Mesopotamian?
To answer these questions we need to return to the stories in the book of Genesis and Holy Koran. In my book Legend – The Genesis of Civilisation I identified the location of the traditional site of the Garden of Eden in western Iran, the mountain of Noah's Ark in Kurdestan, and the Tower of Babel in southern Iraq. I argued that the Old Testament legends surrounding Noah and the Flood and then King Nimrod were also to be found in the Sumerian literary tradition. It appears that the Genesis narrative may have been based on actual historical events from primeval times.
-
Following the abandonment of the Tower of Babel, the biblical story tells of a great migration of the 'sons' of Noah. His eldest, Ham, was the father of Cush who journeyed to north-east Africa in order to establish a kingdom in the lands of Ethiopia and Sudan. The Egyptians knew this area as the 'land of Kush' – after Noah's grandson. Cush had a younger brother called Mizraim and he was the traditional founder of the Egyptian civilisation. The '-im' ending of this name is a West Semitic pluralisation. Thus the original name of Noah's second 'grandson' was Mizra. It is therefore interesting to note that the Assyrians referred to Egypt as Musri whilst a modern Egyptian calls himself a Masri ('one of Masr'). The biblical tradition of an eponymous ancestor of the pharaonic state called Mizra/Musri/Masr thus has extra-biblical confirmation.
I think we can make one further important connection between the Genesis/Koran text, Sumerian tradition and pharaonic royal mythology. The Egyptians believed that their first king was called Horus. Now this name means 'the distant one' suggesting someone who came from afar. It is surely more than an extraordinary coincidence, then, that the Mesopotamian flood heroes, Ziusudra (Sumerian), Atrahasis (Akkadian) and Utnapishtim (Babylonian), all bear the same epithet 'the distant one'? Could it be that the legendary Horus of Egypt was none other than the biblical flood hero and that his descendants, through Ham and Mizraim, settled in Egypt as the Followers of Horus (i.e. 'the ones descended from Horus, 'the distant one')?
Given this extraordinary possibility, perhaps we should investigate how some of the other primeval gods of Egypt might fit into the picture.
It was well known in the ancient world that the Egyptian goddess of love and fertility, Isis (written Iset), was the equivalent of Mesopotamian Ishtar and Canaanite Astarte (biblical Ashtaroth). She is regularly depicted at the head of Pharaoh's sarcophagus, arms raised in the act of prayer. This striking image is identical to the 'dancing goddess' figure found in the Eastern Desert rock drawings and on the Nakada II pottery. So, could this predynastic goddess, associated with the invaders, be the earliest form of Isis/Ishtar? The answer perhaps lies with her husband, Osiris.
-
The names Isis and Osiris are Greek forms of Egyptian Iset and Asar. The latter is written with the hieroglyphs of a throne and an eye. Amazingly, a Sumerian god local to Eridu (where I have placed the Tower of Babel) is also called Asar and his name is written in Sumerian with the symbol for a throne. It appears that the Egyptian god of vegetation and rebirth may originally have come from southern Iraq, having been introduced to the Nile valley (along with his consort) by Sumerian worshippers.
-
The tombs in the Valley of the Kings are decorated with scenes from the Amduat ('That which is in the Underworld'). The dead king's spirit is seen being transported from his tomb in the western necropolis across the great underworld ocean of the abyss towards the eastern horizon. His craft is a high-prowed boat just like the ships found in the predynastic rock art. The dead pharaoh is accompanied by the primeval gods, with Re-Atum as his protector. Together, they journey through seven gates before reaching the shore of the underworld desert where the crew is depicted dragging the boat of Re-Atum towards the dawn horizon. There the spirit of the king is reborn as the rising sun over the Isle of Flame. This place is otherwise known as the primeval mound of creation surrounded by the Waters of Nun. It was here that the original primeval temple was constructed by the gods. The island is described as a sandy circular mound surrounded by reeds growing in a freshwater marsh. The temple shrine lies at the centre of the island on a low mound. All later Egyptian temples are architecturally designed to recreate this setting. To enter the temple you pass between two great artificial desert mountains (the pylon gateway) and cross an expansive desert (the open-air perystyle court. You then enter the reed marsh of the Waters of Nun (the hypostyle hall with its giant reed and papyrus columns) surrounding the Island of Nun, before reaching the sacred shrine (the holy of holies) representing the primeval Temple of Nun. All this time you have been gradually ascending as the floor of the temple rises up, step by step. This represents the mound of creation on which the primeval shrine rests.
Once we realise that the Egyptian primeval age or 'First Time' was set not in the Nile valley but rather in Sumer, we can finally identify this island and its primeval mound with a real physical place. The Sumerian texts tell us that the first city on earth came into being as the great ancestors arrived on a small sandy island, surrounded by reeds in the freshwater swamps of southern Iraq. There, on that island, the city of Eridu was founded with the building of a small reed shrine on top of a sandy mound. Over the centuries the shrine grew into a great temple, the final form of which was to become the infamous 'Tower of Babel' of Genesis. Eridu's Sumerian name was Nun.ki – the 'Mighty Place'. The Egyptians referred to the swamp surrounding their primeval island of creation as the 'Waters of Nun'. Thus the primeval temple of Egyptian mythology was one and the same as the legendary Tower of Babel.
read this once, don't feel like going through it again, no opinion as of yet. Rohl has credibility problems in his other biblical linking arguments
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
While I don't agree with everything Rohl says, I believe he may have a point with the traditional chronology being off. I think he relies a little too much on the Bible, but I think there is some truth in that much of the roots in Biblical myth are based on Sumerian. I also believe that some of the Hebrews or at least some of their forebears had their origins in Iran of around the Armenian region. These were the non-black Middle Easterners who adopted Semtic language and culture from the original black Semites.....
(from different post on Sumerians: )
^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants....
The Sumerians were NOT considered a Hamitic people in the Bible.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Kushi, from Kush, doesn't mean the color black. It's used to refer to black people as an ethnic taxon. One cannot juxtapose black against Semitic. Neither color nor ethnicity can be apposed to language.
Hham and Shem were both black in the Hebrew mindset.
quote: Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful, Hham was blessed black like the raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over.
(PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER 28a)
Now neither the internal search engine nor GOOGLE hits any of the many times I posted this quote from the Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer as to Shem being black and beautiful and Hham black as the raven.
Why is that? Somebody's afraid of something!
The Hebrews' Shem doesn't correspond to the linguists Semites anymore than their Kush does to Cushitic. Elam is the firstborn son of Shem and Elamites didn't speak Semitic. K*na`an is a son of Hham and Canaanites did speak Hebrew. The fact is that the Israelites called the Hebrew language "the language of Canaan."
Continental Africa houses the majority of individual Semitic languages and those speakers there in the Horn are all BLACK N BEAUTIFUL with their Semitic selves.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants.
Behold Philea the work of the hands of Blacks!!
Behold The Black Emperor of Wa-Set
The quote is given in David Rohl's book 'Legend: the Genesis of Civilization'. It actually compares the types of skull found from people of the Naqada I and II era burials from the same site.
a review in Amazon summarizing Rohl's alternative theory book:
By Emmet Sweeney - See all my reviews This review is from: Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation (Paperback) This book is an enjoyable and informative read, with David Rohl displaying his usual erudition and flair for explanation. The chapters dealing with the rise of the first civilizations are particularly intriguing, and the proofs listed of early Mesopotamian influence on Proto- and Early Dynastic Egypt have arguably put the question of Egyptian origins beyond dispute. Unlike most mainstream Egyptologists, Rohl is not afraid to question conventional dates and dating-systems, and his own "New Chronology" would subtract about three and a half centuries from Egyptian dates as found in the textbooks. But this is overly cautious, and Rohl ignores a great body of evidence demanding a much more radical reduction in timescales. Take for example the Mesopotamian influence on early Egypt. This sounds remarkably like the culture-bearing migration from Mesopotamia to Egypt and Canaan recorded in the biblical story of Abraham. The two were never connected, of course, because the Abraham story is placed by conventional historians a thousand years after the founding of Egypt's First Dynasty. Yet it can be shown that everything, absolutely everything, about the Patriarch epoch, the epoch of Abraham, Joseph and Moses, indicates that it belongs in the Early Bronze Age. The Patriarch narratives are full of references to cultural and religious practices which point clearly in this direction. Among the most notable of these are: (a) Human sacrifice (mentioned in the Abraham story and the birth legend of Moses); (b) Religious use of ziggurats and pyramids (Jacob's "stairway to heaven", at the top of which was the "house of God".); (c) Mention of cosmic catastrophes (In Abraham, Joseph and Moses narratives); (d) References to Cosmic Pillar or Tower, and its destruction (In Abraham narrative). It is in fact with Abraham that Hebrew history first connects with Egypt - and the connection was established, it appears, right at the beginning of the histories of the two peoples. We might note, for example, the striking phallic associations of both Abraham and Menes, the first pharaoh. The name Abraham actually means "father of many", and the Patriarch initiates the custom of circumcision, whilst the Egyptian Menes (or Mena or Min) clearly takes his name from the phallic god Min, who was also associated with circumcision and was perhaps the most important deity in Egypt at the beginning of the First Dynasty. Similarly, Jewish legend recalls that Abraham entered Egypt during the reign of the first pharaoh, and emphasizes that, when he arrived, the Egyptians were virtual barbarians, and to the Patriarch went the credit of teaching them the rudiments of civilization. (See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews). All this dramatically calls to mind the evidence of archaeology, which has revealed a culture-bearing migration from Mesopotamia to Egypt just before the beginning of the First Dynasty, which David Rohl has so ably illustrated. If "Abraham" then, or the Abraham epoch, was contemporary with Menes, the first pharaoh, this has dramatic consequences for the whole of Egyptian and Hebrew history. Most immediately, it implies that the Patriarch Joseph, who brought the Hebrew tribes into Egypt, be identified with the Egyptian seer Imhotep, who laboured for pharaoh Djoser at the start of the Third Dynasty. Imhotep was the greatest and most celebrated of all Egyptian seers, who solved the crisis of a seven-year famine by interpreting Djoser's dream. In precisely the same way, biblical history tells us that, about two centuries after Abraham, a young Hebrew seer named Joseph became vizier to the pharaoh after solving the crisis of a seven-year famine by interpreting the king's dream. Removing a thousand years from Egyptian chronology therefore seems to have the effect of producing a precise match between the histories of the two neighbouring peoples. And the matches continue through subsequent centuries. These however are missed by Rohl because he remains too cautious.
________________________________________________
The ‘Dynastic Race’ By David Rohl
The birth of Egyptian civilisation have always been a bit of a mystery. How did it come about? And who were the first pharaohs? Were they indigenous North Africans or Sumerians coming from the east? That thorny question had been a subject of heated debate amongst academics over the last 100 years … that is until fairly recently when our tendency towards political correctness deemed that such difficult issues should be swept under the scholarly carpet. But the question of pharaonic origins still remains one of the great puzzles of Egyptology.
Following the abandonment of the Tower of Babel, the biblical story tells of a great migration of the 'sons' of Noah. His eldest, Ham, was the father of Cush who journeyed to north-east Africa in order to establish a kingdom in the lands of Ethiopia and Sudan. The Egyptians knew this area as the 'land of Kush' – after Noah's grandson. Cush had a younger brother called Mizraim and he was the traditional founder of the Egyptian civilisation. The '-im' ending of this name is a West Semitic pluralisation. Thus the original name of Noah's second 'grandson' was Mizra. It is therefore interesting to note that the Assyrians referred to Egypt as Musri whilst a modern Egyptian calls himself a Masri ('one of Masr'). The biblical tradition of an eponymous ancestor of the pharaonic state called Mizra/Musri/Masr thus has extra-biblical confirmation.
I think we can make one further important connection between the Genesis/Koran text, Sumerian tradition and pharaonic royal mythology. The Egyptians believed that their first king was called Horus. Now this name means 'the distant one' suggesting someone who came from afar. It is surely more than an extraordinary coincidence, then, that the Mesopotamian flood heroes, Ziusudra (Sumerian), Atrahasis (Akkadian) and Utnapishtim (Babylonian), all bear the same epithet 'the distant one'? Could it be that the legendary Horus of Egypt was none other than the biblical flood hero and that his descendants, through Ham and Mizraim, settled in Egypt as the Followers of Horus (i.e. 'the ones descended from Horus, 'the distant one')?
Given this extraordinary possibility, perhaps we should investigate how some of the other primeval gods of Egypt might fit into the picture.
It was well known in the ancient world that the Egyptian goddess of love and fertility, Isis (written Iset), was the equivalent of Mesopotamian Ishtar and Canaanite Astarte (biblical Ashtaroth). She is regularly depicted at the head of Pharaoh's sarcophagus, arms raised in the act of prayer. This striking image is identical to the 'dancing goddess' figure found in the Eastern Desert rock drawings and on the Nakada II pottery. So, could this predynastic goddess, associated with the invaders, be the earliest form of Isis/Ishtar? The answer perhaps lies with her husband, Osiris.
In a previous article I proposed that the discovery of hundreds of prehistoric rock carvings in the Eastern Desert between the Nile and the Red Sea was evidence of a foreign invasion which occurred just a couple of centuries before the rise of the 1st Dynasty in Egypt. These amazing drawings show fleets of ships carrying warriors, chieftains, 'dancing goddesses' and what appear to be the standards of Sumerian gods. Many of the boats are being dragged by their crews, suggesting transportation of the vessels across the desert from the Red Sea to the Nile. It's time, then, to go in search of these 'people from the east' in the tombs, temples, hieroglyphs and paintings of ancient Egypt.
An hour's drive north of Luxor, on the west bank of the Nile, there is a vast necropolis of 2000 predynastic graves. The place is called Nakada after the nearby village. Nakada turned out to be one of the most important excavation sites in Egypt because of the light it sheds upon the origins of the pharaonic state. Its excavator was the 'father of Egyptian archaeology', Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, the first British professor of Egyptology and founder of University College London's Egyptology Department where I myself studied and obtained my degree.
The cemetery at Nakada turned out to be the necropolis of the town of Nubt ('Gold Town') which grew up as a result of early gold-mining activities in the Wadi Hammamat region, just across the river in the Eastern Desert. 'Gold Town' was the Klondyke of predynastic Egypt.
What Petrie found in this vast cemetery were two groups of people which he designated Nakada I and Nakada II (and III). The people of Nakada I culture were the earliest occupants of the cemetery, whilst Nakada II superseded them and were therefore chronologically later. The burial goods and distinctive structures of the graves made Petrie realise, almost from the start, that he was dealing with two very different groups. The evidence seemed to indicate the arrival of newcomers in the Nile valley marked by the Nakada II graves which were soon shown, on stylistic grounds, to be contemporaneous with the rock art of the 'invaders' found in the Eastern Desert. Based on the evidence of the Nakada II graves, Petrie developed a theory of an incursion of easterners from Sumer who had taken over southern Egypt and subjugated the indigenous Nakada I population. These invaders, with their superior weapons and technology, eventually came to dominate the whole Nile valley and gave rise to what he called the 'Dynastic Race'.
Up until the 1950s Petrie's Dynastic Race theory received widespread support in Egyptological circles. Indeed, one of its proponents even began to refer to the predynastic invaders as a 'Super Race'. Petrie and his followers were very much of their age. They believed in the superiority of western civilisation over what we today call the Third World. They were colonialists with a colonial view of history. The idea of an intellectually superior race, invading Africa and civilising the region, was quite natural from their political perspectives. The Second World War, the Holocaust and the Arab/Israeli wars put an end to this way of thinking within ancient world studies.
In the politically correct world of late-twentieth-century scholarship the Dynastic Race theory has been quietly forgotten. As a result, it is very rare these days to find an Egyptologist prepared to give credence to the idea of foreign invaders at the dawn of Egyptian history. But should we reject the basic evidence because of the political views of past archaeologists? Nobody disputes that Petrie found what he found. So perhaps we should look again at the Dynastic Race theory – but this time without the rhetoric of pre-war colonialism. It is obvious that we cannot rewrite ancient history in the light of events in our own century. It is surely the historian's job to construct a coherent picture of the past based on the archaeological evidence – wherever it leads.
So, what does that evidence tell us about Egypt's origins?
Petrie found several new elements in the Nakada II graves. First, unlike the earlier Nakada I burials, many of the grave pits themselves were lined with mud bricks. This was the first time that bricks had been used in Egypt and archaeologists have determined that mud brick technology was a Sumerian invention.
Second, the pottery shapes and techniques of decoration were also new – again with clear precursors in Mesopotamia.
Third, the Nakada II warriors were buried with a new type of weapon known as the 'pear-shaped mace'. This was in contrast to the Nakada I people who used 'disk-shaped maces'. Interestingly, not only do the Eastern Desert rock-drawings show the chieftains holding the round-headed weapon but it also became the weapon par excellence of the later pharaohs who were regularly depicted smiting their enemies with the pear-shaped mace.
Fourth, lapis lazuli appears amongst the grave goods for the first time in Nakada II. This beautiful dark blue stone comes from Badakhshan in Afghanistan and was traded across land and by sea (via the Persian Gulf) to Sumer where it was greatly prized. Its sudden appearance in Egypt thus confirms contact with the Sumerians of southern Iraq.
Fifth, the complex niched-facade mudbrick architecture which develops out of Nakada III culture is identically paralleled in Sumer where it was used to decorate the temples of the gods. In Egypt it became a standard design feature of the early pharaohs' tombs. The design is so complex that it is hard to believe the niched-facade structure could have been independently invented in the two regions. All authorities accept that such architecture originated in Sumer and was 'exported' to Egypt.
These are just some of the technologies and artefacts which clearly point to contact between Mesopotamian and Egypt. However, this does not prove that there was a military conquest (rather than simple trade) or if the Sumerian settlers in the Nile valley went on to become the first pharaohs. Here there are more tantalising clues.
A magnificent ivory knife handle was discovered near Nakada, at the turn of the century, which shows a Sumerian hero figure controlling two great lions on one side and a battle on the other between long-haired warriors (one of whom carries a pear-shaped mace) and short-haired opponents who are getting the worst of the conflict. The long-haired victors are associated with high-prowed boats, just like the ones found in the desert rock art, whilst the short-haired losers are represented by sickle-shaped boats made of papyrus and associated with the River Nile. The Gebel el-Arak predynastic knife (now in the Louvre) is not only an amazing 5000-year-old artefact but it appears to depict Sumerian invaders with their high-prowed ships in the very act of conquering the Nile valley.
The evidence for Mesopotamians in Egypt is even more compelling at the site of Butu (ancient Pe-Dep) in the western delta. There, German archaeologists have recently unearthed coloured clay cones which, if their counterparts in Sumer are anything to go by, were used to decorate buildings. This decorative cone technique is so striking that it is hard to imagine it being invented independently in Egypt after it had come into use in Mesopotamia.
Did this élite Sumerian clan eventually come to dominate the whole of Egypt and establish the first pharaonic dynasty? An important clue is found in the fact that the later nobility of Egypt called themselves by a special name. They were known as the 'Pat' or the iry-Pat ('belonging to the Pat') – a term which implied membership of a special clan or blood-line. This term was reserved for members of the royal family, courtiers and high officials. Interestingly, a text from the Middle Kingdom (1000 years after the unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty) refers to a man who reached high office 'in spite of the fact that he was not iry-Pat', suggesting that the ruling class were expected to have been directly descended from an ancestral élite. These great founding ancestors were also known by another title. The later hieroglyphic texts refer to the 'Followers of Horus' who first established kingship in the Nile valley. They are shown in predynastic and early dynastic carvings carrying their standards into battle in support of kings who bore the title of 'Horus' as part of their names. So, was the first Horus-king a real person who later became deified. Could there have been an original human Horus and, if so, was he African or Mesopotamian?
To answer these questions we need to return to the stories in the book of Genesis and Holy Koran. In my book Legend – The Genesis of Civilisation I identified the location of the traditional site of the Garden of Eden in western Iran, the mountain of Noah's Ark in Kurdestan, and the Tower of Babel in southern Iraq. I argued that the Old Testament legends surrounding Noah and the Flood and then King Nimrod were also to be found in the Sumerian literary tradition. It appears that the Genesis narrative may have been based on actual historical events from primeval times.
-
Following the abandonment of the Tower of Babel, the biblical story tells of a great migration of the 'sons' of Noah. His eldest, Ham, was the father of Cush who journeyed to north-east Africa in order to establish a kingdom in the lands of Ethiopia and Sudan. The Egyptians knew this area as the 'land of Kush' – after Noah's grandson. Cush had a younger brother called Mizraim and he was the traditional founder of the Egyptian civilisation. The '-im' ending of this name is a West Semitic pluralisation. Thus the original name of Noah's second 'grandson' was Mizra. It is therefore interesting to note that the Assyrians referred to Egypt as Musri whilst a modern Egyptian calls himself a Masri ('one of Masr'). The biblical tradition of an eponymous ancestor of the pharaonic state called Mizra/Musri/Masr thus has extra-biblical confirmation.
I think we can make one further important connection between the Genesis/Koran text, Sumerian tradition and pharaonic royal mythology. The Egyptians believed that their first king was called Horus. Now this name means 'the distant one' suggesting someone who came from afar. It is surely more than an extraordinary coincidence, then, that the Mesopotamian flood heroes, Ziusudra (Sumerian), Atrahasis (Akkadian) and Utnapishtim (Babylonian), all bear the same epithet 'the distant one'? Could it be that the legendary Horus of Egypt was none other than the biblical flood hero and that his descendants, through Ham and Mizraim, settled in Egypt as the Followers of Horus (i.e. 'the ones descended from Horus, 'the distant one')?
Given this extraordinary possibility, perhaps we should investigate how some of the other primeval gods of Egypt might fit into the picture.
It was well known in the ancient world that the Egyptian goddess of love and fertility, Isis (written Iset), was the equivalent of Mesopotamian Ishtar and Canaanite Astarte (biblical Ashtaroth). She is regularly depicted at the head of Pharaoh's sarcophagus, arms raised in the act of prayer. This striking image is identical to the 'dancing goddess' figure found in the Eastern Desert rock drawings and on the Nakada II pottery. So, could this predynastic goddess, associated with the invaders, be the earliest form of Isis/Ishtar? The answer perhaps lies with her husband, Osiris.
-
The names Isis and Osiris are Greek forms of Egyptian Iset and Asar. The latter is written with the hieroglyphs of a throne and an eye. Amazingly, a Sumerian god local to Eridu (where I have placed the Tower of Babel) is also called Asar and his name is written in Sumerian with the symbol for a throne. It appears that the Egyptian god of vegetation and rebirth may originally have come from southern Iraq, having been introduced to the Nile valley (along with his consort) by Sumerian worshippers.
-
The tombs in the Valley of the Kings are decorated with scenes from the Amduat ('That which is in the Underworld'). The dead king's spirit is seen being transported from his tomb in the western necropolis across the great underworld ocean of the abyss towards the eastern horizon. His craft is a high-prowed boat just like the ships found in the predynastic rock art. The dead pharaoh is accompanied by the primeval gods, with Re-Atum as his protector. Together, they journey through seven gates before reaching the shore of the underworld desert where the crew is depicted dragging the boat of Re-Atum towards the dawn horizon. There the spirit of the king is reborn as the rising sun over the Isle of Flame. This place is otherwise known as the primeval mound of creation surrounded by the Waters of Nun. It was here that the original primeval temple was constructed by the gods. The island is described as a sandy circular mound surrounded by reeds growing in a freshwater marsh. The temple shrine lies at the centre of the island on a low mound. All later Egyptian temples are architecturally designed to recreate this setting. To enter the temple you pass between two great artificial desert mountains (the pylon gateway) and cross an expansive desert (the open-air perystyle court. You then enter the reed marsh of the Waters of Nun (the hypostyle hall with its giant reed and papyrus columns) surrounding the Island of Nun, before reaching the sacred shrine (the holy of holies) representing the primeval Temple of Nun. All this time you have been gradually ascending as the floor of the temple rises up, step by step. This represents the mound of creation on which the primeval shrine rests.
Once we realise that the Egyptian primeval age or 'First Time' was set not in the Nile valley but rather in Sumer, we can finally identify this island and its primeval mound with a real physical place. The Sumerian texts tell us that the first city on earth came into being as the great ancestors arrived on a small sandy island, surrounded by reeds in the freshwater swamps of southern Iraq. There, on that island, the city of Eridu was founded with the building of a small reed shrine on top of a sandy mound. Over the centuries the shrine grew into a great temple, the final form of which was to become the infamous 'Tower of Babel' of Genesis. Eridu's Sumerian name was Nun.ki – the 'Mighty Place'. The Egyptians referred to the swamp surrounding their primeval island of creation as the 'Waters of Nun'. Thus the primeval temple of Egyptian mythology was one and the same as the legendary Tower of Babel.
read this once, don't feel like going through it again, no opinion as of yet. Rohl has credibility problems in his other biblical linking arguments
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
While I don't agree with everything Rohl says, I believe he may have a point with the traditional chronology being off. I think he relies a little too much on the Bible, but I think there is some truth in that much of the roots in Biblical myth are based on Sumerian. I also believe that some of the Hebrews or at least some of their forebears had their origins in Iran of around the Armenian region. These were the non-black Middle Easterners who adopted Semtic language and culture from the original black Semites.....
(from different post on Sumerians: )
^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants....
The Sumerians were NOT considered a Hamitic people in the Bible.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [qb] Kushi, from Kush, doesn't mean the color black. It's used to refer to black people as an ethnic taxon. One cannot juxtapose black against Semitic. Neither color nor ethnicity can be apposed to language.
Hham and Shem were both black in the Hebrew mindset. [QUOTE] Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful, Hham was blessed black like the raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over.
(PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER 28a)
Now neither the internal search engine nor GOOGLE hits any of the many times I posted this quote from the Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer as to Shem being black and beautiful and Hham black as the raven.
Why is that? Somebody's afraid of something!
The Hebrews' Shem doesn't correspond to the linguists Semites anymore than their Kush does to Cushitic. Elam is the firstborn son of Shem and Elamites didn't speak Semitic. K*na`an is a son of Hham and Canaanites did speak Hebrew. The fact is that the Israelites called the Hebrew language "the language of Canaan."
Continental Africa houses the majority of individual Semitic languages and those speakers there in the Horn are all BLACK N BEAUTIFUL with their Semitic selves.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quote is given in David Rohl's book 'Legend: the Genesis of Civilization'. It actually compares the types of skull found from people of the Naqada I and II era burials from the same site.[/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]a review in Amazon summarizing Rohl's alternative theory book:
By Emmet Sweeney - See all my reviews This review is from: Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation (Paperback) This book is an enjoyable and informative read, with David Rohl displaying his usual erudition and flair for explanation. The chapters dealing with the rise of the first civilizations are particularly intriguing, and the proofs listed of early Mesopotamian influence on Proto- and Early Dynastic Egypt have arguably put the question of Egyptian origins beyond dispute. Unlike most mainstream Egyptologists, Rohl is not afraid to question conventional dates and dating-systems, and his own "New Chronology" would subtract about three and a half centuries from Egyptian dates as found in the textbooks. But this is overly cautious, and Rohl ignores a great body of evidence demanding a much more radical reduction in timescales. Take for example the Mesopotamian influence on early Egypt. This sounds remarkably like the culture-bearing migration from Mesopotamia to Egypt and Canaan recorded in the biblical story of Abraham. The two were never connected, of course, because the Abraham story is placed by conventional historians a thousand years after the founding of Egypt's First Dynasty. Yet it can be shown that everything, absolutely everything, about the Patriarch epoch, the epoch of Abraham, Joseph and Moses, indicates that it belongs in the Early Bronze Age. The Patriarch narratives are full of references to cultural and religious practices which point clearly in this direction. Among the most notable of these are: (a) Human sacrifice (mentioned in the Abraham story and the birth legend of Moses); (b) Religious use of ziggurats and pyramids (Jacob's "stairway to heaven", at the top of which was the "house of God".); (c) Mention of cosmic catastrophes (In Abraham, Joseph and Moses narratives); (d) References to Cosmic Pillar or Tower, and its destruction (In Abraham narrative). It is in fact with Abraham that Hebrew history first connects with Egypt - and the connection was established, it appears, right at the beginning of the histories of the two peoples. We might note, for example, the striking phallic associations of both Abraham and Menes, the first pharaoh. The name Abraham actually means "father of many", and the Patriarch initiates the custom of circumcision, whilst the Egyptian Menes (or Mena or Min) clearly takes his name from the phallic god Min, who was also associated with circumcision and was perhaps the most important deity in Egypt at the beginning of the First Dynasty. Similarly, Jewish legend recalls that Abraham entered Egypt during the reign of the first pharaoh, and emphasizes that, when he arrived, the Egyptians were virtual barbarians, and to the Patriarch went the credit of teaching them the rudiments of civilization. (See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews). All this dramatically calls to mind the evidence of archaeology, which has revealed a culture-bearing migration from Mesopotamia to Egypt just before the beginning of the First Dynasty, which David Rohl has so ably illustrated. If "Abraham" then, or the Abraham epoch, was contemporary with Menes, the first pharaoh, this has dramatic consequences for the whole of Egyptian and Hebrew history. Most immediately, it implies that the Patriarch Joseph, who brought the Hebrew tribes into Egypt, be identified with the Egyptian seer Imhotep, who laboured for pharaoh Djoser at the start of the Third Dynasty. Imhotep was the greatest and most celebrated of all Egyptian seers, who solved the crisis of a seven-year famine by interpreting Djoser's dream. In precisely the same way, biblical history tells us that, about two centuries after Abraham, a young Hebrew seer named Joseph became vizier to the pharaoh after solving the crisis of a seven-year famine by interpreting the king's dream. Removing a thousand years from Egyptian chronology therefore seems to have the effect of producing a precise match between the histories of the two neighbouring peoples. And the matches continue through subsequent centuries. These however are missed by Rohl because he remains too cautious.
________________________________________________
The ‘Dynastic Race’ By David Rohl
The birth of Egyptian civilisation have always been a bit of a mystery. How did it come about? And who were the first pharaohs? Were they indigenous North Africans or Sumerians coming from the east? That thorny question had been a subject of heated debate amongst academics over the last 100 years … that is until fairly recently when our tendency towards political correctness deemed that such difficult issues should be swept under the scholarly carpet. But the question of pharaonic origins still remains one of the great puzzles of Egyptology.
Following the abandonment of the Tower of Babel, the biblical story tells of a great migration of the 'sons' of Noah. His eldest, Ham, was the father of Cush who journeyed to north-east Africa in order to establish a kingdom in the lands of Ethiopia and Sudan. The Egyptians knew this area as the 'land of Kush' – after Noah's grandson. Cush had a younger brother called Mizraim and he was the traditional founder of the Egyptian civilisation. The '-im' ending of this name is a West Semitic pluralisation. Thus the original name of Noah's second 'grandson' was Mizra. It is therefore interesting to note that the Assyrians referred to Egypt as Musri whilst a modern Egyptian calls himself a Masri ('one of Masr'). The biblical tradition of an eponymous ancestor of the pharaonic state called Mizra/Musri/Masr thus has extra-biblical confirmation.
I think we can make one further important connection between the Genesis/Koran text, Sumerian tradition and pharaonic royal mythology. The Egyptians believed that their first king was called Horus. Now this name means 'the distant one' suggesting someone who came from afar. It is surely more than an extraordinary coincidence, then, that the Mesopotamian flood heroes, Ziusudra (Sumerian), Atrahasis (Akkadian) and Utnapishtim (Babylonian), all bear the same epithet 'the distant one'? Could it be that the legendary Horus of Egypt was none other than the biblical flood hero and that his descendants, through Ham and Mizraim, settled in Egypt as the Followers of Horus (i.e. 'the ones descended from Horus, 'the distant one')?
Given this extraordinary possibility, perhaps we should investigate how some of the other primeval gods of Egypt might fit into the picture.
It was well known in the ancient world that the Egyptian goddess of love and fertility, Isis (written Iset), was the equivalent of Mesopotamian Ishtar and Canaanite Astarte (biblical Ashtaroth). She is regularly depicted at the head of Pharaoh's sarcophagus, arms raised in the act of prayer. This striking image is identical to the 'dancing goddess' figure found in the Eastern Desert rock drawings and on the Nakada II pottery. So, could this predynastic goddess, associated with the invaders, be the earliest form of Isis/Ishtar? The answer perhaps lies with her husband, Osiris.
In a previous article I proposed that the discovery of hundreds of prehistoric rock carvings in the Eastern Desert between the Nile and the Red Sea was evidence of a foreign invasion which occurred just a couple of centuries before the rise of the 1st Dynasty in Egypt. These amazing drawings show fleets of ships carrying warriors, chieftains, 'dancing goddesses' and what appear to be the standards of Sumerian gods. Many of the boats are being dragged by their crews, suggesting transportation of the vessels across the desert from the Red Sea to the Nile. It's time, then, to go in search of these 'people from the east' in the tombs, temples, hieroglyphs and paintings of ancient Egypt.
An hour's drive north of Luxor, on the west bank of the Nile, there is a vast necropolis of 2000 predynastic graves. The place is called Nakada after the nearby village. Nakada turned out to be one of the most important excavation sites in Egypt because of the light it sheds upon the origins of the pharaonic state. Its excavator was the 'father of Egyptian archaeology', Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, the first British professor of Egyptology and founder of University College London's Egyptology Department where I myself studied and obtained my degree.
The cemetery at Nakada turned out to be the necropolis of the town of Nubt ('Gold Town') which grew up as a result of early gold-mining activities in the Wadi Hammamat region, just across the river in the Eastern Desert. 'Gold Town' was the Klondyke of predynastic Egypt.
What Petrie found in this vast cemetery were two groups of people which he designated Nakada I and Nakada II (and III). The people of Nakada I culture were the earliest occupants of the cemetery, whilst Nakada II superseded them and were therefore chronologically later. The burial goods and distinctive structures of the graves made Petrie realise, almost from the start, that he was dealing with two very different groups. The evidence seemed to indicate the arrival of newcomers in the Nile valley marked by the Nakada II graves which were soon shown, on stylistic grounds, to be contemporaneous with the rock art of the 'invaders' found in the Eastern Desert. Based on the evidence of the Nakada II graves, Petrie developed a theory of an incursion of easterners from Sumer who had taken over southern Egypt and subjugated the indigenous Nakada I population. These invaders, with their superior weapons and technology, eventually came to dominate the whole Nile valley and gave rise to what he called the 'Dynastic Race'.
Up until the 1950s Petrie's Dynastic Race theory received widespread support in Egyptological circles. Indeed, one of its proponents even began to refer to the predynastic invaders as a 'Super Race'. Petrie and his followers were very much of their age. They believed in the superiority of western civilisation over what we today call the Third World. They were colonialists with a colonial view of history. The idea of an intellectually superior race, invading Africa and civilising the region, was quite natural from their political perspectives. The Second World War, the Holocaust and the Arab/Israeli wars put an end to this way of thinking within ancient world studies.
In the politically correct world of late-twentieth-century scholarship the Dynastic Race theory has been quietly forgotten. As a result, it is very rare these days to find an Egyptologist prepared to give credence to the idea of foreign invaders at the dawn of Egyptian history. But should we reject the basic evidence because of the political views of past archaeologists? Nobody disputes that Petrie found what he found. So perhaps we should look again at the Dynastic Race theory – but this time without the rhetoric of pre-war colonialism. It is obvious that we cannot rewrite ancient history in the light of events in our own century. It is surely the historian's job to construct a coherent picture of the past based on the archaeological evidence – wherever it leads.
So, what does that evidence tell us about Egypt's origins?
Petrie found several new elements in the Nakada II graves. First, unlike the earlier Nakada I burials, many of the grave pits themselves were lined with mud bricks. This was the first time that bricks had been used in Egypt and archaeologists have determined that mud brick technology was a Sumerian invention.
Second, the pottery shapes and techniques of decoration were also new – again with clear precursors in Mesopotamia.
Third, the Nakada II warriors were buried with a new type of weapon known as the 'pear-shaped mace'. This was in contrast to the Nakada I people who used 'disk-shaped maces'. Interestingly, not only do the Eastern Desert rock-drawings show the chieftains holding the round-headed weapon but it also became the weapon par excellence of the later pharaohs who were regularly depicted smiting their enemies with the pear-shaped mace.
Fourth, lapis lazuli appears amongst the grave goods for the first time in Nakada II. This beautiful dark blue stone comes from Badakhshan in Afghanistan and was traded across land and by sea (via the Persian Gulf) to Sumer where it was greatly prized. Its sudden appearance in Egypt thus confirms contact with the Sumerians of southern Iraq.
Fifth, the complex niched-facade mudbrick architecture which develops out of Nakada III culture is identically paralleled in Sumer where it was used to decorate the temples of the gods. In Egypt it became a standard design feature of the early pharaohs' tombs. The design is so complex that it is hard to believe the niched-facade structure could have been independently invented in the two regions. All authorities accept that such architecture originated in Sumer and was 'exported' to Egypt.
These are just some of the technologies and artefacts which clearly point to contact between Mesopotamian and Egypt. However, this does not prove that there was a military conquest (rather than simple trade) or if the Sumerian settlers in the Nile valley went on to become the first pharaohs. Here there are more tantalising clues.
A magnificent ivory knife handle was discovered near Nakada, at the turn of the century, which shows a Sumerian hero figure controlling two great lions on one side and a battle on the other between long-haired warriors (one of whom carries a pear-shaped mace) and short-haired opponents who are getting the worst of the conflict. The long-haired victors are associated with high-prowed boats, just like the ones found in the desert rock art, whilst the short-haired losers are represented by sickle-shaped boats made of papyrus and associated with the River Nile. The Gebel el-Arak predynastic knife (now in the Louvre) is not only an amazing 5000-year-old artefact but it appears to depict Sumerian invaders with their high-prowed ships in the very act of conquering the Nile valley.
The evidence for Mesopotamians in Egypt is even more compelling at the site of Butu (ancient Pe-Dep) in the western delta. There, German archaeologists have recently unearthed coloured clay cones which, if their counterparts in Sumer are anything to go by, were used to decorate buildings. This decorative cone technique is so striking that it is hard to imagine it being invented independently in Egypt after it had come into use in Mesopotamia.
Did this élite Sumerian clan eventually come to dominate the whole of Egypt and establish the first pharaonic dynasty? An important clue is found in the fact that the later nobility of Egypt called themselves by a special name. They were known as the 'Pat' or the iry-Pat ('belonging to the Pat') – a term which implied membership of a special clan or blood-line. This term was reserved for members of the royal family, courtiers and high officials. Interestingly, a text from the Middle Kingdom (1000 years after the unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty) refers to a man who reached high office 'in spite of the fact that he was not iry-Pat', suggesting that the ruling class were expected to have been directly descended from an ancestral élite. These great founding ancestors were also known by another title. The later hieroglyphic texts refer to the 'Followers of Horus' who first established kingship in the Nile valley. They are shown in predynastic and early dynastic carvings carrying their standards into battle in support of kings who bore the title of 'Horus' as part of their names. So, was the first Horus-king a real person who later became deified. Could there have been an original human Horus and, if so, was he African or Mesopotamian?
To answer these questions we need to return to the stories in the book of Genesis and Holy Koran. In my book Legend – The Genesis of Civilisation I identified the location of the traditional site of the Garden of Eden in western Iran, the mountain of Noah's Ark in Kurdestan, and the Tower of Babel in southern Iraq. I argued that the Old Testament legends surrounding Noah and the Flood and then King Nimrod were also to be found in the Sumerian literary tradition. It appears that the Genesis narrative may have been based on actual historical events from primeval times.
-
Following the abandonment of the Tower of Babel, the biblical story tells of a great migration of the 'sons' of Noah. His eldest, Ham, was the father of Cush who journeyed to north-east Africa in order to establish a kingdom in the lands of Ethiopia and Sudan. The Egyptians knew this area as the 'land of Kush' – after Noah's grandson. Cush had a younger brother called Mizraim and he was the traditional founder of the Egyptian civilisation. The '-im' ending of this name is a West Semitic pluralisation. Thus the original name of Noah's second 'grandson' was Mizra. It is therefore interesting to note that the Assyrians referred to Egypt as Musri whilst a modern Egyptian calls himself a Masri ('one of Masr'). The biblical tradition of an eponymous ancestor of the pharaonic state called Mizra/Musri/Masr thus has extra-biblical confirmation.
I think we can make one further important connection between the Genesis/Koran text, Sumerian tradition and pharaonic royal mythology. The Egyptians believed that their first king was called Horus. Now this name means 'the distant one' suggesting someone who came from afar. It is surely more than an extraordinary coincidence, then, that the Mesopotamian flood heroes, Ziusudra (Sumerian), Atrahasis (Akkadian) and Utnapishtim (Babylonian), all bear the same epithet 'the distant one'? Could it be that the legendary Horus of Egypt was none other than the biblical flood hero and that his descendants, through Ham and Mizraim, settled in Egypt as the Followers of Horus (i.e. 'the ones descended from Horus, 'the distant one')?
Given this extraordinary possibility, perhaps we should investigate how some of the other primeval gods of Egypt might fit into the picture.
It was well known in the ancient world that the Egyptian goddess of love and fertility, Isis (written Iset), was the equivalent of Mesopotamian Ishtar and Canaanite Astarte (biblical Ashtaroth). She is regularly depicted at the head of Pharaoh's sarcophagus, arms raised in the act of prayer. This striking image is identical to the 'dancing goddess' figure found in the Eastern Desert rock drawings and on the Nakada II pottery. So, could this predynastic goddess, associated with the invaders, be the earliest form of Isis/Ishtar? The answer perhaps lies with her husband, Osiris.
-
The names Isis and Osiris are Greek forms of Egyptian Iset and Asar. The latter is written with the hieroglyphs of a throne and an eye. Amazingly, a Sumerian god local to Eridu (where I have placed the Tower of Babel) is also called Asar and his name is written in Sumerian with the symbol for a throne. It appears that the Egyptian god of vegetation and rebirth may originally have come from southern Iraq, having been introduced to the Nile valley (along with his consort) by Sumerian worshippers.
-
The tombs in the Valley of the Kings are decorated with scenes from the Amduat ('That which is in the Underworld'). The dead king's spirit is seen being transported from his tomb in the western necropolis across the great underworld ocean of the abyss towards the eastern horizon. His craft is a high-prowed boat just like the ships found in the predynastic rock art. The dead pharaoh is accompanied by the primeval gods, with Re-Atum as his protector. Together, they journey through seven gates before reaching the shore of the underworld desert where the crew is depicted dragging the boat of Re-Atum towards the dawn horizon. There the spirit of the king is reborn as the rising sun over the Isle of Flame. This place is otherwise known as the primeval mound of creation surrounded by the Waters of Nun. It was here that the original primeval temple was constructed by the gods. The island is described as a sandy circular mound surrounded by reeds growing in a freshwater marsh. The temple shrine lies at the centre of the island on a low mound. All later Egyptian temples are architecturally designed to recreate this setting. To enter the temple you pass between two great artificial desert mountains (the pylon gateway) and cross an expansive desert (the open-air perystyle court. You then enter the reed marsh of the Waters of Nun (the hypostyle hall with its giant reed and papyrus columns) surrounding the Island of Nun, before reaching the sacred shrine (the holy of holies) representing the primeval Temple of Nun. All this time you have been gradually ascending as the floor of the temple rises up, step by step. This represents the mound of creation on which the primeval shrine rests.
Once we realise that the Egyptian primeval age or 'First Time' was set not in the Nile valley but rather in Sumer, we can finally identify this island and its primeval mound with a real physical place. The Sumerian texts tell us that the first city on earth came into being as the great ancestors arrived on a small sandy island, surrounded by reeds in the freshwater swamps of southern Iraq. There, on that island, the city of Eridu was founded with the building of a small reed shrine on top of a sandy mound. Over the centuries the shrine grew into a great temple, the final form of which was to become the infamous 'Tower of Babel' of Genesis. Eridu's Sumerian name was Nun.ki – the 'Mighty Place'. The Egyptians referred to the swamp surrounding their primeval island of creation as the 'Waters of Nun'. Thus the primeval temple of Egyptian mythology was one and the same as the legendary Tower of Babel.
read this once, don't feel like going through it again, no opinion as of yet. Rohl has credibility problems in his other biblical linking arguments
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
While I don't agree with everything Rohl says, I believe he may have a point with the traditional chronology being off. I think he relies a little too much on the Bible, but I think there is some truth in that much of the roots in Biblical myth are based on Sumerian. I also believe that some of the Hebrews or at least some of their forebears had their origins in Iran of around the Armenian region. These were the non-black Middle Easterners who adopted Semtic language and culture from the original black Semites.....
(from different post on Sumerians: )
^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants....
The Sumerians were NOT considered a Hamitic people in the Bible.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Kushi, from Kush, doesn't mean the color black. It's used to refer to black people as an ethnic taxon. One cannot juxtapose black against Semitic. Neither color nor ethnicity can be apposed to language.
Hham and Shem were both black in the Hebrew mindset.
quote: Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful, Hham was blessed black like the raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over.
(PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER 28a)
Now neither the internal search engine nor GOOGLE hits any of the many times I posted this quote from the Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer as to Shem being black and beautiful and Hham black as the raven.
Why is that? Somebody's afraid of something!
The Hebrews' Shem doesn't correspond to the linguists Semites anymore than their Kush does to Cushitic. Elam is the firstborn son of Shem and Elamites didn't speak Semitic. K*na`an is a son of Hham and Canaanites did speak Hebrew. The fact is that the Israelites called the Hebrew language "the language of Canaan."
Continental Africa houses the majority of individual Semitic languages and those speakers there in the Horn are all BLACK N BEAUTIFUL with their Semitic selves.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants.
The quote is given in David Rohl's book 'Legend: the Genesis of Civilization'. It actually compares the types of skull found from people of the Naqada I and II era burials from the same site.
a review in Amazon summarizing Rohl's alternative theory book:
By Emmet Sweeney - See all my reviews This review is from: Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation (Paperback) This book is an enjoyable and informative read, with David Rohl displaying his usual erudition and flair for explanation. The chapters dealing with the rise of the first civilizations are particularly intriguing, and the proofs listed of early Mesopotamian influence on Proto- and Early Dynastic Egypt have arguably put the question of Egyptian origins beyond dispute. Unlike most mainstream Egyptologists, Rohl is not afraid to question conventional dates and dating-systems, and his own "New Chronology" would subtract about three and a half centuries from Egyptian dates as found in the textbooks. But this is overly cautious, and Rohl ignores a great body of evidence demanding a much more radical reduction in timescales. Take for example the Mesopotamian influence on early Egypt. This sounds remarkably like the culture-bearing migration from Mesopotamia to Egypt and Canaan recorded in the biblical story of Abraham. The two were never connected, of course, because the Abraham story is placed by conventional historians a thousand years after the founding of Egypt's First Dynasty. Yet it can be shown that everything, absolutely everything, about the Patriarch epoch, the epoch of Abraham, Joseph and Moses, indicates that it belongs in the Early Bronze Age. The Patriarch narratives are full of references to cultural and religious practices which point clearly in this direction. Among the most notable of these are: (a) Human sacrifice (mentioned in the Abraham story and the birth legend of Moses); (b) Religious use of ziggurats and pyramids (Jacob's "stairway to heaven", at the top of which was the "house of God".); (c) Mention of cosmic catastrophes (In Abraham, Joseph and Moses narratives); (d) References to Cosmic Pillar or Tower, and its destruction (In Abraham narrative). It is in fact with Abraham that Hebrew history first connects with Egypt - and the connection was established, it appears, right at the beginning of the histories of the two peoples. We might note, for example, the striking phallic associations of both Abraham and Menes, the first pharaoh. The name Abraham actually means "father of many", and the Patriarch initiates the custom of circumcision, whilst the Egyptian Menes (or Mena or Min) clearly takes his name from the phallic god Min, who was also associated with circumcision and was perhaps the most important deity in Egypt at the beginning of the First Dynasty. Similarly, Jewish legend recalls that Abraham entered Egypt during the reign of the first pharaoh, and emphasizes that, when he arrived, the Egyptians were virtual barbarians, and to the Patriarch went the credit of teaching them the rudiments of civilization. (See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews). All this dramatically calls to mind the evidence of archaeology, which has revealed a culture-bearing migration from Mesopotamia to Egypt just before the beginning of the First Dynasty, which David Rohl has so ably illustrated. If "Abraham" then, or the Abraham epoch, was contemporary with Menes, the first pharaoh, this has dramatic consequences for the whole of Egyptian and Hebrew history. Most immediately, it implies that the Patriarch Joseph, who brought the Hebrew tribes into Egypt, be identified with the Egyptian seer Imhotep, who laboured for pharaoh Djoser at the start of the Third Dynasty. Imhotep was the greatest and most celebrated of all Egyptian seers, who solved the crisis of a seven-year famine by interpreting Djoser's dream. In precisely the same way, biblical history tells us that, about two centuries after Abraham, a young Hebrew seer named Joseph became vizier to the pharaoh after solving the crisis of a seven-year famine by interpreting the king's dream. Removing a thousand years from Egyptian chronology therefore seems to have the effect of producing a precise match between the histories of the two neighbouring peoples. And the matches continue through subsequent centuries. These however are missed by Rohl because he remains too cautious.
________________________________________________
The ‘Dynastic Race’ By David Rohl
The birth of Egyptian civilisation have always been a bit of a mystery. How did it come about? And who were the first pharaohs? Were they indigenous North Africans or Sumerians coming from the east? That thorny question had been a subject of heated debate amongst academics over the last 100 years … that is until fairly recently when our tendency towards political correctness deemed that such difficult issues should be swept under the scholarly carpet. But the question of pharaonic origins still remains one of the great puzzles of Egyptology.
Following the abandonment of the Tower of Babel, the biblical story tells of a great migration of the 'sons' of Noah. His eldest, Ham, was the father of Cush who journeyed to north-east Africa in order to establish a kingdom in the lands of Ethiopia and Sudan. The Egyptians knew this area as the 'land of Kush' – after Noah's grandson. Cush had a younger brother called Mizraim and he was the traditional founder of the Egyptian civilisation. The '-im' ending of this name is a West Semitic pluralisation. Thus the original name of Noah's second 'grandson' was Mizra. It is therefore interesting to note that the Assyrians referred to Egypt as Musri whilst a modern Egyptian calls himself a Masri ('one of Masr'). The biblical tradition of an eponymous ancestor of the pharaonic state called Mizra/Musri/Masr thus has extra-biblical confirmation.
I think we can make one further important connection between the Genesis/Koran text, Sumerian tradition and pharaonic royal mythology. The Egyptians believed that their first king was called Horus. Now this name means 'the distant one' suggesting someone who came from afar. It is surely more than an extraordinary coincidence, then, that the Mesopotamian flood heroes, Ziusudra (Sumerian), Atrahasis (Akkadian) and Utnapishtim (Babylonian), all bear the same epithet 'the distant one'? Could it be that the legendary Horus of Egypt was none other than the biblical flood hero and that his descendants, through Ham and Mizraim, settled in Egypt as the Followers of Horus (i.e. 'the ones descended from Horus, 'the distant one')?
Given this extraordinary possibility, perhaps we should investigate how some of the other primeval gods of Egypt might fit into the picture.
It was well known in the ancient world that the Egyptian goddess of love and fertility, Isis (written Iset), was the equivalent of Mesopotamian Ishtar and Canaanite Astarte (biblical Ashtaroth). She is regularly depicted at the head of Pharaoh's sarcophagus, arms raised in the act of prayer. This striking image is identical to the 'dancing goddess' figure found in the Eastern Desert rock drawings and on the Nakada II pottery. So, could this predynastic goddess, associated with the invaders, be the earliest form of Isis/Ishtar? The answer perhaps lies with her husband, Osiris.
In a previous article I proposed that the discovery of hundreds of prehistoric rock carvings in the Eastern Desert between the Nile and the Red Sea was evidence of a foreign invasion which occurred just a couple of centuries before the rise of the 1st Dynasty in Egypt. These amazing drawings show fleets of ships carrying warriors, chieftains, 'dancing goddesses' and what appear to be the standards of Sumerian gods. Many of the boats are being dragged by their crews, suggesting transportation of the vessels across the desert from the Red Sea to the Nile. It's time, then, to go in search of these 'people from the east' in the tombs, temples, hieroglyphs and paintings of ancient Egypt.
An hour's drive north of Luxor, on the west bank of the Nile, there is a vast necropolis of 2000 predynastic graves. The place is called Nakada after the nearby village. Nakada turned out to be one of the most important excavation sites in Egypt because of the light it sheds upon the origins of the pharaonic state. Its excavator was the 'father of Egyptian archaeology', Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, the first British professor of Egyptology and founder of University College London's Egyptology Department where I myself studied and obtained my degree.
The cemetery at Nakada turned out to be the necropolis of the town of Nubt ('Gold Town') which grew up as a result of early gold-mining activities in the Wadi Hammamat region, just across the river in the Eastern Desert. 'Gold Town' was the Klondyke of predynastic Egypt.
What Petrie found in this vast cemetery were two groups of people which he designated Nakada I and Nakada II (and III). The people of Nakada I culture were the earliest occupants of the cemetery, whilst Nakada II superseded them and were therefore chronologically later. The burial goods and distinctive structures of the graves made Petrie realise, almost from the start, that he was dealing with two very different groups. The evidence seemed to indicate the arrival of newcomers in the Nile valley marked by the Nakada II graves which were soon shown, on stylistic grounds, to be contemporaneous with the rock art of the 'invaders' found in the Eastern Desert. Based on the evidence of the Nakada II graves, Petrie developed a theory of an incursion of easterners from Sumer who had taken over southern Egypt and subjugated the indigenous Nakada I population. These invaders, with their superior weapons and technology, eventually came to dominate the whole Nile valley and gave rise to what he called the 'Dynastic Race'.
Up until the 1950s Petrie's Dynastic Race theory received widespread support in Egyptological circles. Indeed, one of its proponents even began to refer to the predynastic invaders as a 'Super Race'. Petrie and his followers were very much of their age. They believed in the superiority of western civilisation over what we today call the Third World. They were colonialists with a colonial view of history. The idea of an intellectually superior race, invading Africa and civilising the region, was quite natural from their political perspectives. The Second World War, the Holocaust and the Arab/Israeli wars put an end to this way of thinking within ancient world studies.
In the politically correct world of late-twentieth-century scholarship the Dynastic Race theory has been quietly forgotten. As a result, it is very rare these days to find an Egyptologist prepared to give credence to the idea of foreign invaders at the dawn of Egyptian history. But should we reject the basic evidence because of the political views of past archaeologists? Nobody disputes that Petrie found what he found. So perhaps we should look again at the Dynastic Race theory – but this time without the rhetoric of pre-war colonialism. It is obvious that we cannot rewrite ancient history in the light of events in our own century. It is surely the historian's job to construct a coherent picture of the past based on the archaeological evidence – wherever it leads.
So, what does that evidence tell us about Egypt's origins?
Petrie found several new elements in the Nakada II graves. First, unlike the earlier Nakada I burials, many of the grave pits themselves were lined with mud bricks. This was the first time that bricks had been used in Egypt and archaeologists have determined that mud brick technology was a Sumerian invention.
Second, the pottery shapes and techniques of decoration were also new – again with clear precursors in Mesopotamia.
Third, the Nakada II warriors were buried with a new type of weapon known as the 'pear-shaped mace'. This was in contrast to the Nakada I people who used 'disk-shaped maces'. Interestingly, not only do the Eastern Desert rock-drawings show the chieftains holding the round-headed weapon but it also became the weapon par excellence of the later pharaohs who were regularly depicted smiting their enemies with the pear-shaped mace.
Fourth, lapis lazuli appears amongst the grave goods for the first time in Nakada II. This beautiful dark blue stone comes from Badakhshan in Afghanistan and was traded across land and by sea (via the Persian Gulf) to Sumer where it was greatly prized. Its sudden appearance in Egypt thus confirms contact with the Sumerians of southern Iraq.
Fifth, the complex niched-facade mudbrick architecture which develops out of Nakada III culture is identically paralleled in Sumer where it was used to decorate the temples of the gods. In Egypt it became a standard design feature of the early pharaohs' tombs. The design is so complex that it is hard to believe the niched-facade structure could have been independently invented in the two regions. All authorities accept that such architecture originated in Sumer and was 'exported' to Egypt.
These are just some of the technologies and artefacts which clearly point to contact between Mesopotamian and Egypt. However, this does not prove that there was a military conquest (rather than simple trade) or if the Sumerian settlers in the Nile valley went on to become the first pharaohs. Here there are more tantalising clues.
A magnificent ivory knife handle was discovered near Nakada, at the turn of the century, which shows a Sumerian hero figure controlling two great lions on one side and a battle on the other between long-haired warriors (one of whom carries a pear-shaped mace) and short-haired opponents who are getting the worst of the conflict. The long-haired victors are associated with high-prowed boats, just like the ones found in the desert rock art, whilst the short-haired losers are represented by sickle-shaped boats made of papyrus and associated with the River Nile. The Gebel el-Arak predynastic knife (now in the Louvre) is not only an amazing 5000-year-old artefact but it appears to depict Sumerian invaders with their high-prowed ships in the very act of conquering the Nile valley.
The evidence for Mesopotamians in Egypt is even more compelling at the site of Butu (ancient Pe-Dep) in the western delta. There, German archaeologists have recently unearthed coloured clay cones which, if their counterparts in Sumer are anything to go by, were used to decorate buildings. This decorative cone technique is so striking that it is hard to imagine it being invented independently in Egypt after it had come into use in Mesopotamia.
Did this élite Sumerian clan eventually come to dominate the whole of Egypt and establish the first pharaonic dynasty? An important clue is found in the fact that the later nobility of Egypt called themselves by a special name. They were known as the 'Pat' or the iry-Pat ('belonging to the Pat') – a term which implied membership of a special clan or blood-line. This term was reserved for members of the royal family, courtiers and high officials. Interestingly, a text from the Middle Kingdom (1000 years after the unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty) refers to a man who reached high office 'in spite of the fact that he was not iry-Pat', suggesting that the ruling class were expected to have been directly descended from an ancestral élite. These great founding ancestors were also known by another title. The later hieroglyphic texts refer to the 'Followers of Horus' who first established kingship in the Nile valley. They are shown in predynastic and early dynastic carvings carrying their standards into battle in support of kings who bore the title of 'Horus' as part of their names. So, was the first Horus-king a real person who later became deified. Could there have been an original human Horus and, if so, was he African or Mesopotamian?
To answer these questions we need to return to the stories in the book of Genesis and Holy Koran. In my book Legend – The Genesis of Civilisation I identified the location of the traditional site of the Garden of Eden in western Iran, the mountain of Noah's Ark in Kurdestan, and the Tower of Babel in southern Iraq. I argued that the Old Testament legends surrounding Noah and the Flood and then King Nimrod were also to be found in the Sumerian literary tradition. It appears that the Genesis narrative may have been based on actual historical events from primeval times.
-
Following the abandonment of the Tower of Babel, the biblical story tells of a great migration of the 'sons' of Noah. His eldest, Ham, was the father of Cush who journeyed to north-east Africa in order to establish a kingdom in the lands of Ethiopia and Sudan. The Egyptians knew this area as the 'land of Kush' – after Noah's grandson. Cush had a younger brother called Mizraim and he was the traditional founder of the Egyptian civilisation. The '-im' ending of this name is a West Semitic pluralisation. Thus the original name of Noah's second 'grandson' was Mizra. It is therefore interesting to note that the Assyrians referred to Egypt as Musri whilst a modern Egyptian calls himself a Masri ('one of Masr'). The biblical tradition of an eponymous ancestor of the pharaonic state called Mizra/Musri/Masr thus has extra-biblical confirmation.
I think we can make one further important connection between the Genesis/Koran text, Sumerian tradition and pharaonic royal mythology. The Egyptians believed that their first king was called Horus. Now this name means 'the distant one' suggesting someone who came from afar. It is surely more than an extraordinary coincidence, then, that the Mesopotamian flood heroes, Ziusudra (Sumerian), Atrahasis (Akkadian) and Utnapishtim (Babylonian), all bear the same epithet 'the distant one'? Could it be that the legendary Horus of Egypt was none other than the biblical flood hero and that his descendants, through Ham and Mizraim, settled in Egypt as the Followers of Horus (i.e. 'the ones descended from Horus, 'the distant one')?
Given this extraordinary possibility, perhaps we should investigate how some of the other primeval gods of Egypt might fit into the picture.
It was well known in the ancient world that the Egyptian goddess of love and fertility, Isis (written Iset), was the equivalent of Mesopotamian Ishtar and Canaanite Astarte (biblical Ashtaroth). She is regularly depicted at the head of Pharaoh's sarcophagus, arms raised in the act of prayer. This striking image is identical to the 'dancing goddess' figure found in the Eastern Desert rock drawings and on the Nakada II pottery. So, could this predynastic goddess, associated with the invaders, be the earliest form of Isis/Ishtar? The answer perhaps lies with her husband, Osiris.
-
The names Isis and Osiris are Greek forms of Egyptian Iset and Asar. The latter is written with the hieroglyphs of a throne and an eye. Amazingly, a Sumerian god local to Eridu (where I have placed the Tower of Babel) is also called Asar and his name is written in Sumerian with the symbol for a throne. It appears that the Egyptian god of vegetation and rebirth may originally have come from southern Iraq, having been introduced to the Nile valley (along with his consort) by Sumerian worshippers.
-
The tombs in the Valley of the Kings are decorated with scenes from the Amduat ('That which is in the Underworld'). The dead king's spirit is seen being transported from his tomb in the western necropolis across the great underworld ocean of the abyss towards the eastern horizon. His craft is a high-prowed boat just like the ships found in the predynastic rock art. The dead pharaoh is accompanied by the primeval gods, with Re-Atum as his protector. Together, they journey through seven gates before reaching the shore of the underworld desert where the crew is depicted dragging the boat of Re-Atum towards the dawn horizon. There the spirit of the king is reborn as the rising sun over the Isle of Flame. This place is otherwise known as the primeval mound of creation surrounded by the Waters of Nun. It was here that the original primeval temple was constructed by the gods. The island is described as a sandy circular mound surrounded by reeds growing in a freshwater marsh. The temple shrine lies at the centre of the island on a low mound. All later Egyptian temples are architecturally designed to recreate this setting. To enter the temple you pass between two great artificial desert mountains (the pylon gateway) and cross an expansive desert (the open-air perystyle court. You then enter the reed marsh of the Waters of Nun (the hypostyle hall with its giant reed and papyrus columns) surrounding the Island of Nun, before reaching the sacred shrine (the holy of holies) representing the primeval Temple of Nun. All this time you have been gradually ascending as the floor of the temple rises up, step by step. This represents the mound of creation on which the primeval shrine rests.
Once we realise that the Egyptian primeval age or 'First Time' was set not in the Nile valley but rather in Sumer, we can finally identify this island and its primeval mound with a real physical place. The Sumerian texts tell us that the first city on earth came into being as the great ancestors arrived on a small sandy island, surrounded by reeds in the freshwater swamps of southern Iraq. There, on that island, the city of Eridu was founded with the building of a small reed shrine on top of a sandy mound. Over the centuries the shrine grew into a great temple, the final form of which was to become the infamous 'Tower of Babel' of Genesis. Eridu's Sumerian name was Nun.ki – the 'Mighty Place'. The Egyptians referred to the swamp surrounding their primeval island of creation as the 'Waters of Nun'. Thus the primeval temple of Egyptian mythology was one and the same as the legendary Tower of Babel.
read this once, don't feel like going through it again, no opinion as of yet. Rohl has credibility problems in his other biblical linking arguments
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
While I don't agree with everything Rohl says, I believe he may have a point with the traditional chronology being off. I think he relies a little too much on the Bible, but I think there is some truth in that much of the roots in Biblical myth are based on Sumerian. I also believe that some of the Hebrews or at least some of their forebears had their origins in Iran of around the Armenian region. These were the non-black Middle Easterners who adopted Semtic language and culture from the original black Semites.....
(from different post on Sumerians: )
^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants....
The Sumerians were NOT considered a Hamitic people in the Bible.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [qb] Kushi, from Kush, doesn't mean the color black. It's used to refer to black people as an ethnic taxon. One cannot juxtapose black against Semitic. Neither color nor ethnicity can be apposed to language.
Hham and Shem were both black in the Hebrew mindset. [QUOTE] Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful, Hham was blessed black like the raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over.
(PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER 28a)
Now neither the internal search engine nor GOOGLE hits any of the many times I posted this quote from the Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer as to Shem being black and beautiful and Hham black as the raven.
Why is that? Somebody's afraid of something!
The Hebrews' Shem doesn't correspond to the linguists Semites anymore than their Kush does to Cushitic. Elam is the firstborn son of Shem and Elamites didn't speak Semitic. K*na`an is a son of Hham and Canaanites did speak Hebrew. The fact is that the Israelites called the Hebrew language "the language of Canaan."
Continental Africa houses the majority of individual Semitic languages and those speakers there in the Horn are all BLACK N BEAUTIFUL with their Semitic selves.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand by my statement that the South African Bushmen are not black. They are subtropically rather than fully tropically adapted as evidenced by their limb proportions and relatively light skin.
Have a problem with that?
Posts: 7121 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Truthcentric: I stand by my statement that the South African Bushmen are not black. They are subtropically rather than fully tropically adapted as evidenced by their limb proportions and relatively light skin.
Have a problem with that?
No problem, Sundjata and alTakruri believe the same "black" describes "dark skin only" and South African Bushmen are not black and not fully tropically adapted.
Some of the Khosians do populate Namibia as well as South Africa but for this discussion we will restrict to South Africa.
There is some debate as to whether the Khosians were the first modern humans or Africans of East Central Africa. What is your position on this?
Posts: 43011 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you figure South African San are not "black"? It can't seriously be on the account of limb proportions?
They retain considerable skin melanin, which is paralleled in other groups in "sub-Saharan" Africa--like for example, the Sandawe, segments of populations in the African Horn, and even neighboring south African Bantu. They happen to have the curliest hair. Steatopygia features prominently among the southern African KhoiSan. These are all throwbacks to their tropical ancestry.
It is of note that San territory partially still lies in the tropics; that is to say, its most northern limits. So it is anyone's guess, what a comprehensive study of San territory will say about limp proportion patterns spanning a wide territory of residence, as opposed to just the southernmost vestiges.
Is Winnie "black"? It can be argued that her skin pigmentation rivals that of the San figure above, in terms of melanin content:
To get an idea of just how pigmented the San can be, look no further than when one is standing next to a "white" guy, like Wells:
Where does "black" skin begin and end?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: How do you figure South African San are not "black"? It can't seriously be on the account of limb proportions?
They retain considerable skin melanin, which is paralleled in other groups in "sub-Saharan" Africa--like for example, the Sandawe, segments of populations in the African Horn, and even neighboring south African Bantu. They happen to have the curliest hair follicles. Steatopygia features prominently among the southern African KhoiSan. These are all throwbacks to their tropical ancestry.
It is of note that San territory partially still lies in the tropics; that is to say, the its most northern limits. So it is anyone's guess, what a comprehensive study of San territory will say about limp proportion patterns spanning a wide territory of residence, as opposed to just the southernmost vestiges.
Is Winnie "black"? It can be argued that her skin pigmentation rivals that of the San figure above, in terms of melanin content:
To get an idea of just how pigmented the San can be, look no further than when one is standing next to a "white" guy, like Wells:
Where does "black" skin begin and end?
BLACK:
NOT BLACK:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
* The term "Black" cannot be justified as a divisive term because it describes dark skin only
Winnie is not dark therefore not black
Posts: 43011 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
It seems to me like the term black is used only to describe people of certain descent, especially those of African descent, at least in the western world.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I stand by my statement that the South African Bushmen are not black. They are subtropically rather than fully tropically adapted as evidenced by their limb proportions and relatively light skin.
Have a problem with that?
During Jim Crow's reign in the U.S., where on the bus would this man be required to sit? Would he have been able to use the 'whites only' water fountain with impunity, and would he have been served at a southern lunch counter during said time period?
More importantly, would a Black Nationalist have a problem with his/her daughter bringing home a man who looks like this?
According to your statement above, then there are no shortage of Black People in the diaspora who are not really Black...they just think they are...kmrt
The man in the photo above IS A BLACK MAN, no matter how much you desire/need to try to take that from him....
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: How do you figure South African San are not "black"? It can't seriously be on the account of limb proportions?
They retain considerable skin melanin, which is paralleled in other groups in "sub-Saharan" Africa--like for example, the Sandawe, segments of populations in the African Horn, and even neighboring south African Bantu. They happen to have the curliest hair follicles. Steatopygia features prominently among the southern African KhoiSan. These are all throwbacks to their tropical ancestry.
It is of note that San territory partially still lies in the tropics; that is to say, the its most northern limits. So it is anyone's guess, what a comprehensive study of San territory will say about limp proportion patterns spanning a wide territory of residence, as opposed to just the southernmost vestiges.
Is Winnie "black"? It can be argued that her skin pigmentation rivals that of the San figure above, in terms of melanin content:
To get an idea of just how pigmented the San can be, look no further than when one is standing next to a "white" guy, like Wells:
Where does "black" skin begin and end?
BLACK:
NOT BLACK:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
* The term "Black" cannot be justified as a divisive term because it describes dark skin only
Winnie is not dark therefore not black
If like an idiot, you're going to keep quoting my opinion as authoritative, how about asking me what I meant by my reference to "dark"? Why assume my definition of it is the same as yours? How do you know that I don't consider Winnie dark skinned?
Also, we were speaking within the context of Africa as well when I made that statement, so no, I don't consider those dark skinned non-Africans Black and I don't care who on here disagrees with me either. Growing up in America I have a strict social definition of what Black connotes and it is completely subjective.
None of those people are LITERALLY "black" so who cares?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, sure, unless one of them is queued up next to you waiting for the next bus.
All the reds of inner Africa classify as blacks in modern western parlance.
You're just in support of Coon's outdated Capoid vs Congoid race nomenclature.
You got a problem with that?
PS: and damn I'm getting tired of being dragged into stupid threads by people bringing up my name thus requiring me to clarify my actual stance.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I stand by my statement that the South African Bushmen are not black. They are subtropically rather than fully tropically adapted as evidenced by their limb proportions and relatively light skin.
Have a problem with that?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: [qb] I stand by my statement that the South African Bushmen are not black. They are subtropically rather than fully tropically adapted as evidenced by their limb proportions and relatively light skin.
Have a problem with that?
During Jim Crow's reign in the U.S., where on the bus would this man be required to sit? Would he have been able to use the 'whites only' water fountain with impunity, and would he have been served at a southern lunch counter during said time period?
we are not using the white racist definitions of black so what happened under Jim Crow does not apply
Posts: 43011 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: I don't consider those dark skinned non-Africans Black and I don't care who on here disagrees with me either. Growing up in America I have a strict social definition of what Black connotes and it is completely subjective.
None of those people are LITERALLY "black" so who cares? [/QB]
Apparently people care because who is black and who is not black is often if not the primary issue discussed on this forum. The same thing with "African". For example are Mozabite Berbers 80% African as are many African Americans or are they not African. If people want to take the position that race does not exist it would make much more sense not to ever use the term "black" or "white".
earlier you had said
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
* The term "Black" cannot be justified as a divisive term because it describes dark skin only
Do you want to retract this statement which ended with the word "only" ? Now you are changing it mean "Black" means having dark skin and of African descent. This excludes Australian Aborigines and others. And unlike Truthcentric you seem to be including so called "high yellow" complexions as dark skin. Fine. So now we have two definitions possible
1) Black- any dark skinned person
OR
2) Black- a light brown to dark skinned person (but not pale) of recent African origin
you seemed to have changed over to 2) where the word "only" can't be used
alTakruri where are you on this?
This seems like basic stuff that everybody should agree on -if the term "black" is going to be used so frequently on this forum
Posts: 43011 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: I don't consider those dark skinned non-Africans Black and I don't care who on here disagrees with me either. Growing up in America I have a strict social definition of what Black connotes and it is completely subjective.
None of those people are LITERALLY "black" so who cares?
Apparently people care because who is black and who is not black is often if not the primary issue discussed on this forum. The same thing with "African". For example are Mozabite Berbers 80% African as are many African Americans or are they not African. If people want to take the position that race does not exist it would make much more sense not to ever use the term "black" or "white".
earlier you had said
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
* The term "Black" cannot be justified as a divisive term because it describes dark skin only
Do you want to retract this statement which ended with the word "only" ? Now you are changing it mean "Black" means having dark skin and of African descent. This excludes Australian Aborigines and others. And unlike Truthcentric you seem to be including so called "high yellow" complexions as dark skin. Fine. So now we have two definitions possible
1) Black- any dark skinned person
OR
2) Black- a light brown to dark skinned person (but not pale) of recent African origin
you seemed to have changed over to 2) where the word "only" can't be used
alTakruri where are you on this?
This seems like basic stuff that everybody should agree on -if the term "black" is going to be used so frequently on this forum [/QB]
1) You are incompetent for not realizing by me saying this WITHIN the context of Africa ONLY, and no other context, that there is no need to expand my definition since it hasn't been demonstrated that I'd have applied the term similarly in another context, based on skin color.
2) You are an idiot for implying that the color brown, whether of the darker or lighter shade, equates "lightness". Brown is a darker color within the color spectrum/continuum, as any 3rd grader would know.
Now piss off!
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Growing up in America I have a strict social definition of what Black connotes and it is completely subjective.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: You are an idiot for implying that the color brown, whether of the darker or lighter shade, equates "lightness". Brown is a darker color within the color spectrum/continuum, as any 3rd grader would know.
Growing up in America I have a strict social definition of what Black connotes and it is completely subjective.
There is light brown and there is dark brown.
Although I never used the term "lightness", call me crazy> but it could be said that light brown is "lighter" than dark brown, hence some people in American social definitions are called "light skinned".
LIGHT BROWN MAN, president, Iraq Posts: 43011 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I stand by my statement that the South African Bushmen are not black. They are subtropically rather than fully tropically adapted as evidenced by their limb proportions and relatively light skin.
Have a problem with that?
What about....;
Posts: 22246 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I stand by my statement that the South African Bushmen are not black. They are subtropically rather than fully tropically adapted as evidenced by their limb proportions and relatively light skin.
Have a problem with that?
What about....;
Posts: 22246 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: [qb] I stand by my statement that the South African Bushmen are not black. They are subtropically rather than fully tropically adapted as evidenced by their limb proportions and relatively light skin.
Have a problem with that?
During Jim Crow's reign in the U.S., where on the bus would this man be required to sit? Would he have been able to use the 'whites only' water fountain with impunity, and would he have been served at a southern lunch counter during said time period?
we are not using the white racist definitions of black so what happened under Jim Crow does not apply
I was making a point, and unu know dam well what it (my point) was....
again, I say:
quote:More importantly, would a Black Nationalist have a problem with his/her daughter bringing home a man who looks like this?
According to your statement made above, then there are no shortage of Black People in the diaspora who are not really Black...they just think they are...kmrt
The man in the photo above IS A BLACK MAN, no matter how much you desire/need to try to take that from him....
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess this is what one gets (Truthcentric) for playing into the bait of a lunatic (Lyingass).
As for Jarithesmiter, nothing you cited from Rohl has been able to refute all the archaeology disproving the existence of a "dynastic race" from Asia.
Also, the Egyptian word 'Ausar' and Sumerian word 'Asar' are of two totally different meanings. Plus the word and hieroglyph for throne is Aset (Isis) because the royal throne and its seat was held in possession of the woman not the man as is seen in many African cultures. Begone with you. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Frankly since the arrival of our newest Euro members this forum could really change its name to Race Central
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: who is black and who is not black is often if not the primary issue discussed on this forum.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri posted March, 2008 : Um, what I see on the homepage Ancient Egypt (Moderated by: no one) tells me no one cares what goes on in this forum. And anyway when was anybody really banned anyhow?
the name of this forum is Ancient Egypt. I know there's a history behind that but it's still redundant when there is another forum called Egyptology. That's where all the serious posters go. Like Wally. This forum should be named for what it actually is:
Race & Ancient Civilizations
the problem is we can't use the word "race"
The best solution for this is to call it
**** & Ancient Civilizations
That way any four letter word might fit there not necessarily race
perhaps somebody else might have another title?
Posts: 43011 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still on the lookout for a logical reason that induces Truthcentric to say the San are not "black". I'm tempted to say that although Truthcentric will publically deny it or keep quiet about it, for obvious reasons, it is very possible that he still tacitly subscribes to the "true negro" idea, so that any peoples who do not strictly conform to this rigid personification of the "black man" in his world view, cannot be considered "black".
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I'm still on the lookout for a logical reason that induces Truthcentric to say the San are not "black". I'm tempted to say that although Truthcentric will publically deny it or keep quiet about it, for obvious reasons, it is very possible that he still tacitly subscribes to the "true negro" idea, so that any peoples who do not strictly conform to this rigid personification of the "black man" in his world view, cannot be considered "black".
Truthcentric is in hiding at the moment but the answer is simple. He was going by the old Sundjata definition of black.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
* The term "Black" cannot be justified as a divisive term because it describes dark skin only
The keyword here is "only".
The keyword here is "only".
This is very simple. Some of the Khosians are light skinned therefore Truthcentric has determined they are not black.
Truthcentric said they are not "black". He didn't use the word "Negro" or "true Negro" so it is unfair for you to accuse him of subscribing to a "Negro" concept in any form.
alTakruri has stated in earlier threads and Truthcentric has indicated here that "Negro" is an invalid concept not to be confused with "black" which simply means dark skin. An example of a black person below:
similar in skin tone to:
note: Sundjata has recently retracted that "black" means dark skin only. I blame the blacks around here for flip flop teachings which have led Truthcentic astrayPosts: 43011 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: the problem is we can't use the word "race"
Why can't the word race be used? Is it because it's misleading and you and your ilk have no idea about how to define it?
Yes, I believe so.
Anyway the discussions on this board should pertain to the below....
Non-Egyptology related discussion. African roots, race, origin of man etc.
^^If you can define race without its many discrepancies, then by all means go ahead and use it!
If not then stfu about it and stop complaining about its non-use on this board due to its fallacious meaning.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
note: Sundjata has recently retracted that "black" means dark skin only.
I've "recently retracted" nothing that I've stated in this thread or any other thread. That you are an imbecile who is good for nothing but misinterpreting people and copying/pasting from wikipedia, is not my fault OR my problem.
quote:Although I never used the term "lightness", call me crazy> but it could be said that light brown is "lighter" than dark brown, hence some people in American social definitions are called "light skinned".
This race-obsessed pig has obviously lived in a box for the full 15 years of her pathetic life since in America these "light-skinned" African-Americans are still referred to as "black".
It also escapes this imbecile that medium brown, San-like complexions are darker than the world average.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I'm still on the lookout for a logical reason that induces Truthcentric to say the San are not "black". I'm tempted to say that although Truthcentric will publically deny it or keep quiet about it, for obvious reasons, it is very possible that he still tacitly subscribes to the "true negro" idea, so that any peoples who do not strictly conform to this rigid personification of the "black man" in his world view, cannot be considered "black".
Some of the San are not that dark-skinned, so I don't consider them black. I'm not saying there are no black San, just that not all of them are dark enough to qualify as black in my eyes.
Posts: 7121 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
This is very simple. Some of the Khosians are light skinned therefore Truthcentric has determined they are not black.
"light skinned" is a relative word. "Some of the KhoiSans" may be light skinned only in relation to darker skinned Africans, while they may not be so in relation to others. They are certainly much darker than northwest Europeans [already given a demonstration of this], and still darker than tawny Maghrebi folks. Being "lighter" than darker African counterparts doesn't automatically render somebody "non-black". For instance, a "light caramel-colored" African is perceptively "lighter" than a "dark chocolate brown" colored African, and like-wise these two would be "lighter" than a "near pitch-black" colored African. Saying that the first two individuals are "lighter than" the "near pitch-black" African, will not automatically render the former two "non-black" while rendering the "near pitch-black" African as the only "black" in the set. By that logic, then one would not render the darker southern Europeans or "tawny"-looking Europeans "white", since obviously there are skin tone gradients in even a relatively small landmass like Europe; they would be "non-white".
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Truthcentric said they are not "black". He didn't use the word "Negro" or "true Negro" so it is unfair for you to accuse him of subscribing to a "Negro" concept in any form.
This is what sets you and I apart. I'm able to read into subtleties even when something is not being said outright. It's funny that you say that I'm "unfairly accusing" the guy, after accusing him of something yourself by opening this thread; well, let's find out: Does Truthcentric consider Winnie "black"?
If Truthcentric was to say that Winnie is "black" but not the San male shown earlier, shouldn't that say something about Truthcentric's viewpoint?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
^What if you had an African-American friend with a similar complexion, would you not refer to him as one of your "black friends"?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
note: Sundjata has recently retracted that "black" means dark skin only.
I've "recently retracted" nothing that I've stated in this thread or any other thread. That you are an imbecile who is good for nothing but misinterpreting people and copying/pasting from wikipedia, is not my fault OR my problem.
quote:Although I never used the term "lightness", call me crazy> but it could be said that light brown is "lighter" than dark brown, hence some people in American social definitions are called "light skinned".
This race-obsessed pig has obviously lived in a box for the full 15 years of her pathetic life since in America these "light-skinned" African-Americans are still referred to as "black".
It also escapes this imbecile that medium brown, San-like complexions are darker than the world average.
the problem with what you are saying now is that originally you said "black means dark skin only" which is the alTakruri position
Now you are saying it means ancestry. That is a different position.
Posts: 43011 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: the problem with what you are saying now is that originally you said "black means dark skin only" which is the alTakruri position
Now you are saying it means ancestry. That is a different position.
The problem with your brain is that it is not fully developed. You took a statement from one thread completely out of context in an attempt to apply it to a point you wish to make against Truthcentric in another thread. If I'm responding to someone who is inquiring about African populations, and I state within the context of American social definitions that these populations can't be divided based on a color appellation when such only refers to skin color, then this is where the context stays. Until you find an example of where I've applied the term similarly elsewhere, then you have not cited an example of where I've changed my position. Therefore you are grasping at straws and saving face, like you always do when called out for your stupidity.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I'm still on the lookout for a logical reason that induces Truthcentric to say the San are not "black". I'm tempted to say that although Truthcentric will publically deny it or keep quiet about it, for obvious reasons, it is very possible that he still tacitly subscribes to the "true negro" idea, so that any peoples who do not strictly conform to this rigid personification of the "black man" in his world view, cannot be considered "black".
Some of the San are not that dark-skinned, so I don't consider them black. I'm not saying there are no black San, just that not all of them are dark enough to qualify as black in my eyes .
"...in my eyes."
Those are the key words right there.
Doesn't change the fact/Truth that he is a Black Man...
quote:@ Truthcentric:
^What if you had an African-American friend with a similar complexion, would you not refer to him as one of your "black friends"?
Yes, do tell....
Again, if one goes by what his idea of who is a Black Man/Woman and who is not, there are nuff Black People in the Diaspora who are not Black- they just think they are....please iyah 'Truthcentric' with all due respect, you need to move and gwey with that foolishness...
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
lioness this man is not light brown according to dark-skinned nations. that is from a fair-skinned nation terminology. this guy is is not even barely brown and in iraq they would not say he is brown either this man would actually be considered light brown
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: the problem with what you are saying now is that originally you said "black means dark skin only" which is the alTakruri position
Now you are saying it means ancestry. That is a different position.
The problem with your brain is that it is not fully developed. You took a statement from one thread completely out of context in an attempt to apply it to a point you wish to make against Truthcentric in another thread. If I'm responding to someone who is inquiring about African populations, and I state within the context of American social definitions that these populations can't be divided based on a color appellation when such only refers to skin color, then this is where the context stays. Until you find an example of where I've applied the term similarly elsewhere, then you have not cited an example of where I've changed my position. Therefore you are grasping at straws and saving face, like you always do when called out for your stupidity.
Let's look at the original context:
quote:Originally posted by Annie87: I have been reading around this forum and it got me interested in African anthropology. I was wondering if anyone could tell me how many sub-races there are in Africa?
I know that the Bushmen, Somali, Berber, Pygmies are different from the blacks, but are there any more races? Do the blacks differ?
Thank you in advance.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
* The term "Black" cannot be justified as a divisive term because it describes dark skin only and all of the populations listed have dark skins so one can usefully call all of these populations "Black" in a social sense, but at the end of the day that doesn't fully describe what they all are either, which is simply African PEOPLE.
Hope that helped.
But now we are talking about about a particular African population, the South African Khosians many of whom do not have dark skin. They are African people yet many do not have dark skin. This is a very simple logic and it's not just me Truthcentric has noticed this and made a statement accordingly. Is his brain therefore not fully developed? He said:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I stand by my statement that the South African Bushmen are not black. They are subtropically rather than fully tropically adapted as evidenced by their limb proportions and relatively light skin.
Have a problem with that?
Clearly this is not your position. I'm sorry but I happened to have noticed this contradiction. So stop being emotional and deal with it
Posts: 43011 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Originally posted by Sundjata:
@ Truthcentric:
^What if you had an African-American friend with a similar complexion, would you not refer to him as one of your "black friends"?
@ Truthcentric:
^What if you had an African-American enemy with a similar complexion, how would refer to him?
@ Sundjata:
why do you set up biased questions? keep it real an objective question would be: "Are all African Americans black? but the question has already been answered. A San Bushman migrating to America becoming an African American or becoming a friend or foe of Truthcentric would be irrelevant to determining if he is black or not. We were talking about Africa. Now America is brought up for some reason as if America sets the standard for what black is.
It's possible, but that's a future lioness thread
Posts: 43011 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truthcentric's dichotomy between "black" and "non-black" San poses a problem, because it suggests that the San are of two distinct inbreeding groups, and that this is manifested in distinct physical types of San. His color dichotomy implies that the supposed "light skin" and "dark skin" are not normal intra-ethnic variations of the San. If this assessment is not on target, I'd like Truthcentric to clarify what is.
Truthcentric has also noticeably stayed clear from the question of Winnie vs. the San male, and how that fits into his stated viewpoint about the San. This raises the prospect that there may be something to the assessment I made earlier, which was gratuitously dismissed as being "unfair" by lioness.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Truthcentric's dichotomy between "black" and "non-black" San poses a problem, because it suggests that the San are of two distinct inbreeding groups,
No it doesn't. Tuthcentric's pre-flip flop definition was the same as Sundjata pre-flip flop definition of black
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
* The term "Black" cannot be justified as a divisive term because it describes dark skin only
This is a simple definition of "black"
You keep trying to interject ancestry.
According to this definition all it means is "dark skin" Therefore, to illustrate, if someone was borderline and they were living in a Northern latitude and then went to live in a sunny Southern area their skin would darken a little if they stayed out in the sun and it would stay that way. The person would then go from being a non-black person to being a black person because all it means is dark skin and there would be dividing line, that if you were close to it, would be minute variation differentiating one category or the other.
Now maybe you don't like that definition.
We are dealing with two separate definitions of black.
BLACK:
definition
A) dark skin
OR
B) "biologically African"
So maybe you would prefer definition 2)
Fine now Australian Aborigines and others outside of Africa are excluded, as long as you're comfortable with that. But with definition 2) it's odd having a genetic definition but misleading to title it a a color name.
We have to ask ourselves who invented categorizing people by color and why we subscribe to it.
What you can always do in an argument is to bring up the word "black" and not indicate what definition you are using. If someone questions you just pick the definition that gives you advantage of the moment.
It's the old system, it never changes.
Posts: 43011 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic