The fact that the chariots found in West Africa resemble those of Crete does not mean that the riders of these chariots had to have come from Crete. In fact Greek traditions make it clear that the ancient Cretans, called Minoans came from Africa
The Dravidian and African languages share similar names for the wheel. For example:
Galla makurakura Tulu gali, tagori Swahili guru, dumu Mande koli, kori, muru-fe Tamil kal, ari, urul , tikiri Ka. gali tiguri, tigari
It would appear that the proto-African-Dravidian term for wheel was *-ori / *-uri *go/uri and *ko/uri. The proto-South Dravidian term for wheel *tigu/ori . The linguistic evidence suggest that in the proto- language the speakers of proto-African-Dravidian used either the vowels o/u or a/i after the consonants. It is also evident that the l and r, were interchangeable in the construction of the term for wheel.
It is clear that African people employed chariots in aadition to boats to travel long distances in many parts of Africa.
posted
The horse period is dated between 2000 and 1200 BC. These dates correspond to the archaeological research.There were two horses common to Africa. A horse introduced to Africa by the Hysos and a native small size horse common to much of North and West Africa.Most researchers believe the horse was introduced to Africa/Egypt by 1700BC. This is an interesting date, and far to late for the introduction of the horse given the archaeological evidence for horses at Maadi and the Saharan zone.Saharan Africans used the donkey and later horses as beast of burden. A domesticated Equus was found at Hierakonpolis dating to around the 3600 BC at Maadi in the Sahara (Fekri A Hassan, The predynastic of Egypt, Journal of World Prehistory,2(2) (1988) .145; J. McArdle, Preliminary report on the predynastic fauna of the Hierkonpolis, Project Studies Association, Cairo. Publication No.1 (1982), p.116-120.)
The archaeological evidence of horses in the Sahara at this early time make it clear that horses were in Africa years before the Hysos arrived on the Continent, and that a horse native to Saharan Africa was already in existence before this time as well.
Secondly we have Kushites horsebackriding at Buhen in 4th millennium BP. This shows that while Asians used the horse for chariots Africans had long recognized that they could ride the horse. As a result, the presence of writing and Saharans horseback riding support a probably much earlier origin than the late horse period (e.g., 700 BC) assigned these inscriptions by some researchers.
Dr. Winters. If I could add something here? Perhaps that not only did the chariot originate in black lands but may also have taken it to Northern Europe.
Picture [9] shows another example of the four-spoked chariot in Africa and [10] the four-spoked chariot in Sweden The red-dots how a sea-journey might have been made from African Near East to Sweden where the four-spoked chariot was found:
At Buhen, one of the major fortresses of Nubia, which served as the headquarters of the Egyptian Viceroy of Kush a skeleton of a horse was found lying on the pavement of a Middle Kingdom rampart (W.B. Emery, A master-work of Egyptian military architecture 3900 years ago" Illustrated London News, 12 September, pp.250-251). This was only 25 years after the Hysos had conquered Egypt.The Kushites appear to have rode the horses on horseback instead of a chariot.
This suggest that the Kushites had been riding horses for an extended period of time for them to be able to attack Buhen on horseback. This supports supports the early habit of Africans riding horses as depicted in the rock art.This tradition was continued throughout the history of Kush.
The Kushites and upper Egyptians were great horsemen, whereas the Lower Egyptians usually rode the chariot, the Kushite calvary of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty usually rode on horseback (W.A. Fairservis, The ancient kingdoms of the Nile (London,1962) p.129).
posted
Wheeled vehicles were invented in western Asia, and were used by the Sumerians. The ancient Egyptians made wheeled toys, but did not use wheels on vehicles until the end of the Middle Kingdom, when they adopted chariots in imitation of the Asiatic Hyksos.
From H Strudwick 'The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, p. 422. 'Introduced into Egypt around 1650 BC by the Hyksos invaders, the chariot revolutionized the art of war...'
This is why all Egyptian chariot images come from the New Kingdom. There are chariot burials in Europe that are older than that. Chariots similar to those discovered in Tutakhamun's tomb were known in Scandinavia by a similar period. The idea of black Vikings is, of course, preposterous.
Sub saharan Africans do not appear to have had use of the wheel until the time of European colonialism. I'm not aware that they had or domesticated horses, either, far beyond Nubia which did have very formidable cavalry. Donkeys were used as beasts of burden, but that was about it.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Wheeled vehicles were invented in western Asia, and were used by the Sumerians. The ancient Egyptians made wheeled toys, but did not use wheels on vehicles until the end of the Middle Kingdom, when they adopted chariots in imitation of the Asiatic Hyksos.
From H Strudwick 'The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, p. 422. 'Introduced into Egypt around 1650 BC by the Hyksos invaders, the chariot revolutionized the art of war...'
This is why all Egyptian chariot images come from the New Kingdom. There are chariot burials in Europe that are older than that. Chariots similar to those discovered in Tutakhamun's tomb were known in Scandinavia by a similar period. The idea of black Vikings is, of course, preposterous.
Sub saharan Africans do not appear to have had use of the wheel until the time of European colonialism. I'm not aware that they had or domesticated horses, either, far beyond Nubia which did have very formidable cavalry. Donkeys were used as beasts of burden, but that was about it.
The Sumerians came from Africa. That is why the chariot also appeared in the Indus Valley.
Africans were using chariots throughout Africa and Mycenae.
The only thing you may have right is that the Hyksos were the first to use the chariot for military purposes.
You have not even read the thread. Horses were domesticated in Africa long before the appearence of the Europeans. The Chariot routes from the Fezzan to Dar Tichitt shows that travel by chariots was popular until the Sahara became arid.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Wheeled vehicles were invented in western Asia, and were used by the Sumerians. The ancient Egyptians made wheeled toys, but did not use wheels on vehicles until the end of the Middle Kingdom, when they adopted chariots in imitation of the Asiatic Hyksos.
From H Strudwick 'The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, p. 422. 'Introduced into Egypt around 1650 BC by the Hyksos invaders, the chariot revolutionized the art of war...'
This is why all Egyptian chariot images come from the New Kingdom. There are chariot burials in Europe that are older than that. Chariots similar to those discovered in Tutakhamun's tomb were known in Scandinavia by a similar period. The idea of black Vikings is, of course, preposterous.
Sub saharan Africans do not appear to have had use of the wheel until the time of European colonialism. I'm not aware that they had or domesticated horses, either, far beyond Nubia which did have very formidable cavalry. Donkeys were used as beasts of burden, but that was about it.
The Sumerians came from Africa. They would have been familiar with wheels since they may have been used on carts.
That is why the carts. also appeared in the Indus Valley.
Africans were using chariots throughout Africa and Mycenae.
The only thing you may have right is that the Hyksos were the first to use the chariot for military purposes.
You have not even read the thread. Horses were domesticated in Africa long before the appearence of the Europeans. The Chariot routes from the Fezzan to Dar Tichitt shows that travel by chariots was popular until the Sahara became arid.
the a group nubians were trading with asia way before egypt exsisted so they probably knew about chariots.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Sumerians came from Africa? Does this blue-eyed albino gentleman look like an African to you?
The chariot does not come from Africa.
Does this Mycenaean charioteer look African?
Looks more like a rat-faced albino to me.
Same goes for these ones...
Do stop your embarrassing attempt to fake history and to give the 'Africans' credit for things achieved way beyond the frontiers of the negro homeland but not within it.
Fezzan's Berber kindom obviously appeared long after the formation of the Sahara desert. Its people, the Garamantes, were traders and slavers, who hunted 'Ethiopian troglodytes' from their chariots (Herodotus). Most of the rock art you show relates to the Garamantes
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
The Sumerians came from Africa? Does this blue-eyed albino gentleman look like an African to you?
The chariot does not come from Africa.
Does this Mycenaean charioteer look African?
Looks more like a rat-faced albino to me.
Same goes for these ones...
Do stop your embarrassing attempt to fake history and to give the 'Africans' credit for things achieved way beyond the frontiers of the negro homeland but not within it.
Fezzan's Berber kindom obviously appeared long after the formation of the Sahara desert. Its people, the Garamantes, were traders and slavers, who hunted 'Ethiopian troglodytes' from their chariots (Herodotus). Most of the rock art you show relates to the Garamantes
Gutian ..... Sumerian
LOL. Of course this person is not African. First of all he is not a Sumerian. That is a picture of a Gutian from Lagash. The rulers of Lagash are not part of the Sumerian king list.
The Garamante as evident from the Chariot routes into Dar Tichitt from the Fezzan were not the only people to use this mode of transportation. Most Africans at this time used chariots.
It should also be mentioned that the Garamante/Garamande were Mande speaking Blacks.
posted
Like most Euro nuts you love to spread lies. Look at this picture
It is obvious that the legs on the figure and at the base of the neck we see two different colors. They suggest that the original figures were much darker in complexion.
This indicates to me that the figure was probably repainted to make it appear the figures were Indo-Europeans, when in reality they probably looked like the Blacks of Thera and Mycenae.
The Sumerians came from Africa? Does this blue-eyed albino gentleman look like an African to you?
So then Albino boy. Your proposition seems to hinge on whether or not Lapis lazuli was used as the eye inlay. Below, three have it, and three don't. Would you care to explain your rather bizarre conclusion.
Controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the white ancestry of European Jews.
To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians. Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.
As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga Black Heads. In Rawlinsons day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.
Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.
A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinsons work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.
A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi land of the true lords. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.
Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu the sacred language. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.
Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.
The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.
Oppert knew Rawlinson had used African languages to decipher cuneiform writing. But he did not compare the Sumerian to African languages, probably, due to the fact that he knew they were related given Rawlinson's earlier research.
It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.
Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga black heads, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.
There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves almat kakkadi black headed people, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black.
In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: black heads. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.
The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were whites, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.
Gutian....Sumerian
To make the Sumerians white textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Note the difference in handshake between the Gutian and the Sumerian.
Sumerians noted that the Gutians:
"They are not classed among people, not reckoned as part of the land Gutian people who know no inhibitions, With human intelligence but canine instinct and monkey's features"
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Like most Euro nuts you love to spread lies. Look at this picture
It is obvious that the legs on the figure and at the base of the neck we see two different colors. They suggest that the original figures were much darker in complexion.
This indicates to me that the figure was probably repainted to make it appear the figures were Indo-Europeans, when in reality they probably looked like the Blacks of Thera and Mycenae.
.
Like most deranged and paranoid Afrocentrists you falsely and baselessly accuse others of lying and of forgery while not having an honest bone in your miserable body.
Pray tell, are you aware of the concept of libel? You do realize it's a criminal offence? If justice were done you would have a criminal record by now, if you don't already.
It's quite obvious which parts of that scene are restoration, they are all deliberately done in lighter colours, the blue of the background included, precisely to make clear which areas are reconstructions. There were no blacks of Thera and Mycenae, either.
There were also no chariots in negro land, beyond the Egyptian sphere of influence, except the ones driven there by pharaohs or Garamantes on hunting missions.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: , There were also no chariots in negro land, beyond the Egyptian sphere of influence, except the ones driven there by pharaohs or Garamantes on hunting missions.
LOL. There are numerous chariot engravings in areas that were not occupied by the negro Garamantes see Dar Tichitt
^^^^ This is one of Clyde's tricks, he uses the picture of one of the Gudea statues with a broken off nose, the angle- a side view so you can't tell it's broken.
Note the different handshakes. The handshakes show a different ideology and cultural sphere.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
where is any reference that a different hand postition has any significance? stop making up innuendo Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: , There were also no chariots in negro land, beyond the Egyptian sphere of influence, except the ones driven there by pharaohs or Garamantes on hunting missions.
LOL. There are numerous chariot engravings in areas that were not occupied by the negro Garamantes see Dar Tichitt
.
Nice info,
Here I have a nice image.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Like most Euro nuts you love to spread lies. Look at this picture
It is obvious that the legs on the figure and at the base of the neck we see two different colors. They suggest that the original figures were much darker in complexion.
This indicates to me that the figure was probably repainted to make it appear the figures were Indo-Europeans, when in reality they probably looked like the Blacks of Thera and Mycenae.
.
I wonder if thechnicly that chariot could take lot of weight like grown adults and all the material, the way the wheels are built. The construction looks weak.
Is there somewhere a remaining of this type of chariots and it's wheels? So we can see how it was engineered.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: The first chariots introduced into Egypt were, like the horses, of foreign origin, but when built by Egyptian workmen they soon became more elegant, if not stronger than their models. Lightness was the quality chiefly aimed at; and at length the weight was so reduced that it was possible for a man to carry his chariot on his shoulders without fatigue. The materials for them were on this account limited to oak or ash and leather; metal, whether gold or silver, iron or bronze, being used but sparingly, and then only for purposes of ornamentation. The wheels usually had six, but sometimes eight spokes, or occasionally only four. The axle consisted of a single stout pole of acacia. The framework of the chariot was composed of two pieces of wood mortised together so as to form a semicircle or half-ellipse, and closed by a straight bar; to this frame was fixed a floor of sycomore wood or of plaited leather thongs. The sides of the chariot were formed of upright panels, solid in front and open at the sides, each provided with a handrail. The pole, which was of a single piece of wood, was bent into an elbow at about one-fifth of its length from the end, which was inserted into the centre of the axletree. On the gigantic T thus formed was fixed the body of the chariot, the hinder part resting on the axle, and the front attached to the bent part of the pole, while the whole was firmly bound together with double leather thongs. A yoke of hornbeam, shaped like a bow, to which the horses were harnessed, was fastened to the other extremity of the pole. The Asiatics placed three men in a chariot, but the Egyptians only two; the warriorsinniwhose business it was to fight, and the shield-bearerqazanawho protected his companion with a buckler during the engagement. A complete set of weapons was carried in the chariotlances, javelins, and daggers, curved spear, club, and battle-axewhile two bow-cases as well as two large quivers were hung at the sides. The chariot itself was very liable to upset, the slightest cause being sufficient to overturn it. Even when moving at a slow pace, the least inequality of the ground shook it terribly, and when driven at full speed it was only by a miracle of skill that the occupants could maintain their equilibrium. At such times the charioteer would stand astride of the front panels, keeping his right foot only inside the vehicle, and planting the other firmly on the pole, so as to lessen the jolting, and to secure a wider base on which to balance himself. To carry all this into practice long education was necessary, for which there were special schools of instruction, and those who were destined to enter the army were sent to these schools when little more than children. To each man, as soon as he had thoroughly mastered all the difficulties of the profession, a regulation chariot and pair of horses were granted, for which he was responsible to the Pharaoh or to his generals, and he might then return to his home until the next call to arms. The warrior took precedence of the shield-bearer, and both were considered superior to the foot-soldier; the chariotry, in fact, like the cavalry of the present day, was the aristocratic branch of the army, in which the royal princes, together with the nobles and their sons, enlisted. No Egyptian ever willingly trusted himself to the back of a horse, and it was only in the thick of a battle, when his chariot was broken, and there seemed no other way of escaping from the mźlée, that a warrior would venture to mount one of his steeds. There appear, however, to have been here and there a few horsemen, who acted as couriers or aides-de-camp; they used neither saddle-cloth nor stirrups, but were provided with reins with which to guide their animals, and their seat on horseback was even less secure than the footing of the driver in his chariot.
They look weak but they must have been effective in combat.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
well where ever the Chariots ultimately came from tradition have it that the Greeks learnt to hitch four horse chariots from the Libyans. see Herodotus book 4 http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh4170.htm The Hellenes learnt from the Libyans also the yoking together of four horses.
And the Savannah empires had impressive cavalries, Ghana reached its peak in the eleventh century. The Arab chronicler al-Bakri noted in 1067 that the army was 200,000 strong, with many contingents wearing chain mail. The king, who had not converted to Islam, was considered divine and able to intercede with the gods. He appointed all officials and served as supreme judge. When he appeared in public, he was surrounded by advisors and princes of the empire, along with personal retainers holding gold swords, horses adorned with gold-cloth blankets, and dogs wearing gold collars. Kano's Dubar Calvary festival Btw the battle of Hasting in the same time period had about 60,000 men in battle combined for both sides, had the Emperor of Ghana had it in his mind he could have crushed both French and English on the field with numbers alone.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Thank you. The first chariots introduced into Egypt were, like the horses, of foreign origin, but when built by Egyptian workmen they soon became more elegant, if not stronger than their models. Lightness was the quality chiefly aimed at; and at length the weight was so reduced that it was possible for a man to carry his chariot on his shoulders without fatigue. The materials for them were on this account limited to oak or ash and leather; metal, whether gold or silver, iron or bronze, being used but sparingly, and then only for purposes of ornamentation. The wheels usually had six, but sometimes eight spokes, or occasionally only four. The axle consisted of a single stout pole of acacia. The framework of the chariot was composed of two pieces of wood mortised together so as to form a semicircle or half-ellipse, and closed by a straight bar; to this frame was fixed a floor of sycomore wood or of plaited leather thongs. The sides of the chariot were formed of upright panels, solid in front and open at the sides, each provided with a handrail. The pole, which was of a single piece of wood, was bent into an elbow at about one-fifth of its length from the end, which was inserted into the centre of the axletree. On the gigantic T thus formed was fixed the body of the chariot, the hinder part resting on the axle, and the front attached to the bent part of the pole, while the whole was firmly bound together with double leather thongs. A yoke of hornbeam, shaped like a bow, to which the horses were harnessed, was fastened to the other extremity of the pole. The Asiatics placed three men in a chariot, but the Egyptians only two; the warriorsinniwhose business it was to fight, and the shield-bearerqazanawho protected his companion with a buckler during the engagement. A complete set of weapons was carried in the chariotlances, javelins, and daggers, curved spear, club, and battle-axewhile two bow-cases as well as two large quivers were hung at the sides. The chariot itself was very liable to upset, the slightest cause being sufficient to overturn it. Even when moving at a slow pace, the least inequality of the ground shook it terribly, and when driven at full speed it was only by a miracle of skill that the occupants could maintain their equilibrium. At such times the charioteer would stand astride of the front panels, keeping his right foot only inside the vehicle, and planting the other firmly on the pole, so as to lessen the jolting, and to secure a wider base on which to balance himself. To carry all this into practice long education was necessary, for which there were special schools of instruction, and those who were destined to enter the army were sent to these schools when little more than children. To each man, as soon as he had thoroughly mastered all the difficulties of the profession, a regulation chariot and pair of horses were granted, for which he was responsible to the Pharaoh or to his generals, and he might then return to his home until the next call to arms. The warrior took precedence of the shield-bearer, and both were considered superior to the foot-soldier; the chariotry, in fact, like the cavalry of the present day, was the aristocratic branch of the army, in which the royal princes, together with the nobles and their sons, enlisted. No Egyptian ever willingly trusted himself to the back of a horse, and it was only in the thick of a battle, when his chariot was broken, and there seemed no other way of escaping from the mźlée, that a warrior would venture to mount one of his steeds. There appear, however, to have been here and there a few horsemen, who acted as couriers or aides-de-camp; they used neither saddle-cloth nor stirrups, but were provided with reins with which to guide their animals, and their seat on horseback was even less secure than the footing of the driver in his chariot.
They look weak but they must have been effective in combat.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: well where ever the Chariots ultimately came from tradition have it that the Greeks learnt to hitch four horse chariots from the Libyans. see Herodotus book 4 http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh4170.htm The Hellenes learnt from the Libyans also the yoking together of four horses.
And the Savannah empires had impressive cavalries, Ghana reached its peak in the eleventh century. The Arab chronicler al-Bakri noted in 1067 that the army was 200,000 strong, with many contingents wearing chain mail. The king, who had not converted to Islam, was considered divine and able to intercede with the gods. He appointed all officials and served as supreme judge. When he appeared in public, he was surrounded by advisors and princes of the empire, along with personal retainers holding gold swords, horses adorned with gold-cloth blankets, and dogs wearing gold collars. Kano's Dubar Calvary festival Btw the battle of Hasting in the same time period had about 60,000 men in battle combined for both sides, had the Emperor of Ghana had it in his mind he could have crushed both French and English on the field with numbers alone.
Libyans were mainly Mande speakers, called Garamantes/Garamandes.
Graves (1980) and Leo Frobenius linked the Garamante to the ancient empire of Ghana (c.300 BC to A.D. 1100). Graves (1980) claims that the term Garamante is the Greek plural for Garama or Garamas. He said that the present Jarama or Jarma are the descendants of the Garamante; and that the Jarama live near the Niger river.
The Garamantes founded the Greek cities of Thrace, Minoan Crete and Attica. The Garamantes were also called Carians by the Indo-European Greeks.
The Garamantes or Carians originally lived in the Fezzan.
The Garamantes were recognized as a Black tribe. They were known to the Greeks and Romans as dark skinned. In Ptolemy (I.8.5.,p.31) a Garamante slave was described as having a body the color of pitch or wholly black.These Garamante were described by the Latin classical writers as black or dark skinned: perusti (Lucan 4.679), furvi(Arnoloius, Adversus Nationes , 6.5) and nigri (Anthologia Latina, 155,no.183).
The Olympian creation myth, as recorded by Pindar in Fragment , and Apollonius Rhodius, makes it clear that the Garamantes early colonized Greece. Their descendants were called Carians. The Carians practiced apiculture. As in Africa the Carians practiced matrilineal descent. According to Herodotus , even up until his time the Carians took the name of their mother.
These Cretans were called Garamantes. After the goddess Ker or Car, these people also came to be also known as the Carians. The Carians spoke a Mande languages.
These people usually sailed to the Islands in Aegean and the surrounding coast were they established prosperous trading communities. There is frequent mention of the Garamantes of the Fezzan, in Classical literature of Greece and Rome.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor AKA Troll: Here I have a nice image.
[/QB]
Yes, this is Tut fighting against people akin to those who introduced chariots to Egypt in the first place. In reality they would have fought the Egyptiand from their own chariots. In fact a fallen chariot is included among the asiatic masses there. No chariots to be seen among the nubian enemy, by contrast. I've seen a later image of Nubian grandees riding a chariot in procession, but not in battle.
The image below shows Asiatics in their chariots. Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Here I have a nice image.
It looks like the pharaoh is fighting people of his own skin tone. Who are those little dark guys down below and behind him? Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
Not to diverge too far from the thread Dr Winters but I find the above correlate what you said the above as we all know is a Minoan town notice the short dreads some of the men are wearing Athene came from North Africa. She was the Libyan Triple Goddess Neith, Metis, Medusa, Anath, or Ath-enna. An inscription at Larnax-Lapithou named her Athene in Greek, Anat in Phoenician. Pre-Hellenic myths said she came from the uterus of Lake Tritonis (Three Queens) in Libya. Egyptians sometimes called Isis Athene, which meant "I have come from myself." Greeks claimed Athene was born from Zeus's head, after he swallowed her mother Metis, i.e. Medusa, "Female Wisdom," formerly symbolized by the Gorgoneum, Athene's snake haired mask, invested with power to turn men to stone. Gorgo, or Gorgon, was Athene's Destroyer aspect. B.Walker http://www.amazonation.com/AthenaW&W.html The Libyan Goddess Tannit (Libyan Neith) http://www.temehu.com/Cities_sites/museum-of-tripoli.htmPosts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then a king will come from the South, Ameny, the justified, my name, Son of a woman of Ta-Seti, child of Upper Egypt, He will take the white crown, he will join the Two Mighty Ones (the two crowns)
Asiatics will fall to his sword, Libyans will fall to his flame, Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might, As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him, One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler, To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt...
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Here I have a nice image.
It looks like the pharaoh is fighting people of his own skin tone. Who are those little dark guys down below and behind him?
Limb proportion studies are more stable and are more reliable and are a viable alternative to cranio-facial studies say mainstream scientists. Limbs are more robust than facial elements. EARLY OR OLDER Europeans - Mesolithics, Neolithics, etc - tend to resemble Africans in various studies of the Nile Valley ancients, because they still have tropical adaptation. In other words, they look like tropically adapted Africans to begin with, more than modern Europeans. When comparisons are run between the Ancient Egyptians, Black Americans, and White Americans, its the tropically adapted black Americans that are closer to the Ancient Egyptians than any of the others. As regards modern Egyptians, Black Americans, Pygmies, white Americans and white Southern and Northern Europeans, modern Egyptians tend to cluster with dark-skinned tropical peoples like other Africans (Pygmies) or people of African background (Black Americans), or there is resemblance to other tropical peoples like Melanesians.
Quote:
"Body proportions are under strong climatic selection and evince remarkable stability within regional lineages. As such, they offer a viable and robust alternative to cranio-facial data in assessing hypothesised continuity and replacement with the transition to agro-pastoralism in central Europe.. Mesolithic Europeans display considerable variation in humero-clavicular and brachial indices yet none approach the extreme "hyper-polar" morphology of LBK humans from the MESV. In contrast, Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age peoples display elongated brachial and crural indices reminiscent of terminal Pleistocene and "tropically adapted" recent humans."
(Gallagher A, Gunther MM, Bruchhaus H. Population continuity, demic diffusion and Neolithic origins in central-southern Germany: the evidence from body proportions. (Homo. 2009;60(2):95-126. Epub 2009 Mar 4)
"We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites... Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical... Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks. ..brachial indices are definitely more African... There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains." ("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf, (Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-55
Nubians were ethnically the closest people to the Egyptians. Conflict between the two were typical clashes between kingdoms without the simplistic "racial" models drawn by some 20th century writers.
Quote 1:
The ancient Egyptians referred to a region, located south of the third cataract the Nile River, in which Nubians dwelt as Kush.. Within such context, this phrase is not a racial slur. Throughout the history of ancient Egypt there were numerous, well documented instances that celebrate Nubian-Egyptian marriages. A study of these documents, particularly those dated to both the Egyptian New Kingdom (after 1550 B.C.E.) and to Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI (about 720-640 BCE), reveals that neither spouse nor any of the children of such unions suffered discrimination at the hands of the ancient Egyptians. Indeed such marriages were never an obstacle to social, economic, or political status, provided the individuals concerned conformed to generally accepted Egyptian social standards. Furthermore, at times, certain Nubian practices, such as tattooing for women, and the unisex fashion of wearing earrings, were wholeheartedly embraced by the ancient Egyptians." (Bianchi, 2004: p. 4)
'It is an extremely difficult task to attempt to describe the Nubians during the course of Egypt's New Kingdom, because their presence appears to have virtually evaporated from the archaeological record.. The result has been described as a wholesale Nubian assimilation into Egyptian society. This assimilation was so complete that it masked all Nubian ethnic identities insofar as archaeological remains are concerned beneath the impenetrable veneer of Egypt's material; culture.. In the Kushite Period, when Nubians ruled as Pharaohs in their own right, the material culture of Dynasty XXV (about 750-655 B.C.E.) was decidedly Egyptian in character.. Nubia's entire landscape up to the region of the Third Cataract was dotted with temples indistinguishable in style and decoration from contemporary temples erected in Egypt. The same observation obtains for the smaller number of typically Egyptian tombs in which these elite Nubian princes were interred. (Bianchi, 2004, p. 99-100)
- Robert Bianchi ( 2004). Daily Life of the Nubians. Greenwood Publishing Group
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.
Godde K. et al.
"The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians. If Nubians and Egyptians were not biologically similar, one would expect the scores to separately cluster by population (e.g. Nubians compared to Nubians would have small biological distances, and Nubians compared to Egyptians would have high biological distances). However, this was not the case in the current analysis and the Results suggest homogeneity between the two populations."
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gutians were blacks. The names in the king list are not Indo-European, Clyde. They came from Iran like the Elamites. If you look at the names in the Gutian king list you can see what I am talking about. Erridupizir, Inkishush, Silulumesh, Ibranum, etc. They were black Mesopotamians. Their names were identical to the people of Mesopotamia in structure.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Gutians were blacks. The names in the king list are not Indo-European, Clyde. They came from Iran like the Elamites. If you look at the names in the Gutian king list you can see what I am talking about. Erridupizir, Inkishush, Silulumesh, Ibranum, etc. They were black Mesopotamians. Their names were identical to the people of Mesopotamia in structure.
posted
What are you saying? Are you saying that man is a descendant of the Gutians?
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Gutians were blacks. The names in the king list are not Indo-European, Clyde. They came from Iran like the Elamites. If you look at the names in the Gutian king list you can see what I am talking about. Erridupizir, Inkishush, Silulumesh, Ibranum, etc. They were black Mesopotamians. Their names were identical to the people of Mesopotamia in structure.
There are no Gutians listed in the Sumerian King list. Names can not identify ones racial heritage or nationality.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Note the difference in handshake between the Gutian and the Sumerian.
Sumerians noted that the Gutians:
"They are not classed among people, not reckoned as part of the land Gutian people who know no inhibitions, With human intelligence but canine instinct and monkey's features"
.
.
MARI NOT GUTIAN
Ebih-Il, the Superintendent of Mari Period of the Archaic Dynasties, circa 2400 BC Temple of Ishtar, Mari (Syria) Louvre Museum
Head of a statue of Ishtar, wearing a headdress, from the Temple of Ushtar at Mari, Syrian, 2800-2300 BC (alabaster)
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Ebony Allen please pay attention to this. The above statues are of Mari Syrians. They were one of the Sumerian Dynasties. They are not Gutians as Clyde claims. He says that they are Gutians because the hand position on some statues is different from King Gudea. You will not find that claim in any book. The reason you will not find that in any books is that the Mari dyasty of Sumeria came before Gudea. So there is no reason for the hand postion of Mari kings to be the same as a Lacish king who came later and no need to assume variation in hand postion represents anything other than a hand postion. \ Gudea was a ruler (ensi) of the state of Lagash in Southern Mesopotamia (now Iraq) who ruled ca. 2144 - 2124 BC.
. Votive relief of Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash. Limestone, Early Dynastic III (25502500 BC). Found in Telloh (ancient city of Girsu).
^^^ this is another artifcat from the Kingdom of Lagash as you can see it is from a king also of Lagash, earlier than Gudea named Ur-Nanshe.
In fact Gudea came at the tail end of the Gutian period (which is after the Mari) Some call him Gutian and that his name is derived from the word Gutian. Mike for instance has him as Gutian on his website as opposed to Clyde's claims
Whether it's true or not, regardless none of the art on this page is Gutian.
And all of it including Gudea look of similar ethnic stock, whatever it is
There may be no known Gutian art
According to the Sumerian king list, "In the army of Gutium, at first no king was famous; they were their own kings and ruled thus for 3 years."
The Sumerian king list represents them as ruling over Sumer for a short time after the fall of the Akkadian Empire, and paints a picture of chaos within the Gutian administration. Next to nothing is known about their origins, as no "Gutian" artifacts have surfaced from that time; little information is gleaned from the contemporary sources. Nothing is known of their language either, apart from those Sumerian king names, and that it was distinct from other known languages of the region (such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian, Hittite and Elamite).
_____________
Gutium as a later geographic term
In the first millennium BC, the term "Gutium" was used to refer to the region between the Zagros and the Tigris, also known as western Media. All tribes to the east and northeast who often had hostile relations with the peoples of lowland Mesopotamia, were referred to as Gutian or Guti. Assyrian royal annals use the term Gutians to refer to Iranian populations otherwise known as Medes or Mannaeans; and as late as the reign of Cyrus the Great of Persia, the famous general Gubaru (Gobryas) was described as the "governor of Gutium".
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Gutian people, From Wikipedia.
The Gutians were a tribe from northern and central ranges of Zagros mountains that overran southern Mesopotamia when the Akkadian empire collapsed in approximately 2154 BC.
Sumerian sources portray the Gutians as a barbarous, ravenous people from Gutium or Qutium in the mountains, presumably the central Zagros east of Babylon and north of Elam. Gutium is also mentioned based in modern-day Kurdistan The Sumerian king list represents them as ruling over Sumer for a short time after the fall of the Akkadian Empire, and paints a picture of chaos within the Gutian administration.
Next to nothing is known about their origins, as no "Gutian" artifacts have surfaced from that time; little information is gleaned from the contemporary sources. Nothing is known of their language either, apart from those Sumerian king names, and that it was distinct from other known languages of the region (such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian, Hittite and Elamite).
The Sumerians didn't think too much of the Gutians: here's what they had to say about them.
"They are not classed among people, not reckoned as part of the land Gutian people who know no inhibitions, With human intelligence but canine instinct and monkey's features"
Physical appearance - Wiki;
According to the historian Henry Hoyle Howorth (1901), Assyriologist Theophilus Pinches (1908), renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley (1929) and Assyriologist Ignace Gelb (1944) the Gutians were pale skinned and blonde haired. This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian (and Subarian) slaves as namrum or namrūtum, meaning "light colored" or "fair-skinned". This racial character of the Gutians as blondes or being light skinned was also taken up by Georges Vacher de Lapouge in 1899 and later by historian Sidney Smith in his Early history of Assyria (1928). Ephraim Avigdor Speiser however criticised the translation of "namrum" as "light colored". An article was published by Speiser in the Journal of the American Oriental Society attacking Gelb's translation. Gelb in response accused Speiser of circular reasoning. In response Speiser claimed the scholarship regarding the translation of "namrum" or "namrūtum" is unresolved.
Modern connection theories
The historical Guti have been regarded by some as among the ancestors of the Kurds. However, the term Guti had by late antiquity become a "catch all" term to describe all tribal peoples in the Zagros region, and according to J.P. Mallory, the original Gutians precede the arrival of Indo-Iranian peoples (of which the Kurds are one) by some 1500 years.
Clyde claims that these are Gutians;
The art is way too crude to be Sumerian, so maybe he's right.
Statuettes of two worshipers, from the Square Temple at Eshnunna (modern Tell Asmar), Iraq, ca. 2700 BCE. Gypsum inlaid with shell and black limestone, tallest figure approx. 2 6 high. Iraq Museum, Baghdad.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
According to the historian Henry Hoyle Howorth (1901), Assyriologist Theophilus Pinches (1908), renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley (1929) and Assyriologist Ignace Gelb (1944) the Gutians were pale skinned and blonde haired. This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian (and Subarian) slaves as namrum or namrūtum, meaning "light colored" or "fair-skinned".
This racial character of the Gutians as blondes or being light skinned was also taken up by Georges Vacher de Lapouge in 1899 and later by historian Sidney Smith in his Early history of Assyria (1928). Ephraim Avigdor Speiser however criticised the translation of "namrum" as "light colored". An article was published by Speiser in the Journal of the American Oriental Society attacking Gelb's translation. Gelb in response accused Speiser of circular reasoning. In response Speiser claimed the scholarship regarding the translation of "namrum" or "namrūtum" is unresolved.
quote:Originally posted by MIke111 Clyde claims that these are Gutians;
The art is way too crude to be Sumerian, so maybe he's right.
Statuettes of two worshipers, from the Square Temple at Eshnunna (modern Tell Asmar), Iraq, ca. 2700 BCE. Gypsum inlaid with shell and black limestone, tallest figure approx. 2 6 high. Iraq Museum, Baghdad.
[/qb]
[/QB]
^^^^ the date will tell you that Clyde is wrong. he simply wants them to be Gutians for modern political reasons. Look at the date 2700 BC The Gutian period starts approximately 2154 BC. an over 500 year difference in relation to the above statues The Gutians ruled for about 100 years Mike says Gudea king of Lagash is Gutian on his website and some scholars think the name Gudea is derived from Gutian. Gudea was a ruler of the state of Lagash in Southern Mesopotamia who ruled ca. 2144 - 2124 BC - that is in the Gutian time period
Clyde stop making up stuff
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Gutians
Physical appearance - Wiki;
According to the historian Henry Hoyle Howorth (1901), Assyriologist Theophilus Pinches (1908), renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley (1929) and Assyriologist Ignace Gelb (1944) the Gutians were pale skinned and blonde haired. This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian (and Subarian) slaves as namrum or namrūtum, meaning "light colored" or "fair-skinned".
This racial character of the Gutians as blondes or being light skinned was also taken up by Georges Vacher de Lapouge in 1899 and later by historian Sidney Smith in his Early history of Assyria (1928). Ephraim Avigdor Speiser however criticised the translation of "namrum" as "light colored". An article was published by Speiser in the Journal of the American Oriental Society attacking Gelb's translation. Gelb in response accused Speiser of circular reasoning. In response Speiser claimed the scholarship regarding the translation of "namrum" or "namrūtum" is unresolved.
The art supports the view they were "light skin".
.
The paint on the above figures is nearly all faded or flaked off but more importantly are over 500 yeras before the Gutians
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know that the dates given to so-called Gutian artifacts from Lagash have not been radiocarbon dated. Like other whites and Asians who steal the history of Black people ,the Gutians made an abundance of artifacts so it can appear that they represent the original Black populations they have replaced. But they are not Blacks thay are namrum 'light skin' frauds.
.
Many Gudea statues have had the heads replaced so the figures resemble Europeans. Note the head on the figure above is not the original, also observe the distinctive French profile/face of this so-called statue of Gudea.
Look at the neck of the statue please not that the head has been replaced.
This is a fake. Look at the head on the statue you can clearly see that it was added on to the statue.
But you will clearly note the original handshake of the Sumerians.
Statues are sometimes found with their heads knocked off.
That doesn't mean they are fake. It just means the head was reattached.
Gudea was a king of Lagash
Once again, here is a votive of a Lagash ruler before Gudea Ur-Nanshe
Votive relief of Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash. Limestone, Early Dynastic III (25502500 BC). Found in Telloh (ancient city of Girsu). A figurine of a woman dated to Lagash at about 2500 BC
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gutium: Gutian People, Gutian Dynasty of Sumer, Gutian Language
quote: Excerpt:
The Gutians (also Guteans or Guti) were a tribe that overran southern Mesopotamia when the Akkadian empire collapsed in approximately 2183 BC (short chronology). Sumerian sources portray the Gutians as a barbarous, ravenous people from Gutium or Qutium in the mountains, presumably the central Zagros. The Sumerian king list represents them as ruling over Sumer for a time, and paints a picture of chaos within the Gutian administration. Next to nothing is known about their origins, as no "Gutian" artifacts have surfaced from that time; little information is gleaned from the contemporary sources. Nothing is known of their language either, apart from those Sumerian king names, and that it was distinct from other major languages of the region (such as Akkadian, Hurrian, and Elamite). The Guti appear in Old Babylonian copies of inscriptions ascribed to Lugal-Anne-Mundu of Adab as among the nations providing his empire tribute. These inscriptions locate them between Subartu in the north, and Marhashe and Elam in the south. They were a prominent nomadic tribe who lived in the Zagros mountains in the time of the Akkadian Empire. Sargon the Great also mentions them among his subject lands, listing them between Lullubi, Armanu and Akkad to the north, and Nikku and Der to the south. The epic Cuthaean Legend of Naram-Sin of a later millennium mentions Gutium among the lands around Mesopotamia raided by Annubanini of Lulubum during Naram-Sin's reign in Akkad. As Akkadian might went into a decline, the Gutians began to practice hit-and-run tactics on Mesopotamia; they would be long gone by the time forces could arrive to deal with the situation. Their raids crippled the economy of Sumer.
unauthorized enlargement of a copyrighted photo now go snitch because you dont like enlargement details
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Zagros Mountains, mountain range in southwestern Iran, extending northwest-southeast from the Sīrvān (Diyālā) River to Shīrāz. The Zagros range is about 550 miles (900 km) long and more than 150 miles (240 km) wide. Situated mostly in what is now Iran, it forms the extreme western boundary of the Iranian plateau, though its foothills to the north and west extend into adjacent countries.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
]
[/url
\
Printer-friendly view of this topic