It seems like quite a few people set Mesopotamia as the mother of civilization which to me is pretty off, since civils can develope independently. My English 4 teach this try (? we're reading about "middle eastern" literature, yes, Egypt included) is constantly saying mesopotamia is the begginig of ALL civilization and that got me thinking on the subject. (By the way the text noticeably omitting the Ubadians {I mean no mention at all} by nonmention
"In varying degrees these different peoples contributed to the development of a characteristic Mesopotamian civilization.
The first and influential of these invaders were the Sumerians."
It's probably just me, but they could have at least mentioned that there were Ubadians. That's the only time they come close, if you can call it that.
I know the statement is bogus, but, How true is it related to Egypt?
I know that Egypt aquired writing from Mesop., and I've heard or read that they got some of their early dynastic archetecture from there also, and metallurgy.
Other than it's peopling and culture, \was there any/what else was\ indigenous?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by What Box: I know that Egypt aquired writing from Mesop.....
Evergreen Writes:
What do you base this claim on?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by What Box: I know that Egypt aquired writing from Mesop., and I've heard or read that they got some of their early dynastic archetecture from there also, and metallurgy.
Better yet, where did you get any of the above notions from?!
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
What box babe I know you're trying to find the real answers to the origins and development of egypt, but I think you haven't been keeping up on the latest research. proto-Writing (proto-hieroglyphics) developed first in Egypt, around 3500 BC (see the Ashmolean jar)right on the edge of Nagada II, a century or so before it happened in Sumeria, the son can't give birth to the father so Meso influence in terms of writing is out of the question, because it is younger. And sumeria influencing early dynastic architecture? I don't think there was much that influence from Sumeria in terms of architecture in any time period, the serekh and palace facade symbols are first attested in lower nubia (3400 BC) and make their way north so they being Mesopotamian "imports" is out of the question as well, just like writing, if they diffused from sumeria why do they make themselves south to north instead of the other way around eh? Not to say that predynastic egyptians didn't trade with mesopotamia. They undoubtedley did, as evidenced by cylinder seals and some artistic influences (Gebel El Arak knife), but that doesn't make dynastic egypt any less indigenous or african. Hell ancient china's trademark religion, Buddhism, came from India, does that make ancient china an "Indian" civilization then? . Hell no! Anyways, hope that little rant answered your question...
P.S. And if your question is who developed civilization first? well, what's your definition of civilization? A nation-state, a bunch of peoplee living in big damn cities, a large polity, etc..?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
What Box, you also seem to have a faulty memory as practically all of the claims you made on "Sumerian influence" on Egypt was not only refuted many times on this forum but also a while back in this thread here which you posted in as well.
Posted by What Box (Member # 10819) on :
I didn't really pay attention to which was borrowed, just AE accomplishments, culture, color symbolism , racial affinity , and ties with The Book and some other high cultures like greece and rome. Also I haven't always been able to keep with this site.( witch is why sometimes my posts are in flurries)
Just learning History / (divided by) the whitewash, so I've been looking up other inner african histories, and some other interesting peoples and religions, and football, like rihgt now I'm still in my banquet outfit (9-1).
I am notoriously forgetful (ask my friends and fam) so I apologize, for when sometimes I bring stuff up again from what I read or heard from teachers or websites. History is NOT my best subject (I'm a math and science guy).
quote:And if your question is who developed civilization first? well, what's your definition of civilization? A nation-state, a bunch of peoplee living in big damn cities, a large polity, etc..?
people working together to improve living, towns and markets, some sort of education, in my opinian.
appolgies, I guess it was just that class(I correct alot of people on things, [even this teacher sometimes on what scripture says] but I give the teacher the respect of being the teacher.
quote:Better yet, where did you get any of the above notions from?!
quote:And sumeria influencing early dynastic architecture? I don't think there was much that influence from Sumeria in terms of architecture in any time period,
My teacher.
and a couple of websites when I searched: [url=http://www.crystalinks.com/sumeregypt.html]heres one with a variety of different claims (I haven't read it all).
Posted by What Box (Member # 10819) on :
Oh yeah, I just read a site this KWAK quote was from
quote: - Jaromir Malek, In the Shadow of the Pyramids
"...The civilization of the Jemdet Nasr period of Mesopotamia and the archaic period of Egypt are apparently roughly contemporary, but the interesting point *is that in Mesopotamia many of the features of civilization appear to have a background, whereas in Egypt they do not.* It is on this basis that many authorities consider that Egypt owes her civilization to the people of the Euphrates. There is no doubt that there is a connection, but whether direct or indirect we do not know."
it did seem eerily familiar.
*"is that in Mesopotamia many of the features of civilization appear to have a background, whereas in Egypt they do not."
what JM doesn't consider was, like their culture, they probably got their civilization indigenously to as Obby 18 so confidently says.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by What Box: *"is that in Mesopotamia many of the features of civilization appear to have a background, whereas in Egypt they do not."
A very old and outdated source, as Egyptology has since uncovered the 'missing' background to Pharoanic civilization in places like Nekhen (ancient Hierakonpolis) and Ta-Seti (ancient Qustul).
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
Djehuti, ditto . yep, The trick eurocentric (or rather, medicentric) egyptologists use is they tell the history of egyptian civilization like it was spontaneous, like all of the sudden in 3100 BC dynastic egypt popped up in the desert out of nowhere like a missle silo or some ****... they don't mention things like the red crown appearing in nagada I, centuries before it's appearance in lower egypt and the appearance of a kingdom, as well as hieroglyphs having predecessors in petroglyphs in upper egyptian desert .
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QUOTE]A very old and outdated source, as Egyptology has since uncovered the 'missing' background to Pharoanic civilization in places like Nekhen (ancient Hierakonpolis) and Ta-Seti (ancient Qustul).
Evergreen Writes:
I agree with your assessment Djehuti. A still more ancient source to these archaeological sites can be found in the early Holocene Sahara. The basis of the alphabet system used in 'Western Civilization' can be traced to the Saharan Rock Art which evolved into a glyphic system.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ And yet as What Box has noted, some of Western academia still clings on to the old outdated 'tradition' of Mesopotamian origins or "influences" for all early cultural advancements.
Posted by ARROW99 (Member # 11614) on :
People have kicked around the argument about whether egypt or Mesopotamia came first for as long as I can remember. I would not think they had much influence on each other, at least not in historic times. The migration out of central asia that settled in the central Sahara and later became the egyptians was much earlier than Mespotamia.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: People have kicked around the argument about whether egypt or Mesopotamia came first for as long as I can remember. I would not think they had much influence on each other, at least not in historic times. The migration out of central asia that settled in the central Sahara and later became the egyptians was much earlier than Mespotamia.
WHAT migration from central asia? That TOO is another example of Eurocentric nonsense. The Sahara in its last wet phase was populated by BLACK AFRICANS. All of the rock art of the time attests to this and the black mummies found in the Sahara attest to this. There is NO evidence of any migration to the Sahara from central asia in Neolithic times. HOWEVER, the coasts of Northern Africa HAVE seen migrations from Europe and Asia in historic times, but these migrations did not POPULATE the Sahara as it was ALREADY populated by Africans, and still is. People tend to forget that the coastal areas of North Africa are less than 5% of the total landmass of North Africa and the Sahara. The Sahara itself is LARGER than the continental U.S. Therefore, just because some migrations may have occurred along the coasts does NOT mean that these people had a SUBSTANTIAL impact on the populations of the Sahara proper. The biggest event that spurred population shifts in the Sahara was desertification. THAT is what caused the Saharan population, who were ORIGINALLY from East Africa, to move towards the Nile Valley.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]There is NO evidence of any migration to the Sahara from central asia in Neolithic times.....THAT is what caused the Saharan population, who were ORIGINALLY from East Africa, to move towards the Nile Valley.
Evergreen Writes:
You are absoluetly right Doug. New School Eurocentrists attack African agency on two fronts:
1) Turn East Africans into a seperate 'Race' via cranial form or genetic lineage
or
2) Posit wandering 'Caucasians' in Africa's distant past.
Both methods seek the same objective - to establish a White, Northern European basis/connection to Ancient Egyptian civilization.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: ...The migration out of central asia that settled in the central Sahara and later became the egyptians was much earlier than Mespotamia.
So, you mean to say that not only did people from Central Asia settle the Sahara, but they did so before they settled Mesopotamia?!! ROTFLMAO
Strange, but Hore also made similar ridiculous claims of 'caucasoids' from Asia settling the Sahara. Coincidence? Posted by What Box (Member # 10819) on :
Hey guess what guys?!
today she directed us to paqe two to look at a picture (the bust of) of queen Nefertiti:
right before before continuing "Interracial marriage was common in ancient times or the middle east or something like that"
But I'm quiet (most of the time) for a reason.
It's extremely fun squashing bogus claims and giving insight, but I figure more info just has to openly get out to the mainstreem.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Another question for Arrow, is exactly why did these prehistoric Central Asians have to migrate all the way into the hot African Central Sahara and survive long enough to then migrate back east a few miles to the Nile to start civilization, while there was virtually no civilization in Central Asia until much later on?? LOL Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: You are absoluetly right Doug. New School Eurocentrists attack African agency on two fronts:
1) Turn East Africans into a seperate 'Race' via cranial form or genetic lineage.
^ Hence the fallacy of racial thinking in Africanist discourse.
quote:or
2) Posit wandering 'Caucasians' in Africa's distant past.
Hence the folly of Hamites, EurAfricans, Mediterraean-race and other waundering Euro race myths.
quote:Both methods seek the same objective - to establish a White, Northern European basis/connection to Ancient Egyptian civilization.
^ Egyptology is a largely pan-European business.
Maintaining some desparate delusion of European agency in Europe keeps this business thriving.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^You mean European agency in Africa, Rasol? LOL
Which is why again I say Eurocentrism has entered the zone of lunacy and mental retardation.
And Arrows claims of "Central Asians" [Kacasoids?] wandering all the way into the Central Sahara is par exemplar of that! LOL
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
{I mean no mention at all} by nonmention![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
What Box, you also seem to have a faulty memory as practically all of the claims you made on "Sumerian influence" on Egypt was not only refuted many times on this forum but also a while back in this thread here which you posted in as well.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
, racial affinity ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. yep, The trick eurocentric (or rather, medicentric) egyptologists use is they tell the history of egyptian civilization like it was spontaneous, like all of the sudden in 3100 BC dynastic egypt popped up in the desert out of nowhere like a missle silo or some ****... they don't mention things like the red crown appearing in nagada I, centuries before it's appearance in lower egypt and the appearance of a kingdom, as well as hieroglyphs having predecessors in petroglyphs in upper egyptian desert 