Any History textbook still making reference to the 'near east' in antiquity is outdated should be set aside.

DK World History Atlas Mapping the Human Journey: Revised and Updated, November 2004

Structurally divided as follows:

World History

North America

South America

Africa

Europe

West Asia

South and SouthEast Asia

North and East Asia

Australia and Oceania

quote:

---

Regardless of their origins AE was a near eastern power from a geopolitical point of view. That simply cannot and will not be changed. Africa has been neglected simply because it is not central to the march of western (modern) civilization. You could look at it as a side show in the march of world history. One of the problems in teaching African history in secondary schools or survey courses is simply one of space. It will be left to the people who are interested in it, much as American Indian history is.

---

Depends what time period you consider. Some scholars debate if many areas like Caanan[modern day Palestine/Israel],Byblos,or any other so-called Near Eastern locality are part of the early Egyptian empire.

My reason for posting the following is mainly due to the rise of the ancient Egyptian culture or state. Culturally Egypt had much more in common with Africa than with any Near-Eastern culture. When I say this I mean in terms of divine kingship,ancestor veneration,cattle cults,and other cultural facets.

Compare the underworld concept in Mesopotamia to the ancent Egyptians one and you will get a whole different concept.

African history is not neglected at all but is relativity unknown to the common laymen in America. We are not talking about secondary schools but academic Universities.

This term is being discarded in the historical discourse.

It is not a proper scholarly reference to antiquity.

It lacks objectivity and specificity.

Near to what?

East of What?

To China, Taiwan would be the 'near east'.

The concept of 'near and middle east' is a recent geopolitical artifice of no relevance to antiquity.

Moreover it is not indigenous to current populations either.

It is therefore both parochial and anachronisitic.

That is why the term is being discarded.

In the DK World History Atlas - "Near East" is not even in the appendix!

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I didn't respond to the Professor because he isn't bright enough to understand what exactly is wrong with references like 'Near East'.

This term is being discarded in the historical discourse.

It is not a proper scholarly reference to antiquity.

It lacks objectivity and specificity.

Near to what?

East of What?

---

Kind of reminds me how he continues to fumble with what "Western" civilization means, and how on the green earth, the Greeks (who didn't want to identify with northern Europeans) are part of this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Regardless of their origins AE was a near eastern power from a geopolitical point of view. That simply cannot and will not be changed.

---

Thought Writes:

The term "Near East" is a geographic term, not a cultural term. Culturally Ancient Egypt is rooted in the Sahara and East Africa, most Egyptologist now recognize this.

Thought Writes:

WRONG, I know what **I** mean when I use the term "Western Civiilization". If you are not a **troll** and have a clear understanding of your use of the term why not share it with us?

{lets cut the little silly games}

Thought Writes:

I agree, so define your terms and tell us **specifically** when "Western Civilization" began.

{You also know that AE was a near eastern power in terms of its geopolitical position}

Thought Writes:

It was also a African and Aegean power in terms of its geopolitical position. The Near East is a region. The **culture** of Egypt (the topic of this thread sir) is indigenous African.

{Its time to grow up and develop a mature approach to scholarship}

Thought Writes:

I agree, which is why we are attempting to encourage you to do scholarly things like define ones terms and quote credible sources.

{i would rather be a troll than a wild eyed, racist, radical goofball}

Thought Writes:

If your goal is to be a troll, you sir are succeeding. And I agree, Evil E is a wild eyed, racist, radical goofball. Let's work together to stop this!

Thought Writes:

I am not wild-eyed at all. But do you **really** buys Evil E's theory that stone-age East Africa was populated by White people? I mean get real!!!!

{Based on what i have read over the months you are out on the far extreme in terms of scholarship}

Thought Writes:

Do you have ANY specific examples or is this a ruse to deflect attention away from the fact that you exhibit the traits of a troller? If you do have **specific** examples please state them and provide the references to the "scholarship" that refutes my position. Thanks.

{The level of African influence on AE is irrelevant}

Thought Writes:

Personal opinion, irrelevant.

{AE is not an African nation in terms of its geopolitical position}

Thought Writes:

Thought Writes:

Please give me SPECIFICS when you state that any of my positions are "goofy". Don't hide behind vague references.

{The egyptian empire spread all the way to modern iraq at times. They were continually engaged in near eastern politics. Nubia simply was not important in an historical sense.}

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I just did....Egyptian interaction with near eastern nations were more important than those in Nubia. Lets me make it simple thought. What is more important, American interactions with Mexico or with Europe?
Nubia was not nearly as important as the near east.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I just did....Egyptian interaction with near eastern nations were more important than those in Nubia. Lets me make it simple thought. What is more important, American interactions with Mexico or with Europe?
Nubia was not nearly as important as the near east.

---

Horemheb is playing the fool. Why would AE be overly concerned with the region of Nubia when it was naturally a part of Ancient Egypt? Its like saying that the US is more concerned and has more geopolitical affiliation with Iraq than North Dekota...Think about this seriously! What are the investments and benefit for the US in Iraq? Why would they overly focus on North Dekota when they naturally have the region as a part of the US? If North Dekota were to try and get independence then there will be more focus on that region of the US and possibly a civil war. I think the region of Nubia needs to be viewed this way and the possibilities exhausted this way first since they all make up the Nile vally civilization.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keins:
Horemheb is playing the fool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

I just did....Egyptian interaction with near eastern nations were more important than those in Nubia.

---

How so?

quote:

---

Horemheb:

Lets me make it simple thought. What is more important, American interactions with Mexico or with Europe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

Jesus H Christ.....The most important international relations are those with (1) the nations with most historical importance (2) those with the most powerful nations.
based on what I am hearing here the UK would have a more imortant relationship with Norway than with the United States.

---

You need to stop projecting contemporary American Geopolitics on to Nile Valley civilisation. [or any other ancient civilisation for that matter]

You need to make a study of Nile Valley Civilisation in it's own right and in detail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The lack of basic historical knowledge on this board is astounding. BigMix....are you saying that Nubia is as important on the historical world stage as the near eastern powers?

---

Its weak how you changed your assumption from Nubia not being important to Egypt, to Nubia not being important on the world stage as near eastern powers.

Heck, go ask Schenacerib, who had to face Taharqa's forces. Its a subjective question at best.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The lack of basic historical knowledge on this board is astounding. BigMix....are you saying that Nubia is as important on the historical world stage as the near eastern powers?

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Note that Horemheb is comparing "Nubia" (a part of AE) to the Near East which encompasses a number of different nations. Apples to Oranges. But the real issue is that we need to have Horemheb define he's criteria for importance in ancient historical relationships.

---

Like Evil, it doesn't look promising that Horemheb knows what he's talking about, and hence the last thing to expect him to do, is to be able to define the terms he use. All it takes, is to look at the thread, i.e., the number of unanswered questions that follow up on his fantastic remarks.

Look at what Evil has become; all he now has at his disposal is, irrelevant picture spamming and posting links to discussions that clearly show how many times he's been proven wrong. I would be surprised if Horemheb fairs any better.

Ancient Egypt In Africa
Edited by David O'Connor and Andrew Reid

The African Foundations of Ancient Egyptian Civilization
By David Wengrow

"The integration of animals into mortuary rites - which was to become a lasting feature of ancient Egyptian and Sudanese culture - provides powerful testimony that, as in other parts of the Old World, the inception of a neolithic economy in the Nile Valley was experienced through both objective and subjective processes of transfromation....Sherratt has coined the term "primary horticultural community" to describe the outcome of this process in South West Asia and temperate Europe, where early neolithic soceities defined themselves, and their relations with the outside world, in terms of an ideal pattern of co-residence, embracing both living and the dead within the physical community of house and village. The term "primary pastoral community" might be introduced in order to highlight the distinct character of early neolithic society in the Nile Valley, with its distinct configuration of herding, mobility, mortuary rites and the body as frameworks of social experience and reproduction. Just as the social morphology of early farming communities in Egypt and the Sudan was generated outside the physical confines of a constructed environment, so the cultural idiom in which they defined their changing relationships with the non-human world is best characterized , not in terms of 'domestication', but as a process of embodiment."

Ancient Egypt In Africa
Edited by David O'Connor and Andrew Reid

The Unity of Africa
By Michael Rowlands

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
[B]Thought Posts:

Ancient Egypt In Africa
Edited by David O'Connor and Andrew Reid

The Unity of Africa
By Michael Rowlands

"...One could argue that Pharoah is ritually treated as a unique shaped container, who attractes powers relevant to life, productivity and order from the divine world and transmits them to his subjects. In this he is analogous to the creator god, whose bodily emissions (tears, saliva, semen, blood, air and light) are invloved in the cosmogony, and the subsequent process of maintaining cosmic order. (O'Connor, pers. comm 2002)."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
...essentially an intermediary between the Supreme being and the commoner(s).

---

Thought Writes:

I am not certain that the divine King in Africa is seen as an intermediary. I imagine that the divine king is more of an example or paragon than intermediary between the people and the divine intelligence. In my mind the crook and flail are emblems of justice/Maat.

I have allways pondered the relationship between divinde Kingship in kemet and the development of the Pope and his position as Vicar within the Christian church. Anyway, that is another topic.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

I am not certain that the divine King in Africa is seen as an intermediary. I imagine that the divine king is more of an example or paragon than intermediary between the people and the divine intelligence. In my mind the crook and flail are emblems of justice/Maat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Do you know as much about the 'divine king' in Africa as you do about European history?
We can't wait to hear more.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Yawn.... more non-specific accusations by the old troller.

---

Are you all Black?

Horemheb says:

quote:

---

The level of African influence on AE is irrelevant. AE is not an African nation in terms of its geopolitical position.

---

Horemheb says:

quote:

---

The Egyptian empire spread all the way to modern Iraq at times. They were continually engaged in near eastern politics. Nubia simply was not important in an historical sense.

---

Horemheb says:

quote:

---

....Egyptian interaction with near eastern nations were more important than those in Nubia. Lets me make it simple thought. What is more important, American interactions with Mexico or with Europe?
Nubia was not nearly as important as the near east.

---

Egypt is connected to the Near-East, or the Levant proper, by the Sinai Peninsula. But for most of its history, the deserts of Sinai have pretty much kept Egypt isolated from the Near-East. It was a heck of a lot easier for the Egyptians maintain relations with their more immediate neighbors. As you know the Egyptians lived along the Nile Valley, but there other peoples in adjacent areas that surrounded them. It were these peoples whom the Egyptians had economic ties with way long before their ties with the Near-East.

It is the same with peoples of the Near-East, where the ancient Sumerians had much greater contact and closer ties with the Elamite people to their immediate east in Iran, long before they contacts with Egypt hundreds of miles away. Speaking of the Elamites, it seems that they have much in common with the Nubians. Although they weren’t African, the Elamites were a black people, not only that, but apparently they and their civilization, Susa, were never really historically famous. For a long time, it was thought that their civilization was derived from Sumer, because of certain influences. But scholars now know that despite influences, Elamite society developed independently. Before they adopted the Cuneiform script, they already had one of their own that was pictographic. The Elamites had interactions with both Sumerians to their west and the Indus people to their east, thus serving as a ‘middle-man’ in trade between the Near-East and India. Unfortunately, again, Susa was not really popular among scholarly circles which were more interested in its neighbor Sumer. Going by your definitions, this must mean that Susa was not historically relevant, of course you are WRONG!!

Getting back to Egypt, Egypt’s oldest and most important trading partner was Nubia. But besides the various Nubian peoples to the south, there were other peoples like the Medjay who lived in the areas east of the Nile Valley, and there were early Libyans like the Tjemehu that lived to the west of the Nile Valley. All of these people were Africans as were the Egyptians, so they no doubt had much in common anyway. Despite your claims, there was also much to benefit from these relations economically. Many of Egypt’s African neighbors possessed resources that were valuable to the Egyptians, especially Nubia! Many valuable products were sought from Nubia by the Egyptians. Goods like, gold, precious stones, all kinds of wood like mahogany and ebony, ostrich feathers, monkeys, incense, and leopard skins which were worn by the Egyptian priesthood (an African custom) all come from Nubia. The Egyptians traded with many kingdoms and chiefdoms in the Nubian territory and beyond. The Land of Punt further south somewhere in the Horn of Africa was also favored by the Egyptians economically as well as religiously. The Egyptians traveled to all these places on foot along with donkeys, or navigating the Nile on their boats. The earliest known contact with the Near-East began during the Old Kingdom and later increased during the Hyksos invasion. It later became full blown when Egypt became an empire that lashed out at the Near-East to prevent any more invasions by ‘Aamu’ or Asiatics.

Horemheb says:

quote:

---

The lack of basic historical knowledge on this board is astounding. BigMix....are you saying that Nubia is as important on the historical world stage as the near eastern powers? Are you really saying that? I sure hope not.

---

quote:

---

Keins...because you would LIKE to see Nubia as an appendage of AE does not make it so....it was not. My point still stands....basic world history, AE is a near eastern power.

---

quote:

---

Jesus H Christ.....The most important international relations are those with (1) the nations with most historical importance (2) those with the most powerful nations.
based on what I am hearing here the UK would have a more imortant relationship with Norway than with the United States.

---

Horemheb, I suggest you educate yourself more on these matters of ancient societies and their economies before you say anything about it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Djehuti, Those were examples, sorry you missed the point.

---

Horemheb, how does it feel to be consistently destroyed by the regulars here? I'm beginning to think you're a glutton for ridicule.

quote:

---

Originally posted by akida:
Man!! I've been waiting for a site like this for some time. Thank God.

Are you all Black?

---

No.