posted
One note on where wooly hair is found. For nearly decamillenniums, wooly hair was to be found with African figurine. Russian researhers note the material found in Paleolithic Russia was African:
Speaking of skeletal remains found in Sungir and other Paleolithic sites near Moscow, in his Harvard lectures, V. P. Alexeev wrote: “The nose is very broad, similar to African or Australian. This strong development around the nose is not typical for Europoid but is similar to East African populations.”
IN: Geraldine Reinhart-Waller, The Alekseev 1990 Harvard Manuscript: Peoples and Cultures of the Soviet Union and Archaeology of the USSR.
So, the afro-wig types we find in the early Venuses of Europe were African and it was like this through prehistory and early history:
The first artists were African. And when whites came from the Steppes, they found African cultures and the hairstyle used presented wooly hair. Adopting themselves to these artistic conventions, whites presented themselves at times (at the beginnings of their art) with wooly hair. This accounts for whites in the Achamaean reliefs wearing wooly-haired wigs, as it were. In any case, there is enough literature to make a case for the fact that whites didn't produce art themselves but hired local indigenous artists (who'd be African) to sculpt them. And familiar with old conventions, they'd be inclined to use old conventions and this means wooly hair. Alexander, when he had the Egyptian priests make him son of Amun, was using indigenous conventions.
WHITE HAIR - IT'S EVOLUTION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN, NEAR EAST, AND EUROPE: There can probably be an argument made for the fact that the initial whites from the Steepes found in the above places had straight hair. Some were presented in art with wooly wigs, but there's probably enough statuary around to make a case that first contact in African lands had whites with straight hair.
Wavy-haired phase: Then, for hundreds of years, you have whites with curly (not wooly, per se) and wavy hair. This is probably from miscegenation. You find this in all the above place.
Late historic times and today: In most of the above places, whites today have straight hair, not mostly curly or wavy. I'd say the reason is that the amount of African influence in the genes declined over the millennia and it was the African genetic input that produced the wavy, curly hair in whites.
So when you see wavy hair in early whites, you are likely looking at someone with African blood. Look what happened in Caria in Anatolia. Whites came, killed off the African men, took their property, and forced themselves on their wives to gain their wealth and join their royal lineages. The women had the character not to sit with them while the men ate and refused to call them by their names in rebellion. Good for them. Those whites also took on (the African phase of) Greek names, titles, lineages. Alexander and his armies certainly did this - killing off the black men, taking their wives. The Iliad is full of this talk.
The wavy, curly hair seen in whites in those days showed their African blood from early miscegenation at the first meeting of the races they are the offspring of; where today in those places mentioned, as said before, white hair is straight for the most part showing the relatively little genetic material left from the days when they first entered African lands from the North. There is a strong Asian line these days as the early Africans were killed off or absorbed and the latter populations expanded.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
^ True, but Yonis is referring to the Sumerians and others of the Mesopotamian valley. Where does the African continutity stop and Asian cline begin?
Careful reading is in order…
Originally posted by Yonis:
Who talked about Sumerians? The Medes were not sumerians, we know that they spoke an Iranian language and were cousins of the persians. Those are the people Clyde winters claimed to be African.
As for Sumerians there is no genetic studies of them as i know, even their language is still unidentified, so it's futile to even bring them up. But we can for certain say they were not africans since they lived in west asia which isn't Africa if that comes to help. And if they were "black" that's irrelevant since alot of other non-africans are also "black" but genetically different.
Hence, I reply with:
**Depends on what part of "west Asia" is question.**
Technically, as noted time and again, the *Great Rift Valley portion of "south west Asia", which comprises the Arabian peninsula all the way to northern Jordan, is actually still African*, notwithstanding subjective geopolitics. Moreover, there is genetic and linguistic continuity from north Africa to the so-called "South west Asia".
If anyone knows what the Great Rift Valley entails, then my post comes as no mystery in its context. This matter has come up time and again, and much more recently here:
As for the issue of genetics and linguistics, you couldn’t possibly be questioning that, after all the incessant discussions on this, could you? If this isn’t the issue, then please clarify.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
WHITE WITH WOOLY HAIR:The following is an example of black Saint Maurice that someone presented as white: a white Maurice who has wooly hair following the convention of Africans having wooly hair - even when the implication is that the subject is really white with the thin, narrow nose.
Saint Maurice was jet black yet here he is painted as white with wooly hair. This convention was used also in the Mediterranean and elsewhere.
Here is the website of the Saint Maurice Church made in his namesake and where this stained-glass window is found:
posted
Marc, using St. Maurice to claim that all images from Babylon, Greece or Syria are images of blacks made over into white is ridiculous. What you should do is present the evidence on a case by case basis as opposed to generalizing and lumping all these images together and treating them the same. Present the evidence and facts for each so they can be looked at independently. For example, what anthropological data on the people of Mesopotamia from the time of Hammurabi do you have?
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug. I did not use Maurice for that purpose. However, my website www.BeforeBC.de does catergorize anthropological and archeological evidence geographically and topically. There are about 140 pages. You should zoom though it. Go to section-by-section and click ten pages a minute. In ten minutes you'll cover 100 pages and I am sure you'll see that the information is organized the way you have suggested.
All the best,
Marc
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Washington is going to have the history and origins of the white race reduced to a 10'x10' area located at the bottom of the Dead Sea before it's all over with.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Celt, You are allowed to post data to back up your claims. You won't be banned like other sites.
If you have data showing otherwise please post it. We all challenge each other here to support their data, understand the data, and let the lies be exposed and killed.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry I have no data to back up my claim that Mr. Washington is going to have the history and origins of the white race reduced to a 10'x10' area located at the bottom of the dead sea. I'm still waiting on that data to come in.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Blackman' what you cite as evidence seems to be nothing more than Biblical myth, which is NOT hard evidence. What's more the Bible says little about the 'racial' or physical appearance of every group of people.
Another thing, is what soes ANY of that have to do with the Iranian Medes of Central Asia whom I asked you about in the first place?? How are the Medes or Persians 'black'??
This whole thread is stupid anyway, as it is just another foolish March Washington thread. It would have been better if everyone just ignored it as usual.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti, Why you and Al keep bringing up the Medes and Persians? I never quoted on either. I've always posted on the Sumerians.
Is that suppose to be a strawman?
Is there a post by me stating the make up of the Medes or Persian?
I've posted on the Sumerians and the skeleton finds of the Sumerian.
If you don't believe the Bible that is fine with me. I only use it as a reference to state that the writer of Genesis in his time refered to the people of the region related to the people of the Hamatic branch which included the Ancient Eygptians and Ancient Ethiopins. If you read you will notice the writer of Genesis in his time didn't refer to the people of the region in that time as Semetic or people of Japheth. Now it is up to you/interpretation to determine if the writer classified the groups by looks, language, and/or customs/religon.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Celt wrote] Mr. Washington is going to have the history and origins of the white race reduced to a 10'x10' area located at the bottom of the Dead Sea before it's all over with.
[Marc writes] The data is in, Celt. Not exactly a 10' x 10' area at the Dead Sea ... and I'm sure you will incure the ferocious wrath of Rasol and Djehuti as they will tell you, and I'd have to concur. Concur that historically and archeologically, the fact is whites arose in the Russian Steppes. That's where the ancestors of Dj and R hail from. Fellas (Dj & R). You are such African experts. Mind telling us what it would have been like in a camp of your ancestors in the Russian Steppes? What would an average day be like? What kinds of houses did you live in? What did you eat and how did you catch it? What was social life like? Oh. What language did your ancestors speak in the Steppes? Marriage ceremonies: what were they like? Your religious beliefs? Etc.? You talk so much about Africans, connecting it somehow to something relevant to EF, talk about your own ancestors for a while. Maybe to connect, how did coming to the Middle East and particularly Egypt change things for them?
Here is something from You Tube a brother here at EF posted verifying that whites arose from the Russian Steppes. You'll like it - but please hold your seat until the final scene:
And the two fellows above are always trying to tell anyone who'd believe them (I think few do) that Africans are only to be found in Africa. These two have all the credibility of others of their kind who have intentionally deformed and stolen African history and persons claiming it for white:
You know where they are coming from. The Steppes. Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean, all those were secondary places where they were violent, ill-willed intruders in the lands of the black headed peoples.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
No fault in the conversation Djehuti. That is how we do this here. We challenge and question each other to reveal the truth by backing it with data. I also understand where you are coming from with the Bible. I just used it as a reference to who the Bible said occupied the region in that time. I will also state the Bible doesn't call them Sumerian. It only relate the people of that region at that time to Hamatic people.
I'll leave the Medes and Persian questions for Marc and whoever stated that. Could it be the label of the pictures posted are wrong?
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Quoted from the Monarchy paragraph about Sumerians http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM "So the Sumerians seemed to have at first justified the monarch's authority based on some sort of divine selection, but later began to assert that the monarch himself was divine and worthy of worship."
If I'm correct Divine Kingship is an African concept. Another link?
Question: Why do they state the Sumerian language is unclassified?
It is a dead language and no one to relate it to because the original people have been absorbed?
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kushi, from Kush, doesn't mean the color black. It's used to refer to black people as an ethnic taxon. One cannot juxtapose black against Semitic. Neither color nor ethnicity can be apposed to language.
Hham and Shem were both black in the Hebrew mindset.
quote: Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful, Hham was blessed black like the raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over.
(PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER 28a)
Now neither the internal search engine nor GOOGLE hits any of the many times I posted this quote from the Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer as to Shem being black and beautiful and Hham black as the raven.
Why is that? Somebody's afraid of something!
The Hebrews' Shem doesn't correspond to the linguists Semites anymore than their Kush does to Cushitic. Elam is the firstborn son of Shem and Elamites didn't speak Semitic. K*na`an is a son of Hham and Canaanites did speak Hebrew. The fact is that the Israelites called the Hebrew language "the language of Canaan."
Continental Africa houses the majority of individual Semitic languages and those speakers there in the Horn are all BLACK N BEAUTIFUL with their Semitic selves.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth does contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There is some truth to the lineages. Like for example 'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples, even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa.
Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. However I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why Divine Kingship has to be an African concept, even if it first appeated there. Seems quite a basic concept really.
Also, it's unclassified because as far as we know, it doesn't not belong to any other language family. Thus in reality it is a linguist isolate, not unclassified per se.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: It's crazy to juxapose black against Semitic. How do you appose a color to a language? On top of that continental Africa houses the majority of individual Semitic languages and those speakers there in the Horn are all BLACK N BEAUTIFUL with their Semitic selves.
alTakruri, You misunderstand me. I'm not stating Semetic means non-black or non-african. I'm merely stating the Bible refered to the people of the region at that time as Hamatic. I'm well aware that Semetic originated in Afrcia and represents Black African People as well.
History states the Akkad were semetic. The Bible state the Accad were Hamatic from the descendant of Canaan.
That is were customs, looks, language, and DNA comes into play.
That is why I asked about the genetics of other Semetic people today to see how related they are to Semetic people of Africa, even though semetic is a language and not DNA.
However, no one answered.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe I was addressing Djehuti's comments which I included in quotation below my own.
But anyway, Tanakh nowhere states "Accad were Hamatic from the descendant of Canaan."
quote: The sons of Ham were Cush, Mitzraim, Put, and Canaan.
. . .
Cush was the father of Nimrod, who was the first to amass power in the world. He was a mighty trapper before God. There is thus a saying, 'Like Nimrod, a mighty trapper before God!' The beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, along with Erekh, Akkad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Asshur left that land, and he built Nineveh, Rechovoth Ir and Calach, as well as Resen, between Nineveh and Calach. [Nineveh] is a great city.
. . .
The sons of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: I don't see why Divine Kingship has to be an African concept, even if it first appeated there. Seems quite a basic concept really.
Miguel, Then show the data of other people in the region of Divine Kingship. We usually back up our statements with data here. We know it was foriegn to the Greeks until Alexander used the concept after visiting Eygpt and his generals thought he was crazy for insisting on his divine Kingship.
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: Also, it's unclassified because as far as we know, it doesn't not belong to any other language family. Thus in reality it is a linguist isolate, not unclassified per se.
Miguel you don't understand me. Who speaks a dialect or piece of the Sumerian language today?
The original Sumerian people were conquered and absorbed by the Akkadians.
Could it not belong to any other family because the language is not around to compare it?
How can you compare the Sumerian language to Indo-European or any other language if it is unknown?
That would leave the language more as a unknown instead of an isolate.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the language is not unknown. We know what they spoke and we can translate it.
That's why we can compare it to other langueges.
Sure, perhaps other languages from such hypothetical family existed, we simply didn't find them. Perhaps languages we already know of are related to it, but the connection hasn't been established yet..who really knows?
That's why as of yet it is considered an isolate.
Anyway, regarding divine kings, I have no proof. But then lack of proof is not proof of lack, and just because Africans came up with it, doesn't mean every sign of it is due to Africans.
Weren't the rulers of the Inca Empire considered Gods? Did they got this thru Africans? They were quite isolated Japanese too, their emperors were considered Gods.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: But the language is not unknown. We know what they spoke and we can translate it.
That's why we can compare it to other langueges.
Miguel or anyone else please help me understand. The early Sumerian writing was pictographic and changed later.
From what I understand we only have the clay tablets they wrote on. So, in that since the language lives on clay. That would mean from our understanding of the written language the verb, noun, subject structure is not like any other language.
In that case if they wrote the word wheat or herd of cattle, how do you know how they pronounced it?
The written language is strong if there is no history, but the written and spoken language is stronger.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they managed to translate because they found texts which allowed to translate Sumerian in Akkadian, and from them on it gets much more easy. I am not sure though.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, from what you stated we only have a basic understanding of the written language from Akkadian. We have no spoken dialect, Summerian words buried in another language, or whatever.
So back to my question, how can you state the language is an isolate if you only have ancient writings and no spoken words today to compare?
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My friend, the language has been deciphered. I don't know exactly how, but it has. I know little of this. I'm afraid I can't help you with that.
I sugest you read the Wikipedia entry, for all the flaws the sice can have. That or google around.
Unless you think we are been lied to when we are told that Sumerian has been translated?
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Sumerians were NOT considered a Hamitic people in the Bible.
And actually the Sumerians did not have the institution of divine kingship. The Sumerian king was only a highpriest of the gods but was never considered a god himself.
And while divine kingship, is not confined to Africa but was found in parts of Eurasia in some form like in East and Southeast Asia, you have to admit that it was pretty more widespread in the African continent. So much so, that early white scholars did not at all deny Egypt's pharaonic institution as African but attributed it to "Hamitic caucasoids"!
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic