This is topic Tirhaqa and ancient Sudan in the Bible (Hebrew) in forum Mansion of the Gods at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=19;t=000015

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Big Brother's Holding Co.
So's I don't neglect or forget

But everybody feel free to proceed w/t topic please.

Also inviting suggestions


I use ancient Sudan in the title
because neither Kush nor Ethiopia
serve the correct mental anchor.

They actually disconnect the
subject from the readers'
actually living continuity, an
'atomization' of African reality
as Diop said, suspended mid-air.

Exactly the reverse of academic
European Studies, presented as a
macro unit culminating throughout
time to produce the technology
and material splendor in the
world around us today.
 

---

Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 
The ancient Sudanese in the Biblical context was an interesting and complicated relationship brutally cut short by Assyrians. The Nubians appeared to have settled initially as a military garison in Israel, based on the evidence from Lachish, supporting a heavy diplomatic presence that had set roots in the Southern Levant.

I wonder what that relationship was like beyond Lachish.
 

---

Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
 
Thanks. Your box was full. Anyways do you know any bible verses that mentions Taharqa and the Kushites who helped defend Israel?
 

---

Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
The verses are 2 Kings 19: 5-9 and a parallel account in Isaiah 37.

"2 Kings 19:5
And the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah.
19:6
And Isaiah said to them, Thus shall ye say to your master: Thus saith Jehovah: Be not afraid of the words that thou hast heard, wherewith the of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me.
19:7
Behold, I will put a spirit into him, and he shall hear tidings, and shall return to his own land; and I will make him to fall by the sword in his own land.
19:8
And Rab-shakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah; for he had heard that he had departed from Lachish.
19:9
And he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he has come forth to make war with thee."

--------------------------------------------------

Says biblehistory.net:
https://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/Tirhakah.htm


The history surrounding Tirhakah is well documented in the annals of archaeology. Tirhakah is mentioned two times in the Bible.
In 2Kings chapter 19 as well as the parallel account in Isaiah chapter 37 in which the Assyrian king Sennacherib comes down on a military campaign against Israel and surrounds King Hezekiah at Jerusalem.
The account begins in 2Kings 19:8: “Then the Rabshakeh returned and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah, for he heard that he had departed from Lachish.
And the king heard concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, "Look, he has come out to make war with you."
So he again sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying, “Thus you shall speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying: “Do not let your God in whom you trust deceive you, saying, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.”
'Look! You have heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands by utterly destroying them; and shall you be delivered?
'Have the gods of the nations delivered those whom my fathers have destroyed, Gozan and Haran and Rezeph, and the people of Eden who were in Telassar?


om Tyre, Esarhaddon then marches against Egypt and Ethiopia as mentioned on the following two artifacts:
“I conquered the island of Tyre in the sea. I plundered all the towns and the possessions of king Ba’lu, who had befriended Tirhakah the king of Nubia. I conquered Egypt, Paturisi, and Nubia. It’s king, Tirhakah, I shot five times with arrows and took control over his entire land. Many kings from amidst the sea, from the country of Cyprus, as far as Tarisi, bowed down to my feet and from them I received honor. (Anet 290)
The second artifact from Esarhaddon, known as the Senjirli Stela states: “From the town of Ishupri all the way to Memphis, his royal residence, a distance of 15 days march, I fought daily, without ceasing, a very bloody war with Tirhakah, the king of Egypt and Ethiopia, the one whom I hate . . . Five times I hit him with the point of my arrows, wounding him . . . , and then I laid siege to Memphis, his royal palace, and conquered it in half a day. (Anet 293)
 

---

Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
FROM RELOADED- AUBIN'S BOOK ON TIRHAKAH AND THE RESCUE OF JERUSALEM:

https://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/post/18584/



Aubin holds that some Western historians have downplayed the Kushite role in the rescue
of Jerusalem, in order to minimize the Kushite profile in the region's
history at the time, and to make the Kushites appear as incompetents,
unable to influence contemporary battlefields.

Aubin defends his thesis ably against various critics below, pointing
out that The "Kushite Rescue" model (in full or partial versions) is not
something conjured by "liberals" in the 20th century, but goes back
several centuries, backed by some of the world's leading Jewish and Western
intellectual figures of the time (even John Calvin earlier for example) This was not
necessarily a total consensus among a majority but there was substantial support.
Such support began to be seriously dismissed or downplayed starting with the era
of EUropean colonialist scramble in Africa in the late 19th century.

Aubin points out that a Kushite intervention is not incompatible with other
causes such as divine intervention, or epidemics, for the threat of a large
Kushite force maneuvering in the region- either to "mop up" after angelic intervention
or epidemic, or directly attack Assyrian armies would weigh heavily on Assyrian minds,
as a credible threat. Indeed it is Jehovah that facilitates the intelligence
info of the Kushite advance to Sennacherib, if the religious angle is preferred.
Either way, the Kushite threat would have to be taken seriously.

--------------------------------
Says AUbin- Riposte to critics:


In Rescue of Jerusalem, I try to determine why the Assyrian army, led by the
emperor Sennacherib, abandoned its invasion of Judah during the reign of Hezekiah,
an event treated in 2 Kgs 18-19, Isa 36-37 and 2 Chron 32. Each of these narratives
credits the angel of the Lord with forcing the invaders’ withdrawal as they were
threatening the kingdom’s capital; the event’s importance has prompted scholars
over the centuries to theorize on a more realistic cause for Jerusalem’s deliverance.
One of the principal theories is that an epidemic forced the Assyrians to retreat (I
refer to this as the “epidemic theory”); a second maintains the invaders departed to
attend to troubles elsewhere in their empire (the “troubles-elsewhere theory”). I
argue for another theory: that the Assyrians departed sometime after hearing a report
or rumor that a Kushite expeditionary force was approaching; 2 Kgs 19:9 and Isa 37:9
allude to this advance and say it was led by Tirhakah, a Kushite royal now more
commonly known as Taharqa...

Riposte to critics:

1. Misstating the starting premise

Point: Evans starts by describing my premise (which he will subsequently call unfounded). He says that I maintain that in the decades and centuries prior to the 1880s there was, in his words, “a scholarly consensus that the Cushites were instrumental in the deliverance of Jerusalem.” He does not see this consensus as 15 modest but, rather, as “fairly broad.” He uses the word “consensus” to describe my 16 view six times.

Response:
I never suggest a consensus. I state: “The point, then, should be made 17 emphatically. Prior to 20th century, those who stated that the Kushite Dynasty had played some sort of major role (whether supporting or leading) in turning back Sennacherib included some of the West’s leading figures in Christian and Jewish thought” (emphasis added). Note that this wording covers supporters of both the 18 Kushite-rescue theory and the hybrid Kushite-rescue theory. The word “consensus“ indicates majority opinion. “Some” does not mean “most.”


2. Wrongly disputing the supporting evidence

Criticism: Evans suggests I exaggerate pro-Kushite support in the pre-colonial era. He says that only three of the six individuals whom I name as supporters of the Kushite-rescue theory (as distinct from the hybrid version) deserve to be considered as such: 19 they are Constable, a 19th-century Anglican prebendary at Cork; Radak, a 12th-20 century rabbi from France, and Malbim, a 19th-century rabbi from eastern Europe. 21 Evans in effect eliminates three other scholars from my list: Heeren, Wilkinson and Lowth.

Response:
No basis exists for any of these eliminations. Let us consider each case.
• The German historian Heeren (1760-1842), knighted by England and named by France to its Legion of Honor, writes one sentence on Taharqa’s expedition: he says Taharqa “deterred” Sennacherib “from the invasion of Egypt, merely by the rumour of his advance against him.” I observe in the book that for 22 Heeren, the 25th Dynasty’s expedition was in effect “exclusively responsible for turning back Sennacherib.” Evans disagrees emphatically: “Heeren says 23 nothing of the sort.” Evans explains: “The turning back of Assyria envisioned by Heeren does not suggest that Cush turned Assyria back from conquering Judah, but rather merely from invading Egypt.”

Evans errs. He ignores the footnote that accompanies Heeren’s observation, In that footnote, the historian indicates that he bases his opinion on 2 Kings 19:9; this is the verse that states that Sennacherib, while in Judah, received the intelligence regarding Taharqa’s advance. Heeren’s footnote thus makes it plain that he sees the expedition as deterring Sennacherib from further action against Judah (as well as from an invasion of Egypt). 25 • Regarding Wilkinson (1797-1875), vice-president of the British Archaeological Association, Evans writes, “Aubin and Bellis both point out J.G. Wilkinson’s opinion (1878) that Tirhakah defeated ‘the numerous army of Sennacherib.’” 26 Yet, despite acknowledging this, Evans will later leave out Wilkinson from the shortened list of scholars whom he sees as true supporters of the Kushite-rescue theory. He gives no explanation for this omission. Wilkinson’s absence from Evans’ list is all the more curious because of the unequivocal nature of his view: in an another book (published in 1854), he writes that “Tirhaka… checked the advance of the Assyrians and, forcing Sennacherib to retire from Judaea, restored the influence of Egypt to Syria.” 27

• Lowth (1660-1732), an Anglican cleric and biblical commentator, backs the idea that the 25th-Dynasty army created a “diversion” for “Sennacherib’s forces, when they were ready to fall upon the Jews.” A diversion is a common military tactic, and it is among the plausible explanations for why the Assyrians might have retreated under Kushite pressure. This diversion is the only cause that the Briton gives for the invaders’ withdrawal, so he would appear to give the 25th Dynasty’s expedition full credit for the Assyrian setback. However, Evans says Lowth’s idea of a diversion would have only “contributed” to the Assyrian withdrawal, which presumably would make him a supporter of the 29 hybrid Kushite-rescue theory (as distinct from the Kushite-rescue theory). In sum, Evans dismisses unjustifiably three of my sampling’s six supporters of the Kushite-rescue theory.


Criticism: Evans further lessens the importance of support for the hybrid Kushite-rescue theory by asserting that its supporters “only held to a contribution by the Cushites, and this contribution only assisted after the main reason for [the] Assyrian defeat – the pestilence/plague” (emphasis in original). Evans concludes: “In sum, the evidence that Aubin and Bellis present hardly shows a ‘Cushite-Rescue theory’ at all, but merely that some commentators/scholars viewed the rumour or actual presence of a Cushite force to have been a factor (but not the key factor) in Sennacherib’s withdrawal…” [/i]
This group would include: von Ewald (1803-1875), one of 19th-century 30 Germany’s most prominent Christian theologians; Wise (1819-1902), the Prague-educated rabbi who has been called the founder of U.S. Judaism, and the Church of 31 England’s Bishop Patrick (1626-1707), theologian and biblical commentator. Evans 32 does not say so, but the distinguished group would presumably also include by extension John Calvin (1509-1564), whose own hybrid variation calls for a degree of combat success by Kushite forces (at Pelusium, following Herodotus’s account) in combination with the actual angel of the Lord.


Response:
Evans gives importance to the distinction that exists between scholars who see the Kushites as being solely responsible for the retreat and those who see them as contributing to it hybrid-style. I do not. Evans says supporters of the latter view perceive the Kushites as being “only” and “merely” “a factor (but not the key factor)” in the withdrawal. Through both tone and definition he thus in effect devalues the Kushites’ involvement in the deliverance of Jerusalem: they would not have played a “key” role. The very notion of a downgrade, however, is peculiar. It is hard to see why carrying out their mission in tandem with disease or some other factor would diminish the value of the Kushites’ role. Both a scenario of the Kushite army singlehandedly causing a retreat (as advanced by Constable and Wilkinson) and a scenario that calls for Sennacherib to retreat in the face of a combination of disease and Kushite activity (as espoused by von Ewald, Wise and Patrick) present the Kushite role as essential --and therefore “key,” contrary to Evans’ claim. That is because even if, for the sake of argument, the Kushite role was simply the proverbial last straw that broke the camel’s back, the retreat would not have occurred without it. In war as in cinema, if one is a co-star one is also a star. Both scenarios also have something else important in common: I call it in the book a “respectful view of Kush.” The ten scholars in question assume that the 25th 33 Dynasty had the competence to enable, or to help enable, the survival of Judah and Jerusalem; it is an assumption hard to find among Western scholars during the late 34 19th and the 20th centuries. (See below).


Criticism:
After arguing for four pages that no consensus ever existed, Evans concludes: “t is obvious that, as far as establishing that the ‘Cushite-rescue theory’ was a prominent or consensus view prior to the closing decades of the 19th century, Aubin and Bellis have hardly done what one could call a scholarly treatment, and their research does not approach the thoroughness necessary to support such wide-reaching statements.” 39

Response:
Evans thus disparages me for, in effect, failing to substantiate a claim I do not make. The gratuitous condemnation of my scholarship concludes the opening segment of Evans’ article. To recapitulate: in addition to misrepresenting my argument, he attacks my list of ten scholars who see the Kushites as having “played some sort of significant role (whether supporting or leading) in turning back Sennacherib” by wrongly eliminating some cases and marginalizing the importance of others on tendentious grounds, thus leaving only three unchallenged. The list of ten supporters stands.


5. Not taking into account the study’s full content

Criticism: Evans suggests that my critique of scholarly views on the Kushites starting in the colonial era is too narrow: “Apparently scholars’ opinions are researched only in so far as to determine whether they viewed Cush as rescuing Jerusalem or not.” 62


Response:
Nonsense. Evans focuses his article mostly on my Chapter 18, which deals with scholars’ views on who or what saved Jerusalem. That chapter’s discussion presupposes readers’ familiarity with earlier parts of the book. Evans’ charge ignores: • Chapter 17’s nine-page treatment of how numerous 20th-century scholars view the 25th Dynasty’s relations with Palestine outside of the context of whether or not that dynasty helped save Jerusalem.

• Chapter 13’s fifteen-page discussion of how 20th-century biblical scholars perceive the Hebrew Bible’s treatment of the Kushites in contexts other than that of Sennacherib’s campaign. 63

• Briefer treatments of scholarly views on other aspects of the Kushites. Chapter 6, for example, highlights 20th-century scholars’ remarkably positive views toward Kushite art, including architecture. Also, to provide contrast for the views of colonial-era scholars, Chapter 18 itself cites prominent pre-colonial historians’ positive opinions on Kush outside the context of Jerusalem’s crisis.


ANd so on- snip... see link below:
[url href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9hGyhA-ZDzEJ:www.henryaubin.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/Riposte-April-1-2018.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=fire fox-b-1-ab"]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9hGyhA-ZDzEJ:www.henryaubin.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/Riposte-April-1-2018.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&clien t=firefox-b- 1-ab[/url]

---------------------------------------------------



One striking thing about AUbin's argument is how some earlier/older scholars
acknowledged African influence, but this earlier tradition was downplayed
or dismissed. A similar pattern appears in the researches of SOY KEita,
where he points out that some older studies freely acknowledged the
African character of Kemet, but then another model took over-
so that once acknowledged African specimens began to be reclassified
as "Mediterranean" or excluded altogether.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[img] https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PTAJMTJZKDA/WylMNM6ddyI/AAAAAAAADZk/XSlbNMKbb0Itkk1WZaFrYgajYibQcwJcgCLcBGAs/s1600/keita_skewed_egyptian_Reclassifications.jpg" [/img]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Martin Bernal made similar points as to a shift in BLack Athena
on related issues, as did George James back in the 1950s pointing
out that the Greeks freely and unashamedly acknowledged Egyptian
influence and their debt to Egypt.

This long tradition of older scholarship, by people who today might be
considered "racist", debunks today's bogus boilerplate that to insist
on, or comment on Kemet's African foundation and reality is due to modern
"political correctness", when in fact, "conservative"
tradition centuries earlier acknowledged that foundation.[/quote]
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
The ancient Sudanese in the Biblical context was an interesting and complicated relationship brutally cut short by Assyrians. The Nubians appeared to have settled initially as a military garison in Israel, based on the evidence from Lachish, supporting a heavy diplomatic presence that had set roots in the Southern Levant.

I wonder what that relationship was like beyond Lachish.

---

.


Having web-published the 3 Elders of Lachish b&w handscan from
Pritchard's ANE Texts and Pics 25 years ago way back in 1997,

now all niced up on the 'Net looking like this below


Is there non-speculative supportive evidence for
the underlined of the quoted post above please?.

Let me get ahead of myself and say I hope it's not
based on any supposed 'impossibility' of Lachish's
residents, and Judah's folk in general, having nappy
hair. Forgive my assumption.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
Thanks. Your box was full. Anyways do you know any bible verses that mentions Taharqa and the Kushites who helped defend Israel?

---

The quick short shrift answer is to follow the
the first step of a methodology to expand on
the point, ie., Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
lists every occurrence of Tirhaqa in the Hebrew Bible,

< EDIT: the same, and only, two references cited and quoted by Cardova above. >

Hebrew's Bible which in this forum will be
ascertained strictly by secular academics
same as any piece of ancient literature
and not as inerrant revelations of one
tribe's deity adopted, then adapted, by
a good proportion of Earth's population
now over some 2400 years later.


Same for Cush / Ethiopia, and ponder when and why
the translators decided to sub Ethiopia when the
Hebrew has Kush. This look up will reveal several
Israels who were Kushi either by uniparental
descent or else because of colour deep as
one from the Nile's Kush, yardstick for
all Kushi people (nevermind that Kushi
means nigger in 20th-21st century Israeli
"Modern Hebrew" because Josephus informs us

"Of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Chus;
for the Ethiopians over whom he reigned are even at this day,
both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Chusites."

(Antiquities 1:6, 2) https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/C/cush.html <== a must visit jewel for Cush researchers).


Now on to the Strong's

Zeph 2:12 Ye E* also, ye shall be slain 3569

Img
Img
Img


I intend this thread to go far beyond these immediate answers and I see some suggested
directions totally different from where
I'm going.

It's all's fine for this thread as long as it skirts
within some kind of rational boundaries.
There's plenty room for divergent opinions.
Mine filters thru Afrikan Eyes of a "Jew" of
the Tribe of Lewi --just as Doc Ben's was
the same Eye-set but looser and more
parochial than what I compose.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I was raised to praise the bridge that safely
crossed me beyond my bounds of ignorance
and as there's no such thing as old isnad,
the chain of transmission is not weakened
by late 20th c white authors on the subject
matter be it Tirharqa Lachish Kush(lands) or Kushiym(peoples).

Their's is no more than an interpretation
no more valuable than our own authors
who sometimes themselves push angles
from outsiders claiming authority over
insiders 'everything', colonialism over
native historical views as accurate, better, and binding.






. . .





. . .










https://i.postimg.cc/yd2Jyqt2/J-Afr-Civ-v12-p203.png
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

The Sixth Napatan Dynasty of Kush
Peggy A Brooks-Bertram (1994)
















 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 








[img][/img]


yeesh

ee nuff fo now
 

---

Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
The ancient Sudanese in the Biblical context was an interesting and complicated relationship brutally cut short by Assyrians. The Nubians appeared to have settled initially as a military garison in Israel, based on the evidence from Lachish, supporting a heavy diplomatic presence that had set roots in the Southern Levant.

I wonder what that relationship was like beyond Lachish.

---

.


Having web-published the 3 Elders of Lachish b&w handscan from
Pritchard's ANE Texts and Pics 25 years ago way back in 1997,

now all niced up on the 'Net looking like this below


Is there non-speculative supportive evidence for
the underlined of the quoted post above please?.

Let me get ahead of myself and say I hope it's not
based on any supposed 'impossibility' of Lachish's
residents, and Judah's folk in general, having nappy
hair. Forgive my assumption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
That's cool n you know me
so kick them article ballistics
right into this thread for safe keeping.
I mean this thread to be a Tour de Force
on the topic Askia wants to find out all about it.
Let's stick it to him ES style from all angles, eh?


Now I could critique your post but won't
unless you ask, don't wanna be the over
bearing pushy you-know-rhymes-with-Who.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
Thanks. Your box was full. Anyways do you know any bible verses that mentions Taharqa and the Kushites who helped defend Israel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:

... I was referring to the archaeological record and craniometric studies showing a heavy Kushite/Egyptian military presence and evidence of a massacre. I am trying to access that article. Will post it as soon as I get it. I think old posts (maybe by Swenet or someone else even on another website [Historum?]) have referred to osteological studies showing that Lachish samples were intermediate between Africans and Eurasians.

In any event, considering the colonization of the Southern Levant by the AEs in the Old Kingdom and other examples, like the Nubian-Egyptian garrison, intermixing would have been inevitable, and the ethnicity of Jews at the time may have been heavily influenced by this mixing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:

... I was referring to the archaeological record and craniometric studies showing a heavy Kushite/Egyptian military presence and evidence of a massacre. I am trying to access that article. Will post it as soon as I get it. I think old posts (maybe by Swenet or someone else even on another website [Historum?]) have referred to osteological studies showing that Lachish samples were intermediate between Africans and Eurasians.

In any event, considering the colonization of the Southern Levant by the AEs in the Old Kingdom and other examples, like the Nubian-Egyptian garrison, intermixing would have been inevitable, and the ethnicity of Jews at the time may have been heavily influenced by this mixing.

---

.

Thx 4 permission to critique the above. I dunno,
I feel like oft times when I post something
I get no reply cos ppl don't want my critique.


.


Lachish, and all ancient Lebantine ethnies of long term
habitation, bones must measure not at mid-point, but plot
somewhere along a NE Africa to 'the Rock' (Anatolia to Iran
mountain ranges) EurAsia sliding scale cline somewhere.
Always have wondered why 'science' makes a huff n puff out
of what an intelligent child can see from looking at a map?

If I'm not mistaken, even before Narmer evidence exists for
Egyptian trade, military, culture, and biology influences in
the Levant. The benignly Eurocentric academe, which claims
itself neutral and objective, places 'all' emphasis on
Levantines in and into Egypt. Recently they have seeded
common declarations that AE was 'Semite' based on three
mummy heads from Abusir. They pooh pooh on Amarna and
Ramesside ROYAL mummies and their peer approved articles .

Anyway, the subject of NE Afr --> Levant'd make a good
new paradigm thread for the Egyptology forum too as we
continue that theme here along with Tarhaqa. Fortunately
there is a little data out there on it. Did I stumble onto
it at that Rafaella(sp) guy's site?


The ethnicity of the Hebrews, who were of Israel and Judah,
is entirely their own. Ethnicity does not refer to physical
features and should not be used in place of race or geo-
regional phenotype variations (as far as I'm concerned).

Heavily influenced biologically? There's data to
quantify that? Can't recall how much rape or mishandling of
houses' females were among the complaints one 'mayor' lodged
against Ta Zeti billets in a missive to his Egyptian overlord?


BTW Not that Sennacherib's art slabs are meaningless, but I also had
Keita's old Lachish study with better methodology than the still older Biometrika one in mind.


=-=-=-=-=

OK? Holla back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
I don't doubt that there were Kushites as well as Egyptians in Israel during the time period under discussion, but AFAIK, all the aDNA studies on Levantine remains don't mention any special African contribution going into the region during the Iron Age. I recall reading one recent study that mentioned a couple of possible "Egyptian" individuals living in the Levant during Iron Age times, but they deduced that based on an apparent resemblance to the three Abusir el-Meleq genomes. If there was a substantial Kushite garrison in Israel during the 700s-600s BC, you'd think that would leave behind more Nilotic (or other distinctly "sub-Saharan") ancestry in the population than the aDNA research has reported. Strange.

---

quote:

---

The three Middle Eastern populations (Bedouin,
Palestinian, and Druze) all show a substantial
African-related mixture (3%–9% African-related
ancestry). The inferred dates of 60–90 generations
correspond to about 2,000–4,000 years ago –-
contemporaneous with our estimate of the oldest
admixture time for the North African Mozabite
population –- taking into account the fact that
HAPMIX systematically underestimate mixture dates
by up to 25% for mixtures this old (see simulations
above).

These results are historically interesting, allowing
us to conclude that there is likely to be African
ancestry in Middle Eastern populations today that
dates to population mixture that occurred in Biblical
times.

Price AL, Tandon A, Patterson N, Barnes KC, Rafaels N, et al.
Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Sensitive Detection of Chromosomal Segments of Distinct Ancestry in Admixed Populations.
PLoS Genet 2009 Jun;5(6):e1000519

---

quote:

---

A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of
3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups
we studied,
* Ashkenazis (from northern Europe),
* Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and
* Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq).

This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of
mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and


although it
can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE-
like analyses of autosomal data,

it was not highlighted in
those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan
African admixture [15,38].


We estimate that the average date of
the mixture of 72 generations (~2,000 years assuming 29 years per
generation [30]) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other
Levantines.

The point estimates over all 8 populations are between
1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence
intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews—
who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were
exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago [39,40]—share the signal
of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is
significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various
Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these
observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the
Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which
was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the
Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC [41].

---

.
Moorjabi says it's Iron Age too, in fact 1400 BCE is a little ahead of ME IA.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

The History and Geography of Human Genes
Princeton 1994 genetic map pp 87 160
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
It's a tiresome thankless task but my methodology's
next step is to after finding all text with the words
Cush, Ethiopia, or Tirhaqa is to now go and examine each
in full context. Then the Jewish commentators on this work
by their own people for their insider originated viewpoints.


Oy yoy yoy, what have I set myself up for?
Ah, but Tour de Force is Tour de Force, no?

And we don't want to overlook Askia's question
which pertains to the biblical era history
though Kush is first mentioned in the creation
myth as feeding the Garden through her rivers.


[QUOTE]

the first step of a methodology to expand on
the point, ie., Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
lists every occurrence of Tirhaqa in the Hebrew's Bible,

Same for Cush / Ethiopia,



Zeph 2:12 Ye E* also, ye shall be slain 3569






I intend this thread to go far beyond these immediate answers and all's fine for this thread as long as it skirts
within some kind of rational boundaries.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:


In any event, considering the colonization of the Southern Levant by the AEs in the Old Kingdom and other examples, like the Nubian-Egyptian garrison, intermixing would have been inevitable, and the ethnicity of [Israelites] at the time may have been heavily influenced by this mixing.

---

.


If I'm not mistaken, even before Narmer evidence exists for
Egyptian trade, military, culture, and biology influences in
the Levant.

Heavily influenced biologically? There's data to
quantify that? Can't recall how much rape or mishandling of
houses' females were among the complaints one 'mayor' lodged
against Ta Zeti billets in a missive to his Egyptian overlord?

---

I am guessing a military garrison would inevitably lead to marriage with the locals, not necessarily forced. If the Kushites in Lachish were there to enforce the satellite-ally status of Judah to Kemet-Kush, I imagine they would be "gentle" with the population there.

I would like to know more about the pre-Narmer connections. I know already about the Natufians and the colonization of the Southern Levant by the Old Kingdom.

---

quote:

---

iconographic sources dated to [Narmer's] reign there are the Palette and the Macehead from the 'Main Deposit' at Hierakonpolis together with some statuettes and several serekh on vessels or sherds from a lot of sites in Upper and Lower Egypt as well as from the western and eastern egyptian deserts and the Canaanite area (Southern Levant, esp. Palestine).

---

.
Here's why speculation just won't work.
Logic no matter how excellent
just cannot overrule actuality.
Primary documentation records unruly Nehesi billeted in Canaan under Egypt.

From a book gifted to me by Cole Windsor sh*liahh
ssibur at Philadelphia's Mikveh Israel (link) Spanish &
Portuguese Synagogue (yes that's me).



Followed footnote 31 but can't make out reference
to any primary source that I specifically remember.
Maybe one of ES' native German/Austrian/Dutch/Swiss
speakers will lend a hand, my 'hoch-shul' German sucks.

https://archive.org/details/gyptenundkuschfr0000unse/page/226/mode/2up?view=theater

I'll keep looking but somebody help out with the primary documentation, google ain't what it used ta be.

[][/img]


Ojo ES! Kush in Levant is not limited to the Piye,
Piankhi to us OTs, initiated Kushite Dynasty 25.


One last thing for this post.
A billet is not a garrison.
A billet is soldiers living
in civilian houses now under
hegemony of their own occupying
foreign nation. This is where rape
may've played a minor role in any
scant deposit of Keshli biology
which must've included consensual
sex and possibly marriages. Again,
need the prime docs to avoid
(mistaken) speculation of my own
not to mention memory mix-up of
over 50 years 'data' accumulation
could've got conflated.

What tiny minority of foreign soldiers anywhere in history
fathered the primary element of any local population's
majority. It took thousands of years of enslaved
Levantine little girls, teenagers, and grownup women in
Egypt's population before that element attained plurality.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:


I would like to know more about the pre-Narmer connections. I know already about the Natufians and the colonization of the Southern Levant by the Old Kingdom.

---

• International Conference
  Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt
  (Cracow, Poland: 28th August - 1st September 2002)
  
  Colonialism, Commerce and the Initial Unification of the Egyptian State:
  Egypto-Canaanite Relations in the Fourth Millennium
  
  J.P. DESSEL
  Department of History, University of Tennessee, Knoxville (USA)
  
  Egypt and the southern Levant share a long and deeply intertwined history beginning in the Neolithic Period
  and continuing to the present. However, it is in the mid-fourth millennium BCE (the Developed Chalcolithic
  through Early Bronze I in the southern Levant and the Naqada I-III in Egypt) when intersocietal relations
  between them reach a formative stage with profound results. While there are few textual references to the
  nature of this contact, over the last 15 years there has been a tremendous amount of archaeological data
  which speak directly to this issue. Substantial quantities of Egyptian ceramics, serekhs and small finds
  have been found throughout the southern Levant dating to the Early Bronze I and an increasing amount of
  Canaanite pottery has been excavated in both Upper and Lower Egypt.
  
  ====> WARNING if you goto Raffele from an ES page chances are you'll not later be able to access his site.
  
  
  .
• Cahiers Caribéens d`Egyptologie nos 3/4, février/mars 2002
  
  Southern Canaan as an Egyptian Protodynastic Colony
  Branislav Andelkovic
  University of Belgrade B.Andelkovic@f.bg.ac.yu
  
  
  Introduction
  The nature and dynamics of Egyptian-Canaanite interaction during the second half of the fourth millennium B.C.
  can be categorized by four primary theories/models, none of which necessarily excludes one or more of the others,
  as they might seem to at first perusal. Rather, these four theories (Andelkovic 1995: 67-72) bring into focus
  different aspects: -
  a) naked force,
  b) economic exploitation,
  c) colonial presence and
  d) the exercise of socio-political power;
  
  - of one and the same phenomenon, the Egyptian Protodynastic colony in southern Canaan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
In this thread and this forum DNA is not the end all be all
know all but just one of many things to look at in this my
intended to be well rounded transdisciplinary/multidisciplinary
thread as indeed all serious unbiased enquiries must be.


"Old" articles, one by Price one by Morjani, support Inner African type DNA as older in
Palestine/Canaan then in other Levantines
and that it's contemporaneous with the
ancient Israelites before they ever went into Babylonian exile.


Levant Iron Age starts ~1200BCE
Price dates the African component
to between 2000 BCE and the BCE/CE cusp.

quote:

---

The three Middle Eastern populations (Bedouin,
Palestinian, and Druze) all show a substantial
African-related mixture (3%–9% African-related
ancestry). The inferred dates of 60–90 generations
correspond to about 2,000–4,000 years ago –-
contemporaneous with our estimate of the oldest
admixture time for the North African Mozabite
population –- taking into account the fact that
HAPMIX systematically underestimate mixture dates
by up to 25% for mixtures this old (see simulations
above).

These results are historically interesting, allowing
us to conclude that there is likely to be African
ancestry in Middle Eastern populations today that
dates to population mixture that occurred in Biblical
times.

Price AL, Tandon A, Patterson N, Barnes KC, Rafaels N, et al.
Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Sensitive Detection of Chromosomal Segments of Distinct Ancestry in Admixed Populations.
PLoS Genet 2009 Jun;5(6):e1000519

---

.
These facts --of course being extremely unpopular,
uncomfortable, and upsetting to the Euro conception
of 'Holy Bible' characters ala Renaissance art up to
Hollywood movies which depict them as European white
people-- are relegated to the bird cage. Where are
the follow ups to Price and to Moorjabi? Who has
cited their material in their genetic/genomic
articles? Why? Why not?

Dead on the vine. And those of us not fooling ourselves know why.

"don't nobody dare tarbrush my sacred holy biblical caucasoids.
To paraphrase the Godfather: I don't want no Tiggers in my Family Bible.


Moorjabi (2011) gets right down to it having the unmitigated gall
to outright declare published ADMIXTURE studies deliberately sweep
African results under the rug as it were.

quote:

---

A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of
3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups
we studied,
* Ashkenazis (from northern Europe),
* Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and
* Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq).

This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of
mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and


although it
can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE-
like analyses of autosomal data,

it was not highlighted in
those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan
African admixture [15,38].


We estimate that the average date of
the mixture of 72 generations (~2,000 years assuming 29 years per
generation [30]) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other
Levantines.

The point estimates over all 8 populations are between
1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence
intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews—
who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were
exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago [39,40]—share the signal
of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is
significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various
Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these
observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the
Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which
was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the
Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC [41].

---

.
Moorjabi says it's Iron Age too, in fact 1400 BCE is a little ahead of ME IA.

---

Wow. This is sure interesting. Where are the follow-up studies to this? All we get are convoluted analyses equating West-Eurasian-like ancestry in ancient African populations like Kenyan PN with imaginary Eurasian migrations deep into SSA.

Moorjani

"A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups we studied, Ashkenazis (from northern Europe), Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq). This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE-like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture [15], [38]."

A very candid admission.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Knowhazzfunnee?

Been posted like 3 or > X

It's the elephant/gorilla in tha room

It's the Tigger as main protagonist in 'mah famly Bible' no way no how no shape form fashion


Former or latter
Both = Big Societal Taboo
 

---