posted
I am not sure if this was ever posted on this site.
Middle Eastern Civilizations' Expansion Brought Civilization To Europe
Due to Colonial times perceptions and historiography, today’s European academia, statesmen, legislators and journalists still view the world through obsolete viewpoints. Yet, it is essential to re-appraise European civilization’s dependence on Ancient Middle East civilizations, and to enumerate issues that must be taken into account before any European politician tries to say what is and what is not Europe.
Due to Colonial times perceptions and historiography, today’s European academia, statesmen, legislators and journalists still view the world through obsolete viewpoints. As we announced at the end of an earlier article in Buzzle (Turkey And Europe Must Go Beyond Obsolete Colonial History / http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-14-2005-78914.asp), it is essential to re-appraise European civilization’s dependence on Ancient Middle East civilizations, and to enumerate issues that must be taken into account before any European politician tries to say what is and what is not Europe.
Within the frame of a brief article, one cannot analyze issues that took volumes to the leading Orientalist, Prof. Dr. Martin Bernal, to discuss; and he did so mostly for the 3rd and the 2nd millennia BCE limiting himself in the Oriental – Greek relations, whereas the phenomenon intensified mostly in the 1st millennium BCE and in the first half of the 1st millennium CE. We intend therefore to be brief in all the points we present.
Minoan Crete: a point of Semitic, Anatolian and Khammitic convergence
The island that is still thought to be the cradle of civilization on European soil was a colony for 3rd and 2nd millennium Semites from Canaan and Khammites from Egypt. Paradoxically still revered, Sir Arthur Evans after excavating a typically Canaanite temple at Cnossos (nearby Candia – Heraklion) called it ‘Palace of Minos’ in his unscientific rash to identify his findings with pages of Ancient Greek mythology nobody was able to understand at those days. How can a palace exist without toilets? When a scholar is not able to resist his temptations and preconceived erroneous schemes, he has to be thrown to the rubbish basket of modern academic institutions. If scholars are not courageous enough to precede so, they must be obliterated too.
Leading scholars like Astour and Gordon studied, criticized and reassessed the data already in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. In 2nd millennium BCE Crete, we have found five different scriptures, namely the Phaestos Disc writing (unique sample remaining of the writing in question), two ideogrammatic (also called hieroglyphic) writings, and two linear scriptures, conventionally called Linear A and Linear B. There are no bilingual inscriptions with other major scriptures of the world of the 2nd millennium BCE Middle East (Egyptian Hieroglyphic in use in Egypt, Ugaritic Cuneiform Alphabetic and Byblic Syllabogrammatic in use in Canaan – Syria/Labanon/Israel, Hittite Cuneiform, Hatti Hieroglyphic, Palaic Hieroglyphic and Luwian Hieroglyphic in use in Anatolia – Turkey, Assyrian – Babylonian Cuneiform, Sumerian Cuneiform, Eblaite Cuneiform, Elamite Cuneiform, and Hurrian Cuneiform in use in Mesopotamia – SE Turkey/Syria/Iraq/Iran). Texts in all these Cretan scriptures are scarce and short. The most numerous are those in Linear B, which has been deciphered in middle 50s by Ventris; it proved to be the earlier form of Ancient Greek used by the Achaeans in Mycenae, Cnossos, and elsewhere. By the Achaeans prevailed in Crete only late, after the destruction of the island following the Thera volcano eruption and the ensuing tsunami; they used Linear A characters for their totally different – Indo-European – language. What about the earlier Cretan systems of writings?
The two hieroglyphic writings have not been deciphered but seem to have been influenced by Luwian Hieroglyphic in one case and by Egyptian Hieroglyphic in the other case. A great linguist, Cyrus Gordon, deciphered and identified the famous Linear A writing as Canaanite dialect. For ideological reasons related to perpetuate academic colonialism, many scholars did not accept Gordon's conclusions because they would offer direct to the Semitic Canaanites direct preponderance over the supposed Indo-European identity of Europe. Funds have not been raised for comparative studies whereas they should have been at the epicenter of academic interest; interdisciplinary research was canceled whereas it should have become top priority of specialists. In addition, 'Greek' Pre-Historic Archeology that ridiculously deals with non-Greek civilizations, such as pre-Achaean Balkan civilizations, 'Aegean' and Minoan – Cretan civilizations, has been flooded by dogmatic approach and bogus-theories like the disreputable Renfrew local isolationism, a comical theory according to which any cultural development anytime anywhere is not – and cannot be – a matter of foreign influence, being simply a testimony of local progress.
However, with the progress made in several disciplines of Orientalism, and with the breakthrough of leading scholars like Martin Bernal, we have reconstitute a completely different picture than that contained in obsolete 'contributions' by Marinatos, Zois, Renfrew and others. According to Ancient Egyptian texts there was a Horus of Crete, which testifies to local presence of Egyptian priests, who were annually sailing to serve their followers in Crete – and they did so in Ancient Egyptian language, not Greek. The presence of Pelasgians in the island was already attested in Ancient Greek mythological texts, but the Pelasgians (Peleset in Ancient Egyptian texts) are the ancestors of the Philistines, having nothing to do with the Indo-European Mycenaean Achaeans. We will see below that they were the worst enemies of the Achaean Greeks, and this again was not unknown to Ancient Greek mythological texts. Here, we have however to make a point that the entire fabrication of the Colonial History has also a lot to do with false – if not perverted – reading of the Ancient Greek sources as well.
It could be easily understood by simple pupils in History that, when in a small island you meet four contemporaneous writings (Phaestos Disc writing, two hieroglyphic writings and Linear A), you've got to accept the co-existence of different peoples on that location, perhaps not necessarily four different peoples (since during the Antiquity we have encountered several cases of peoples using two different writing systems at the same time), but certainly more than two! The most probable conclusion with regard to 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE Crete is that there were at least three populations of different origin on the island before the arrival of the Mycenaean Greeks (around 1600 BCE): there were Egyptians (Khammitic), Luwians (indigenous Anatolian population unrelated to the Indo-European Hittites of Anatolia) and Canaanites (Semitic). And they developed first civilization on 'European' (or Asiatic / African?) soil.
Mycenaean Greeks at the service of their powerful relatives, the Hittites of Anatolia
When the Indo-European Achaeans arrive and settle in various places of modern Greece, they constitute a tiny minority among the indigenous Pelsagians, whom they subdued. The relationship was never easygoing and the Achaeans had to build strongholds, their famous acropolises like those at Mycenae, Tiryns, Argos, Lerna, and Pylos, to be protected from the reactions of the multitude of the Pelasgians. Before the Mycenean Achaeans prevailed in Southern Balkans, their cousins, the Nesa (today Kayseri – Caesarea of Cappadocia) inhabitants took control of Hattusas, and dominated the Hattis, the Luwians, and other non – Indo-European and non – Semitic, indigenous peoples of Anatolia. Although named after the city they first invaded (Nasili), they kept the original name of the Hatti kingdom, and modern scholarship uses the term 'Hittites' to differentiate from the earlier Hatti, who survived and preserved their writing for more than 700 years after the Indo-European Nasili – Hittites' rise to predominance. When Ancient Egyptian texts of the 20th century BCE refer to the Great 'Kheta', they insinuate at the Hatti, whereas later Egyptian texts dating back to the 14th century BCE speak of the Indo-European Hittites, who had risen to power under the same name.
Contrarily to the poor documentation we have in the already deciphered Linear B (the Mycenaean form of earliest Greek), the Cuneiform Hittite texts help us reconstruct Hittite History much better. We have no myths, epics, and/or laws written in saved Linear B texts, whereas we have these sorts of texts in Cuneiform Hittite in abundance. In addition, we have Annals of the Hittite kings, administrative and military reports, plus diplomatic documentation, i.e. royal correspondence, in Hittite.
From the material record we understand that the 'Polychrysos' Mycenae of the Homeric narrations may have been much wealthier than the poor Greek cities – states of Homer's times, but it could not be compared in wealth, art, science, wisdom and sophistication of the administration with any of the great Oriental capitals of the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, Assyria, Washegani (the Hurrian capital), Babylon, Susa (the Elamite capital), Hattusas, Ugarit (the greatest Canaanite city), and Thebes of Egypt. Mycenaean Greece was small, marginal and unimportant. It was however of some use for the 'world politics' of the Hittite empire that was facing the Hurrians in the South-East, Egypt in the South, and the permanently rebellious Lukka in the western – southwestern confines of Anatolia.
Through various Hittite sources, we come to know that the rulers of Mycenae were affiliated to, and relative of, the Emperor of Hattusas. The crown prince of the Achaeans (Ahhijawa in Hittite) was mentioned as trained in charioting along with the Hittite crown prince. It seems that Hittite was widely spoken in Mycenaean Greece, and this is not a surprise because of the affinities of the two Indo-European languages. The coordination in terms of international politics seems to have been the cornerstone on which the two ruling dynasties based their strategies. The friendship between the Hittite Empire and the Mycenaean kingdom had actually transformed the latter into a permanent guardian and peacekeeper in the western and southwestern confines of Anatolia, which helped Hattusas deploy the quasi-totality of its military machine in the East and in the South from where the wealth would come (agriculture and trade undertaken in the Mesopotamian plains / trade assumed with the skillful Canaanite navigators).
The parallel collapse of the Hittite Empire and the Mycenaean Kingdom
Today we can reconstitute the entire Trojan epics' story thanks to a multitude of Hittite texts reporting to the Emperor at Hattusas the difficulties encountered by the Mycenaean agents and mercenaries to impose a certain peace and calm in the westernmost confines of Anatolia, in cities like Apasa (Ephesus) and Millawanda (Miletus) that are referred to within the Hitttite literature corpus. It seems that the situation of the Pelasgian – Trojan – Lukka masses had become so upset that a major effort was undertaken (later mythologized among the Greeks as 'the Trojan war' since it was their most important exploit against their worst enemies). As we know the effort ended with the destruction of Troy (Taruiya / Taruisha according to the Hittite texts), the most prominent commercial center of the anti-Mycenaean and anti-Hittite Pelasgian masses that were living in Southwestern Anatolia, in the Aegean Sea islands and in mainland Greece (where the Mycenaean Greeks were just a minority among them).
The event led to the explosion that dispersed Pelasgian barbarism throughout Eastern Mediterranean at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 12th centuries BCE, namely the event that is known as 'Invasions of the Sea Peoples'. Reacting in an unprecedented way, the oppressed Pelasgian peoples, a coalition called 'Lukka' in the Hittite sources and 'Sea Peoples' in the Egyptian sources, achieved to attack and destroy Hattusas serendipitously, ignite rebellions throughout mainland Greece against the Achaeans and finally burn the Mycenaean acropolises, and then undertake disastrous military expeditions against Alasia (Cyprus), Ugarit and the other Canaanite coastal and inland (Amurru) cities, before being defeated by the Egyptians in three successive land and sea battles at the Nile estuaries and in the Western desert (since they made a temporary alliance with the Libyan tribes). Only Ramses III was able to disperse them finally, and through his Annals we get the largest documentation about them (allied forces of Peleset – Pelasgians, Lukka – Lycians, Taruish – Trojans, Sherden – inhabitants of Sardes who later settled in Sardinia, Shekelesh – who settled in Sicily after their dispersion and gave the Trinakria island its present name, and Washesh / Ashuwa – 'Asians', i.e. inhabitants of the Northwestern part of Anatolia that was named 'Asia' before the name was later used by the Greeks for the entire continent).
The formation of the Ancient Greek Culture from the Mycenaean to the Archaic Era bears witness to determinant Oriental impact.
Speaking about the non Greek Crete, we already mentioned the existence of Horus' Egyptian priests and local followers. Among the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE non Greek Pelasgians of Boetia, Argolid, Attica and Arcadia, Prof. Martin Bernal finds evidence of comprehensive Egyptian and African presence. Irrigational works at Boetia – so important for the fertilization of the plain – allude to apparent use of Egyptian know how. Names of mythical heroes and toponymics relating to those areas, like Atalante, Alkmene, Thebes, Orhomenos, etc are all of either Egyptian Khammitic or Canaanite Semitic origin and/or meaning. An Egyptian temple seems to have existed in the middle of Mycenae, and the long Egyptian list of enumerated toponymics from the South Balkans (today's inland Greece and Crete) that dates back to the reign of Amenhotep III testifies to excellent Egyptian knowledge of all that area from where the Pharaohs collected tribute for long. Exchanges of gifts and diplomatic presents left also various traces.
Even more determinant were religious and mythical beliefs, cults and practices. Vast parts of the Greek mythology (Demeter and the Eleusinian mysteries, Persephone and Pluto, Hera, Leto, Apollo, Hermes, Athena, the entire Herakles (Hercules) mythological circle, the Cadmus and Danaos mythological circle, the Theseus mythological circle, the concept of Helios' (Sun's) trajectory and overnight travel through the Nether World back to the eastern point of its rise, the concept of the world as a sphere with the earth as circular horizontal cross-section, the Ancient Greek Cosmology and Astrology in its entirety, the Creation of the World (as in Hesiod's Theogony) and the concept of the successive generations (Okeanos and Tethys, Uranus and Gaia, Cronos and Rhea), the basic frame of Iliad's narrative plot), plus names (involving Erebos, Tartara, Tethys, Cadmus, Hermes, etc), are all borrowings from the Egyptian, the Canaanite, the Hittite and the Assyrian – Babylonian religious and mythological systems. On the eve of the classical times, the Orientalizing period (a term employed by the colonial classicists themselves) testifies to another wave of Oriental influences - in Art, Philosophy, Mythology and Culture - spread throughout the Achaeans, the Aeolians, the Ionians, and the Dorians.
At the times of Homer, the presence of Phoenicians throughout the Aegean Sea was overwhelming; Homer mentioned it transposing the event at the times of Troy. Greco-Romano-centrist historians and archeologists refuse to accept the reality for either period; this testifies only to their partial and unscientific status.
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis Published: 10/18/2005
quote:Originally posted by SEEKING: I am not sure if this was ever posted on this site.
Well if you mean this particular article, no or at least I don't think so. But if you mean the overall issue or topic of the article, then you obviously have not payed attention to this forum for the past several years! LOLPosts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Though I wonder why mainstream academia has made no mention of it? Perhaps because it is non other than pseudo-scholarly nonsense. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting that the author, of Turkish origin but residing in Egypt, mentions Martin Bernal but makes little mention of Africa, instead including Kemet in the "Near East" and inserting a conjunction between Egypt and Africa. So much for attempting to go beyond the colonial paradigm; it will take full acknowledgment of Kemet's Africanity and the ancient (though not exclusive) African presence in the "Middle East" in order to truly obliterate this noxious paradigm.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ At first it seemed he indicated that Kemet (Egypt) was African until later on he seperately said "Egypt and Africa" as if they were not the same. So you may be right.
Anyway here are some past threads relevant to the subject.
posted
^ I don't know, but if a mysterious alien script were discovered on Mars, he would not doubt classify it as Mande also! LOLPosts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic