posted
Apparently the hebrew were a people who initially were disunited and only became a people through the name designated to them by Ancient Egyptians as contract workers or "one who sells his service" = Hapiru, which latter became "Hebrew". This would mean that the original Hebrew were different types of unrelated "asiatic" individuals who became "a people" only after they entered Egypt as contract workers during the construction boom of the 12th dynasty.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, the theory that the Hebrews were contract workers instead of slaves seems more plausible considering the evidence.
There was an interesting program shown in the History Channel that gives a very interesting historical perspective of the 'Exodus' event. That it was not an enslaved populace but a small community of laborers who instigated Egyptian authorities.
This makes me think of the modern day political situation we have in the U.S. today with illegal immigrant workers from Mexico.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hapiru or Hebrews were a part of a larger confederation of nomadic peoples of southeastern Anatolia - northern Syria, commonly called Amorites.
In Sumer (Mesopotamia), they settled, and under their king Hammurabi, they seized power and established a dynasty that lasted about 300 years.
At the same time, they had headed west into Canaan and Egypt. (We all know their history there).
Later in their homeland of southeastern Anatolia - northern Syria, they established a new kingdom called "Aram" and they became known as Aramaeans.
Here it really gets mixed up, because they once again become prominent in Mesopotamia, and historians constantly confuse them with Chaldeans, who are in fact Sumerians.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Hapiru or Hebrews were a part of a larger confederation of nomadic peoples of southeastern Anatolia - northern Syria, commonly called Amorites.
The Amorites were not a confederation but a single ethnicity. That the Hebrews were part of the Amorites or how related to them if at all is still a matter of conjecture, but where the heck did you get that they originated from Anatolia?? All evidence indicates that they first appeared from the Levant region as cited by the Sumerians themselves and there is even suggestion that they originated further south from northern Arabia!
No offense, Mike but where exactly do you get your sources for ancient people cuz you seem awfully confused especially considering your claims or rather denials about the Farsi being Persians?!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hapiru or Hebrews were a part of a larger confederation of nomadic peoples of southeastern Anatolia - northern Syria, commonly called Amorites. See I said Hapiru or Hebrews.
You are really letting this Farsi thing get the better of you. However, there is a simple solution: If the Farsi really want to call themselves Persian, all they have to do is get a real deep tan, and then: "Say it loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud" (thanks J.B.)
Sumerian History: Sumerian and Akkadian inscriptions of the latter part of the 3rd millennium B.C, refer to a people called (MAR.TU-Sumerian) or (Amurru-Akkadian), later called Amorite.
These seem to have been a nomadic desert people, who moved systematically in from the west. Their homeland was northwest of Sumer in the area stretching from the west bank of the Euphrates River on westward along the northern fringe of the Syrian Desert. The Sumerians called this land "Tidnum".
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: You are really letting this Farsi thing get the better of you. However, there is a simple solution: If the Farsi really want to call themselves Persian, all they have to do is get a real deep tan, and then: "Say it loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud" (thanks J.B.)
More like it's gotten the better of you.
So you are saying that having a deep tan means one is black??! Do you disagree with Greek accounts that the Persians were whiter than them?? Do you deny the historical evidence that Persians never left the area and there were no major population changes which means the Farsi are the same as the Parsi (Persians).
Also your source about Amorites gives somewhat conflicting info, they were not Anatolian but Semitic speakers from southwest of Mesopotamia.
And again why do you not cite your sources?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti - It seems that no matter what I say or show, you will never agree that the Farsi are NOT Persians. So in an effort to put this issue to bed, lets conduct a little informal poll. I will abide with the opinion of the board, and I hope you will too.
These lovely young ladies are modern Farsi
Iranian History: By the mid-9th century B.C, two new groups of people appear in Elam, these are the Medes (Mada) and the Persians (Parsua). Of the two, the Medes were the more widespread.
The pictures below represent the three groups of people commonly called Persians. i.e. Medes, Persians, and Sassanians.
Okay world; who's right, him or me!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those wondering what this is all about: It's a carry-over argument from the "Are the Akhdaam of Yemen and Mehra the same people"? thread. Sorry.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mike 111 wrote: The pictures below represent the three groups of people commonly called Persians. i.e. Medes, Persians, and Sassanians.
The sassanians were not a different type of people they were also Farsi (Persians) but only a different dynasty from the Achamedians and Parthians. The Medes are the ancestors of modern Kurds, they speak an Iranian language but are ethnically different from farsi speakers of Iran.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: For those wondering what this is all about: It's a carry-over argument from the "Are the Akhdaam of Yemen and Mehra the same people"? thread. Sorry.
You didn't answer my question from that thread, which was what do you think happened to the persians if now their descendants don't live in that land anymore, Genocide, Migration?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yonis2 - Most of the ancient people, seem to have disappeared from north-Africa and the middle-east after the Arab (Turk) invasion. I know of no creditable source that details what took place in the time-frame from the fall of the Sassanian dynasty to the end of WW-I, (as relates specifically to the masters of those civilizations).
Certainly there is much history as relates to Turks, Mongols, and other Eurasians coming in. But unfortunately conquers never detail what they did to the conquered.
The fact that you have all of these non-Black people claiming heritage from them, but not looking like them, suggests a coordinated campaign by the current people to take something that is not theirs.
That they would have us believe that they are the same people that they conquered, is truly pathetic and stupid.
But come to think about it, it might make for a great British type comedy. As in "you shoot yourself" and then take over your own identity, Brilliant!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, the guy is seriously confused. He never once explains, let alone proves, how modern Farsi are somehow not the descandants of the Persians (Parsi).
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Djehuti - It seems that no matter what I say or show, you will never agree that the Farsi are NOT Persians. So in an effort to put this issue to bed, lets conduct a little informal poll. I will abide with the opinion of the board, and I hope you will too.
The only way I will agree is if you present FACTS or evidence that disputes the notion of Farsi being descended from Persians. You have not done so but only plagiarizingly cited sources which don't support your claims and then post pictures of ancient Persians which don't support you either like those below.
quote:These lovely young ladies are modern Farsi
Iranian History: By the mid-9th century B.C, two new groups of people appear in Elam, these are the Medes (Mada) and the Persians (Parsua). Of the two, the Medes were the more widespread.
The pictures below represent the three groups of people commonly called Persians. i.e. Medes, Persians, and Sassanians.
Again non of those pictures proves anything of what you say.
quote:Okay world; who's right, him or me!
And exactly who is "him"?? Again, you don't cite what your sources are and non of them disproves this from Wikipedia:
The Persians (or the Persian Speakers) are an Iranian ethnic group who speak the Persian language and share a common culture and history.
Terminology:
The term Persia was adopted by all western languages through the Greeks and was used as an official name for Iran by the West until 1935. Due to that label, all Iranians were considered Persian. Therefore, many Western sources, when regarding Iran's history, will label many non-Persian Iranians as Persians, which distinguishes nationality, not necessarily the Persian ethnic group. Also, many others who embraced the Persian language and culture are also often referred to as Persian, not necessarily meaning ethnic group, but rather as a part of Persian civilization (culturally and linguistically).
The first known written record about them is from an Assyrian inscription of the 834 BC, which mentions both Parsua (Persians) and Muddai (Medes).[12][13] The term used by Assyrians 'Parsua' was a general designation to refer to southwestern Iranian tribes (who referred to themselves as Aryans). Greeks rendered this word as 'Persis' which is where the word Persian in English comes from. In Arabic as there is no letter "P", they referred to Persia and Persians as 'Fars' ('Faras') and 'Farsis'.
In its modern definition, the term “Persians” refers to the people speaking the Western dialect of Persian language and living in the modern country of Iran, as well as the descendants of the people who emigrated from the territory of modern-day Iran to neighboring countries, such as the UAE, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, and more recently, to the West (notably USA, Turkey, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada…).
History:
The Persians are descendents of the Aryan (=Iranian) tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the second millennium BC.[14][15][16] The Persian language and other Iranian tongues emerged as these Aryan tribes split up into two major groups, the Persians and the Medes, and intermarried with peoples indigenous to the Iranian plateau such as the Elamites...
We are waiting for anything substantial that disproves Farsi as being the Persians's descendants. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are citing Wikipedia????? Well excuse me, I must surely wither in the face of such an authoritative source. PLEEEEASE!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no connection between the Habiru and the Hebrews. The Habiru were bands of disconnected people of various ethicities who made no claim to having a ethnonymous ancestor. Nor did the AE's invent the title Habiru. "Those who make dust" are first noted in Mesopotamian and in Levantine writings.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Apparently the hebrew were a people who initially were disunited and only became a people through the name designated to them by Ancient Egyptians as contract workers or "one who sells his service" = Hapiru, which latter became "Hebrew". This would mean that the original Hebrew were different types of unrelated "asiatic" individuals who became "a people" only after they entered Egypt as contract workers during the construction boom of the 12th dynasty.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yonis2 - This is your thread on Hebrews and it has been hijacked by those interested in Persia, I apologize. But since we are now on Persia, perhaps some might be interested in the following.
A Traveler's Observation of Parsee community, 1831 AD in Bombay India. The Modern Traveler, by Josiah Condor
This link has a parentheses around (main) which is unacceptable for links at this site, so you will have to copy and paste instead of just click. Put the parentheses back around main. i.e. (main)
By description, these people sound like modern Farsi, but they do live by the Zoroastrian religion. It is VERY interesting reading.
Below is a short play written by a modern Farsi, (they really have come to believe that they are Persian). In any case, it is a beautiful little play. (Keep in mind that the bad guys are not really Arabs, they are Turks.
Parvin the Daughter of Sassan
Play Setting Location Setting: A house in the ancient city of Rey (close to present day Tehran) bearing a late Sassanian style of architecture.
Period of time: After the defeat of the Sassanian federal armies at Qadissya, and Nahavand. Various cities in Persia are left to defend for themselves. With the western part of the country already overrun by the invaders, and the heartland of Persia coming under attack, the specter of the Arab army assault on the city lurks in the air.
Actors Actor: 1. Bahram: A 50 year old house servant Actor 2: Chahreh Pardar (Sassan): 45 year old father of the house Actor 3: Parvin: 20 year old, tall, and beautiful daughter of Chahreh Pardar Actor 4: Parviz: 25 year old handsome fiance of Parvin, bearing his military gear Actors 5-9: Four men dressed in Arab military costumes, speaking Arabic Actor 10: The leader of the Arabs, a barefoot, middle aged man wearing a sword and a dagger carrying on with a loud voice. Actor 11: Translator, a 40 year old man speaking in a thick accent
Not shown but heard and mentioned: The loyal family dog, guarding the house
The Play Hedayat’s brilliance as an able and creative writer and his sense of nationalism come together to create an emotionally charged play on the life of an upper class household in the ancient city of Rey in its last remaining days under the nominal rule of the Sassanians. The Arab forces that have taken city after city in Western Persia are now within the reach of Rey, and are expected any day. The city lies open, and has no natural defenses. A local defense force comprising of mostly young men remaining in the city has been assembled and provides round the clock vigilance against the hostile troops that might appear anytime. The sad knowledge that their small defensive force will easily be out-numbered by many orders of magnitude is heavy on everyone’s mind, although not mentioned as if in self denial. Their hope is that their home terrain advantage will help them.
The citizens remain hopeful that help in the form of military assistance will come from other cities to the North and the East so they can put up a consolidated defense against the invaders. In a self reassuring manner, there is also the belief that their divine land is protected by Ahura-Mazda against the impending genocide that has already consumed the Western half of the country. The horror stories of wholesale killing, plunder, looting, and rape, and reports of female citizens being sent off to Arabia to be sold in slave auctions, have been pouring into the city by the few lucky escapees from the other settlements to the West that were laid to waste at the hand of the aggressors. There is a sense of gloom in the air.
The three part play starts with Bahram, the household servant, attending to the large sized courtyard of the house, and reflecting loudly on the general state of affairs. He cannot apprehend the logic of his employee who seems incapable of comprehending the full weight of what is about to unfold. He wonders why Chahreh Padar, who has the means, has not left in the direction of China and Turan as have so many others of his standing. Deep inside, he has a feeling this house will be one of the first targets of assault by the plundering aggressors and is trying to figure his odds of defending the house with the help of the faithful family dog (a symbol of faithfulness and animal affection in ancient Persia) once house to house assaults in the city get underway. The news pouring into the city is not encouraging at all. The supplies are running scarce, as a breakdown of commerce seems to have occurred.
Bahram’s thought process is broken by his employer, Chahreh Padar (Sassan) appearing on the scene and asking if Bahram is talking to himself. He then asks Bahram to go to the outskirts of the city looking for his future son-in-law Parviz who has joined the city defense forces. Parviz has not stopped by in quite a few days, and Chahreh Padar knows his daughter Parvin is longing to see his fiancé. Bahram expresses his reservation about the wisdom of staying on in Rey and says that there may still be time to get out. Chahreh Padar wants to hear none of that, given his childhood experience of being uprooted from the southwestern region of the country due to incursion by the Arab tribes and having moved to Rey in search of safety. Almost in a state of denial of the impending disaster that is to befell the city and its citizens, Chahreh Padar seems to have convinced himself that no harm will come. As Bahram departs, Chahreh Padar’s beautiful daughter Parvin appears in the courtyard of the house and is asked by her father to play a musical instrument as a means of combating the gloom and doom.
Soon Parviz arrives, to the joy of his fiance and her father, unaware of Bahram having been dispatched to get him. The exchange of news and views center about the defensive activities around the city. Parviz feels it is his honor and duty to defend the motherland, and that divine protection will be with them as they face incredible odds. Chahreh Padar is very supportive, and shows Parviz a small drawing of his daughter. Parviz asks if he can have the drawing and take it with him. Chahreh Pardar states that the drawing is something he is saving for his old age, but as long as his daughter is still living with him, Parviz can take the drawing with him, and hands it over. He goes on to say once this temporary problem is over with, the wedding of Parviz to his daughter will take place. As Parviz is getting to depart his fiance, she hands him the wedding ring she has been saving for their wedding day, and he gives her the gold ring he has procured for the same occasion. The departure scene is emotionally moving, as Parviz mounts his white horse to return to his observation post outside the city.
Then comes the assault on the city, and with the residents of the house very much confined within the enclosure of the house. Bahram enters Chahreh Padar’s room and sees Parvin sitting by her father’s bed side. Bahram finds a way to tell them that their house seems to have been penetrated by the invaders. He reports that the night before, he saw the glitter of one of the intruders’ eyes peeking from behind a tree in the courtyard and looking in the direction of their rooms, lit by candle light. Apparently Bahram, and the family dog were successful in scaring the Arab off. However, Bahram was sure they will return tonight. Chahreh Pardar starts to hallucinate. Parvin insists she will stay by father’s bedside to care for him. Suddenly, they hear footsteps of people walking on the roof. Anxiety builds. Bahram is wondering whether the family dog can scare the intruders away. Soon afterwards there is the sound of people walking outside. Bahram rushes to lock the door. There is banging on the door of the room. Chahreh Pardar tells Bahram, they are breaking down the door, and that he should open it. Bahram is thrown aside by four cruel looking intruders who enter the room. Speaking in Arabic, and not being understood by the three Persians, the intruders soon inflict a fatal blow to Bahram who positions himself between the invaders and the his employer. It is clear the faithful family dog was also killed by the looters. The intruders start to gather all the valuables in the room. Finally they look in the direction of Parvin. Realizing their ill intention towards his daughter, Chahreh Pardar while still in bed cries out that they can take all his material belongings but must leave his daughter alone. He then tries to shelter his daughter as the four Arabs close in. His attempt to save his daughter is met with a fatal blow. Parvin, witnessing all of these terrible events, loses consciousness.
The final and the climactic episode of the play takes place at the location in the city where the leader of the Arab invasion force is found. This episode brings out the stark contrasts between what was and what is to be.
Parvin, wrapped in a blanket, is brought into the room where the Arab leader is pacing up and down. The four assailants, having looted Chahreh Padar’s house, and having stashed away their ill gotten goods, unwrap the blanket at the foot of their leader. Parvin, still fainting, comes into view. They all stare at her. Soon afterwards, she starts to come around, and as she gains consciousness, the sight of the strangers bent over to look at her shocks her. Suddenly, the memory of the murder scene comes back to her. The Arab leader throws the others out of the room, and makes gestures towards Parvin. She shrinks back in disgust. The leader, frustrated, rushes to the door, and shouts some words in Arabic. A second man comes in, and walks towards Parvin. The leader leaves them alone and walks to the other end of the room. The new arrival starts to speak in Pahlavi (the language spoken in Persia in those days) with an accent.
Parvin is trying to find out whether this man is an outsider who has learnt Pahlavi or an Persian traitor. The translator and Parvin engage in very revealing and charged exchanges that clearly highlight the drastic changes that are about to befall the society.
He informs Parvin that the Arab leader has a generous offer reserved for her. She is to become the latest addition to his harem and all other women in the Harem will be required to serve her. She is told how lucky she is to receive this offer, given that the other women in the city are to be sent to Arabia to be sold at slave auctions. She is to be spared, and kept by the leader. All this talk is alien to Parvin who shows her disdain. She expresses her disgust at the conduct of the aggressors, and in response to the translator points out that ancient Persians, in the course of their history, have only fought defensive wars, and have never attacked their neighbors for the purpose of looting or imposing their religion on them.
The translator insists Parvin must accept the new realities, that the Fire Temples are things of the past to be abolished, and that she should submit to the will of Allah, and learn the new language as Pahlavi will also soon be abolished. Parvin feels the defense of her country is on her shoulders and expresses her thoughts that finally good will prevail and these invaders’ days are numbered. She believes strongly that her fiance Parviz will come to save her. The translator, who seems to be pressured to get Parvin to comply, suddenly shows her a ring. Parvin, recognizing the ring as the one she had given to Parviz, is panic-stricken and asks where the ring came from.
The translator, feeling he is getting an advantage, discloses that when the Arab army arrived, the defenders fought gallantly but were no match for the invading forces. After all the defenders were felled, he and a few others were trusted by the leader to enter the field and remove all valuables from the dead Persians, interrogating and finishing off any who were still breathing. He goes on to say that while doing so that night, he saw a white stallion on a hilltop bent over his dying master. He went over to investigate. Thinking he was an Persian speaking his language, the dying soldier, covered in his own blood, motioned the newcomer to approach him. The soldier gave him the drawing of a girl and a ring and asked him to find this girl and to tell her not to wait for him. The figure of the girl depicted in the drawing caught the eye of the Arab leader, who asked for the girl to be found and brought to him for addition to his own harem. Hearing all of this, Parvin’s world suddenly comes crumbling down around her. Her last hopes are dashed. At this point the translator reiterates the offer made to Parvin before, hoping she is more amenable by then. Parvin is still defiant, and rejects the offer with the force of her conviction. The translator points out this is the last chance she is getting, and still hearing “no,” walks to the other side of the room.
The Arab leader, impatient and pacing up and down the room, stops to hear the translator’s report. With rage in his face, he tosses the translator out of the room and walks towards Parvin. There is silence as the Arab approaches Parvin. He mutters some words and then puts one arm around Parvin, and places his other hand under her chin as if appraising his prey, and then kisses Parvin. In that closeness Parvin reaches out and gently pulls out the dagger tied to the Arab leader’s belt. Unaware of Parvin’s action, the Arab leader, pleased at his initial success, pulls back. As he looks the other way, Parvin raises the dagger. With all the strength that she can muster and with great swiftness the dagger comes down piercing through her chest. As her blood gushes out, Parvin falls to the ground to join the rest of her family.
The Arab leader, shaken by the event, walks away, reaches inside of a big chest filled to the top with jewels stolen from the Persian people, and pulls out a handful to cover the body of his latest victim.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: You are citing Wikipedia????? Well excuse me, I must surely wither in the face of such an authoritative source. PLEEEEASE!
At least I state where my sources come from!
Besides, while I never trust the "free encyclopedia" completely can you refute any that presented? All of the info I cited is confirmed by all other sources no doubt including your own which you refuse to properly cite.
So PLEEASE provide evidence that the Farsi are not Persians but are somehow "Turks" as you claim.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: There's no connection between the Habiru and the Hebrews. The Habiru were bands of disconnected people of various ethicities who made no claim to having a ethnonymous ancestor. Nor did the AE's invent the title Habiru. "Those who make dust" are first noted in Mesopotamian and in Levantine writings.
Appreciate the answer Takruri. So exactly where and when were the historically Hebrews first mentioned?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: There's no connection between the Habiru and the Hebrews. The Habiru were bands of disconnected people of various ethicities who made no claim to having a ethnonymous ancestor. Nor did the AE's invent the title Habiru. "Those who make dust" are first noted in Mesopotamian and in Levantine writings.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Apparently the hebrew were a people who initially were disunited and only became a people through the name designated to them by Ancient Egyptians as contract workers or "one who sells his service" = Hapiru, which latter became "Hebrew". This would mean that the original Hebrew were different types of unrelated "asiatic" individuals who became "a people" only after they entered Egypt as contract workers during the construction boom of the 12th dynasty.
Other than the Hapiru not having "ethnonymous ancestors" what other evidence do you have to disprove that these are not the same people? Afterall they created this lineage after they got united as "a people" during their service in Egypt.
Ps. when we speak of hebrew it's related to an indigenous group of people from the levant, not these plastic or fake hebrews who today call themselves jews that are of centralasian khazar origin. These people adopted the hebrew religion during medevil times and converted by sephardic jews from Byzantine during the wars of Umayyad and the khazars. And latter they migrated north to eastern european countries such as Poland and Hungary after the Russians sacked their kingdom in central asia.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. The question is what are your sources to prove the woefuly outdated opinions you posted about Habiru? It's fucking 2008, man. Get off the 'net. Go to your nearest university library. Pick up a book. Leaf through some specialized journals.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't answer that without my BAR collection and its index. I can tell you that Israel has its first historic mention in the famous Merneptah stele.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Appreciate the answer Takruri. So exactly where and when were the historically Hebrews first mentioned?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Yonis2 - Most of the ancient people, seem to have disappeared from north-Africa and the middle-east after the Arab (Turk) invasion. I know of no creditable source that details what took place in the time-frame from the fall of the Sassanian dynasty to the end of WW-I, (as relates specifically to the masters of those civilizations).
Certainly there is much history as relates to Turks, Mongols, and other Eurasians coming in. But unfortunately conquers never detail what they did to the conquered.
The fact that you have all of these non-Black people claiming heritage from them, but not looking like them, suggests a coordinated campaign by the current people to take something that is not theirs.
That they would have us believe that they are the same people that they conquered, is truly pathetic and stupid.
But come to think about it, it might make for a great British type comedy. As in "you shoot yourself" and then take over your own identity, Brilliant!
The original populations of the Iranian plateau may have had a large population that was darker skinned. The invaders therefore were the Parsi who were more likely very WHITE. The images you posted possibly represent the result of the mixture between ancient Elamites and the incoming Parsi. The iconography of the curly hair and other elements is definitely something that comes from older cultures that predates the Parsi. But it is impossible to tell from a statue what skin color these guys had. Also, keep in mind that many call these people Indo Aryan, which is a group that is spread between India and Iran and does include people of darker skin complexion. As Djehuti said, the Greeks considered the Parsi to be whiter than themselves. But either way, the modern Iranians are the direct descendants of the ancient Persians and Elamites.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M and Yonis2 - You two are so full of sh*t, I can't understand why you bother posting, other than to spread silly sh*t.
What are your Ridiculous statements suppose to be a new take on "DON"T BELIEVE YOUR OWN LYING EYES, BELIEVE ME".
That you would try such stupid SH*T on me, I take as a F**king personal insult. In the future, if you can't find something worthwhile to post, then don't F**king post ANYTHING, you silly little bast**ds.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude. Calm yourself down. All those cuss words don't add up to proving your point. You are ridiculous because I was HALFWAY agreeing with you. The point being that there WAS an element of the ancient population of Iran that was black and that element probably did remain there for quite a while, even after the invasion of the Parsi. Not to mention the fact that elements of populations from Pakistan, India and Afghanistan may have been present at various times and some of them may have been dark. But to say that modern Iranians are not direct descendents of the Parsi or that all ancient Persians where black is quite incorrect. Period.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether you agree with me or not is not the point. To make such a ridiculous statement when presented with visual PROOF, can only mean that you think me gullible enough to believe you, just because YOU said it.
That means that you think that I am stupid. If you want to support your position, offer proof just as I did. But you can’t, so you resort to nonsensical and insulting replies. I can only assume that the two of you are Turks, which only proves my point.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you could examine the artifacts in detail you would see that the hair is either straight or a bit wavy. Only the ends are artificially curled.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The iconography of the curly hair and other elements is definitely something that comes from older cultures that predates the Parsi.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You people are only making yourselves look worst!
Mention has three times been made of how the Greeks described the people in question. But no evidence has been produced: Perhaps this will help.
The Persian Wars: by Herodotus - Written 440 B.C. Book 7 - POLYMNIA
DEFINITIONS: Ethiopians - Greek word meaning: "burnt face" their term for all Blacks, But usually denoting Blacks not of a particular culture, i.e. Egyptians are Egyptians, Persians are Persians.
Libyans - Greek term usually denoting all of Africa except Egypt.
Indians - Arians: derived from the word "INDRA" the Arian god of war. (At the time of Herodotus, Arian's and Dravidian's had not yet coalesced, (more or less) into one nation), some will say that they still haven't.
Book 7 - POLYMNIA The Arabians, and the Ethiopians who came from the region above Egypt , were commanded by Arsames, the son of Darius and of Artystone daughter of Cyrus. This Artystone was the best-beloved of all the wives of Darius; and it was she whose statue he caused to be made of gold wrought with the hammer. Her son Arsames commanded these two nations.
[7.70] The Eastern Ethiopians (Dravidians) - for two nations of this name served in the army - were marshaled with the Indians. They differed in nothing from the other Ethiopians, save in their language, and the character of their hair. For the eastern Ethiopians have straight hair, while they of Libya are more woolly-haired than any other people in the world.
Meanwhile I will abuse you with Proof.
For those who would like to research this subject for themselves, and see more pictures of the type that I have presented; you may visit the link below. (Blacks be warned: In some cases, this institution does present data skewed in a racist way).
posted
You only supplied aa description of one contingency of the Persian army arrayed against Greece. Persia was an empire and many peoples were conscripted into its army. Your description is not a description of Persians at all.
It's been explained to you that you need to view high resolution copies of the images you're posting, preferably from a coffetable sized book. Only the ends of the hair are curly by artifice. At the level of the headgear the hair is straight in some instances and wavy in other instances.
The Greek opinion on the ethnic affinities of the Medes and Persians make mulattos out of them. The Medes were given Medea of Colchis (well known as a black nation) as ancestress while the Persians were assigned Perses son of Andromeda (princess of the Joppa -- Tel Aviv -- Aithiops) as eponymous ancestor.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
AlTakruri - I will answer your reply point by point.
Quote: You only supplied a description of one contingency
As you will recall; the argument is about whether the FARSI are direct descendants of the Persians. As you have seen; evidence would suggest that the Farsi are in fact delusional. They are descended from White People and the Persians were Black.
I never said that only Blacks were part of the Persian Empire; but if you would take the trouble to visit the link that I supplied in the previous post; Whites are ONLY presented as alien subjects bringing gifts.
Such as this Sogdian: Sogdia - A country north of Bactria; which was between the range of the Hindu Kush and the Amu Darya (speaking of Bactria); its capital Bactra was located in what is now Afghanistan.
As to the hair of the Persians: Most Black people have similar hair; I certainly do, when we brush it down at the top, it curls at the bottom, (what's your point)?
Quote: The Greek opinion on the ethnic affinities of the Medes and Persians make mulattos out of them
mulattos? - First they were White, Now they were Mulattos: Keep trying.
Your Quote: The Persians were assigned Perses son of Andromeda (princess of the Joppa -- Tel Aviv -- (Aithiops) as eponymous ancestor.
That is of course nonsense: Herodotus freely admitted that what he was relating was what the people of various nations told him about their history. However I don't remember reading anything like what you wrote, can you give us the source? But as I have demonstrated with the Farsi delusion, one cannot depend on that.
But getting back to the Greeks: Why would you want to use them as a source? They had no way of knowing who came when, or from where, THEY WERE"NT THERE YET! At the time of Herodotus, the Greeks were still trying to digest what they had just taken from the Blacks that were indigenous to Greece, they didn't know sh*t about anything.
But your post is worthwhile in that it brings us back to the Hebrews.
For the Farsi are not the only people who are delusional.
These people claim to be Hebrews.
But here are the people of that area, as they appeared throughout history; Funny, I don't see a White face in the bunch.
posted
Tsk, tsk. Try bait and switch on some mindless mollyflok. You brought in Herodotus. The quote didn't match your suppositions or the definitions you made pretend came from Herodotus when they really are just your words. I succesfully pointed out that the supplied Herodotus was not decribing Persians. And it still doesn't describe Persians and never will describe Persians. That is the specific I dealt with. You can just go ahead and be a man now and admit that what you quoted from Herodotus does not support your ideaology.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] AlTakruri - I will answer your reply point by point.
Quote: You only supplied a description of one contingency
As you will recall; the argument is about whether the FARSI are direct descendants of the Persians. As you have seen; evidence would suggest that the Farsi are in fact delusional.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M and Yonis2 - You two are so full of sh*t, I can't understand why you bother posting, other than to spread silly sh*t.
What are your Ridiculous statements suppose to be a new take on "DON"T BELIEVE YOUR OWN LYING EYES, BELIEVE ME".
That you would try such stupid SH*T on me, I take as a F**king personal insult. In the future, if you can't find something worthwhile to post, then don't F**king post ANYTHING, you silly little bast**ds.
Cussing up a storm is nothing more but a sign of intellectual frustration on your part. You have provided NOTHING that proves modern day Farsi are not the direct descendants of the ancient Parsi (Persians), but only post pics of stone reliefs and figures which don't even give a clue about skin color. You have given us NOTHING to suggest that modern day Farsi are somehow "Turks" even though they do not speak Turkic languages but a language directly descended from Old Persian-- the language of the Persians. All historical sources and documents don't even suggest any major incursion of Turks that would affect the population.
In other words you are full of nothing but hot air.
Now, lets get back to the subject of Hapiru and Hebrews please. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mike111 wrote: These people claim to be Hebrews.
The only part i agree with in your posts, the ancient hebrews of the levant were certainly not of eastern european and central asian origin like the people in the picture you posted.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Mike111 or Mikey Canada or whoever, we've dealt with this like a dozen times already and even lately had a thread devoted to it. So, I recommend you take your polemic to where it really belongs and leave this thread to its header's true intent. In the "Were Persians blacks" thread, you can read Herodotus on the Persians' eponymous ancestor and his Aithiop mother.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Quote: The Greek opinion on the ethnic affinities of the Medes and Persians make mulattos out of them
mulattos? - First they were White, Now they were Mulattos: Keep trying. Your Quote: The Persians were assigned Perses son of Andromeda (princess of the Joppa -- Tel Aviv -- Aithiops) as eponymous ancestor.
posted
Well I for one would like to see something posted about the actual `Apiru of Ancient Egyptian record. Can anybody supply such raw texts (in translation of course)?
I'm talking about the `Apiru here not the `Ib*riym.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Now, lets get back to the subject of Hapiru and Hebrews please.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bunch of you are really silly; do you really think that you are fooling anyone with half a brain? Do you really think that I am taken in by the constant discarding of the proof I offer, and then asking for more, as if what I offered was valueless, truly silly. All you did was offer me many great opportunities to address age old lies.
I case you haven't figured it out: my posts are not for your benefit, they are intended for the Blacks all over the world who have to listen to racist Bullsh*t like that which you spew. From people just like you, who on the one hand appear to give just due, but then stop, when their own lie is in jeopardy.
They say that a picture is worth a thousand words; if that is true, then I have presented a book of evidence. Your silly protestations will not change that.
But now it is your turn, you say "no that is not true, you are all wrong" like somehow your word is suppose to have some special meaning or weight, it does not. To me you are just another bunch of lying non-Blacks, trying desperately to hang on to your world of lies.
But there is an easy way to prove me wrong: OFFER SOME PROOF AS TO WHAT YOU SAY!! Show us all; the Greek quote describing Persians as White people, Show us all the pictures of White Persians (I personally know of many fake artifacts from that area, please don't be silly enough to use one of them).
I leave you with this bit of REAL Persian.
Apadana - A number of inscriptions cut in stone, of the kings Darius I, Xerxes I, and Artaxerxes III, indicate which king built the various buildings. The oldest inscription on the south retaining wall gives Darius' famous prayer for his people: “God protect this country from foe, famine and falsehood" - the Persians believed that the "Lie" was the greatest sin.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Provide more facts without insulting. And I don't see anyone here on this thread who spews racist stuff.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way I am black and I do not believe that the ancient Persians were black.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Also, I just saw it the other day-- a program on the History Channel called 'Bible Battles'. I believe I mentioned it before. In it, scholars clarify that not only were the Hebrews not slaves in Egypt, as the correct translation from the Hebrew text was servant, but that the Hebrews were a martial people if not a military coalition of peoples. They also identify the Hebrews with the Hapiru.
If anyone wants to disagrees with any of the above premise please explain so.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Djehuti wrote: They also identify the Hebrews with the Hapiru
I see nothing surprising! Only modern Jews would deny this Historical connection. Lets see what alTukturi has to say about this.
quote:Djehuti Wrote: If anyone wants to disagrees with any of the above premise please explain so.
Well lets just see the explanation on how real modern "hebrews" really ara connected to divinity rather than worshiping contract workers. They are afterall the chosen people,
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've already had my say on Habiru. To date no one has presented anything to restore credit to the long ago discredited vain notion that Habiru equates to Hebrew and no body will because no scholar or school of ancient Levantine archaeology holds to or teaches any such silly thing.
The only place you find application of this ridiculous nonsense is where amateurs or enthusiast are doing it for a popular unschooled audience.
posted
^ So the only alleged connection with Hebrews is in name alone and nothing more?
Do you agree with the other finding that the Hebrews' presence in Egypt were not as slaves but paid servants? This reminds me of the Egyptians' association of Aamu (Asiatics) with servants.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The word `ebed can mean slave, servant, worker or worshipper pending context.
Per Hebrew literature, the Israelites (except for their Lewi'iym clan) started out as paid laborers but step by step were reduced to slavery.
But again what I'd like to know more about is the actual Apiru as written in real historical texts of Egypt. Can you post something on that? I know you have the research skills to do it if you choose to apply yourself to that task.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see any connection in the names 'apirw `ibri when examining the original languages. They only begin to sound alike when rendered in translation. The English word Hebrew is derived from a word pronounced ngeeb*ree in its original tongue.
Apeeroo and ngeeb*ree sound nothing alike to me.
Habiru is an ancient designation for a low class of people It is not a specific ethnicity. Alternate spellings of the term are 'Apiru and Khapiru.
The use of Habiru pre-dates the existence of the Israelites and appears in text ranging from Mari to Anatolia to Egypt. Out of the vast region this encompasses, no one has yet explained how the term could be narrowed down to only apply to one small group of transhumant pastoralists in Canaan and not anybody else.
If the Egyptian term 'apiru is synonymous with `ibriym then a record of Rameses II who fed 'apiru masons on his building projects supports the Israelite record of Hebrews toiling as brick masons in the construction at the cities of Pithom and Raamses.
The Israelites claim an epononymous ancestor `Eber and their writings show a Canaanite referring to their more immediate ancestor Abraham one time as an `ibri. The root -- `br -- has meanings of "passing through, yonder, yonderer."
It doesn't matter whether there ever was a person named `Eber or if there ever was a person Abraham. All peoples have stories of a founding ancestor from whom they take their tribal name, ethnic appellation, or national designation.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So the only alleged connection with Hebrews is in name alone and nothing more?
Do you agree with the other finding that the Hebrews' presence in Egypt were not as slaves but paid servants? This reminds me of the Egyptians' association of Aamu (Asiatics) with servants.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic