I notice a trend that some people using the biblical/Quranic genology try to link themselves to Cush. The error in this methology is that modern linguist have created a language family entitled Cushic which has nothing whatsoever to do with the term ''Kush'' used either in ancient Egypt or within the Hebrew Bible. The Cushic speaking groups typicall are geographically confined to the Horn of Africa and in some exceptions like the Beja in the modern Red Sea Hills,Eastern Desert and Northern Sudan.
The Cushic speaking groups are not to be confused with the people of ancient Kush which were mainly people south of the first cataract of Egypt.The first time the term Kush comes in Egyptian texts dates to around the 12th dyansty refering mainly to the third cataract area by Senworset I. Many modern reserchers like David O'Connor place the Kush of Egyptian texts to the Kerma culture found in modern day Dongola by Charles Bonnet.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Good stuff.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
I AGREE 100%
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I notice a trend that some people using the biblical/Quranic genology try to link themselves to Cush. The error in this methology is that modern linguist have created a language family entitled Cushic which has nothing whatsoever to do with the term ''Kush'' used either in ancient Egypt or within the Hebrew Bible. The Cushic speaking groups typicall are geographically confined to the Horn of Africa and in some exceptions like the Beja in the modern Red Sea Hills,Eastern Desert and Northern Sudan.
The Cushic speaking groups are not to be confused with the people of ancient Kush which were mainly people south of the first cataract of Egypt. The first time the term Kush comes in Egyptian texts dates to around the 12th dyansty refering mainly to the third cataract area by Senworset I. Many modern reserchers like David O'Connor place the Kush of Egyptian texts to the Kerma culture found in modern day Dongola by Charles Bonnet.
...needed to be reiterated!
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
I think we all know that by now, and i'm quite sure no one tries to connect Cush as a lingustic term and Kush as a kingdom. Now let this issue reast in peace.
Posted by Lion! (Member # 9156) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I notice a trend that some people using the biblical/Quranic genology try to link themselves to Cush. The error in this methology is that modern linguist have created a language family entitled Cushic which has nothing whatsoever to do with the term ''Kush'' used either in ancient Egypt or within the Hebrew Bible.
The Lion! writes:
The linguist terms cushic has every thing to do with the Cushitic family category referred to in the Bible.
We have to be realistic here. Ausar, wherein lies the etemology of the word Cushic if not from the Bible? What your venerated linguists have done to the term "Cushic" today or what they are trying to do with it today should not be used to obfuscate the greatness of the ancient Cushitic Empire of Ancient Ethiopia and its connections.
All the adajacent ancient culture have a referrence to the great Kushites in their texts. Why then must we validate the work of a late and hateful civilization which tries to cast the past in accord with its agenda and where that is not possible to discredit all settled anceint truths.
quote: The Cushic speaking groups typicall are geographically confined to the Horn of Africa and in some exceptions like the Beja in the modern Red Sea Hills,Eastern Desert and Northern Sudan.
Interestingly the same region of cushic speakers as defined by modern linguists is roughly the same area that constituted the earliest ranges (i.e. territories) of the ancient cushite culture.
Ancient Kush is known to have had a capital in Meroe and Napata northern Sudan. The extent of the political sway of these capitals covered Red sea hills, Horn of Africa, Eastern Deserts, and may have gone into the lushness of the inter-lactial areas around mordern Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi.
quote:The Cushic speaking groups are not to be confused with the people of ancient Kush which were mainly people south of the first cataract of Egypt.
Since the territories of the ancient Kushitic Empire encompassed the entire regions covered by the speakers of the so-called cushic languages as defined by the so-called lingusits who themselves cannot speak nor understand those African languages, I propose to suggest that perhaps there is a greater linkage between the two terms than your peremtory dismisal would permit.
quote: The first time the term Kush comes in Egyptian texts dates to around the 12th dyansty refering mainly to the third cataract area by Senworset I.
Find me a credible reference for this quotation. I will not countenace dubious sources of European pedigree. I really cannot stomach their methods nor their speciousness.
I will find you multiculturally based sources, ancient sources suggesting that ancient Cush was from the dawn of times.
I will also deal with you on this issue on a common sense logical basis. Where two and two should make four to both of us and not five on the say so of some intellectual hack.
quote: Many modern reserchers like David O'Connor place the Kush of Egyptian texts to the Kerma culture found in modern day Dongola by Charles Bonnet.
A hack period. Noone in his right mind is still discovering African cultures these days. In any event, Dongola is still in Sudan eh? So what are you really saying here.
See Drussila Houston, The wonderful Ethiopians of the ancient cushitic Empire, 1926.
Ancient Ethiopians of the Golden Age. by John G. Jackson.
Peace.
The Lion!
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
quote:The Lion! writes:
The linguist terms cushic has every thing to do with the Cushitic family category referred to in the Bible.
We have to be realistic here. Ausar, wherein lies the etemology of the word Cushic if not from the Bible? What your venerated linguists have done to the term "Cushic" today or what they are trying to do with it today should not be used to obfuscate the greatness of the ancient Cushitic Empire of Ancient Ethiopia and its connections.
All the adajacent ancient culture have a referrence to the great Kushites in their texts. Why then must we validate the work of a late and hateful civilization which tries to cast the past in accord with its agenda and where that is not possible to discredit all settled anceint truths
Both the terms Cush and Ethiopia are artifical labels that outside populations mainly the ancient Hebrews and Greeks gave the people south of the first cataract in Egypt and sometimes also to populations in Western Asia. If you can show me ancient Cushite texts then I shall use them but all history we have is written by other groups because the ancient group of Cushites did not have a written language. We do have Meroitic but its not been deciphered yet and does not match any modern language in Ethiopia but Nilo-Saharan languages spoken by modern Nubians.
quote:Interestingly the same region of cushic speakers as defined by modern linguists is roughly the same area that constituted the earliest ranges (i.e. territories) of the ancient cushite culture.
Ancient Kush is known to have had a capital in Meroe and Napata northern Sudan. The extent of the political sway of these capitals covered Red sea hills, Horn of Africa, Eastern Deserts, and may have gone into the lushness of the inter-lactial areas around mordern Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi.
Yes, but the ancient Cushic people were not Beja or eastern Africans. The desendants of the ancient Cush of ancient Egyptian texts and Hebrew scriptures are Nilo-Saharan populations. The ancestors of the Beja are most likely the Medijay populations that served as guards of Egyptian tombs and policemen.
quote:
quote:The Cushic speaking groups are not to be confused with the people of ancient Kush which were mainly people south of the first cataract of Egypt.
Since the territories of the ancient Kushitic Empire encompassed the entire regions covered by the speakers of the so-called cushic languages as defined by the so-called lingusits who themselves cannot speak nor understand those African languages, I propose to suggest that perhaps there is a greater linkage between the two terms than your peremtory dismisal would permit.
If you have a better methology than such linguists as Christopher Ehret or Joseph Greenberg then please bring them to the table. My understanding of the Cushic lingustic family and Nilo-Saharan comes from both Greenberg and Christopher Ehret.
quote:
quote: The first time the term Kush comes in Egyptian texts dates to around the 12th dyansty refering mainly to the third cataract area by Senworset I.
Find me a credible reference for this quotation. I will not countenace dubious sources of European pedigree. I really cannot stomach their methods nor their speciousness.
I got the source that Kush was first used in Egypt during the reign of Senworset I from Egyptologist Frank J. Yurco. If you can demonstrate my sources are faulty or that the term Kush in Egypt is used before this period then I encourage you to please present them
quote:
quote: Many modern reserchers like David O'Connor place the Kush of Egyptian texts to the Kerma culture found in modern day Dongola by Charles Bonnet.
A hack period. Noone in his right mind is still discovering African cultures these days. In any event, Dongola is still in Sudan eh? So what are you really saying here.
See Drussila Houston, The wonderful Ethiopians of the ancient cushitic Empire, 1926.
Ancient Ethiopians of the Golden Age. by John G. Jackson
Drusila Houston and John G. Jackson are good sources but both not only use European authors and methology but are second hand sources. Both Charles Bonnet and David O'Connor are archaeologist that work first hand on excavations,and like most ancient history it is rather speculative. Since the ancient people of Cush left no written documents until the Meroitic period we have to use both archaeology and sources from surrounding people that did leave written texts such as the ancient Egyptians. From these texts David O'Connor have speculated from which the regions mentioned by the ancient Egyptians such as Yam,Irem and Wawat or others were located. The recent archaeological work by Charles Bonnet seems to pinpoint Yam the predessor of ancient Cush in the region of Kerma.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
up
Posted by Lion! (Member # 9156) on :
quote:
quote: Both the terms Cush and Ethiopia are artifical labels that outside populations mainly the ancient Hebrews and Greeks gave the people south of the first cataract in Egypt and sometimes also to populations in Western Asia. If you can show me ancient Cushite texts then I shall use them but all history we have is written by other groups because the ancient group of Cushites did not have a written language. We do have Meroitic but its not been deciphered yet and does not match any modern language in Ethiopia but Nilo-Saharan languages spoken by modern Nubians.
Lion! writes:
Ausar the ancient Kushitics were not members of one tribal group or one ethnic group. Kush was an international empire compassing people with different linguistic origins.
The etymology of the mordern use of cushic comes from the hebrew use of the term in the Bible. Any reputable dictionary will clarify that for you.
In any event, I do not believe you have any cartograph depicting the exact borders of the Kushitic empires as to be so sure that Beja was not part of that empire.
quote:
Yes, but the ancient Cushic people were not Beja or eastern Africans. The desendants of the ancient Cush of ancient Egyptian texts and Hebrew scriptures are Nilo-Saharan populations. The ancestors of the Beja are most likely the Medijay populations that served as guards of Egyptian tombs and policemen. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Lion! writes:
It is not settled for sure that Beja is the same Medijay of the Egyptian tombs. Sources please. After you produce those sources then we will consider the cognecy, clarity, and rationality of their propositions. But sources..
Besides, using the terms Nilo-Saharan is reverting back to the Greenberg categorization which is exactly what I am challenging. That is a fallacy of circular reasoning.
My contention is that Cushitic and Cushic are etymologically related. I contend that the Greenberg classification is only relevant to armchair analysts in North America who are way behind times.
In order to prove that my argument was implausible, you then revert back to terms such as Nilotic, and Saharan. Who created those terms,... Greenberg. So why use Greenberg to validate Greenberg?
Greenberg not being able to speak African languages cannot categorize African ethnicity and set it in stone.
Greenberg was a fraud! Theophile Obenga has demolished the entire premise of Greenberg's presumptiousness. Forget Greenberg and Ehret, they were yesterday's news.
quote:
quote: The first time the term Kush comes in Egyptian texts dates to around the 12th dyansty refering mainly to the third cataract area by Senworset I.
Find me a credible reference for this quotation. I will not countenace dubious sources of European pedigree. I really cannot stomach their methods nor their speciousness.
I got the source that Kush was first used in Egypt during the reign of Senworset I from Egyptologist Frank J. Yurco. If you can demonstrate my sources are faulty or that the term Kush in Egypt is used before this period then I encourage you to please present them
quote:
[/QUOTE]
Lion! writes:
Well Ausar, the two sources I cited for you have a different view. Kush was from the earliest time, even before Egypt. For the ancient Egyptians regarded their ancestral origins as Punt and Cush. So Cush was before Egypt.
The some of the pyramids of Northern Sudan actually were prototypes of what later pyramids became.
The Theban Priestly College considered that Ausar (Osiris) the Holy one of Egypt was a Cushite and constant references were made to the spiritual and cultural validation conferred by the Kushitic pedigree.
When I asked for a valid authority I wanted an objective, rational, lucid authority. I wanted someone backed by a reputation of integrity. Someone borne out by the application of common sense.
My request is not a fallacy of argument and should not be construed as ". I would rather accuse you of the fallacy of "appeal to false authority" and "unwaranted assumption".
quote:
quote: Many modern reserchers like David O'Connor place the Kush of Egyptian texts to the Kerma culture found in modern day Dongola by Charles Bonnet.
A hack period. Noone in his right mind is still discovering African cultures these days. In any event, Dongola is still in Sudan eh? So what are you really saying here.
See Drussila Houston, The wonderful Ethiopians of the ancient cushitic Empire, 1926.
Ancient Ethiopians of the Golden Age. by John G. Jackson
Drusila Houston and John G. Jackson are good sources but both not only use European authors and methology but are second hand sources. Both Charles Bonnet and David O'Connor are archaeologist that work first hand on excavations,and like most ancient history it is rather speculative. Since the ancient people of Cush left no written documents until the Meroitic period we have to use both archaeology and sources from surrounding people that did leave written texts such as the ancient Egyptians. From these texts David O'Connor have speculated from which the regions mentioned by the ancient Egyptians such as Yam,Irem and Wawat or others were located. The recent archaeological work by Charles Bonnet seems to pinpoint Yam the predessor of ancient Cush in the region of Kerma. [/QB][/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Lion! writes:
Wild speculations of a bored academic from the west desperate to publish another lie and make a cheap name for himself as an Egyptologist. We have seen the likes of them before.
Moreover, my sources as you no doubt realize are works of eminent scholarship much older than your modern researchers. My authorities cited works of different including ancient Persian, Greek, Roman, Arabic and Hebrew sources.
Besides the work of data gathering is one thing the tasks of interpretation is another department. One is not annointed with some messianic authority because he participated in archeological digs.
The politics behind such digs are insidious and iniquitious. The European American establishment in conspiracy with the Arab Egyptian establishment have after centuries of grave robberies and desecretion of African sacred places, shamelessly decided to jointly appropriate all that is left. Everything they do till now is towards that objective. If you feign ignorance of this truth then your conscience will not be at peace with you.
But I would rather wish you peace.
quote:
quote:The Cushic speaking groups are not to be confused with the people of ancient Kush which were mainly people south of the first cataract of Egypt.
Since the territories of the ancient Kushitic Empire encompassed the entire regions covered by the speakers of the so-called cushic languages as defined by the so-called lingusits who themselves cannot speak nor understand those African languages, I propose to suggest that perhaps there is a greater linkage between the two terms than your peremtory dismisal would permit.
If you have a better methology than such linguists as Christopher Ehret or Joseph Greenberg then please bring them to the table. My understanding of the Cushic lingustic family and Nilo-Saharan comes from both Greenberg and Christopher Ehret.
quote:
Lion! writes:
You should first define and elucidate the methods used by those voodoo academics to categorize languages they cannot speak.
I can speak several African languages and can connect linkages where a foreigner would see disconnections. Especially hacks with agenda like you just quoted.
Tell me again, how many African languages does Greenberg speak? Or Ehret? Yet today you have made them final authority on the definition of ancient and modern Africa.
You must resist that inclination.
Peace.
The Lion!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lion!: Ausar the ancient Kushitics were not members of one tribal group or one ethnic group. Kush was an international empire compassing people with different linguistic origins.
You are obviously confused! Cushitic is a linguistic group consisting of various people mostly living in the Horn region of Africa, while Kushites were a specific group of Nile Valley Nubians whose empire consisted of their own kingdom and Egypt during the 25th dynasty.
quote:The etymology of the mordern use of cushic comes from the hebrew use of the term in the Bible. Any reputable dictionary will clarify that for you.
Of course, but hebrew term Cushi is in refrence to skin color and thus various peoples from Africa to the Near-East or India would fit in with this description.
quote:In any event, I do not believe you have any cartograph depicting the exact borders of the Kushitic empires as to be so sure that Beja was not part of that empire.
Again, there was no "Kushitic" empire only a Kushite one. And there are many Cushitic peoples.
quote:Lion! writes:
It is not settled for sure that Beja is the same Medijay of the Egyptian tombs. Sources please. After you produce those sources then we will consider the cognecy, clarity, and rationality of their propositions. But sources..
Yes but there is no certainty to suggest otherwise-- that the Medjay were not the same as the Beja. The Medjay were known to inhabit the same areas as the modern Beja. What are you suggesting??
quote:Besides, using the terms Nilo-Saharan is reverting back to the Greenberg categorization which is exactly what I am challenging. That is a fallacy of circular reasoning.
To what end are you challenging Greenberg's linguistic classifications. Sure they are not perfect but they are far more accurate than past scholars, since he uses the same exact methods that are used to classify European languages! There is no doubt that all African languages possess some relation to one another but it is very clear that there are distinct linguistic groups like Afrasian and Nilo-Saharan.
quote:My contention is that Cushitic and Cushic are etymologically related...
Of course they are. They are both derived from Afrasian root words.
quote:...I contend that the Greenberg classification is only relevant to armchair analysts in North America who are way behind times.
And what are you proposing, that West African Wolof is as closely related to Egyptian as Somali??
quote:In order to prove that my argument was implausible, you then revert back to terms such as Nilotic, and Saharan. Who created those terms,... Greenberg. So why use Greenberg to validate Greenberg?
True such terms are not entire valid but it is surely more accurate than past terms like 'Hamitic' languages and 'Negro' languages!
quote:Greenberg not being able to speak African languages cannot categorize African ethnicity and set it in stone.
I don't know how well versed the guy was in being able to speak the languages, but he was very familiar with their features to give them more accurate classifications than his predecessors or contemporaries.
quote:Greenberg was a fraud! Theophile Obenga has demolished the entire premise of Greenberg's presumptiousness. Forget Greenberg and Ehret, they were yesterday's news.
And you aren't presumptious? I think you should leave language studies to the real linguists!! Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
quote:Ausar the ancient Kushitics were not members of one tribal group or one ethnic group. Kush was an international empire compassing people with different linguistic origins.
The etymology of the mordern use of cushic comes from the hebrew use of the term in the Bible. Any reputable dictionary will clarify that for you.
In any event, I do not believe you have any cartograph depicting the exact borders of the Kushitic empires as to be so sure that Beja was not part of that empire.
The term Kush was used in both the Hebrew Torah and ancient Egyptian inscription. In the Hebrew Torah the word Cushi simply means the same as the Greek Aethiopies which was a reference to the dark skin of the inhabitants south of the first cataract in Egypt and also certain groups in Western Asia.
Ancient Hebrews never came in close contact with modern day people from the Horn of Africa.
You are right though that the term Cushi could have been identified with the Beja
Also there never was any ancient Cushite empire streching from Sudan to the Horn of Africa. Kush in the Egyptian texts specifically relate a area south of the first cataract.
quote:Lion! writes:
It is not settled for sure that Beja is the same Medijay of the Egyptian tombs. Sources please. After you produce those sources then we will consider the cognecy, clarity, and rationality of their propositions. But sources..
Besides, using the terms Nilo-Saharan is reverting back to the Greenberg categorization which is exactly what I am challenging. That is a fallacy of circular reasoning.
My contention is that Cushitic and Cushic are etymologically related. I contend that the Greenberg classification is only relevant to armchair analysts in North America who are way behind times.
In order to prove that my argument was implausible, you then revert back to terms such as Nilotic, and Saharan. Who created those terms,... Greenberg. So why use Greenberg to validate Greenberg?
Greenberg not being able to speak African languages cannot categorize African ethnicity and set it in stone.
Greenberg was a fraud! Theophile Obenga has demolished the entire premise of Greenberg's presumptiousness. Forget Greenberg and Ehret, they were yesterday's news.
Understand that I am not a linguist nor am I person who publishes for academic journals. This is just a message board to talk about or debate ancient Egyptian history. Maybe Greenberg's metholody is flawed,but I don't have the qualifications to say this.
If you feel that your methdology is better than Greenberg's then I suggest you publish your results refuting Greenberg.
I might ask you how you can confidently say that Greenberg never spoke any African languages or that he is a fraud. Also you don't have to fleuntly speak a language to observe relations or even understand the syntax. In many cases languages like Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo have no written texts to go off of.
I am willing to consider Obenga's hypothesis if you can refer me to some of his publications in english. I don't read French so I am at a loss to read his publications.
quote:Lion! writes:
Well Ausar, the two sources I cited for you have a different view. Kush was from the earliest time, even before Egypt. For the ancient Egyptians regarded their ancestral origins as Punt and Cush. So Cush was before Egypt
Can you refer me to any texts written by the ancient Egyptians that mention this? How can such a term like Kush be before ancient Kmt when such as word was given to said people by outsiders. Do you know if said people really reffered themselves as such?
quote:The some of the pyramids of Northern Sudan actually were prototypes of what later pyramids became
Why do the pyramids in northern Sudan have underground caverns and Meroitic writing,and yet the pyramids in Egypt have no underground caverns or writing?
quote:The Theban Priestly College considered that Ausar (Osiris) the Holy one of Egypt was a Cushite and constant references were made to the spiritual and cultural validation conferred by the Kushitic pedigree.
Reference please. What Egyptian text makes this claim
quote:When I asked for a valid authority I wanted an objective, rational, lucid authority. I wanted someone backed by a reputation of integrity. Someone borne out by the application of common sense.
I trust the confidence of Professor Yurco and he is fairly objective compaired to many Egyptologist in the field today. Most P.H.D. Egyptologist have to have some background in reading Mdu Ntr and Coptic which is why his words carry lots of weight. Do you read either Mdu Ntr or Coptic? If you do then please prove to me that the term Kush used in ancient Egyptian predates the inscriptions of Senwroset I.
[/quote]My request is not a fallacy of argument and should not be construed as ". I would rather accuse you of the fallacy of "appeal to false authority" and "unwaranted assumption".[/quote]
Just as I can accuse you of using Drusilla Dunjee Houston and John G. Jackson as linguists,archaeologist,or anthropologist when both are indepdent scholars that have no background in any of these fields.
quote:Lion! writes:
Wild speculations of a bored academic from the west desperate to publish another lie and make a cheap name for himself as an Egyptologist. We have seen the likes of them before.
Moreover, my sources as you no doubt realize are works of eminent scholarship much older than your modern researchers. My authorities cited works of different including ancient Persian, Greek, Roman, Arabic and Hebrew sources.
Older scholars are not necessarily better. The question is what expertise did John G. Jackson and Drusilla Dunjee have reading Greek,Hebrew,Roman,Arabic,or any other sources. Do you have evidence that both of these individuals had such expertise? Both these scholars go off second hand sources. Most ancient history is speculation and pieced together through individual scholars using individual methologies. Most historians are aware of first hand and second hand references,and the people you quoted come from second hand sources.
quote:Besides the work of data gathering is one thing the tasks of interpretation is another department. One is not annointed with some messianic authority because he participated in archeological digs.
The politics behind such digs are insidious and iniquitious. The European American establishment in conspiracy with the Arab Egyptian establishment have after centuries of grave robberies and desecretion of African sacred places, shamelessly decided to jointly appropriate all that is left. Everything they do till now is towards that objective. If you feign ignorance of this truth then your conscience will not be at peace with you.
But I would rather wish you peace
Yes, this is the unfortunate fact that Egyptology was founded by Europeans and so was the discipline of archaeology. Europeans in the past have been biased and I agree one should be leary of their past engagements but archaeology certainly is much better than just relying on second hand information. A historian is left with only fragments of the past that one must interpret through what remains.
Also the era in which Drusilla Dunjee and John G. Jackson lived the Europeans would not even acknowleadge Egyptian archaeologist of Egyptologist much less conspier with them. The entire field of Egyptology was kept away from Egyptians untill very recently. When leaders like Gamal Nasser came into power around 1952 they personally saw Egyptology as a tool of European imperilism,and had no active interest in it.
I will agree with you that the modern Antiquity authories in Egypt like Zahi Hawass are rather biased and will not allow people to dig even when justified.
Posted by Lion! (Member # 9156) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Lion!: Ausar the ancient Kushitics were not members of one tribal group or one ethnic group. Kush was an international empire compassing people with different linguistic origins.
You are obviously confused! Cushitic is a linguistic group consisting of various people mostly living in the Horn region of Africa, while Kushites were a specific group of Nile Valley Nubians whose empire consisted of their own kingdom and Egypt during the 25th dynasty.
quote:The etymology of the mordern use of cushic comes from the hebrew use of the term in the Bible. Any reputable dictionary will clarify that for you.
Of course, but hebrew term Cushi is in refrence to skin color and thus various peoples from Africa to the Near-East or India would fit in with this description.
quote:In any event, I do not believe you have any cartograph depicting the exact borders of the Kushitic empires as to be so sure that Beja was not part of that empire.
Again, there was no "Kushitic" empire only a Kushite one. And there are many Cushitic peoples.
quote:Lion! writes:
It is not settled for sure that Beja is the same Medijay of the Egyptian tombs. Sources please. After you produce those sources then we will consider the cognecy, clarity, and rationality of their propositions. But sources..
Yes but there is no certainty to suggest otherwise-- that the Medjay were not the same as the Beja. The Medjay were known to inhabit the same areas as the modern Beja. What are you suggesting??
quote:Besides, using the terms Nilo-Saharan is reverting back to the Greenberg categorization which is exactly what I am challenging. That is a fallacy of circular reasoning.
To what end are you challenging Greenberg's linguistic classifications. Sure they are not perfect but they are far more accurate than past scholars, since he uses the same exact methods that are used to classify European languages! There is no doubt that all African languages possess some relation to one another but it is very clear that there are distinct linguistic groups like Afrasian and Nilo-Saharan.
quote:My contention is that Cushitic and Cushic are etymologically related...
Of course they are. They are both derived from Afrasian root words.
quote:...I contend that the Greenberg classification is only relevant to armchair analysts in North America who are way behind times.
And what are you proposing, that West African Wolof is as closely related to Egyptian as Somali??
quote:In order to prove that my argument was implausible, you then revert back to terms such as Nilotic, and Saharan. Who created those terms,... Greenberg. So why use Greenberg to validate Greenberg?
True such terms are not entire valid but it is surely more accurate than past terms like 'Hamitic' languages and 'Negro' languages!
quote:Greenberg not being able to speak African languages cannot categorize African ethnicity and set it in stone.
I don't know how well versed the guy was in being able to speak the languages, but he was very familiar with their features to give them more accurate classifications than his predecessors or contemporaries.
quote:Greenberg was a fraud! Theophile Obenga has demolished the entire premise of Greenberg's presumptiousness. Forget Greenberg and Ehret, they were yesterday's news.
And you aren't presumptious? I think you should leave language studies to the real linguists!!
Now Djehuti, you are acting like a troll chasing my postings and making illogical noise. Whatz up? Did I hurt you with some of my revelations?
Don't bother chasing my posts because their points are just soo obvious.
And this will be the last time I will reply to your red herrings. Cause that would be gratifying crass pettiness with my dignity and sophistication.
Your class is waay different from that of the Lion!. I believe you are Indochinese or something like that? We know where you are coming from. We have you covered.
But this is the lassst time I will even respond to your meaningless trolling. Look for your types to play around with.
The Lion!
Posted by Lion! (Member # 9156) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar:
quote:Ausar the ancient Kushitics were not members of one tribal group or one ethnic group. Kush was an international empire compassing people with different linguistic origins.
The etymology of the mordern use of cushic comes from the hebrew use of the term in the Bible. Any reputable dictionary will clarify that for you.
In any event, I do not believe you have any cartograph depicting the exact borders of the Kushitic empires as to be so sure that Beja was not part of that empire.
The term Kush was used in both the Hebrew Torah and ancient Egyptian inscription. In the Hebrew Torah the word Cushi simply means the same as the Greek Aethiopies which was a reference to the dark skin of the inhabitants south of the first cataract in Egypt and also certain groups in Western Asia.
Ancient Hebrews never came in close contact with modern day people from the Horn of Africa.
You are right though that the term Cushi could have been identified with the Beja
Also there never was any ancient Cushite empire streching from Sudan to the Horn of Africa. Kush in the Egyptian texts specifically relate a area south of the first cataract.
The Ancient Kingdom of Kush also Known as Ta-Seti
THE MIGHTY KUSH - 10,000 YEAR-OLD CIVILIZATION OFF INDIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE CUSHITES ACCORDING TO MANY ANCIENT AFRICAN BOOKS (EGYPTIAN, NUBIAN, ETHIOPIAN), AS WELL AS THE HEBREW TEXTS AND PRE-ARYAN VEDAS, REVEAL THAT THE BLACK CUSHITE PEOPLE BEGAN A GREAT CIVILIZATION THAT STRETCHED FROM THE SUDAN TO EASTERN INDIA MORE THAN 10,000 YEARS AGO.
One of the greatest discoveries ever made was made off the coast of India over the last few months. An ancient city about five miles long and two miles wide was discovered off the coast.
Over the past two centuries, particularly since Europeans have ventured into the rest of the world and have been able to dominate literature, science and technology, they have rewritten the history of the world to suit their agenda and to give themselves a position of superiority against other people.
In like manner, the nomadic tribes who began to infiltrate ancient India and who are said to have used flooding and persistent invasions to destroy Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa and other Indus Valley Negro-Australoid civilizations, have also introduced another version of history.
Yet, many who study the ancient history of Egypt, Kush, Nubia, the Zingh Empire and the prehistoric Washitaw Empire of the U.S. were not surprised that evidence of ancient civilization and urban living was found off the coast of India, in a place that used to have dry land.
One of Ethiopia's most ancient books, The Kebra Nagashi or "Book of Kings," point out that before the sea separated india from Africa, both lands were joined together. It also reveals that both India and the Sudan/Ethiopia/Somalia region was called Kush and the people Kushites (as in Hindu Kush Mountains). In like manner, it is said that Kush had two sons, Hind and Sind. Hind migrated to India, Sind migrated to Arabia, both were Negroes and both like Nimrod, the Mighter Hunter whose helmet had a horn in the middle, but who was demonized by the Semites, made great contributions to civilizations. (See "African Presence in Early Asia," by Ivan Van Sertima, Transaction Publishers, New Bruinswick, NJ. The ancient Kushites and Nubians were exactly the same people and India's Black Tribals, Blacck Untouchables/Dalits and other Black peoples are of the same Kushitic people as those who live in the area from Somalia all the way to parts of West Africa. The Kushitic languages, according to Clyde Winters (see his writings on the internet) was part of a prehistoric language family called Mende which gave birth to the Afro-Asiatic languages.
In 2000 about two years ago, some very important discoveries were made in Sudan. For many decades, there was the knowledge that a pre Egyptian civilization existed in Sudan called Ta-Seti (Land of the Bow). This prehistoric kingdom extended as far back as 17000 years ago, according to some historians (See Egypt Revisited, by Ivan Van Sertima, Transaction Publications, New Bruinswick, NJ). Two years ago (2000), archeologists in Sudan returned to work in the are and made some facinating findings, including items such as fine pottery and glassware dating back to about 8000 years Before Christ. A large astronomical observertory dating back to about 7000 years before Christ was also discovered.
Posted by Lion! (Member # 9156) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar:
quote:Ausar the ancient Kushitics were not members of one tribal group or one ethnic group. Kush was an international empire compassing people with different linguistic origins.
The etymology of the mordern use of cushic comes from the hebrew use of the term in the Bible. Any reputable dictionary will clarify that for you.
In any event, I do not believe you have any cartograph depicting the exact borders of the Kushitic empires as to be so sure that Beja was not part of that empire.
The term Kush was used in both the Hebrew Torah and ancient Egyptian inscription. In the Hebrew Torah the word Cushi simply means the same as the Greek Aethiopies which was a reference to the dark skin of the inhabitants south of the first cataract in Egypt and also certain groups in Western Asia.
Lion! writes:
Ausar
Find posted herein the etymology of Cush:
Werner Vycihle , in "Le pays de Kousch dans une inscription Ethiopienne", Annales d'Ethiopie ,2, (1957) pp.177-179, has provided us with many lexical items relating to the Sudanese. The people of Upper Nubia and the Sudan were known in Egyptian as k-'-s and k-'-s-i . The Hebrew people called the Kushites kus. In the cuneiform inscriptions the Sudanese were called Kusiya. In the Ethiopic inscriptions Ezana the Kushites were called Kashi or Kasu. In Sumerian the Kushites were called Melukha = Kasi and Kasi = Kush.
quote:
Ancient Hebrews never came in close contact with modern day people from the Horn of Africa.
Would you discount the Falashas of Ethiopia from the Hebrew heritage when even the government of Israel recognizes that they are the oldest living branch of the Hebrew family.
Well, if Ethiopia is the Horn of Africa, and Falashas are Hebrew Ethiopians then clearly Hebrews had something to do with the Horn of Africa in both the ancient and this modern times.
Peace.
The Lion!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lion!: Now Djehuti, you are acting like a troll chasing my postings and making illogical noise. Whatz up? Did I hurt you with some of my revelations?
How am I acting like a troll when I merely question what you say and correct the obviously incorrect?? LOL You made no "revelations" let alone "hurt" me with anything.
quote:Don't bother chasing my posts because their points are just soo obvious.
Yeah, obviously WRONG!
quote:And this will be the last time I will reply to your red herrings. Cause that would be gratifying crass pettiness with my dignity and sophistication.
Dignity and sophistication? I think not. If you had such, then you would be able to verify your claims properly instead of becoming upset with what I say.
quote:Your class is waay different from that of the Lion!...
You got that right! My 'class' is one that deals with FACTS not mere fancy and wishful thinking.
quote:...I believe you are Indochinese or something like that?
You believe wrong as usual, and dude, for the last time I am not 'Indo-Chinese'
quote:..We know where you are coming from. We have you covered.
LOL What?!! Uuh, yeah whatever guy!
quote:But this is the lassst time I will even respond to your meaningless trolling. Look for your types to play around with.
The Lion!
LOL For the last time, questioning the veracity of your claims is not trolling. Yet if you fail to realize that then too bad. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Lion! writes:
Ausar
Find posted herein the etymology of Cush:
Werner Vycihle , in "Le pays de Kousch dans une inscription Ethiopienne", Annales d'Ethiopie ,2, (1957) pp.177-179, has provided us with many lexical items relating to the Sudanese. The people of Upper Nubia and the Sudan were known in Egyptian as k-'-s and k-'-s-i . The Hebrew people called the Kushites kus. In the cuneiform inscriptions the Sudanese were called Kusiya. In the Ethiopic inscriptions Ezana the Kushites were called Kashi or Kasu. In Sumerian the Kushites were called Melukha = Kasi and Kasi = Kush.
Lion, nobody is arguing on the etymology of Kush, just everything else you said!
quote:Would you discount the Falashas of Ethiopia from the Hebrew heritage when even the government of Israel recognizes that they are the oldest living branch of the Hebrew family.
Well, if Ethiopia is the Horn of Africa, and Falashas are Hebrew Ethiopians then clearly Hebrews had something to do with the Horn of Africa in both the ancient and this modern times.
Peace.
The Lion!
Hebrews didn't make contact with Ethiopians until much later in time, not in ancient times though. This contact was most likely through trade and not through migration or colonization as once thought, since genetic studies show that the Falasha have no haplotype markers from the Near-East. The Falashas carry E3b2 Y-lineages which are African in origin. This means that the Jewish faith the Falasha have was adopted and not inherited from Jews!
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
Drusila Houston and John G. Jackson are good sources but both not only use European authors and methology but are second hand sources. Both Charles Bonnet and David O'Connor are archaeologist that work first hand on excavations,and like most ancient history it is rather speculative. Since the ancient people of Cush left no written documents until the Meroitic period we have to use both archaeology and sources from surrounding people that did leave written texts such as the ancient Egyptians. From these texts David O'Connor have speculated from which the regions mentioned by the ancient Egyptians such as Yam,Irem and Wawat or others were located. The recent archaeological work by Charles Bonnet seems to pinpoint Yam the predessor of ancient Cush in the region of Kerma.
--------------------------------------------------meriotic could be read and understood in lower nubia and some of it in the rest of nubia,but most still can'y be understood.
YOU are right to say that some things in the book the wonderful ethiopians of the cushite empire are outdated.
one correction-meriotic was created in the late period of the napatan period before the meriotic period but it was not a cursive script yet and egyptian writing was uses in the napatan period and a little bit before the napatan period,some of it was used even during the kerma period but not for everyday records,and let's not forget picture writing used in early periods.picture writing was a form early writing but it was used,but we can't get much info from it like the later periods.
we know that kush extended to parts of ethiopia and had raids in that area and raided and conqured the blemmyes/beja in the sudan and upper modern day egyptian region but they never conquered all of ethiopia or even more so the rest of the horn of africa,but they did have raid and trade in those areas and that is different from overall conquest.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You made no "revelations" let alone "hurt" me with anything.![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
You believe wrong as usual, and dude, for the last time I am not 'Indo-Chinese'