Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Geography of Ancient Near East

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Geography of Ancient Near East
    Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 12:43
Originally posted by omshanti

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

The Egytpians were a native East African people
Perhaps they were a native east NORTH African peoples who closely resembled the west Asian populations rather than the Sub-Saharan-East-Africans. Or perhaps in the south the native peoples resembled the Sub-Saharan-East-Africans, and in the north the native peoples resembled the West Asians (regardless of the ''later foreign admixtures'').    


Culturally speaking, the civilization developed from roots in the south, as well as from people migrating in from the Saharan culture during the desertification. The flora and fauna of Egypt was the same as other parts of Africa, therefore, why is it such a stretch to accept the fact that the population was also a native tropically adapted one as well? All the evidence of there culture shows they had strong similarities with other cultures to the south of them. Lower Egypt on the other hand was very sparsely populated and the evidence is showing a south north migration of the perdynastic culture that is the foundation of Egyptian civilization.

Originally posted by omshanti

I am sure that the natives absorbed many peoples from the south too, and that the East-African Sub-Saharan element should also be counted as an element that was absorbed in by the natives, rather than being counted as the native.


We do know that other peoples to the south such as various Nubian populations did migrate into Egypt over the course of its history. However, all the evidence shows that the culture developed in an area close to and extending below the tropic of cancer. Why is it so hard to accept that the people were a native population and being such, given their geographic location, they would have looked pretty much like the people living in the area?   

Originally posted by omshanti


And yes the culture was obviously African, but perhaps not ''African'' as in which only associated with a type of physical characteristics that you define as the ''African physical type''. Or even if the culture was initially ''African'' originating near Sudan, it does not mean that all the native peoples of the land of Egypt to the north of it were ''African physical types''.


I never stated that. I've been very specific. Given its geographic location, its only logical that in the north we would have found pastoral peoples of Western Asiatic origin. Given references from the Bible, and the nature of pastoralists, its safe to assume they migrated in and out of the area as they needed. No doubt over time some of them settled in the area as well. There is nothing in any of my statements that would suggest otherwise, however, the fact still remain, the hallmarks of what we know as daynastic civilization followed a south to north route rather than the other way around. And so even though there were people of a different physical type in the north, their numbers were much smaller in comparison to the south.

Originally posted by omshanti


A culture can easily spread to different looking peoples who develop it and add to it in their own ways. Also, The Libyans were native to Africa , therefore were Africans too.


We know this, such an example would be the Roman Empire. However, as I've stated before, the culture originated in the south. Now as to what was the dominant physical type in the country over all? I would say that depends on the time period and the location. The evidence shows that there were changes over the course of its history. I think that by the Greco Roman period things were pretty much the same as they are now with respect to physical type.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

   they also wore their hair in the same style and had long beards identical to those we see in Egyptian iconography.   


Originally posted by omshanti

As far as I know, the hair style and the long beards you are talking about became fashionable in ancient Egypt only from a certain point of time and were not something that the Egyptians had from the beginning, meaning that it was adopted and made fashionable from contacts with foreign peoples.


No, if you look at the reliefs of the expidition to Punt, you see that the Puntites are wearing their hair in styles that are identical to those we see in Egyptian reliefs going back to the earliest dynastic periods. As for the beard, this is standard in Egyptian art. The Pharaoh and deities are always depicted with the long beard. If we go back to the archaic period, we will see people depicted with the same types of beards, such as on the Narmer Pallete

Originally posted by omshanti


Rakasnumberone, from reading your posts in all the Egypt related threads, I get the impression that you are just saying that the original ancient Egyptians looked (or started off looking) the same as the peoples of Sub-Saharan-east-African countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan,..etc, untill ''foreigners'' came in and lightened their skin, made them look more Mediterranean or West Asian or European or whatever you call it... (since people don't like the word Caucasoid here I really don't know how to explain the physical characteristic, any way , you know what I mean).
Therefore you are saying that Sub-Saharan-east- African peoples were the natives of the land of Egypt, and all the other people that were not Sub-Saharan-east-African were ''foreigners'' who came in later.

I don't agree with this view.


This is not my opinion, this is based on the work of many people who are scholars in the field. Why is it so hard to believe that the first people to inhabit the North East corner of the African Continent were in fact North East Africans? What else could they have possible looked like? Especially when we take into account that humanity itself originated int East Africa and were therefore tropically adapted to their environment.

All the scholoarship states that Western Asiatica migrated into the Delta region and this was in fact a common theme throughout Egyptian history. As for the Libyans. Based on what I can gether from DNA findings, archeological findings and representations, I would say they were a mixture of different peoples. DNA shows them to be related to Western Asians and to some degree, Iberians as well. However, the oldest mummy found in North Africa from the Saharan wet phase was of a boy whose physical type is what is referred to as Negroid. Even though I hate to use that term. He is of the same physical type with a round skull and wide nose that we find in some areas of Sub- Saharan Africa. You can look it up. The Science channel did a documentary on it called The Mystery of the Black Mummy. On the Battle Field Pallet a Upper Egyptian king is shown defeating a Lybian people in the western Delta. They are depicted with short tightly curled Afros. On the Narmer pallet the king is shown defeating a straight haired people and on the reverse side its the Egyptian attendants who have the afros.

Therefore, I would conclude that perhaps Libya was inhabited by an African people of a type now found predominantly south of the Sahara, some of whom migrated to the green areas left after the desertification period. There were probably also people who originated in Western Asia, who had always been migrating in and out of the area during the wet phase. Perhaps after desertification, the desert created a barrier that prevented them from migrating back to the East and so they remained there. However, pkease do not read into anything I'm saying a suggestion that one is better than the other or has more right to call themselves a native than the other. The Libyans, regardless of where they originated, are the people who settled in the area and therefore, it is their homeland.

Originally posted by omshanti


After that locked up Egyptian thread, I am probably opening a can of worms here.


In which case we'll go fishing!

Okay, I have a question for you and please feel free to respond in private if you feel it will digress too far from the topic at hand, or perhaps start a new thread? Why is it that you feel concerned or take issue with the statements of the Egyptian people being African in apperance, even the Upper Egyptians? Do you also take issue with people who claim they were a Mediterranian or Asiatic people in apperance? I sense some sort of concern on your part, or apprehension, can you adress what these concerns are?
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 12:44
Originally posted by omshanti

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

The Egytpians were a native East African people
Perhaps they were a native east NORTH African peoples who closely resembled the west Asian populations rather than the Sub-Saharan-East-Africans. Or perhaps in the south the native peoples resembled the Sub-Saharan-East-Africans, and in the north the native peoples resembled the West Asians (regardless of the ''later foreign admixtures'').    


Culturally speaking, the civilization developed from roots in the south, as well as from people migrating in from the Saharan culture during the desertification. The flora and fauna of Egypt was the same as other parts of Africa, therefore, why is it such a stretch to accept the fact that the population was also a native tropically adapted one as well? All the evidence of there culture shows they had strong similarities with other cultures to the south of them. Lower Egypt on the other hand was very sparsely populated and the evidence is showing a south north migration of the perdynastic culture that is the foundation of Egyptian civilization.

Originally posted by omshanti

I am sure that the natives absorbed many peoples from the south too, and that the East-African Sub-Saharan element should also be counted as an element that was absorbed in by the natives, rather than being counted as the native.


We do know that other peoples to the south such as various Nubian populations did migrate into Egypt over the course of its history. However, all the evidence shows that the culture developed in an area close to and extending below the tropic of cancer. Why is it so hard to accept that the people were a native population and being such, given their geographic location, they would have looked pretty much like the people living in the area?   

Originally posted by omshanti


And yes the culture was obviously African, but perhaps not ''African'' as in which only associated with a type of physical characteristics that you define as the ''African physical type''. Or even if the culture was initially ''African'' originating near Sudan, it does not mean that all the native peoples of the land of Egypt to the north of it were ''African physical types''.


I never stated that. I've been very specific. Given its geographic location, its only logical that in the north we would have found pastoral peoples of Western Asiatic origin. Given references from the Bible, and the nature of pastoralists, its safe to assume they migrated in and out of the area as they needed. No doubt over time some of them settled in the area as well. There is nothing in any of my statements that would suggest otherwise, however, the fact still remain, the hallmarks of what we know as daynastic civilization followed a south to north route rather than the other way around. And so even though there were people of a different physical type in the north, their numbers were much smaller in comparison to the south.

Originally posted by omshanti


A culture can easily spread to different looking peoples who develop it and add to it in their own ways. Also, The Libyans were native to Africa , therefore were Africans too.


We know this, such an example would be the Roman Empire. However, as I've stated before, the culture originated in the south. Now as to what was the dominant physical type in the country over all? I would say that depends on the time period and the location. The evidence shows that there were changes over the course of its history. I think that by the Greco Roman period things were pretty much the same as they are now with respect to physical type.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

   they also wore their hair in the same style and had long beards identical to those we see in Egyptian iconography.   


Originally posted by omshanti

As far as I know, the hair style and the long beards you are talking about became fashionable in ancient Egypt only from a certain point of time and were not something that the Egyptians had from the beginning, meaning that it was adopted and made fashionable from contacts with foreign peoples.


No, if you look at the reliefs of the expidition to Punt, you see that the Puntites are wearing their hair in styles that are identical to those we see in Egyptian reliefs going back to the earliest dynastic periods. As for the beard, this is standard in Egyptian art. The Pharaoh and deities are always depicted with the long beard. If we go back to the archaic period, we will see people depicted with the same types of beards, such as on the Narmer Pallete

Originally posted by omshanti


Rakasnumberone, from reading your posts in all the Egypt related threads, I get the impression that you are just saying that the original ancient Egyptians looked (or started off looking) the same as the peoples of Sub-Saharan-east-African countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan,..etc, untill ''foreigners'' came in and lightened their skin, made them look more Mediterranean or West Asian or European or whatever you call it... (since people don't like the word Caucasoid here I really don't know how to explain the physical characteristic, any way , you know what I mean).
Therefore you are saying that Sub-Saharan-east- African peoples were the natives of the land of Egypt, and all the other people that were not Sub-Saharan-east-African were ''foreigners'' who came in later.

I don't agree with this view.


This is not my opinion, this is based on the work of many people who are scholars in the field. Why is it so hard to believe that the first people to inhabit the North East corner of the African Continent were in fact North East Africans? What else could they have possible looked like? Especially when we take into account that humanity itself originated int East Africa and were therefore tropically adapted to their environment.

All the scholoarship states that Western Asiatica migrated into the Delta region and this was in fact a common theme throughout Egyptian history. As for the Libyans. Based on what I can gether from DNA findings, archeological findings and representations, I would say they were a mixture of different peoples. DNA shows them to be related to Western Asians and to some degree, Iberians as well. However, the oldest mummy found in North Africa from the Saharan wet phase was of a boy whose physical type is what is referred to as Negroid. Even though I hate to use that term. He is of the same physical type with a round skull and wide nose that we find in some areas of Sub- Saharan Africa. You can look it up. The Science channel did a documentary on it called The Mystery of the Black Mummy. On the Battle Field Pallet a Upper Egyptian king is shown defeating a Lybian people in the western Delta. They are depicted with short tightly curled Afros. On the Narmer pallet the king is shown defeating a straight haired people and on the reverse side its the Egyptian attendants who have the afros.

Therefore, I would conclude that perhaps Libya was inhabited by an African people of a type now found predominantly south of the Sahara, some of whom migrated to the green areas left after the desertification period. There were probably also people who originated in Western Asia, who had always been migrating in and out of the area during the wet phase. Perhaps after desertification, the desert created a barrier that prevented them from migrating back to the East and so they remained there. However, pkease do not read into anything I'm saying a suggestion that one is better than the other or has more right to call themselves a native than the other. The Libyans, regardless of where they originated, are the people who settled in the area and therefore, it is their homeland.

Originally posted by omshanti


After that locked up Egyptian thread, I am probably opening a can of worms here.


In which case we'll go fishing!

Okay, I have a question for you and please feel free to respond in private if you feel it will digress too far from the topic at hand, or perhaps start a new thread? Why is it that you feel concerned or take issue with the statements of the Egyptian people being African in apperance, even the Upper Egyptians? Do you also take issue with people who claim they were a Mediterranian or Asiatic people in apperance? I sense some sort of concern on your part, or apprehension, can you adress what these concerns are?
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 13:52
Hmmm, based upon known Assyrian inscriptions, the Assyrian Empire did not extend to the region of Tehran, but the region was subject to Assyrian attacks.  As for the origin of the name, there are at least three theories, but all of which give a Persian etymology for the place-name, the most widely accepted being "bottom of the [mountain] slope" from tah "bottom" and ran, "slope", since it is located at the foot of the Elborz Mts. 
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 20:11
Let me answer this question.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Okay, I have a question for you and please feel free to respond in private if you feel it will digress too far from the topic at hand, or perhaps start a new thread? Why is it that you feel concerned or take issue with the statements of the Egyptian people being African in apperance, even the Upper Egyptians? Do you also take issue with people who claim they were a Mediterranian or Asiatic people in apperance?
I am not feeling concerned nor am I taking issues with Egyptian people being ''African'' in appearance. I simply see contradictions in what you write. First of all, you asked all the other members so persistently in another thread what they meant by ''black'', while defining an ''african physical type'' yourself, calling any thing ''African'' ONLY when it is somehow connected to that ''African physical type'' and excluding every thing else as non-''African'' or ''foreign'' when it has nothing to do with that physical type.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

I sense some sort of concern on your part, or apprehension, can you adress what these concerns are?
My concern is that, I can sense that your opinions on ancient Egyptians are very much influenced or driven by your desires, whether they be conscious or unconscious. Tell me, do you not have the desire somewhere deep in yourself , for the ancient Egyptinas to be ''native east Africans'' who have ''African physical types'' ?


Originally posted by Sharrukin

Hmmm, based upon known Assyrian inscriptions, the Assyrian Empire did not extend to the region ofTehran, butthe region wassubject to Assyrian attacks. As for the origin of the name, there are at least three theories, but all of which givea Persianetymology for the place-name, the most widely accepted being "bottom of the [mountain] slope" from tah "bottom" and ran, "slope", since it is located at the footof the Elborz Mts.
Thanks Sharrukin. How about the ancient town in the south part of Teheran called Rei, or Ray, or Rey (I don't know how it is spelt in English). Does that have anything to do with the Assyrians.



Edited by omshanti - 26-Aug-2007 at 20:21
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 22:04
Originally posted by omshanti

Let me answer this question. I am not feeling concerned nor am I taking issues with Egyptian people being ''African'' in appearance. I simply see contradictions in what you write. First of all, you asked all the other members so persistently in another thread what they meant by ''black'', while defining an ''african physical type'' yourself, calling any thing ''African'' ONLY when it is somehow connected to that ''African physical type'' and excluding every thing else as non-''African'' or ''foreign'' when it has nothing to do with that physical type.


Okay, let me explain. I'm trying to be as specific as possible. I do nopt believe that there is any one particular physical type representative of the entire continent, which is why I have such a hard time with the term negroid and black. These words suggest that only a person fitting this narrow physical type is a true African and all the others are somehow foriegn. I've defined what I mean by African. I mean the people whose deepest origins lie in the continent, who did not migrate out. Therefore, they are Native Africans because they never left the continent. They come in a variety pf physical types and skin color, ranging from yellowish brown, to deep dark brown. Their hair color ranges from redish brown to balck and texture from almost straight to kinky.

Now according to scientific evidence, we know all humankind originated in Africa and while some migrated out others stayed. Of those who migrated out, they eventually adapted physically to suite their environments. Some of these people eventually returned to Africa. Some seem to have crossed the Iberian Peninsula, others entering into the Nile Delta. However, like I said, they had evolved different characteristics and so were different in apperance from those who did not leave. The biggest difference being that they were lighter in complexion and had straighter hair.

I don't know why this should be a cause of concern. Do we have a problem defining a people as being representatives of European physical types? Do people have a problem stating that the Roma are a people who migrated into Europe? Do we have a problem stating that European peoples like the Jews are semites who migrated to Europe, but are not origianlly European? If so, I'm not aware of it. Regardless of their Asiatic origins those people are now a part of the European population because they have been living there for so long.

This is how I see the Libyan and Asiatic population. They are African in the sense that they have been living there for countless thousands of years, regardless of thier distant origins.


Originally posted by omshanti

My concern is that, I can sense that your opinions on ancient Egyptians are very much influenced or driven by your desires, whether they be conscious or unconscious. Tell me, do you not have the desire somewhere deep in yourself , for the ancient Egyptinas to be ''native east Africans'' who have ''African physical types'' ?

And I might say the same thing of you in reverse of course. All that I have really stated is that the civilization originated in an area stretching from southern Egypt into the Sudan, so then it stands to reason that that particular population resembled that found in the area. Why should that be seen as anything other than a matter of fact? Why does it need further explanation? Is it any more far fetched than saying that the Roman civilization originated in the Italian penninsula therefore the population must have looked like the rest of the population in the area?

Further more, I've stated the fact that over the course of their 3,000yr history, they absordbed many people and so a blended population resulted. My only bone of contention is with the idea that somehow these people did not or couldn't possible physically related to the continent they came from. And when people make implications that the Egyptian civilization and population are best represented by a lighter skinned northern population. I feel this statement is incorrect and I say so. However, I asked the question becuase I notice that when people emphatically state they were not black and make statements that their culture was NOT African, they are not challenged or debated in the same way as people who state the reverse.

The fact are their civilization was African, their culture was African, their civilization developed not in Asia, or the Mediterranian coast, but far inland to the south. The opinion "well they were African, but not black", I find strange and unrealistic, especially when based on monumnets, drawings, and very well preserved mummies, they exibit features identical to other African peoples in that corner of Africa, as well as those who seem to be blended. However, since the term black seems to be loaded with bias and inacuracy depending on one physical type out of many found in West Africa, I try to be more specific without playing into that bias. Why can't we just accept the obvious, leave it at that and move on to other topics relating to their culture and way of life?

By the way, let me assure you that I entertian no delusians of a distant Egyptian lineage or belonging to a superior black race.
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 04:55
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


Okay, let me explain. I'm trying to be as specific as possible. I do nopt believe that there is any one particular physical type representative of the entire continent, which is why I have such a hard time with the term negroid and black. These words suggest that only a person fitting this narrow physical type is a true African and all the others are somehow foriegn. I've defined what I mean by African.

From THIS POST and THIS POST it is obvious that your ''African physical types'' equal what is generally known as black. Now from this quote(read below)
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

All the scholoarship states that Western Asiatica migrated into the Delta region and this was in fact a common theme throughout Egyptian history. As for the Libyans. Based on what I can gether from DNA findings, archeological findings and representations, I would say they were a mixture of different peoples. DNA shows them to be related to Western Asians and to some degree, Iberians as well. However, the oldest mummy found in North Africa from the Saharan wet phase was of a boy whose physical type is what is referred to as Negroid. Even though I hate to use that term. He is of the same physical type with a round skull and wide nose that we find in some areas of Sub- Saharan Africa. You can look it up. The Science channel did a documentary on it called The Mystery of the Black Mummy. On the Battle Field Pallet a Upper Egyptian king is shown defeating a Lybian people in the western Delta. They are depicted with short tightly curled Afros. On the Narmer pallet the king is shown defeating a straight haired people and on the reverse side its the Egyptian attendants who have the afros.
it is obvious that your ''African physical types'' also equal Negroid too. Now, Despite the fact that you say you have difficulty with ''balck'' or ''Negroid'' , the central issue of almost all your posts are the ''African physical types'' which according to your own posts are practically the same as the physiccal types collectively and generally known as black or Negroid.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

I've defined what I mean by African. I mean the people whose deepest origins lie in the continent, who did not migrate out. Therefore, they are Native Africans because they never left the continent. They come in a variety pf physical types and skin color, ranging from yellowish brown, to deep dark brown. Their hair color ranges from redish brown to balck and texture from almost straight to kinky.
Now according to scientific evidence, we know all humankind originated in Africa and while some migrated out others stayed. Of those who migrated out, they eventually adapted physically to suite their environments. Some of these people eventually returned to Africa. Some seem to have crossed the Iberian Peninsula, others entering into the Nile Delta. However, like I said, they had evolved different characteristics and so were different in apperance from those who did not leave. The biggest difference being that they were lighter in complexion and had straighter hair.
But how do you know who left the continent and who didn't. How do you draw a line between the people who never left and the people who came back. I hope you are not going to mention your ''African physical types'' as a standard to guess with. Humans are believed to have come in to being approximately 200,000years ago and to have left Africa only 60 to 70,000 years ago. Now there is a 130~140,000 year gap in between the two events, meaning that there is a high chance for all or many of the physical characteristics in the world out of Africa to have originally appeared (atleast in their primal forms) in Africa before their migration out of it. Meaning there is a chance for many of the physical types that you define and exclude as ''non-African'' to be actually African, which means that it is very much possible that when some Asiatics moved in to north Africa, there were already native peoples who resembled them.


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Of those who migrated out, they eventually adapted physically to suite their environments.
I am sure that the ones who stayed, also adapted physically to suite their enviroments, not only the ones who left. Also I am sure that it was not only adaptation to enviroment but natural selection, sexual selection, pure chance as to who with what physical characteristics migrated where, isolations causing the development or disappearance of certain characteristics, genetic bottle-necks, gentic drifts, extinction of certain peoples, success in survival of certain peoples....etc all played a role.


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

I don't know why this should be a cause of concern. Do we have a problem defining a people as being representatives of European physical types?
You mean Caucasoids, No there is no problem, however Caucasoids are not the representitive of Europe only. They represent partly Africa and Asia too. Also we should not forget that Africa and Europe played completely different roles regarding humans, which means you can't just simply compare them in this context.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Do people have a problem stating that the Roma are a people who migrated into Europe? Do we have a problem stating that European peoples like the Jews are semites who migrated to Europe, but are not origianlly European? If so, I'm not aware of it. Regardless of their Asiatic origins those people are now a part of the European population because they have been living there for so long.
Of Roma people and the Jewish people, their origins and migrations are well documented and known due to the fact that they occured fairly recently. nobody has objection to it. The point is not whether having a problem with a people not to be native to a land. The point is that there is much possibility that the peoples you do not consider native might be the natives.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

This is how I see the Libyan and Asiatic population. They are African in the sense that they have been living there for countless thousands of years, regardless of thier distant origins.
You could not say it more clearly. To you, people who look mediterranean and who did not have the ''African physical types'' in north Africa, have distant origins, were Asiatic, and were not natives. This is where I object to. Ofcourse there is a possibility for that, but there is also a possibility for it not to be true too. The point is, you have to be objective and consider all possibilities, instead of deciding on one conclusion influenced by and based on your desires.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

And I might say the same thing of you in reverse of course.
Remeber, I very clearly wrote that with regards to race, both north African elements and sub-saharan-east-African elements were obviously present in ancient Egypt, And that I will leave it to the experts as to which element had a stronger influence on the civilization. I did not exclude or include an element by calling it foreign or native. Doesn't this answer you? I do have my desires but I consciously try to acknowledge them and consciously try to take an objective stance free of my desires.
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

All that I have really stated is that the civilization originated in an area stretching from southern Egypt into the Sudan, so then it stands to reason that that particular population resembled that found in the area. Why should that be seen as anything other than a matter of fact? Why does it need further explanation? Is it any more far fetched than saying that the Roman civilization originated in the Italian penninsula therefore the population must have looked like the rest of the population in the area?
There is a huge difference between Italy and Egypt. The area from suthern Egypt to Sudan is a kind of dividing line and mixing zone between the habitats of two types of peoples. North Africans and subsaharan East Africans. In my opinion it has always been like this despite your claiming that the Subsaharan east Africans were the natives of the whole Egypt before the ''foreigners'' came in.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Originally posted by omshanti

My concern is that, I can sense that your opinions on ancient Egyptians are very much influenced or driven by your desires, whether they be conscious or unconscious. Tell me, do you not have the desire somewhere deep in yourself , for the ancient Egyptinas to be ''native east Africans'' who have ''African physical types'' ?

And I might say the same thing of you in reverse of course. All that I have really stated is that the civilization originated in an area stretching from southern Egypt into the Sudan, so then it stands to reason that that particular population resembled that found in the area. Why should that be seen as anything other than a matter of fact? Why does it need further explanation? Is it any more far fetched than saying that the Roman civilization originated in the Italian penninsula therefore the population must have looked like the rest of the population in the area?

Further more, I've stated the fact that over the course of their 3,000yr history, they absordbed many people and so a blended population resulted. My only bone of contention is with the idea that somehow these people did not or couldn't possible physically related to the continent they came from. And when people make implications that the Egyptian civilization and population are best represented by a lighter skinned northern population. I feel this statement is incorrect and I say so. However, I asked the question becuase I notice that when people emphatically state they were not black and make statements that their culture was NOT African, they are not challenged or debated in the same way as people who state the reverse.

The fact are their civilization was African, their culture was African, their civilization developed not in Asia, or the Mediterranian coast, but far inland to the south. The opinion "well they were African, but not black", I find strange and unrealistic, especially when based on monumnets, drawings, and very well preserved mummies, they exibit features identical to other African peoples in that corner of Africa, as well as those who seem to be blended. However, since the term black seems to be loaded with bias and inacuracy depending on one physical type out of many found in West Africa, I try to be more specific without playing into that bias. Why can't we just accept the obvious, leave it at that and move on to other topics relating to their culture and way of life?

By the way, let me assure you that I entertian no delusians of a distant Egyptian lineage or belonging to a superior black race.
   My question was very simple and short, and yet you did not answer it and simply spoke around it, avoiding it. I guess I should take this fact that you did not answer, as an answer.

Edited by omshanti - 27-Aug-2007 at 10:51
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2007 at 00:56
[QUOTE=rider]Hi,
 
again I swim to the surface with a Geography topic. But the reason will be known to you all shortly, I just need information from as many sources as I can get.
 
I know that the true science of geography hadn't yet developed, although the Sassanid Empire and it's successors had many great scholars, although it is already out of our time period. So I would begin:
 
1) The Sumerians, being great in Astronomy and Astrology, did they excess in knowing the lands too? Did they make maps or plans of their empires? Did they chart the routes of the Eufrates and the Tigris?
 
 
Darius of Parsa...
 
There were two other rivers at the time of Sumeria, the Piones and the Orientos ( I am most sure I am those are incorrect names of the rivers ). The Persian Gulf was also a river. This may be the location of the Garden Of Eden ( four rivers connecting, Euphrates, Tigris, Piones, and Orientos ) and the location of the mythological Atlantis. The Indian Ocean swelled the region with water after the Ice Age. The Zargos and other ranges trapped the water into basins and when that became high, the water went into the next. This is an explaination of the Bible's tale of the Great Flood and the dissapearence of Atlantis. Sumerian mythology also takes place around these ancient rivers.
 
 
 
 
 
 
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 16:08
Perhaps because he Upper Egyptians consistently degraded and enslaved the N. African and Central African indigenous populations? 
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 17:55

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

Originally posted by omshanti

My concern is that, I can sense that your opinions on ancient Egyptians are very much influenced or driven by your desires, whether they be conscious or unconscious. Tell me, do you not have the desire somewhere deep in yourself , for the ancient Egyptinas to be ''native east Africans'' who have ''African physical types'' ?

And I might say the same thing of you in reverse of course. All that I have really stated is that the civilization originated in an area stretching from southern Egypt into the Sudan, so then it stands to reason that that particular population resembled that found in the area. Why should that be seen as anything other than a matter of fact? Why does it need further explanation? Is it any more far fetched than saying that the Roman civilization originated in the Italian penninsula therefore the population must have looked like the rest of the population in the area?

Further more, I've stated the fact that over the course of their 3,000yr history, they absordbed many people and so a blended population resulted. My only bone of contention is with the idea that somehow these people did not or couldn't possible physically related to the continent they came from. And when people make implications that the Egyptian civilization and population are best represented by a lighter skinned northern population. I feel this statement is incorrect and I say so. However, I asked the question becuase I notice that when people emphatically state they were not black and make statements that their culture was NOT African, they are not challenged or debated in the same way as people who state the reverse.

The fact are their civilization was African, their culture was African, their civilization developed not in Asia, or the Mediterranian coast, but far inland to the south. The opinion "well they were African, but not black", I find strange and unrealistic, especially when based on monumnets, drawings, and very well preserved mummies, they exibit features identical to other African peoples in that corner of Africa, as well as those who seem to be blended. However, since the term black seems to be loaded with bias and inacuracy depending on one physical type out of many found in West Africa, I try to be more specific without playing into that bias. Why can't we just accept the obvious, leave it at that and move on to other topics relating to their culture and way of life?

By the way, let me assure you that I entertian no delusians of a distant Egyptian lineage or belonging to a superior black race.
   My question was very simple and short, and yet you did not answer it and simply spoke around it, avoiding it. I guess I should take this fact that you did not answer, as an answer. [/QUOTE]

I knew there was something I had forgotten to answer, but couldn't remember which topic it was. To answer your question directly, I do have a desire that people acknowledge the element in the population that we would recognize as being East African, Sub-Saharan, Saharan etc. The reason is because is did and still does exist, yet is constantly denied and ignored. I don't have a problem with the fact that there were people of other physical types there. Whether or not they were representative of native African adaptations or represent a backward migration to me is irrelivant. What does it matter. By the way, my views on the matter are not based on my opinions, but on the genetic information done by researchers like the genome project at National Geographic. So when I say that they were a different physical type migrating into the north, its based on many sources that I have read. There is documneted evidence from the Egyptians themselves that here were migrations from Western Asia and I see no reason to doubt this. Especially during the period of the Saharan desertification. The climate change was not limited to Africa, but to the same latitudes in Asia as well. Just as peoples from the Sahara migrated into the Nile VAlley and Sub-Saharan Africa, so too would people from Western Asia have migrated into the Nile Delta for the same reasons. Does this make them any less Egyptian? I don't think so. In time they all intermarried and shared the same culture.

Therefore, to reitterate my point of view, what I want is for the truth of the darker Africans prescence and contributions to be acknowledged, rather than have it denied time and time again. The reason why I feel this way? That's a much deeper issue, which I believe I might have explained to you in private, but am willing to explain again if you wish.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 17:58
Originally posted by rhodanus

Perhaps because he Upper Egyptians consistently degraded and enslaved the N. African and Central African indigenous populations?


I don't understand how this statement relates to anything previously stated. Can you explain in more detail?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 19:45
Point:  Introduction of the African peoples into the Egyptian civilization.  That's it.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 20:57
Originally posted by rhodanus

Point: Introduction of the African peoples into the Egyptian civilization. That's it.


The Egyptians did not introduce Africans into Egypt, they were and still are Africans. However, being located at a crossroads of several continents, they were and still are a blend of Africans, Semites and Southern Europeans. The African element was always there from the begining, it did not come in at a later date.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77PjbqULBMY
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 01:41
From a geographical standpoint, yes, Egypt is "African."  However, from a migratory standpoint, you're incorrect.  The indigenous Africans did not migrate north to Egypt.  On the contrary, the Egyptians, as you've pointed out, being of Semite,  Asian and European origin, and possibly, though not yet proven, of Pelopponese origin -- that question is still open for wide discussion -- were probably the first recorded non-indigenous Africans to visit the shores of that continent.  As you're aware, most scholars consider Egypt a part of the middle east for the purposes of distinguishing it from the actual continent itself.  My point is that race is an issue here.  de Toqueville wrote in "Democracy in America"  when speaking of the issue of slavery that: "Wherever the white man encounters the black man, if numerically superiour, he enslaves them, and where the black man is numerically superiour to the white man, the black man destroys the white man." 
 
Clearly, indigenous "blacks" from Africa -- primarily the interior, did not migrate to Egypt.  It was the Semitic Egyptian peoples who originally enslaved the African blacks, until after centuries, the blacks became the semites equals, even surpassing them in rank and religious office, all the way to Pharohood. 
 
All historical recordss indicate the North of Africa was settled by not only semites, but actual Europeans (i.e. Carthaginians) and Arabians.  It is of interest to note, however, that indigenous Africans probably found the North of Africa useless, as did their followers.  Desert, little rain, few prey to hunt with the exception of the lion.  It was and is not a place conducive to settlement.  So it is not surprising at all that the indiginous Africans travelled there, then left, for obvious reasons, while their neighbor's to the farther North proceeded to eeke out a living in that hostile clime.
 
Thanks,
rhodanus
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 02:58
Originally posted by rhodanus

From a geographical standpoint, yes, Egypt is "African." However, from a migratory standpoint, you're incorrect. The indigenous Africans did not migrate north to Egypt. On the contrary, the Egyptians, as you've pointed out, being of Semite, Asian and European origin, and possibly, though not yet proven, of Pelopponese origin -- that question is still open for wide discussion -- were probably the first recorded non-indigenous Africans to visit the shores of that continent. As you're aware, most scholars consider Egypt a part of the middle east for the purposes of distinguishing it from the actual continent itself. My point is that race is an issue here. de Toqueville wrote in "Democracy in America" when speaking of the issue of slavery that:"Wherever the white man encounters the black man, if numerically superiour, he enslaves them, and where the black man is numerically superiour to the white man, the black man destroys the white man."

Clearly, indigenous "blacks" from Africa -- primarily the interior, did not migrate to Egypt. It was the Semitic Egyptian peoples who originally enslaved the African blacks, until after centuries, the blacks became the semites equals, even surpassing them in rank and religious office, all the way to Pharohood.


All historical recordss indicatethe North of Africa was settled by not only semites, but actual Europeans (i.e. Carthaginians) and Arabians. It is of interest to note, however, that indigenous Africans probably found the North of Africa useless, as did their followers. Desert, little rain, fewprey to hunt with the exception of the lion. It was and is not a place conducive to settlement. So it is not surprising at all that the indiginous Africans travelled there, then left, for obvious reasons, while their neighbor's to the farther North proceeded to eeke out a living in that hostile clime.


Thanks,

rhodanus


http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000405.html
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 05:35
THIS IS ONLY A TEST, PLEASE STAND BY

Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Rakasnumberone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 17:14
****This subject is off topic here and It's not my intention to sway it. I will answer your post only because there is no where else I can answer it, but from here out, I will answer you privately on this matter. Or if you like, you may start another thread in an appropriate location. *****

From a geographical standpoint, yes, Egypt is "African." However, from a migratory standpoint, you're incorrect. The indigenous Africans did not migrate north to Egypt. On the contrary, the Egyptians, as you've pointed out, being of Semite, Asian and European origin, and possibly, though not yet proven, of Pelopponese origin -- that question is still open for wide discussion --

***Read what I said carefully. The Egyptians were not of Asiatic origin, they were of African origin. However, being located geographically at a crossroads between the Mediterranian and Western Asia, it did over the course ABSORB peoples who migrated into the country. These people ASSIMILATED the culture of Egypt and so they were considered Egyptian, in much the same way that a person today is considered an American once they have been here for at least a generation and have adopted the language and culture of the country. However, it was not until the Ptolomaic dynasty that any outside culture would have a significant impact on Egyptian language and culture. Therefore, what we are talking about here is a n original native African people who over time absorbed peoples who were not African and became a racially blended people as they still are today. Much more mixed in the north but much less so in the south as can still be seen to this day by anyone who has visited Egypt, (such as myself annually).


My friend on the right has a lot of Turkish ancestory. He is from Cairo. My friend on the left is also Egyptian but does have Turkish blood. He does have some Arab liniage. His natural hair is kinky. He uses a relaxer to straighten it.


These are another friend's relatives. They live in Alexandria but are actually from Upper Egypt.


This boy is from Upper Egypt Kom Ombo. He is not Nubian

Furthermore, It's not only from a geographical point of view, but a cultural one as well. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows these were a people who had more in common with their African neighbors to the south and south west than they did with those of the Mediterranian or Levant, although they were in contact with those people. A few examples: 1. Male and female circumsicion is a practice found all across the Sudanic belt from Egypt and Sudan to present day Kenya in the East to the West African countries of the Sahel.

2. Egyptian culture, like many other African cultures was matrilinial where as Peloponesian and Levantine culture was and still is patriarchal. Egypt was noted for the independece of it's women, who enjoyed far more rights and freedoms than women in the Levant or SE Europe.

3. Like most traditional African religions, Egyptian religion was anamistic, unlike Semetic or European religions.

4. Egyptian hair styles were similar and in many cases identical to those still found in many parts of Africa today. The hair of both men and women were worn in styles that consisted of multiple braids and twists that were coated with fats, oils and waxes, as can be seen in the hair styles of peoples still living in East Africa and the Sahel. The hair styles of Levantines and MEsopotamians show no similarities in this respect, neither do the Peloponesians.

What then, with the exception of a few artifacts that could have been brought into Egypt through trade, is the the claim that they were of Western Asian origin based on? Where are the cultural similarities? The archeological and historical record shows that the culture that gave birth to Pharaonic culture originated far in land in the area between present day Khartoum and southern Egypt. That culture in time spread north and replaced the culture of the Delta, which was very different. If they originated from the north east, we would see a north south pattern of cultural shift, we do not.***


were probably the first recorded non-indigenous Africans to visit the shores of that continent. As you're aware, most scholars consider Egypt a part of the middle east for the purposes of distinguishing it from the actual continent itself.


***This is a very Eurocentric perspective. The term Middle East, is a concept. Were is the point of reference? Middle from what? Obviously Europe. This is a geopolitical term that was coined by the European colonial powers at the turn of the last century. A period of history that was appalingly and blatantly racist. A period of time where the colonial Europeans were hell bent on proving the inherant inferiority of all races in comparison to it's own for the purpose of justifying the colonization and political domination of the non European world for the purpose of exploiting their resources.   It is an extension of social Darwininsm. At the core of their world view was the belief that the African was as separate and unequal from the "white man as night is from day. Therefore, how could they possibly be objective and admit that this civilization had anything to do with a native African population? This was a period of time when no matter where on the African continent, any society showing a past of achievement, whether in Zimbabwe, Egypt, Ethiopia or Timbuktu, a race of migrating white people were supposed to have been the founders because the African mind was incapable of such things.***

My point is that race is an issue here. de Toqueville wrote in "Democracy in America" when speaking of the issue of slavery that:"Wherever the white man encounters the black man, if numerically superiour, he enslaves them, and where the black man is numerically superiour to the white man, the black man destroys the white man."


***No my friend, this is not an issue of race, this is an issue of people trying to equate an American and European model of race relations on the past. This statement, like this theory of an un-African Egypt, is revisionist history designed to give a historical prescedent to White American racial politics and colonialism. It is based on the presumption that blacks and whites are natural enimies. The historical record does not support this claim at all. This quote is an example of how Americans and Europeans in the past tried to justify the race hatred and segragationist mentality that existed in their societies at the time and a way of thought still upheld by those who profess to be white supremacists and racial separatists today. You have to read staements like this in the light of their graeter historical, social and political context and not take them for granted as fact. Statements like this are not historical fact, but historical fiction.

There was no concept of race as we know it today in the ancient world. No one identified themselves with a group based on skin color or any other physical feature. They identified on the dasis on familial and regional affiliations. Therefore, as we can see with Egypt, once a person was raised in a culture and adopted the language and customs of that culture, they were considered Egyptians. No one was excluded based on skin color.

The racist and those who share their world view, have taken the depictions of Egyptians at war with Nubians out of its original historical context in an attempt to proove that the Egyptians, (who in their minds represent the architypal white race) were enimies with the Nubians based on their skin color. This was not te case. What mattered to the Egyptians was their political and cultural soverinty, not their skin color. They didn't resent Nubians because of their skin color. What they feared was being dominated by a foriegn power. Therefore, it was not just the Nubians, but the Lybyans, the Semites and all non Egyptian POLITICAL kingdom, taking over their country. It was no different than the way the original peoples of Britain felt about the Normans, or the Saxons.

The concept of dividing people into races, didn't exist until Europeans created it and then applied it to the peoples they colonized. No one in Africa had a concept of belonging to a continent called AFRICA until the European colonialists put it in their minds. Like all peoples everywhere, incl;uding the Ancient Egyptians, they identified based their regional location and cultural and lingusitic affiliations, not skin color.

Recent history has also shown your quote to be untrue. If this were the case, there would have been wide spread genocide of Whites in the African countries that were former European colonies. There has never been such an incedent. Not even in South Africa, a country where the White minority oppressed the Black and Brown majority. In fact, there was and still is a policy of reconcilliation.

Clearly, indigenous "blacks" from Africa -- primarily the interior, did not migrate to Egypt. It was the Semitic Egyptian peoples who originally enslaved the African blacks, until after centuries, the blacks became the semites equals, even surpassing them in rank and religious office, all the way to Pharohood.



***Once again this is revisionist history. As I will explain next. Yes, Egypt did exercise political control of Nubia at various times, but there is no evidence that such control extended any farther than Nubia. As stated previously, at one time Egypt and Nubia both shared the same culture. However, in time, as with many cultures, the two diverged and developed their own distict characteristics. We can consider the fact that originally both England and France shared the same Celtic language and culture, however, over time, they developed their distinct ways of life. Trying to separate Egypt from Nubia is a bit like saying that because England and France were engaged in the Hundred Year War, or the War of the Roses, they were of different races, separate and unequal.

Another point, African peoples were not ENSLAVED. Once again this is revisionist history. Its an attempt at finding a historical precedent for the enslavement and segragation of Africans and people of African descent in the Americas and for the colonial domination of the African continent by Europe. Egypt was not a society based on slave labor and neither Nubians nor any other people, were routinely enslaved by the Egyptians. Slavery in Egypt did exist as it did in every culture in the world, but it was not based on race. During times of war, prisoners were taken captive. Therefore, whenever there were political confrontations with Nubians, those who had been defeated were enslaved. Native Egyptians were also enslaved for various reasons such as criminal activity, or not being able to pay their debts. The same applied to Lybians and Asiatics, although in the framework of the "NUBIANS AS SLAVES TO THE EGYPTIANS" frame work, this fact is always ommited. When Egypt was invaded by the Sea peoples from the Mediterranian, the survivors who were not killed were also enslaved. Egypt also bought concubines from both the Levant and Nubia and there are records of an Egyptian Pharaoh to a Phonician king asking for a shipment of Phonecian slave girls for his harem. What existed in the Ancient world was not a reflection of American race politics in any way, shape or form.***


All historical recordss indicatethe North of Africa was settled by not only semites, but actual Europeans (i.e. Carthaginians) and Arabians.


***Once again, this is revisionist history. The Cartheginians were NOT Europeans, nor were they Arabs. They were Phonecians and when they came to North Africa there were already people living there. Once agin, this is more rivisionist colonialist feel good history. Trying to justify their colonial presence by showing that they were in fact the original inhabitants in antiquity. As I have mentioned in other post on this topic, there is DNA evidence that the Berbers did originate in the East. However, this does nopt mean that they were the first or only people there. More on this in response to your next statement***

It is of interest to note, however, that indigenous Africans probably found the North of Africa useless, as did their followers. Desert, little rain, fewprey to hunt with the exception of the lion. It was and is not a place conducive to settlement. So it is not surprising at all that the indiginous Africans travelled there, then left, for obvious reasons, while their neighbor's to the farther North proceeded to eeke out a living in that hostile clime.


Thanks,

rhodanus
[/QUOTE]


African pastoralism in the Ancient Sahara. Look at the skull of the child in figure 5 dated at about 5,400 B.C. Also read what it has to say about the physical types depicted in the rock art of the site

***Once again, this is revisionist history and a perspective that does not take into account the actual facts of the regions cultural, climactic, or ecological history. The supposition that North Africa was a hostile environment that separated the north and the south is a weak one for the simple fact that the Sahara was not always a desert. If we were to go back in time 10,000 yrs ago, we would have found a Sahara that was very green, received regular rain fall and had many rivers and streams. This is evidenced by the multitude of rock drawings found all over the central Sahara from Mali and Niger in the West to Algeria in the north to Egypt and Sudan in the East, depicting, hippos, giraffs, elephants, cattle, antelope, crocodiles and many different types of fowl. It was not until some time around 6,000 yrs ago, (give or take), that the Saharah began to dry up. Prior to that it was not a barrier between the north and south.

Lets look again at your claim of an inhospitible environment with this in mind. If we consider the flora and fauna of Egypt, we see that it was identical to that which exists today in the southern Sudan and the regions of Ethiopia watered by the Nile. There were lions, hippos, crocodiles, (in fact, there are still crocodiles in Egypt in the flood waters of Lake Nasser), there were ibex and and other types of goats, antellope, water buffalo, an aboundance of water fowl such as ducks and geese, the Nile itself was full of fish such as catfish, Perch and the African Mouth Brooder, also known as Tilapia. With this much wild life and a regular supply of water, I'd dare say Africans migrating from the South could have found something to live on. Therefore, since it's a well known fact that the Saharah in the past, was not a barrier, and since the animal life was African, why then is it such a stretch to suppose that the original people to set foot in Egypt were also native Africans? We can see from the website above that the mummified remans of a boy with the craniofacial demensions of what is called Negro were found in Lybia. We can also see people showing the same nasal index depicted in Egyptian art of the Old Kingdom.



If we look at a profile of the Sphinx we also see that it shows pronounced prognethism, the forward projection of the lower part of the face, which is also a feature typified as "negroid" by craniofacial standards.

On the basis of physical remains, we can see examples of mumies which show similar features with people now living further south in East Africa.



On the basis of genetic research:

Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt.

On the basis of their won physical depictions they showed a dark people who had woolly hair like other African poeples in the area. Watch the video.

Were the Ancient Egyptians a native African people?

And last but not least, the issue is handled by someone who is well versed in the study of Egypt.

Black and White of Egyptian Race

All the evidence shows that Egypt was not separate from either it's northern or Southern neighbors biologically, but they were culturally and geographically African.






Back to Top
dud View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
  Quote dud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 19:11
Just a side question on the topic of the Phoenician explorations
 
Did the Phoenicians leave a great cultural or ethnic influence of the people they came into contact with?
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2011 at 18:36
Dud, you might well ask the same question concerning the Venetians? The similarities between them are great.

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
BUTSeriously View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 20-Dec-2012
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote BUTSeriously Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2012 at 11:39
Originally posted by rider

 ess
1) The Sumerians, being great in Astronomy and Astrology, did they excess in knowing the lands too? Did they make maps or plans of their empires? Did they chart the routes of the Eufrates and the Tigris?

Hi. Sure they had maps, as did numerous equally ancient nations. Ancient Egypt was a conquering empire and would have had war maps; the distances between cities are also listed [3 days journey from Goshen; etc]. The Phoenecians had a naval partnership with King Solomon 2,900 years ago, trading in spices, oils, perfumes and stone. Many nations [Medianites, Mobites, Hittites] are listed in gegraphical locations, with dates, names and routes in the Hebrew bble, now confirmed by Archeological findings. It is implausible no form of map drawings existed.


 
2) Assyrians and Babylonians had large empires, but did they conquer their neighbours by means of rumours or already known facts that there were those lands or by random events?

Babylon invaded and destroyed Jerusalem 2,700 years ago.

 
3) How large was the Hittite Empire in general, and what were it's connections to the sea routes on the Mediterranean and the Black Sea?

This is a hills people, listed first as one of the Canaanite tribes, then it grew to a warrior nation - they even conquered Egypt for some time.

 
4) How far did the Pheonicians go on their trips? Did they draw or chart any maps of the world?

They travelled throughout the then known main world centers. IMHO, the Phoenecians got their alphabetical writings from the Hebrew, which contradicts the widespread premise of the other way around.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2017 at 00:00

There are many popular gods have in Greek. My personal favorite is: -

Artemis: - she was the goddess of natural environment and hunt.

Leto: - she was the Wife of ZEUS and one of the famous in old Greek.

Aphrodite: - Aphrodite was the Goddess of beauty, love, fertility, and desire.

Athena: - She has represented wisdom and intelligence.

Demeter: - The goddess was responsible for creating seasons. When her much-loved daughter Persephone was abducted by Hades, the god of the underworld.

 

To know more about her other Greek Female Gods, read this- https://www.historyly.com/greek-history/famous-greek-goddesses/

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.