posted
Map of hypothetical "Wandering Caucasoids" Eurocentrists use to explain the founding of ancient civilizations outside of Europe
An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years. - Brace (1993)
I'd like to directly address this theory about "wandering Caucasoids" flooding into Africa, contributing to the craniofacial form of tropical Northeast Africans and becoming the indigenious people of North Africa as Eurocentrists love to claim. Now make no mistake we do acknowledge that Supra-Saharan Africans have significant Eurasian admixture but we disagree with Eurocentrists about when that major genetic impact occurred. We believe it occurred during the historical era, specifically the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods while Eurocentrists claim a pre-historic migration into Africa.
As you can see below Guy White among other things contends that there is archeological evidence of a FLOODING of wandering Caucasians into Africa as early as 30,000 years ago.
quote: Originally posts by Guy White:
They are belligerently irrational about this. They are not interested in craniometric studies or DNA evidence. They don’t care that most Ancient Egyptians’ depictions of themselves showing light skin. They deny the clear archeological record that Caucasians FLOODED into Africa 30,000 years ago. They are not the least concerned by the fact that Egyptian civilization spread south along the Nile starting at the interface with Eurasia.
But where is his source? It's not enough to make such claims you need to back them up with sources. Incidentally there are several sources inconsistent with his contentions:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.- Keita & Boyce (Egypt in Africa)
Now the common tactic of Eurocentrists is to cite genetic studies that claim tropical Northeast Africans are more similar to Eurasians or intermediate between Eurasians and other Sub-Saharan Africans. The biased sampling and flawed methodology of these studies have been refuted several times and counter sources have been provided against their contentions.
What I want to do is give the Eurocentrists the oppurtunity to answer these questions in support of their Wandering Caucasoid theory (aka The Hamitic Hypothesis).....
1. What is the scientific basis for Negroid and Wandering Caucasoid racial categories?
2. Where is the archeological evidence for these Wandering Caucasoids?
3. What are the genetic markers of these Wandering Caucasoids?
4. How do you explain the dark skin and tropical limb proportions of Northeast Africans if they are admixed with light-skinned, cold-adapted Wandering Caucasoids?
5. If tropical Northeast Africans are Negroid-Wandering Caucasoid hybrids why don't the populations look like "biracial" people (i.e. Why do they look like Iman rather than Barack Obama)?
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
The map above by the way, illustrates Colin Renfrew's hypothesis of Anatolian origins for proto-Indo-European which linguistically doesn't add up as well as say Marija Gimbutas's Kurgan Hypothesis. Renfrew's attempt was to show that Indo-European coincided with the advent of agriculture in the Neolithic. The only problem is that many of the agricultural words held in common by IE languages occur only in Anatolia or directly adjacent regions and appear to be non-I-E in origin.
As for "caucasoid" linguistic origins, perhaps a map of hypothetical 'Nostratic' will show that. LOL
Nostratic homelands have been proposed from Scandinavia to Armenia, to Tibet, to most recently Ethiopia!
LOL @ "wandering caucasoids"! So these 'cacasoids' wandered around the from Eurasia to Africa starting civilizations but not in Europe until much later. That's very interesting. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keita's recent data 2008, debunks some of the "wandering" claims, showing the indigenous genesis of numerous peoples of africa by DNA.
Excerpted Data from Keita 2008 in: Bengston, John D. (ed.), In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory: Essays in the four fields of anthropology. 2008. John Benjamins Publishing: pp. 3-16) =======================================
----------------------------
----------------------------
----------------------------
----------------------------
----------------------------
----------------------------
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excerpted Data from Keita 2008 in: Bengston, John D. (ed.), In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory: Essays in the four fields of anthropology. 2008. John Benjamins Publishing: pp. 3-16)
----------------------------
----------------------------
----------------------------
----------------------------
----------------------------
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Ok first off. Your making the mistake of calling Christian knowledge as Eurocentric knowledge. According to the bible we split into many different language during the building of the tower of Babel. This research into religious studies included archaeological digs, historical graphy and much more work. Its a question many generations have asked "Where do we come from?"
The Monotheistic people be they Jew, Christian or Muslim do not automatically dismiss the Bible as a source of information including Historical information. Not all of it is Historical but some of it is such as the Babel tower is. So what that means is there have been numerous papers written to suggest somewhere in modern Iraq is where all people split into different languages and cultures. Th Hammites who were supposed to be good at building according to this ideology were the ones responsible for the Pyramids. Much to your delight Black and white hammites existed, those in Africa were considered by Eurocentrists to be black. Japheth the sone of Noah was to give birth to other European and Asian families. There is some scientific analysis being done to support this idea but it fell out of favour at the turn of the 20th centuary and very little is being done today.
What all this implies is that there should be a common DNA marker for all humanity, there should be atleast 10 markers identifying the sons of Noah. And then there should be markers for each of their grandchildren. So this is the so called EUrocentric view that your mislabelling and not seeing as being a Religious view.
Now for the picture you have provided there is one small problem with it. The Caucaus theory is really an American idea. Europeans dont lean towards it that much neither do most people outside the English speaking community world wide. For example the same region between the Caspian sea and the Black sea has no linguistic similarity today to what existed 1000 years ago. At one stage Georgians spoke Greek, there are Pontian Dialects(A form of Greek found along east coast of Blacksea and Northern Turkey.) Today those regions speak Slavonic, Turksih, Arabic, Russian derived languages. So yes if you analyse languages spoken in that region over the past 1000 years and try to come to some conclusion obviously its going to be pre-biased by the selection of languages you use for your test. The same applies when you start talking about Afro-Asiatic etc languages. We dont have a becnhmark period of literature to attest to it as fact. Greek as far as I know managed to cover around 4000 years of attested literature. So Greeks can for example compare their various forms of the same dialect like modern, byzantine, koine and classical. We can get an idea of other languages by determining which words were not fundamentally greek but borrowed from others. Classical Greek had Egyptian, Persian, Roman and numerous other words in it. Modern Greek has mountain loads of borrows words like French, Egyptian, Russian, English and so forth (of course borrowed words have equivillent Greek words but they are used because some people find them more sexy. Like the word sexy for example So in the case of only a few languages can we really use language as a basis for real scientific analysis.
Also with out limiting the general scope of what i have already written, the Indo-European idea is derived from a Germanic view. Something some of you Afrocentists try to glue together with everyone white/ish. The Germans had a theory that everything aryan was related to German. Thus sprouted a counter argument of Indo-European languages to weaken their Germanic argument. Sometimes its used to simply denote a relation of languages, other times its a racial tool to seperate "us from them". So when you see pictures about Indo_European dialects etc try to firstly think "How would this help the Neo-Nazi argument?" If that picture is true then the Germans come from that region and thus (anyone remember WWI?) Turkey, Italy, Germany have common roots infact the homeland of Germans is Turkey/Caucaus....starting to see what your blind to? Its not about Eurocentrics vs Afrocentrics its certain groups with political agendas trying to change history or atleast mold it to serve their purpose. Notice how they show Doric as feeding Greece? How does that affect a Neo-Nazi view? The Greeks contrary to history did not Hellenise us they were invaded by Northern Tribes of guess what?......"The Dorians were a motley hoard from somewhere in Eastern Europe.Western scholarship traditionally identified the DOrians as Germanic.Eastern European scholarship identies then as non Germanic."..... A Modern Theory Of Language Evolution Carl J. Becker. Oh so by historical account the Germanic people have a right to claim everything that is Greek belongs to them. Very neat and tidy.
There are heaps more views on how we came to be. But what i ask from you guys is to not dismiss post WWI-WWII theories as Eurocentric but simply understand there is still an ongoing conflict to scrub out Greece's achievements from within Europe and other places. Heck there is even Japanese writters saying that because Alexander opened the silk road and hellenised people along its path that the Japanese had as much right to invade Greece as did the Germans...and thats coming from 21'st centuary scholars (wtf?)
So please when you come up with ideas about "Out Of Africa" try to see if they match with which views, Hellenic, Germanic, Jewish, Egyptian, African etc and then comment on how they favour which of so many political agendas.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something some of you Afrocentists try to glue together with everyone white/ish....
....starting to see what your blind to?
Ephestion, if you expect us to reply to these long posts of yours you'd do well not to talk down to your audience.
We know the origin of these concepts. We don't need a history lesson.
The term Hamitic may have Biblical roots but the concept of the Hamitic Hypothesis was developed to explain away civilization in Africa as being developed by Wandering Caucasians. It was a racist and Eurocentric concept.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excuse me but your talking about Germanocentric not Eurocentric. The Hamitic Hypothesis was developed through Western-Germanic scholars not Greeks. I take offense when you start grouping everyone in Europe with that term Eurocentric. Besides these theories are relics of post WWII...move on.
And by the way Italians and Turks added to the so called scholarly works of Races....why? WWII!
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Map of hypothetical "Wandering Caucasoids" Eurocentrists use to explain the founding of ancient civilizations outside of Europe
An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years. - Brace (1993)
I'd like to directly address this theory about "wandering Caucasoids" flooding into Africa, contributing to the craniofacial form of tropical Northeast Africans and becoming the indigenious people of North Africa as Eurocentrists love to claim. Now make no mistake we do acknowledge that Supra-Saharan Africans have significant Eurasian admixture but we disagree with Eurocentrists about when that major genetic impact occurred. We believe it occurred during the historical era, specifically the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods while Eurocentrists claim a pre-historic migration into Africa.
As you can see below Guy White among other things contends that there is archeological evidence of a FLOODING of wandering Caucasians into Africa as early as 30,000 years ago.
quote: Originally posts by Guy White:
They are belligerently irrational about this. They are not interested in craniometric studies or DNA evidence. They don’t care that most Ancient Egyptians’ depictions of themselves showing light skin. They deny the clear archeological record that Caucasians FLOODED into Africa 30,000 years ago. They are not the least concerned by the fact that Egyptian civilization spread south along the Nile starting at the interface with Eurasia.
But where is his source? It's not enough to make such claims you need to back them up with sources. Incidentally there are several sources inconsistent with his contentions:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.- Keita & Boyce (Egypt in Africa)
Now the common tactic of Eurocentrists is to cite genetic studies that claim tropical Northeast Africans are more similar to Eurasians or intermediate between Eurasians and other Sub-Saharan Africans. The biased sampling and flawed methodology of these studies have been refuted several times and counter sources have been provided against their contentions.
What I want to do is give the Eurocentrists the oppurtunity to answer these questions in support of their Wandering Caucasoid theory (aka The Hamitic Hypothesis).....
1. What is the scientific basis for Negroid and Wandering Caucasoid racial categories?
2. Where is the archeological evidence for these Wandering Caucasoids?
3. What are the genetic markers of these Wandering Caucasoids?
4. How do you explain the dark skin and tropical limb proportions of Northeast Africans if they are admixed with light-skinned, cold-adapted Wandering Caucasoids?
5. If tropical Northeast Africans are Negroid-Wandering Caucasoid hybrids why don't the populations look like "biracial" people (i.e. Why do they look like Iman rather than Barack Obama)?
Excellent summary. Let us see what our 'Aryan' deep thinkers can bring to the table on those questions..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ephestion: Excuse me but your talking about Germanocentric not Eurocentric. The Hamitic Hypothesis was developed through Western-Germanic scholars not Greeks. I take offense when you start grouping everyone in Europe with that term Eurocentric. Besides these theories are relics of post WWII...move on.
And by the way Italians and Turks added to the so called scholarly works of Races....why? WWII!
Post World War II? I don't think so. Try Mid 19th Century.
And stop attacking a strawman. We're not associating every European ethnicity with Eurocentrism. The main proponents of the Hamitic Hypothesis are Europeans or of European descent who have attempted to associate advanced African cultures with Europeans, hence the term Eurocentric.
Eurocentric thinking about Africa persists which is why topics like this get created. If you have a problem with that take it up with the Eurocentrists who post on this board.
If anyone should take offense it should be us at your generalization that we are all Afrocentrists.
Studying Ancient Egypt in an African context is not Afrocentric it is simply correct.
I am not an Afrocentrist. I try to remain as objective as possible when analyzing world history.
Now enough with the distractions. Let's wait for the Eurocentrists to defend their arguments before engaging in further discussion.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
lack people aren't smart enough to build a civilization like Egypt. Common sense tells us it wasn't Blacks. And after our recent debate, I now know it was white people either. It was obviously Aliens.
If you take the perimeter of the pyramid and divide it by two times the height, you get a number that is exactly equivalent to the number pi (3.14159...) up to the fifteenth digit. The chances of this phenomenon happening by sheer chance is remarkably small. Did the ancient Egyptians know what the number pi was? Not likely, seeing as it was a number not calculated accurately to the fourth digit until the 6th century, and the pyramids calculate it to the fifteenth.
What about the fact that even though the sides of the base of the pyramid are some 757 feet long, it still forms an almost perfect square? Every angle in the base is exactly 90 degrees. In fact, the sides have a difference in length of something like two centimeters, which is an incredibly small amount.
What about the fact that although the Egyptians kept very careful records about everything they ever did; every king they had, every war they fought, and every structure they built, there were no records of them ever having built the pyramids?
What about the fact that the Egyptians had not even invented the wheel yet, but the blocks that they had to carry to build the pyramids weighed about 2 tons each? 4,000 lbs.? What did they do... use cement? In fact, they used so much stone, that if you took all of the stone they used and cut it into 1 foot square blocks, it would extend 2/3 of the way around the earth!!!
If you take the line of longitude that the pyramid lies on and the latitude that the pyramid lies on, 31 degrees north by 31 degrees west (the fact that they are the same number is a coincidence???) they are the two lines that cover the most combined land area in the world. In essence, the pyramid is the center of all of the land mass of the whole earth!!!!
How about the fact that a group of modern scientists attempted to build a pyramid out next to the real one using modern technologies, and after something like 100 days, succeeded in building one about 1/40 of the size of the real one????
Did you know that the height of the pyramid (481 feet) is almost exactly 1/1,000,000,000 of the distance from the earth to the sun (480.6 billion feet)?
What about all of that fungi that was found in King Tutu's chamber? Fungi which has never before been seen on earth? What about the Pharaoh's curse????? You decide, who built the Pyramids???? It was obviously the Aliens.
Now the common tactic of Eurocentrists is to cite genetic studies that claim tropical Northeast Africans are more similar to Eurasians or intermediate between Eurasians and other Sub-Saharan Africans. The biased sampling and flawed methodology of these studies have been refuted several times and counter sources have been provided against their contentions.
Not only that but in the majority of said studies NE Africans cluster with other Africans first, BEFORE they even begin to approach Eurasians.
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Originally posted by Morpheus:
Now the common tactic of Eurocentrists is to cite genetic studies that claim tropical Northeast Africans are more similar to Eurasians or intermediate between Eurasians and other Sub-Saharan Africans. The biased sampling and flawed methodology of these studies have been refuted several times and counter sources have been provided against their contentions.
Not only that but in the majority of said studies NE Africans cluster with other Africans first, BEFORE they even begin to approach Eurasians.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ephestion: You guys really need to go read some of those so called Eurocentric books http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/
Ok first off. Your making the mistake of calling Christian knowledge as Eurocentric knowledge. According to the bible we split into many different language during the building of the tower of Babel. This research into religious studies included archaeological digs, historical graphy and much more work. Its a question many generations have asked "Where do we come from?"
The Monotheistic people be they Jew, Christian or Muslim do not automatically dismiss the Bible as a source of information including Historical information. Not all of it is Historical but some of it is such as the Babel tower is. So what that means is there have been numerous papers written to suggest somewhere in modern Iraq is where all people split into different languages and cultures. Th Hammites who were supposed to be good at building according to this ideology were the ones responsible for the Pyramids. Much to your delight Black and white hammites existed, those in Africa were considered by Eurocentrists to be black. Japheth the sone of Noah was to give birth to other European and Asian families. There is some scientific analysis being done to support this idea but it fell out of favour at the turn of the 20th centuary and very little is being done today.
What all this implies is that there should be a common DNA marker for all humanity, there should be atleast 10 markers identifying the sons of Noah. And then there should be markers for each of their grandchildren. So this is the so called EUrocentric view that your mislabelling and not seeing as being a Religious view.
Now for the picture you have provided there is one small problem with it. The Caucaus theory is really an American idea. Europeans dont lean towards it that much neither do most people outside the English speaking community world wide. For example the same region between the Caspian sea and the Black sea has no linguistic similarity today to what existed 1000 years ago. At one stage Georgians spoke Greek, there are Pontian Dialects(A form of Greek found along east coast of Blacksea and Northern Turkey.) Today those regions speak Slavonic, Turksih, Arabic, Russian derived languages. So yes if you analyse languages spoken in that region over the past 1000 years and try to come to some conclusion obviously its going to be pre-biased by the selection of languages you use for your test. The same applies when you start talking about Afro-Asiatic etc languages. We dont have a becnhmark period of literature to attest to it as fact. Greek as far as I know managed to cover around 4000 years of attested literature. So Greeks can for example compare their various forms of the same dialect like modern, byzantine, koine and classical. We can get an idea of other languages by determining which words were not fundamentally greek but borrowed from others. Classical Greek had Egyptian, Persian, Roman and numerous other words in it. Modern Greek has mountain loads of borrows words like French, Egyptian, Russian, English and so forth (of course borrowed words have equivillent Greek words but they are used because some people find them more sexy. Like the word sexy for example So in the case of only a few languages can we really use language as a basis for real scientific analysis.
Also with out limiting the general scope of what i have already written, the Indo-European idea is derived from a Germanic view. Something some of you Afrocentists try to glue together with everyone white/ish. The Germans had a theory that everything aryan was related to German. Thus sprouted a counter argument of Indo-European languages to weaken their Germanic argument. Sometimes its used to simply denote a relation of languages, other times its a racial tool to seperate "us from them". So when you see pictures about Indo_European dialects etc try to firstly think "How would this help the Neo-Nazi argument?" If that picture is true then the Germans come from that region and thus (anyone remember WWI?) Turkey, Italy, Germany have common roots infact the homeland of Germans is Turkey/Caucaus....starting to see what your blind to? Its not about Eurocentrics vs Afrocentrics its certain groups with political agendas trying to change history or atleast mold it to serve their purpose. Notice how they show Doric as feeding Greece? How does that affect a Neo-Nazi view? The Greeks contrary to history did not Hellenise us they were invaded by Northern Tribes of guess what?......"The Dorians were a motley hoard from somewhere in Eastern Europe.Western scholarship traditionally identified the DOrians as Germanic.Eastern European scholarship identies then as non Germanic."..... A Modern Theory Of Language Evolution Carl J. Becker. Oh so by historical account the Germanic people have a right to claim everything that is Greek belongs to them. Very neat and tidy.
There are heaps more views on how we came to be. But what i ask from you guys is to not dismiss post WWI-WWII theories as Eurocentric but simply understand there is still an ongoing conflict to scrub out Greece's achievements from within Europe and other places. Heck there is even Japanese writters saying that because Alexander opened the silk road and hellenised people along its path that the Japanese had as much right to invade Greece as did the Germans...and thats coming from 21'st centuary scholars (wtf?)
So please when you come up with ideas about "Out Of Africa" try to see if they match with which views, Hellenic, Germanic, Jewish, Egyptian, African etc and then comment on how they favour which of so many political agendas.
The "Indo-European" crap is of Nordicist derivation. YOu have people spouting incredible ignorance when talking about things. They think, for instance that the Greeks and Romans came from the NOrth. People will say things like "Indo-European invasions" from the North. Just go read that Arthur Kemp crap on his website. Or some people are so stupid they think all "whites" descend from those people. The Germans of the 19th century actually thought that hte homeland of Indo-European languages was in Northern Germany or Sweden!
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ephestion: Excuse me but your talking about Germanocentric not Eurocentric. The Hamitic Hypothesis was developed through Western-Germanic scholars not Greeks. I take offense when you start grouping everyone in Europe with that term Eurocentric. Besides these theories are relics of post WWII...move on.
Yes, almost all of these pseudo "race sciences" were started by Northern Europeans...excluding the Irish and other "Celts" who were actually victims of that crap as well. Italians and Greeks never had an interest in that **** that for shore. The Greeks themselves throughout most of this time were under Turkish domination, they played virtually no role in the "enlightenment" when western Europeans started to see themselves as god's gift to the world. They stagnated after the fall of Byzantium.
btw what exactly is the "Hamitic hypothesis"? Is that the thing that says Ham from the bible was cursed with black skin?
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SirInfamous: btw what exactly is the "Hamitic hypothesis"? Is that the thing that says Ham from the bible was cursed with black skin?
No, that's the Curse of Ham.
The Hamitic Hypothesis is the theory that all the advanced cultures in Africa were developed by a sub-race of Caucasians ("Hamitic Race") who came from the Middle East and migrated across Africa, blending with the native Negroids along the way.
The term is named after Ham because it is said in the Bible that Noah's descendants repopulated the Earth and descendants of Ham are identified with African nations.
The theory holds that most of Africa was originally Negroid before these Hamites wandered into Africa bringing civilization and Caucasian genes wherever they went (hence "Wandering Caucasoids").
This theory gave rise to the "True Negro" Myth in which authentic Africans were thought to have stereotypically broad features and any variation in Africa was due to admixture with other races.
These racist theories were at one time widely accepted by mainstream scholarship on African cultures and peoples.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
Good point, and worth expanding on. The so-called "curse of Ham" is bogus. Moses notes the sons of Ham as composing Mizraim (Egypt), Cush, Phut, and Caanan. Assorted Jewish, Arab and European writers at certain times after Moses did not hesitate to pile on and say Ham was black, because some tinge of inferiority could be placed on his descendants.
Weirdly enough though, that tune changes when their logic is followed through consistently. Egypt, Cush, Punt, etc suddenly became "non-black" when the realization struck that the Nile Valley civilizations and those of the Horn and Sahara would have to be credited to these "inferior" sons of Ham. Suddenly and curiously, the "Hamites" became "white" or "Middle Eastern", 'Eurasian" or a mysterious "Mediterranean brown race".
Moses at least was consistent. He assigned no racial characteristics to the tribal groupings he wrote about in Genesis 10, nor did he cast any badges of inferiority. The so-called "curse of Ham" doesn't exist in the Bible. It is entirely a creation of later Jewish, Arab and European writers, repeated and amplified over time. Moses noted that Caanan (the Lebanon/Sinai region peoples) would be conquered by the Semitic Hebrews, the ex-servants from Egypt, according to his narrative, but there is no "curse of Ham". It is entirely bogus.
Ironically, Moses also writes up Nimrod, son of Cush, in commendable terms, noting his descendants as among those most advanced culturally, materially and militarily. Since Moses' conception of Ham includes peoples with a wide range of physical variation, his "anthropology model," or concept so to speak, is much closer to modern researchers like Keita et al, than Aryanists who posit the artifical "Mediterranean" or "Eurasian" model where the only "Africans" are those located somewhere far south of the Sahara.
And even more ironically, the Hebrew prophet himself married a Cushite, as documented in Numbers 12. He certainly would not be welcome on the campus of Bob Jones University, although the denizens thereon quote his writings frequently.
Submission of Egyptians to Kush- circa 724- National geog illustration- but according to Moses, Cush and Mizraim (Egypt) are closely related, a pooint made millenia later by Egyptologists such as Yurco..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: 1. What is the scientific basis for Negroid and Wandering Caucasoid racial categories?
2. Where is the archeological evidence for these Wandering Caucasoids?
3. What are the genetic markers of these Wandering Caucasoids?
4. How do you explain the dark skin and tropical limb proportions of Northeast Africans if they are admixed with light-skinned, cold-adapted Wandering Caucasoids?
5. If tropical Northeast Africans are Negroid-Wandering Caucasoid hybrids why don't the populations look like "biracial" people (i.e. Why do they look like Iman rather than Barack Obama)?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: 5. If tropical Northeast Africans are Negroid-Wandering Caucasoid hybrids why don't the populations look like "biracial" people (i.e. Why do they look like Iman rather than Barack Obama)?
Or better yet why don't they look like geographically proximate coastal North African populations with high levels of the derived SLC24A5 allele?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL...This is a funny topic. Look up at the moon and tell us who else but wandering caucasians have been there? Have the wandering negroes reached the moon yet?lol.... Modern caucasians just doing what their ancestors did.
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: LOL...This is a funny topic. Look up at the moon and tell us who else but wandering caucasians have been there? Have the wandering negroes reached the moon yet?lol.... Modern caucasians just doing what their ancestors did.
What's this supposed to mean? That Europeans are aliens from the moon? LMAO
Btw, food for thought, if those "wandering negroes" never left Africa (OOA) you wouldn't be here today calling yourself a European. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: LOL...This is a funny topic. Look up at the moon and tell us who else but wandering caucasians have been there? Have the wandering negroes reached the moon yet?lol.... Modern caucasians just doing what their ancestors did.
What's this supposed to mean? That Europeans are aliens from the moon? LMAO
Btw, food for thought, if those "wandering negroes" never left Africa (OOA) you wouldn't be here today calling yourself a European.
Oh,Oh it's gotta a response. If these wandering negroes are so bad aced, then why haven't they reached the moon yet? lol....In fact any intelligent person must reckon that if, these negroes started out so early in their wandering process, they should have reached the moon centuries before those dumbo wandering caucasians.But they didn't.lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact I'd be willing to reckon that, the wandering caucasian theory makes a whole lot more sense then the wandering negoroid theory.lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: LOL...This is a funny topic. Look up at the moon and tell us who else but wandering caucasians have been there? Have the wandering negroes reached the moon yet?lol.... Modern caucasians just doing what their ancestors did.
What's this supposed to mean? That Europeans are aliens from the moon? LMAO
Btw, food for thought, if those "wandering negroes" never left Africa (OOA) you wouldn't be here today calling yourself a European.
Oh,Oh it's gotta a response. If these wandering negroes are so bad aced, then why haven't they reached the moon yet? lol
You refer to yourself as 'it' in the third person, how clever, nice!
Lol though @ how come they haven't reached the moon yet...
Do you sincerely believe that modern humans didn't come from Africa so you ask this question?
Btw, humans only reached the moon within the last century with all knowledge accumulated from throughout the past, and technological advances due to control of money of course.
Ever heard of the Dogon of Mali? Check out Marcel Griaule's books Conversations with Ogotemmêli and The Pale Fox they knew about the fifty-year orbital period of Sirius and its companion prior to western astronomers
^^This is besides the point of the evolution and population movements of modern humans btw.
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: In fact I'd be willing to reckon that, the wandering caucasian theory makes a whole lot more sense then the wandering negoroid theory.lol
Meanwhile you know jackshit about either, lol.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well dogon it, where are they at? Did their dogon spaceship leave the ground yet?lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Are you hitting that pipe again? I said Dogon not doggone, learn how to read.
Anyway, exactly why I noted that it was besides the point.
Because I knew a simpleton like you would rather talk about the moon instead of human Evolution and population movements.
Like I told you, food for thought, if those "wandering negroes" never left Africa (OOA) you wouldn't be here today calling yourself a European.
Unless you sincerely believe that modern humans didn't come from Africa and you possess genetic evidence that would turn academia on its head? Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you really believe the modern negro is a carbon copy of the first Europeans? If you can prove that to me then I might be convinced. Other than that you don't have an argument. And even if they were, that only means that the ancestors of the modern Europeans have already been where your people have yet to go. In other words you are the new ones and we are the old ones.lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: Do you really believe the modern negro is a carbon copy of the first Europeans? If you can prove that to me then I might be convinced. Other than that you don't have an argument.
Well, here again are just a couple of sources you love to ignore....
1)Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China." (Christopher Stringer, Robin McKie (1998). African Exodus; The Origins Of Modern Humanity. (Pg. 162)
2)T W Holliday
"Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess "tropical" body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering..... Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans , while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions."--- Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins.
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: And even if they were, that only means that the ancestors of the modern Europeans have already been where your people have yet to go. In other words you are the new ones and we are the old ones.lol
If the ancestors of Europeans were Africans how can they have gone where Africans haven't that makes no sense.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ephestion: Excuse me but your talking about Germanocentric not Eurocentric. The Hamitic Hypothesis was developed through Western-Germanic scholars not Greeks. I take offense when you start grouping everyone in Europe with that term Eurocentric. Besides these theories are relics of post WWII...move on.
And by the way Italians and Turks added to the so called scholarly works of Races....why? WWII!
You need to read Black Athena, here it is explained therein, that the Eurocentric view was developed by the Germans.
The idea that Hamites founded civilization is the ancient model of history. The German philosophers and Hume created the idea that the Hamites were Black skinned caucasians.
LOL. The idea that Ethiopians--a term that means 'black faced'-- could be changed into 'Black skinned caucasians' and people accept this lie, just confirms the fact that Europeans are liar.
posted
What you're suggesting is that the modern African people are primitive. They are at a point now, as to where the ancestors of the modern Europeans have already been. That's the only sense I can make out of what you and the others are saying. Of course you don't want me or anyone else to look at it that way but, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You want to believe in wandering negroes and at the same time make it look as if the idea of wandering caucasoids somehow seems ridiculous. It doesn't make sense. Wandering negroes populated the earth but, the ancient Europeans were too stupid to step out of their own territories.lol...Did the wandering negroes get more stupid after they populated Europe? It doesn't appear that way to me. You bring up too many contradictions to support your theory.
quote: If the ancestors of Europeans were Africans how can they have gone where Africans haven't that makes no sense.
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: What you're suggesting is that the modern African people are primitive. They are at a point now, as to where the ancestors of the modern Europeans have already been. That's the only sense I can make out of what you and the others are saying.
That's the only thing you can make out of it because you're so damn simple, you make no damn sense lol.
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: Of course you don't want me or anyone else to look at it that way but, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can look at whatever way you want lol, doesn't make it correct, it's just your silly simple misinterpretation that's all.
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: You want to believe in wandering negroes and at the same time make it look as if the idea of wandering caucasoids somehow seems ridiculous. It doesn't make sense. Wandering negroes populated the earth but, the ancient Europeans were too stupid to step out of their own territories.lol...Did the wandering negroes get more stupid after they populated Europe? It doesn't appear that way to me. You bring up too many contradictions to support your theory.
Firstly, that's your kindergarten speak, "wandering negroes", grow up and recognize modern bio-anthropology. It's Genetics foolio that's why we know about population movements not from wishful thinking you nitwit. Show me genetic evidence for wandering carcassoids, and then you might have a case.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ *sigh* So now we are back to arguing with Simpletons and retards regarding long DEBUNKED theories. It's obvious Simpleton is just upset because her white supremacist fantasies have been flushed down the drain. She has failed to cite any valid evidence that Mesopotamian civilization let alone Nile Valley civilization is the work of 'wandering cacasoids' from the Black Sea! LOL So she will continue to whine and whine like the simpleton baby she is!
Seriously guys, these folks need to 'wander' into a mental health clinic. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well let me put it this way. Take a country like Egypt or Sudan or even Ethiopia. You explain the amount of diversity that exists within these relatively confined regions of the earth as diversity that is indigenous to those people. Do you actually want to make me believe that extreme diversity can exist within these areas for thousands and thousands of years without any outside influence? How stupid do you think people are?
You are trying to make it look as if these people can go from one extreme to another without having any influence from outside.lol....I don't have to show you any DNA evidence because you'll just distort and twist the facts to suit your own agenda.
Show me at least 10 extremely dark couples from any of the regions that I have mentioned that have children that vary from one extreme to the other, and I might start to believe you. Show me at least 1 couple anyways. Show me at least one extremely dark couple that has children that look like they do, and children that look like someone from say Northern Europe.
Show me an extremely dark couple that have children that are not albino with red hair and blue eyes and fair skin. I'll bet that you can't unless they have adopted them.And everyone knows that black people could care less about adopting white children...lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ *sigh* So now we are back to arguing with Simpletons and retards regarding long DEBUNKED theories. It's obvious Simpleton is just upset because her white supremacist fantasies have been flushed down the drain. She has failed to cite any valid evidence that Mesopotamian civilization let alone Nile Valley civilization is the work of 'wandering cacasoids' from the Black Sea! LOL So she will continue to whine and whine like the simpleton baby she is!Seriously guys, these folks need to 'wander' into a mental health clinic.
I'll bet that I can show more evidence linking those ancient civilizations to earlier civilizations in Europe, than you can to places in Africa. I've already called you out on this and you just ignored me.lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: Well let me put it this way. Take a country like Egypt or Sudan or even Ethiopia. You explain the amount of diversity that exists within these relatively confined regions of the earth as diversity that is indigenous to those people. Do you actually want to make me believe that extreme diversity can exist within these areas for thousands and thousands of years without any outside influence? How stupid do you think people are?
Do you know how long humans were in Africa before actually successfully migrating out of Africa?
A good 150 thousand years dodo brain. That's a long time for humans to diversify.
Do you know how dumb it is to try to then explain the diversity in Africa as due to outside influence when all non Africans represent only a sub-set of this African diversity after suffering numerous population bottlenecks that ultimately decreased their genetic and phenotypic diversity?
You're kinda slow aren't you?
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: You are trying to make it look as if these people can go from one extreme to another without having any influence from outside.lol....
Umm yea this is what 200 thousand years of human evolution can do. Too bad you can't refute it huh?
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: I don't have to show you any DNA evidence because you'll just distort and twist the facts to suit your own agenda.
Lol, of course you have to show me genetic data, this is not wishful thinking here, but of course you don't have any DNA evidence, just admit it.
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: Show me at least 10 extremely dark couples from any of the regions that I have mentioned that have children that vary from one extreme to the other, and I might start to believe you. Show me at least 1 couple anyways. Show me at least one extremely dark couple that has children that look like they do, and children that look like someone from say Northern Europe. how me an extremely dark couple that have children that are not albino with red hair and blue eyes and fair skin. I'll bet that you can't unless they have adopted them.And everyone knows that black people could care less about adopting white children...lol
Your silly requests are irrelevant, all I have to do is post bio-anthropological references and they suffice...
Note the following...
The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration.
They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
^^What else you got for me? LOL
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This comment suggests that you are completely out of your league here. I would chalk it up to being willfully Ignorant, to stubborn to accept the Truth as is the Case with Cassiteredes and Perahu, but from this comment you prove your are simply too uninformed and Ignorant of Human Adaption, OOA, and the Movement and Phenotype of Anatomically Modern Humans.
You need to take a basic Physical Anthropology Class, and save yourself any further self mockery.
In all seriousness you look Ignorant on the subject matter and you don't even realize it.
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: Well let me put it this way. Take a country like Egypt or Sudan or even Ethiopia. You explain the amount of diversity that exists within these relatively confined regions of the earth as diversity that is indigenous to those people. Do you actually want to make me believe that extreme diversity can exist within these areas for thousands and thousands of years without any outside influence? How stupid do you think people are?
You are trying to make it look as if these people can go from one extreme to another without having any influence from outside.lol....I don't have to show you any DNA evidence because you'll just distort and twist the facts to suit your own agenda.
Show me at least 10 extremely dark couples from any of the regions that I have mentioned that have children that vary from one extreme to the other, and I might start to believe you. Show me at least 1 couple anyways. Show me at least one extremely dark couple that has children that look like they do, and children that look like someone from say Northern Europe.
Show me an extremely dark couple that have children that are not albino with red hair and blue eyes and fair skin. I'll bet that you can't unless they have adopted them.And everyone knows that black people could care less about adopting white children...lol
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is something for you and Thimble Head. This grave in Europe shows the earliest manufactured use of gold known in the world. The necrolpolis in which it is situated shows a definite disparity between individualized burials proving that there was a separation between the elite and the common people. The placement of the left arm over the chest is very much the same practice used by the Egyptians over a thousand years later to designate the person was of royalty as this grave seems to also indicate.
Now show me a grave in Africa that shows a burial of this kind that precedes Dynastic Egypt by at least a thousand years. I'll bet that you can't.
quote: This comment suggests that you are completely out of your league here. I would chalk it up to being willfully Ignorant, to stubborn to accept the Truth as is the Case with Cassiteredes and Perahu, but from this comment you prove your are simply too uninformed and Ignorant of Human Adaption, OOA, and the Movement and Phenotype of Anatomically Modern Humans.
You need to take a basic Physical Anthropology Class, and save yourself any further self mockery.
In all seriousness you look Ignorant on the subject matter and you don't even realize it.
If there is that much diversity within a small area, then show me an extremely black couple that have children with red hair, blue eyes and fair skin. It's that simple.
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets try this, show us an academically and or scientific verified source that names any Pre-dynastic culture tied to Dynastic Egypt in Europe or anywhere outside of Africa.
(Stormfront is not academic)
Also Ill only take stuff from the 21st century..
Ill wait...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol how does this simpleton go from discussing human evolution and 'wandering caucasoids' to flip flopping about a grave, lol run run run simpleton run.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude what are you talking about?? Seriously stop, you are out of your league.
First off you like your boyfriend and lover Cashitty are too hung up on Phenotype. Phenotype does not equal Genotype. populations can be diverse without having different eye colors etc and Populations who look the same can be quite diverse such as so called Negros and Negritos etc.
Third Blue eyes probably came about as an adaption to the cold but is still found in African populations. This means its rare in Populations adapted to the Tropics, having light colored eyes with no Melanin(Blue) would be problematic in areas with intense UVB penetration, but in Areas with low UVB its a different story...
Understand simpleton..
Nigerian girl 1 (background unknown whether albino or not)
Nigerian girl 2 (non-albino)
Blond Hair is found in Dark Skinned Melenesian Populations-another problem for you.
You lose...
You are an African(Or Melanasian/Asian) adapted to the Climate of Europe..
Get over it.
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl:
quote: This comment suggests that you are completely out of your league here. I would chalk it up to being willfully Ignorant, to stubborn to accept the Truth as is the Case with Cassiteredes and Perahu, but from this comment you prove your are simply too uninformed and Ignorant of Human Adaption, OOA, and the Movement and Phenotype of Anatomically Modern Humans.
You need to take a basic Physical Anthropology Class, and save yourself any further self mockery.
In all seriousness you look Ignorant on the subject matter and you don't even realize it.
If there is that much diversity within a small area, then show me an extremely black couple that have children with red hair, blue eyes and fair skin. It's that simple.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: If there is that much diversity within a small area, then show me an extremely black couple that have children with red hair, blue eyes and fair skin. It's that simple.
BTW, your request makes no sense. You are asking for an extreemly black couple with Fair Skinned Children. That alone shows me you have no idea about the subject matter, in this case Climate adaption/Melanin and UVB risks.
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: lol, he looks like a pimp.
Maybe he was a wandering negro that was deified by the indigenous population for being different. He was too fly for the average white guy.lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Garnet and jasper beads. From Qustul, Egyptian Nubia, A-Group Nubia A-Group Painted Ceramic Vessels Excavations Between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier Keith C. Seele, Director Part 1: The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, Cemetery L by Bruce Beyer Williams The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition Published in 1986 A-Group 3800-3100 B.C.; Cemetery L at Qustul, Nubia [Sudan] was discovered in January 1964 by Dr. Keith C. Steele. Excerpts: Page 1-2: Cemetery L and Egyptian History At this time, the "Protodynastic" date of the cemetery was hardly challenged, and many months were devoted to classifying and describing pottery and objects as well as research into the place of Cemetery L in the history of those cultures that occupied Nubia and the Sudan. Cemetery L was seen for the time as a cemetery of provincial royalty ancestral to great things in Nubia, but pale when compared to the first achievements of Egyptian political organization, art, and architecture. However, as the preparation of the manuscript progressed, from A-Group to Egyptian objects, persistent problems with the dating emerged. Only the latest tombs in the cemetery seemed to contain objects that ceased to be deposited in Egypt about the time of Djer, and they could be compared more precisely to materials from the time of [King Menes] Aha and earlier. Early tombs in the cemetery, such as L 24, contained pottery and stone vessels that had generally been dated before the First Dynasty. A group of painted bowls and a stand from slightly later tombs that belonged to the early and middle period of the cemetery also dated to the late Predynastic period. Other evidence from Tura, Beda, and elsewhere indicated that Cemetery L began well before the First Dynasty, and the scratched serekhs from the cemetery related directly, in date as well as type, to Kaiser's group of Predynastic palace facades. The cemetery was mostly earlier than the modest "Dynasty 0" tombs of Ka, Narmer, and B 1/2 (Iry-Hor) at Abydos and not contemporary with the later great monuments of the First Dynasty. The larger tombs of Cemetery L actually equaled or exceeded these in size and elaboration. This volume is the materials excavated under the direction of Professor Keith C. Seele in a concession that extended from the Abu Simbel temples to the Sudan frontier in two seasons, 1962-63 and 1963-64. It presents, in detail, Cemetery L at Qustul, which is a small cemetery containing unusually large and wealthy tombs of A-Group. The tombs contained pharaonic images on A-Group objects, indicating that they belonged to rulers from the period before Egypt's First Dynasty. This lavishly illustrated volume details the elaborate A-Group painted pottery and decorated objects as well as more common finds, with individual chapters on the tombs, pottery, small objects, epigraphy, and a discussion of the special importance of Cemetery L in early Nubia with its possible role in the development of pharaonic Egypt. Excavations Between Abu Simbel and Sudan: The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L (Nubian Expedition) by Bruce Williams 388 pages + loads of Illustrations New or used I purchased a used copy which was like new. -- Myra Wysinger Purchase a copy at Amazon: Nubia A-Group Painted Ceramic Bowl Boston Museum of Fine Arts Excavations Between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier Keith C. Seele, Director
Part 1:
The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, Cemetery L by Bruce Beyer Williams
The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition Published in 1986
A-Group 3800-3100 B.C.; Cemetery L at Qustul, Nubia [Sudan] was discovered in January 1964 by Dr. Keith C. Steele.
Excerpts:
Page 1-2: Cemetery L and Egyptian History
At this time, the "Protodynastic" date of the cemetery was hardly challenged, and many months were devoted to classifying and describing pottery and objects as well as research into the place of Cemetery L in the history of those cultures that occupied Nubia and the Sudan. Cemetery L was seen for the time as a cemetery of provincial royalty ancestral to great things in Nubia, but pale when compared to the first achievements of Egyptian political organization, art, and architecture. However, as the preparation of the manuscript progressed, from A-Group to Egyptian objects, persistent problems with the dating emerged. Only the latest tombs in the cemetery seemed to contain objects that ceased to be deposited in Egypt about the time of Djer, and they could be compared more precisely to materials from the time of [King Menes] Aha and earlier. Early tombs in the cemetery, such as L 24, contained pottery and stone vessels that had generally been dated before the First Dynasty. A group of painted bowls and a stand from slightly later tombs that belonged to the early and middle period of the cemetery also dated to the late Predynastic period. Other evidence from Tura, Beda, and elsewhere indicated that Cemetery L began well before the First Dynasty, and the scratched serekhs from the cemetery related directly, in date as well as type, to Kaiser's group of Predynastic palace facades. The cemetery was mostly earlier than the modest "Dynasty 0" tombs of Ka, Narmer, and B 1/2 (Iry- at Abydos and not contemporary with the later great monuments of the First Dynasty. The larger tombs of Cemetery L actually equaled or exceeded these in size and elaboration. http://wysinger.homestead.com/qustul.html
This was were the Kemites got their start Simple.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic