posted
The ancient Egyptians were not culturally or linguistically related to any "mediterranean" population; The ancient Egyptians were culturally and linguistically related to other Africans in the Nile valley.
Unless someone can prove that the ancient Egyptians migrated from the Caucuses into the Nile Valley and spoke an Indo-European language, then "Caucusian" as a term has NO merit on a non-Caucuses population; No Egyptologist believes ancient Egyptians to have migrated from Mesopotamia, the Caucuses, or that they were related to any mediterranean population.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand why some buffoons are inclined to coalesce the ancient Egyptians with "mediterranean" populations, with whom they have NO linguistic nor cultural links with... one cannot ignore linguistic, cultural, anthropological/archaeological evidence, as well as the writings of historians such as Herodotus.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, yet we have fools like Pat below who desperately tries to do so all time but in vain...
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Did not say Greeks and Nordics were the same. This is why you make terrible errors trying to educate yourself. Reading comprehension is a good thing. Greeks and Nordics are both europeans, they are both caucasians as are North Africans, including ancient Egyptians. A 1oth grade world or western civ textbook will cover all of this for you. I strongly recommend the Glencoe editions. You can find them on their web site.
Hmmm... So you admit that Greeks and Nordics were not the same but that they are both Europeans and to you both "caucasians", yet then you include North Africans who aren't even European at all but well AFRICANS! This is a rather big discrepancy is it not??! I mean how come one can't say that Egyptians and Zulus are not the same but both are African and BOTH are equally black?!! Yet in your twisted mind you consider the Egyptians to be as 'cacasian' as Europeans.. Ah, the insanity of racism. Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To any rational person who is not a racist nut they are both caucasians. All caucasians are not exactly the same. In your demented fashion you are attempting to define the terms so you can control the outcome.
The King of Saudi Arabia is a caucasian but he differs from a typical Dane, also a caucasian.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rational individuals do not coalesce linguistically and culturally non aligned populations into a meaningles taxonomy.
The facts still stand:
-The ancient Egyptians spoke an indigenous African language unrelated to languages in the Caucuses or in the rest of Europe.
-The ancient Egyptians did not migrate from the Caucuses, or from Mesopotamia, so therefore ascribing such a taxonomy on an ancient civilisation far from the Caucuses, is purely insane.
-The Nile valley was the source of Egypt's cultural, technological and linguistic development... this is precisely why all linguist would assert that the ancient Egyptian language to be closely related to languages within the Nile valley and not in the Caucuses nor the "mediterranean".
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
North africa has never been a part of black africa. Semetic peoples and other non negroids have been in the near east and the med basin long before the historical period.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're so incredibly incognizant, that it's embarrassing; Most renowned linguist, such as Christopher Ehert and Nicolas Faraclas, understood Semitic languages to have originated either in eastern Sudan or in Ethiopia, Africa has more semitic languages than in any other place in the world.
I'm from North Africa, and I am a native black skin child of the Nile.
Semitic languages are presently accepted as one of the branches of Afro-Asiatic languages. Together with other language sub-groupings such as Chadic, Berber, Nilotic, Omotic etc, the Semitic groups of languages are definitely African in origin. It used to be accepted that all the branches of the Afro-Asiatic language were clearly developed in Africa with the exception of Semitic over which there had been some dubious contention. But not any more as scholarly studies have dovetailed with common sense and logic in placing the original homeland of the Semitic speakers in Africa.
These Semitic speakers definitely were not white Africans.
The term Semites as an expression is applied to a group of peoples closely related in language, whose habitat is Africa extending into Asia. The expression is derived from the Biblical table of nations (Genesis 10), in which most of these peoples are recorded as descendants of Noah’s son Shem; although some who are designated as Semites in the modern times belong to peoples originally recorded as the children of Ham, the brother of Shem (i.e. the Phoenicians).
The term Semite was first proposed for the languages related to the Hebrew by Ludwig Schlözer, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Through Eichhorn the name then came into general usage (cf. his Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Leipzig, 1787), I, p. 45. He also used it in his Gesch. der neuen Sprachenkunde, pt. I (Göttingen, 1807).
Schlozer assumed that Abraham the eponymous Hebrew ancestor was of Semitic origin based upon the information in the Bible. He wrongly reasoned that since Abraham spoke Hebrew (a language which unknown to Schlozer was indigenous to Canaan) Hebrew should be a Semitic language. His work laid the grounds for the automatic but uncorroborated association of ancient Hebrews with the Caucasian family of nation. The flimsy foundation of this entire argument has run into problems with wider distributed access to source works that underlie scholarly research.
Proto-Semitic:
Proto-Semitic is the hypothetical proto-language of the Semitic languages. Proto-Semitic probably originated in Ethiopia or Central Sahara and was one of the first languages to branch off the Afro-Asiatic phylum.
In the hey days of racist scholarship when it was considered erudite to routinely erase the role of Africa in the development of world history, it used to be considered with arrogant irrationality that the most probable Proto-Semitic language was Urheimat, which probably developed in the Arabian peninsula. This hypothesis was based on fact that the Canaanite, Aramaic, and Arab nomadic tribes are recorded to have emerged from Arabia.
However this thesis is not supported by a plausible theory of geographical dispersion of Afro-Asiatic languages. It must be stressed that Semitic is but a sub group of the African language group Afro-Asiatic.
The distribution of the related Afro-Asiatic languages such as Berber, Hausa, Omotic, and especially the Egyptian branch which is most closely related to Semitic, suggest an Ethiopian language as the original Proto-Semitic language. It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubts that there were several waves of immigration of the Proto-Semites from the Horn of Africa to the Arabian Peninsula.
Current Authorities:
Alan Gardiner in his book Egyptian Grammar, (1950, p.2) argued that ancient Egyptian had structural similarity to Canaanite and various African languages like Galla, Somali and Berber. Moustapha Gadalla in his book The Essence of Hispania denoted the very close linkages between ancient Egyptian and classical Arabic.
In linguistic terms, Ehret has presented a phylogenetic history for Afro-asiatic languages, based on shared phonological innovations. His scheme makes a primary division between the Omotic languages of Ethiopia and an Erythraean (Red Sea) subgroup that includes all other Afro-Asiatic languages (including Semitic and Ancient Egyptian). His thesis, thus, suggests an African origin for the Semitic language family. See, C. Ehret, Reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic (University of California Press, Berkeley, C.A.,1995).
According to Christopher Ehert, world renowned linguist, “the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find … other people already in the area.”
Christopher Edens and T.J. Wilikinson in a 1998 article published in the Journal of World Prehistory (South west Arabia During the Holocene: Recent Archaeological Developments), by the Bronze Age, there was a well-attested cultural ferment in Southwest Arabia exemplified by village and town settlements occupied by sedentary farmers.
Edens and Wilikinson argue that a continuous archaeological record can now describe parts of Yemen. Evidence of literate culture goes back to between 3600 and 2800 B.C. and perhaps earlier. These societies relied on food production from large scale irrigation systems dependent upon the Wadi floods. They concluded that those Bronze Age settlements showed very strong linkages to the Horn of Africa.
Darfur-Kordorfan-Saharan:
Nicolas Faraclas, in his book They Came Before the Egyptians: Linguistic Evidence for the African Roots of Semitic Languages suggests that the roots of Semitic languages, which are classified as part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, lie in the Darfur-Kordofan region on the eastern edge of the Chad-Sudan border. He uses linguistic, archaeological, and climatic evidence to trace the routes by which Afro-Asiatic languages seem to have spread. The Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, and Afro-Asiatic languages all seem to have diverged in a migration that commenced with the Last Major Wet Spell of the Sahara, which ran from 10,000 B.C. to 5,000 B.C.
Joseph H.Greenberg, one of the earliest European linguists to work in Africa was the first to identified five different branches of the Hamito-Semitic (now called Afro-Asiatic) group of the African languages: Cushitic, Egyptian, Berber, Chadic and Semitic. Given that those languages were so obviously interrelated it was assumed by colonial scholars of Europe that the relationship of these languages stemmed from Caucasian invaders into Africa from the Middle East. Greenberg’s research contradicted this assumption.
Greenberg realized that the Cushitic branch languages were far more differentiated from each other than were those of any other branch. Such sharp differences indicated that the sub-branches of Cushitic had differentiated from each other at a very early date and had been evolving independently for much longer than any of the other branches.
The implication being that the Hamito-Semitic (Afro-Asiatic) language had evolved in Kush (Ethiopia) longer than anywhere else.
Consequently, Ethiopia (Africa) should be the original homeland of all Hamito-Semitic languages. Clearly the original Semites were Africans.
A developing consensus among scholars suggest that perhaps as early as 12,000-10,000BC, African proto-Cushitic speakers migrated from Ethiopia/Central Africa spreading out into the rest of Africa and the Near East. This proto-Cushitic tongue evolved not only into Cushitic, Egyptian, Berber, and Chadic tongues, but into the Semitic branch as well. This included Hebrew, Phoenician, Arabic and Assyrian.
Although some Semitic speakers, including the Hebrews speakers migrated from Africa to the Middle East, others like the Gurage group of language, Amharic language, Tigrinya language and a host of others continued to develop in Africa. Greenberg renamed this Cushitic derived family group of language and called it Afro-Asiatic. (Time Life World Maps, Black Spark, White Fire by Richard Poe, Languages of Africa by Joseph Greenberg)
A Bit of Genetics:
A critical reading of genetic data analyses, specifically those of Y chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes, supports the hypothesis of populations moving from the Horn or southeastern Sahara northward to the Nile Valley, northwest Africa, the Levant, and Aegean. See S.O.Y. Keita, History in the Interpretation of the Pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt: A Consideration of Multiple Lines of Evidence, American Journal of Human Biology 17:559–567 (2005).
The geography of the M35/215 (or 215/M35) lineage, which is of Horn/East African origin, coincides with the range of Afro-Asiatic languages. Underhill speculated that this lineage might have been carried from Africa during the “Mesolithic”.
The distributions of the Afro-Asiatic branches and this lineage can best be explained by invoking movements that originated in Africa and occurred before the emergence of food production, as well as after. It is noteworthy that gene flow from Africa to Middle East occurred not only in the prehistoric time but continued through to historical times. See . P. Underhill et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 65, 43 (2001). See also G. Lucotte, G. Mercier, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 121, 63 (2003). See O. Semino et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 1023 (2004).
posted
So based on your logic languages in the near east and northeast aftica are restricted to negroids? Semetic speaking arabs are not negroids. You need to think through this a bit better. Also, displaying pictures is not helpful.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: So based on your logic languages in the near east and northeast aftica are restricted to negroids? Semetic speaking arabs are not negroids. You need to think through this a bit better. Also, displaying pictures is not helpful.
I did not state, that the languages to be "restricted to negroids", the article clearly expounds on the origins of Semitic, the authorities unequivocally assert an African origin for the linguistic group; The Semitic languages of the "near east", are directly derived from Africa, the linguistic authorities are intractable in this position.
According to Christopher Ehert, world renowned linguist, “the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find … other people already in the area.”
By the way, Arabs are not a racial group, and are an agglomeration of many distinct populations... the criteria for belonging to an Arab identity, is language and culture; The populations who are incessently coalesced into a seemingly homogenous racial unit, are actually quite distinct and have their own ancestors and legacies; The Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis and others, adopted Arabic as a language and thus became Arabs.. I hope you can comprehend this simple fact.
Native Arabs from Yemen and Oman:[/SIZE]
Arabs are not homogenous.
Learn how to read an entire article, instead of making pathetic straw man arguements...a little bit of reading comprehension on your part can for once enable a fruitful discourse ( if possible).
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
sudaniya, the language may hav an african origin but the people who speak the landuage are NOT all black africans. This is where you are getting hung up. The Hyksos were not black africans, nor were others living around the med at the time, including the Egyptians.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Did not say Greeks and Nordics were the same. This is why you make terrible errors trying to educate yourself. Reading comprehension is a good thing. Greeks and Nordics are both europeans, they are both caucasians as are North Africans, including ancient Egyptians. A 1oth grade world or western civ textbook will cover all of this for you. I strongly recommend the Glencoe editions. You can find them on their web site.
The only one lacking an education is you you dumb idiot. The Ancient Egyptians were Africans black and brown skinned and group closer to other Africans such as Ethiopians and Somalis and especially Nubians. 10th graders don't study "Western Civilization" dummy...it would be U.S history which has nothing to do with Egypt.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
juniors in Texas take American history, 10th graders take world, look in up. I just spent a week as a presenter at the ap convention in San Antonio. You are good at calling names but you are always wrong.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: sudaniya, the language may hav an african origin but the people who speak the landuage are NOT all black africans. This is where you are getting hung up. The Hyksos were not black africans, nor were others living around the med at the time, including the Egyptians.
The vast majority of Semitic speakers reside in the African continent; The ancient Egyptian language is closest to languages within the Nile Valley, and were indigenous black skinned Africans, they were not related to any "mediterranean" or Caucuses population.
NO Egyptologist asserts a non Nile valley origin for the ancient Egyptians... that you cling on to the debunk and antiquated dynastic race theory, is what is being lampooned here; There is extensive evidence on a southern origin for the ancient Egyptian civilisation.
Sorry Charles, Nile valley legacy has nothing to do with the people of the Caucuses, nor with your Germanic ancestors.. concern yourself with your history.
My ancestors in the Nile valley mock your intransigence.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
No one in Europe or in the "nearst east", is at all related to the indigenous Nile valley Africans above.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Did not say Greeks and Nordics were the same. This is why you make terrible errors trying to educate yourself. Reading comprehension is a good thing. Greeks and Nordics are both europeans, they are both caucasians as are North Africans, including ancient Egyptians. A 1oth grade world or western civ textbook will cover all of this for you. I strongly recommend the Glencoe editions. You can find them on their web site.
Apparently that is in your uneducated opinion as most physical anthropologists who have done studies of genetic based cranial and skeletal traits have said the opposite. They have found ancient Europeans and neolithic North Africans including ancient Egyptians to have been closely associated with modern East Africans, and not modern fair-skinned people in North Africa, Europe or Eurasia - confirming G. Elliot Smith's "brown" Mediterranean race theory.
Scientists have been pretty unanimous lately: "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.. Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks." ("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
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
,"If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
Around 2005 Loring Brace and other scientists stated, "“Modern Europeans ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to Eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean on to the Middle East show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants..." Elsewhere in the same article he writes, “Basques and Canary islanders are clearly related to modern Europeans.” That article is, "The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, C. Loring Brace,*† Noriko Seguchi,‡ Conrad B. Quintyn,§ Sherry C. Fox,¶ A. Russell Nelson, Sotiris K. Manolis,** and Pan Qifeng Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): 242–247.
Other earlier studies showed the same thing: “...the fact that so many European Neolithic groups in Figure 4 tie more closely to the Late Dynastic Egyptians near the Mediterranean coast than they do with modern Europeans provides suggestive support for an eastern Mediterranean source for the people of the European Neolithic at an even earlier time level than Bernal suggests for the Egyptian-Phoenician colonization and influence on Greece early in the second millennium BC (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1973, 1979; Bernal, 1987:2; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1993; “Sokal et al. 1991).” Clines and Clusters versus “Race:” A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile, Year book of Physical Anthropology, 36:1-33, 1993
Elliot Smith - “So striking is the family likenss...a description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland… The people were longheaded of small stature, skull is long, narrow and coffin shaped, brow ridges poorly developed, forehead is narrow, vertical and often slightly bulging…” p. 65 The Ancient Egyptians and Their Influence Upon the Civilization of Europe published 1911.
Most late 19th and early 20th century scholars said the same thing: “The discoveries of abundant prehistoric remains all over Europe particularly France. These with one accord tended to show that European aborigines of the Stone age were not Mongoloid like the Lapps, after all but the exact opposite. In every detail they resembled rather the dolicocephalic Negroes of Africa.” William Z. Ripley Races of Europe p. 436
1972 - On the Egyptian homogeneity until p. 203 “there was a considerable degree of genetic continuity between the predynastic populations of Badari, Naqada and Hierakonpolis, and samples from dynasties I and II Abydos and Tarkha. Indeed this stability and homogeneity persisted right though the Old and Middle kingdoms and breaks down only in the New Kingdom period… page 206 the Egyptian samples are not very distinct from the Nubians sample from Jebel Moya. ” Origins and Relationships of the Ancient Egyptians. “ Journal of Human Evolution 1, 199-206.
1914 archeologist Oric Bates observed from ancient Egyptian tomb paintings, “The brun Libyan type is the only one portrayed in the Old Empire, the xanthrochroids predominate in the New Empire representations.” P. 40 from The Eastern Libyan Oric Bates The intrusive xanthrochroids…do not appear before the XII dynasty… It safe to say that they were immigrants from The Eastern Libyans by Oric Bates Frank Cass publishers 1914. pp. 40 and 41.
All of this stuff has been posted many times before on this site and yet people are still acting as if they don't know what the ancient people of Egypt and North Africa WERE NOT.
If you are proud to be caucasian and related to white people now living in North Africa good for you, but leave ancient Africans who are the ancestors of modern BLACK AFRICANS (Fulani, Somali, Tigrinya, etc.) and African Americans out of it. That also goes for ancient Southwest Asia before the Bronze Age which was also predominantly of African affiliation.
1972 - historian William Langer wrote, "The population of both Upper and Lower Mesopotamia in prehistoric times belonged to the brown or Mediterranean race. While this basic stock persisted in historical, times especially in the south, it became increasingly, mixed especially with broad-headed Armenoid peoples from the northeastern mountains owing to the recurrent incursions of mountain tribes into the plain.” In William L. Langer – An Encyclopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1972 .
"Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Sumer were parts of the original domain of the Brown Race” p. 145-146. Grafton Elliot Smith
An O. R. Gurney mentioned in 1952 that , "Examination of the skulls which have been found on several sites in Anatolia shows that in the third millennium the population was preponderantly long-headed or dolichocephalic, with only a small admixture of brachycephalic types. In the second millennium the proportion of brachycephalic skulls increases to about 50 percent."” (6) Gurney, O.R.; The Hittites, Penguin Books, 1990, First Ed. 1952 p. 284
Not only were ancient North Africans "blacks" and not "Caucasians", ancient Eurasians and Southern Asians of the Middle East etc were of the black types.
They have been called "brown" "Cro-magnons" "Mechta-man", "Mediterraneans", "Eurafricans" "hamites" or "Australoids" and everything to hide the fact that they are related to BLACK Africans.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic