Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because of your obvious emotional bias, I don't trust you to select sources with any objectivity, nor even to quote them accurately and with full context. Therefore, I don't care what sources or evidence you post--it is fruit of the poisoned tree unless someone credible also posts it. If someone came on here and was a fan of David Irving's history, for example, I wouldn't bother checking his references either--I'd know where that was coming from, knowing a bit about Irving, and not bother.
That is the point of the complete reference directly following the quote, so that if you somehow have doubts of my credibility you can check to source out for yoursef.
So once again what evidence do you have to support an opposing view of my stance that the ancient Egyptians came from the South? On the previous page I posted a quote from the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. If you for whatever reason distrust that that is what is actually written in the Oxford Encyclopedia a simple google search will give you full acess to the book.
So once again what up to date Biocultural evidence leads you to dismiss argument?
Bs Dd I originally entered this thread due to your ridiculous assertions that Nubians and the early ancient Egyptians were somehow different populations biologically.
You however continued to parade around these ridiculous theories of Russian settlement into the Nile Valley and what not
Sorry, I never discussed Nubians and the pre-dynastic Egyptians as being different. I can actually quote however a post in which I agreed with you when you made those assumptions. As far as russians - I made no reference to Russian settlements, but to russian mixing with the Hyksos. Are you in the right forum??? Again, your post - what, were you refering to Swedish as from Eurasia?:
Originally Posted by Louisvilleslugger
Northern Egypt has been the recipiant of the most migration from Eurasia since ancient times...Now Upper Egypt (and even Nubia) have also been affected genetically by the Eurasian invasions
That is the point of the complete reference directly following the quote, so that if you somehow have doubts of my credibility you can check to source out for yoursef.
You keep going in circles. The fact that you presented it carries no weight and means it's pointless to check it, confirm it, refute it or bother with it for that sake. If someone credible presented the same evidence, it has the potential to matter. It has been a long time since I encountered such an inability to grasp the point, which is that your combined semiliteracy, ominous hints about racism, and tendency to vent at those who have disagreed with you all tell a disagreeable story. If an obvious white supremacist came in and kept yammering that we should check his sources while arguing the opposite of you, I would doubt him similarly--he would be emotionally biased toward a particular conclusion, thus his source selection could receive no weight.
Now, if you hadn't hinted more than once that anyone who disagreed with you was probably a racist, it might be different. There is no reason to believe you obtained your information in a state of mind that was open to any conclusion but the one you sought, reached and are promoting. It is pointless to waste time digging through ideologically cherrypicked sources, and your presentation leads me to believe you capable of that. Plus, calling people 'clowns' and then accusing them repeatedly of ad hominem doesn't exactly burnish your reasoning brass.
Any objection to a black ancient egypt is racist and it disturbs me. Its an underlying secret racism. The worst kind. Its the type that seeps out of a person and they dont even realize it. Lol at someone so racist, that apart of them dies knowing that there was a great black civilization thousands of years ago
Egypt is a country in Africa, africa is a sub saharan/tropical climate. Melanin developed in reaction to this environment. What makes people think they were anything but black. Sure they had asian influences but you would have to be an idiot to think that, that was greater than its relations to the rest of africa
Now when it comes to the later Arab invasion starting in the 11th century that things get interesting.
Modern upper Egyptians are called Sa'idi.
The "Arab" tribes of Cyrenaica (Libya) claim to be descended from an ancestress named Sa'ada.
Now Arabic culture, at least after Islam does not have a rep for holding women in such high positions. But the Berbers are well known for having pride in female ancestresses, warriors and leaders.
So I wonder how many of the "Arab" tribes are really of Berber origin?
Looks, like my hunch could be right after all.
Many of the "Arabian" tribes of from the Nile to Tunisia are probably more Berber than Arabian peninsula in origin (see p. 136-138).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Sorry, I never discussed Nubians and the pre-dynastic Egyptians as being different. I can actually quote however a post in which I agreed with you when you made those assumptions. As far as russians - I made no reference to Russian settlements, but to russian mixing with the Hyksos. Are you in the right forum??? Again, your post - what, were you refering to Swedish as from Eurasia?:
Junior first you post this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
OK guys, I've read about 3 historical innacuracies on this one page alone. I don't know who said these because they are repeated quotes, but they are wrong:
"Egyptians often depicted themselves no different from those of the Nubian portion of the Nile."
That is incorrect. They did draw people to the south of them, and they were drawn distinctly different...coal black usually.
Then you go even wilder with the speculations:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Some drawing portray the Egyptians with with long limbs and strange space helmets and misshapen bodies. Do we conclude they are from another planet (their have been books written on that theory by the way)?
My second point - Invasions from the north are of a historical record. The Hycsos were a Semitic people, from the semi-fertile region of the northern deserts. This includes the Steppes - what is now part of Russia and Turkey. No one disputes this (except you apparantly, congratulations). By the way, the distance from the Southern Russia state borders from Egypt is about 500 miles, from Nigerea it is about 2,000 miles. Again the point - Egyptians had more ethnic influence from the north east (Asia minor) rather than the south-west of Africa, but they had hunter-gatherer civilization in Egypt (the nile delta) since the stone age, so any ethnic influence is only one of conjecture, and I offer it as such.
Then you cry that I am being mean to you because I point out your flat out wrong New Age speculations and fantasies.
Junior, you're not exactly in the best position to question anyone's credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisvilleslugger
Kovert the use of "black African" on my part is strictly from a social perspective. I know that humans do not call into discreet races.
Lou, knowing the history of those terms, the ideology behind them, and the havoc they have and still continue to wreak on both sides of the Atlantic, I'm with Brace that those loaded terms should be abandoned.
Sorry but these n-words cannot have their meanings changed.
They have just too much negative history behind them.
They should be exposed for the fallacies they have perpetuated, and the ideology empowering them, debunked and destroyed.
Lou, maybe you could find out if any of the Ptolemies mummies have been discovered and identified. That along with a genealogical record, would shed light on Cleo's ancestry.
Then you cry that I am being mean to you because I point out your flat out wrong New Age speculations and fantasies.
LOL, you act like the child craving for attention. What's wrong, everyone ignoring your last few threads? You going to cry for your momma? Damn man, you've mentioned me in the last 4 or 5 threads. I've been on a plane for 15 hours, i'm in a different hemisphere. Give me a chance to catch up.
OK I will respond to you since you seem to miss me so much.
Aliens, missing the context (suprise!). This was my comment on it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Are you assuming I am suggesting that Egyptians are aliens? Surely you realize that I am putting that in for comparison of the nonsense of basing ethnicity on ancient drawings and sculpture. I just can't imagine how a reader can conclude that from my text.
For those that can't comprehend - no I do not believe aliens have any influence on eqyptian ancient history. Got that? Why am I guessing it's going to continue to come up? But OK, when you run out of arguments, you can always continue with red herrings. The other guy fell for it, but he is grasping for straws at this point anyways.
Your second paragraph of my quote we have already gone over numerious times. We both agree there was an invasion of Hykcos, right? The question is the origination of the Hyksos. But you highlighted me clarifying that Egypt was not invaded or populated from the southwest of Africa. Are you suggesting they were populated or invaded by tribes from The Congo, Nigeria, and the Ivory Coast by highlighting that portion? Even the other guy doesn't claim that.
I see everyone forgot about my below post, I'm sorry now I was so hospitable to LSlugger after he turned "jerk" on everyone:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Louisville very interesting information. None of which conflicts with my comments. 15,000-5,000 BC, wow that's pre-dynatic all right, that's the stone age. Ancient Egyptians didn't even settle into permanent dwellings until about 5,000 BC, a couple thousand years before the time of the Pharoes.
What you say makes sense, the sahara was more fertile and less (edit correction - more) hospitable, mankind was nomadic....and as I already discussed and didn't dispute, the ancient egyptians were africans.
if you hadn't hinted more than once that anyone who disagreed with you was probably a racist, it might be different.
Shm this is what you have been harping about for the past year. You seem to be in such a state of denial from the evidence that I've presented that you have no problem conceiding to the fact that you have offered NOTHING to the debate but ad hominens (attacks on the character).
For the thousandth time that was the point of of the original thread that I had created. To understand why some people attempt to deny that irrefutable fact? On the very first page of that thread after I posted Biocultural evidence at YOUR request (which shut you up mementarily) one member so blinded by ignorance repeatidly stated that black Africans had nothing to do with Egypt. When I called his ignorance out for what it was (racism), YOU pounced on an oppurtunity to somehow label out to be some raving lunatic crying wolf. Ironically you have yet to comment on that particular membehttps://www.city-data.com/forum/10747767-post10.htmlrs blantant denial of black Egypt ("blacks had nothing to do with Egypt") in face of a plethora of scientific evidence proving it to be so, which was obviously motivated by racism. Why YOU feel that somehow calling out racism when its apparent marrs the accusers credibility is beyond me and seems to only affect YOU and the way people view your ignorance. I guess according to you those protesters in Jena, La in 2007 were out of line for asking for a seduction on those boys life sentences.
Something however that you seem very ignorant of when it comes to this debate is that a lot of times it does have a racial element to it. As my fourth post in my first thread stated it was racism against Black African during colonial times that gave credit to non black Africans as the creators of ancient Egypt which is what most modern scholars interested in the topic indeed note. This attititude did not change until the mid 1970's when two Senegalese Scholar and Scientist wiped the floor with the World's leading Egyptologist who proposed a non more Southerly African origin for ancient Egypt at the UNESCO conference of 74'. From then on almost all research has pointed to black Africa as the origins of Egypt.... its that simple.
So I ask you again do you have any up to date biocultural evidence that you wish to present in support of a non more Southerly African origin of ancient Egypt?
Shm this is what you have been harping about for the past year. You seem to be in such a state of denial from the evidence that I've presented that you have no problem conceiding to the fact that you have offered NOTHING to the debate but ad hominens (attacks on the character).
For the thousandth time that was the point of of the original thread that I had created. To understand why some people attempt to deny that irrefutable fact? On the very first page of that thread after I posted Biocultural evidence at YOUR request (which shut you up mementarily) one member so blinded by ignorance repeatidly stated that black Africans had nothing to do with Egypt. When I called his ignorance out for what it was (racism), YOU pounced on an oppurtunity to somehow label out to be some raving lunatic crying wolf. Ironically you have yet to comment on that particular membehttps://www.city-data.com/forum/10747767-post10.htmlrs blantant denial of black Egypt ("blacks had nothing to do with Egypt") in face of a plethora of scientific evidence proving it to be so, which was obviously motivated by racism. Why YOU feel that somehow calling out racism when its apparent marrs the accusers credibility is beyond me and seems to only affect YOU and the way people view your ignorance. I guess according to you those protesters in Jena, La in 2007 were out of line for asking for a seduction on those boys life sentences.
Something however that you seem very ignorant of when it comes to this debate is that a lot of times it does have a racial element to it. As my fourth post in my first thread stated it was racism against Black African during colonial times that gave credit to non black Africans as the creators of ancient Egypt which is what most modern scholars interested in the topic indeed note. This attititude did not change until the mid 1970's when two Senegalese Scholar and Scientist wiped the floor with the World's leading Egyptologist who proposed a non more Southerly African origin for ancient Egypt at the UNESCO conference of 74'. From then on almost all research has pointed to black Africa as the origins of Egypt.... its that simple.
So I ask you again do you have any up to date biocultural evidence that you wish to present in support of a non more Southerly African origin of ancient Egypt?
It is not worthwhile to address the numerous faulty assumptions, hypocritical ad hominem attacks, innuendoes and insinuations in this post, other than to reject them categorically. I've said often enough that you aren't credible, and I've detailed why. Other readers can make up their own minds whether I have made that case effectively or not. Myself, I think you have made it inadvertently.
I will point out one thing, for the benefit of readers who (happy are they) lack long acquaintance with your methods, tantrums and sleazy little veiled insinuations. I said this previously and it bears repeating: it wouldn't surprise or bother me at all if ancient Egyptians were in fact more visually similar to sub-Saharan Africans than not. Seems rather likely to me; always has. Thus, you have spent a great deal of time frothing at the mouth at a calm person who would be perfectly receptive to your views if they came from a credible poster. That's evidence that I shouldn't trust your reasoning on historical topics, since your fundamental common sense seems wanting, and fundamental common sense is an underpinning of historical reasoning. In fact, without it, we'd have to remove a lot of the educated guesswork that is sometimes all we have to work with. Even if you found good evidence for your position, therefore, I can't rely upon your capacity to make sense of it. Please tell me you did not obtain a degree in history, or if you did, please so indict that institution here and now for the good of academia.
You just don't like it because I don't respect you or your views, and I refuse to submit to your bullying. That makes sense to me. My experience observing bullies is that they most hate those they cannot cow. I realize that I was supposed to cringe and crawl the moment you said the R-word, but I guess I didn't follow your script. Too bad--bullying doesn't always work.
LOL, you act like the child craving for attention.
What's worse than watching a fool who deceives himself into believing he's a wise man,....., is watching that same fool try to deceive others of his wisdom as well.
Like I said, I'm here to debunk myths, ideologies and biased projections onto history that certain groups seem dead set on employing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
What's wrong, everyone ignoring your last few threads? You going to cry for your momma? Damn man, you've mentioned me in the last 4 or 5 threads.
Junior when are you going to stop with the delusions. This is the only thread where I've encountered you and hopefully it'll be the only one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
I've been on a plane for 15 hours, i'm in a different hemisphere. Give me a chance to catch up.
Ah, its finally starting to seep through your head that you've got a lot to learn. Well, better late than never.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
OK I will respond to you since you seem to miss me so much.
Once again with the projections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
This was my comment on it:
For those that can't comprehend - no I do not believe aliens have any influence on eqyptian ancient history. Got that? Why am I guessing it's going to continue to come up? But OK, when you run out of arguments, you can always continue with red herrings. The other guy fell for it, but he is grasping for straws at this point anyways.
It would not have come up if you didn't bring it up in the 1st place, Einstein.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Your second paragraph of my quote we have already gone over numerious times. We both agree there was an invasion of Hykcos, right? The question is the origination of the Hyksos. But you highlighted me clarifying that Egypt was not invaded or populated from the southwest of Africa. Are you suggesting they were populated or invaded by tribes from The Congo, Nigeria, and the Ivory Coast by highlighting that portion? Even the other guy doesn't claim that.
Now I see. Now its all starting to make sense. Looks like someone has a reading comprehension problem
Because the part I DID highlight was the portions where you erroneously claimed that Egyptians had more influence from Russians rather than Saharan, Horn and Sudanese Nile populations.
So either someone has a reading comprehension problem or is a flat out liar.
Someone might not only fail and get left back, they're aiming to get sent to the remedials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
I'm going to do some reading on kovert's links when I have the time, because he presents himself as credible.
J, if you haven't lost your interest I strongly recommend you check out the texts I have linked to throughout this thread.
Based on those sources and others I have come to the conclusion that the Saharans are to African civilizations what the Aegeans are to Western civilizations.
The worldview we have inherited in the West, actually from ancient Egyptians to the Greco-Romans to Arabic historians like Ibn khaldun, was that nomadic/semi-nomadic peoples were basically the anti-thesis of civilization.
That nomads from the Mongols, to the Norse and the Vikings always destroyed and ravaged civilizations.
I had this same bias as well because that was how history was taught to me.
But numerous and ongoing discoveries in the Sahara have caused many in the archaeological community to do a total 180.
Because it is among the nomadic/semi-nomadic peoples of the Sahara that we find animal and plant domestication, pottery, metallurgy, monumental architecture, writing, wheeled vehicles/carts/chariots, brain surgery, mummification as early and often earlier than any other location in the world.
It is totally different from models based from finds in southwest Asia where we find the above in more sedentary communities.
Like I said earlier, the finds in the Sahara have really upset the archaeological status quo and shattered long established paradigms.
If you have any questions or doubts about my conclusions, feel free to speak up and I will further elaborate AND back up my conclusions with sources.
The worldview we have inherited in the West, actually from ancient Egyptians to the Greco-Romans to Arabic historians like Ibn khaldun, was that nomadic/semi-nomadic peoples were basically the anti-thesis of civilization.
That nomads from the Mongols, to the Norse and the Vikings always destroyed and ravaged civilizations.
I had this same bias as well because that was how history was taught to me.
But numerous and ongoing discoveries in the Sahara have caused many in the archaeological community to do a total 180.
Because it is among the nomadic/semi-nomadic peoples of the Sahara that we find animal and plant domestication, pottery, metallurgy, monumental architecture, writing, wheeled vehicles/carts/chariots, brain surgery, mummification as early and often earlier than any other location in the world.
I am reminded of a mummification found at Uan Muhuggiag in south Libya (I believe) that dates back so far before the rise of Egyptian civilization it's almost ridiculous. When I read about it at first, I searched and searched for more info; I was authoring a piece on ancient mummification at the time, so it was of great interest. It would be very interesting if our concept of nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples are fundamentally primitive were overturned, and us forced by reason to revise our perceptions of for example the Goths, from the Wielbark culture to the days of Alaric. Or for that matter the much-maligned Vandals.
To me it seems like the dolphin vs. the shark in popular perception. The dolphin is pictured as playful Flipper (rather than the dangerous animal it is), whereas the shark is the stupid, mindless, insatiable destroyer (which I doubt tells the full story). If one then finds that the shark isn't nearly so dumb and violent, and is smarter than one thought, one has some thinking to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
