...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Black-headed Sumerians and Black-headed Tut - a re-evaluation
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Kushi, from Kush, doesn't mean the color black. It's used to refer to black people as an ethnic taxon. One cannot juxtapose black against Semitic. Neither color nor ethnicity can be apposed to language. Hham and Shem were both black in the Hebrew mindset. [QUOTE][i] Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful, Hham was blessed black like the raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over.[/i] [b](PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER 28a)[/b][/QUOTE]Now neither the internal search engine nor GOOGLE hits any of the many times I posted this quote from the Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer as to Shem being black and beautiful and Hham black as the raven. Why is that? Somebody's afraid of something! The Hebrews' Shem doesn't correspond to the linguists Semites anymore than their Kush does to Cushitic. Elam is the firstborn son of Shem and Elamites didn't speak Semitic. K*na`an is a son of Hham and Canaanites did speak Hebrew. The fact is that the Israelites called the Hebrew language "the language of Canaan." Continental Africa houses the majority of individual Semitic languages and those speakers there in the Horn are all BLACK N BEAUTIFUL with their Semitic selves. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ My fault. I thought you were insisting that the identity of the Medes was associated with the Sumerians and so they were black. The Bible is myth, but like all myth [i]does[/i] contain or is based on many historical facts. I am well aware of Genesis and what it says of the various lineages. However, what you need to realize is that the Biblical authors were not anthropologists or ethnologists who accurately catalouged every people in the area and their relationships. There [i]is[/i] some truth to the lineages. Like for example [URL=http://www.]'Ham' was associated with black peoples, specifically Africans[/URL] and that Egypt, Kush, Punt, and Canaan (which we now know was colonized by Africans in Neolithic times) share a common heritage. [URL=http://www.]However Shem is taken to be the founder of Semitic speaking peoples[/URL], even though the Semitic languages also originated in Africa. There is also the Hebrew word 'Kushi' meaning black and the confusion since there are black populations indigenous to Asia as well as Africa. Just to let you know, the Sumerians were not Semitic speaking people. Their language is unrelated to any other known language all we know about them is their culture. I will say that judging by the statuary they left behind, many of them look little different from modern-day Iraqis who are light-skinned and not black, especially the rural marsh Arabs who likely do represent the original Sumerian people. [i]However[/i] I do not doubt the diversity of the area. It is a given that close neighbors of the Sumerians were a people called the Elamites who were the indigenous people of Iran and founded civilization there long before Iranian Medes or Persians. It is also known that the actual founders of civilization in Mesopotamia were not the Sumerians but a people archaeologists call Ubaidians, and who were also indigenous the Mesopotamian area before the Sumerians arrived. It is still not known where the Sumerians proper originated. Some think Central Asia, while others say either Anatolia. It is clear that from painted works there were darker-skinned/black peoples in the area as well who represented the original inhabitants. [/qb][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3