posted
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Evergreen Writes:
I have never seen peer-reviewed limb-length proportion studies on EBA Palestinians.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Evergreen Writes:
I have never seen peer-reviewed limb-length proportion studies on EBA Palestinians.
At this point during the predynastic period, I wouldn't expect Palestinians to be tropically adapted in limb proportions.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the first post about the early Lower Egyptians, from the same source:
"In a database of human cranial variation worldwide(CRANID) based on standardized sets of measurements, the population that is used to characterize ancient Egypt lies firmly within a Europe/Mediterranean bloc. The original source is the largest series of skulls from Egypt(1500, collected by Petrie in 1907 from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza and dating from the 26th to 30th dynasties. Some of the skulls bear weapon injuries. The cultural material found with them is wholly Egyptian, but was small in quantity. Conceivably, the community was immigrant, perhaps mercenaries and their families. Or it could be that, by this period, northern Egyptians, so long exposed to population mixing, were tending towards a greater similarity with European populations than had been the case earlier. If, on the other hand, CRANID had used one of the Elephantine populations of the same period, the geographic association would be much more with African groups to the south. It is dangerous to take one set of skeletons and use them to characterize the population of the whole of Egypt."
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Evergreen Writes:
I have never seen peer-reviewed limb-length proportion studies on EBA Palestinians.
At this point during the predynastic period, I wouldn't expect Palestinians to be tropically adapted in limb proportions.
Evergreen Writes:
Why? And what does this tell us about the Ancient Israelites?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Evergreen Writes:
I have never seen peer-reviewed limb-length proportion studies on EBA Palestinians.
At this point during the predynastic period, I wouldn't expect Palestinians to be tropically adapted in limb proportions.
Evergreen Writes:
Why? And what does this tell us about the Ancient Israelites?
And what of the ancient Israelites? That there is no close affinity between predynastic Lower Egyptians and Palestinians of the same period is no shocker, now if the Mesolithic skeletons showed no affinity[the Natufians] maybe we could call this into question. the crania in question are from a much later period.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: [QUOTE]And what of the ancient Israelites?
Evergreen Writes:
Some have claimed that the Ancient Israelites were primarily a Black people. Others have claimed this belief to be psuedo-scientific. Data on Bronze Age Palestinians may be usefull in assessing this claim.
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: [QUOTE]....there is no close affinity between predynastic Lower Egyptians and Palestinians of the same period....
Evergreen Writes:
Again, I have seen no study that has assessed the affinities of EBA Palestinians. If you are aware of such a study please provide the source?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Some have claimed that the Ancient Israelites were primarily a Black people. Others have claimed this belief to be psuedo-scientific. Data on Bronze Age Palestinians may be usefull in assessing this claim.
And I've seen no definitive proof for this claim. Most of those who make the claim use the Bible as a basis[normally focusing on the "Hamitic line"], but no studies based on bioanthropology
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than the Lachish ossuary are there any verifiable Israelite remains to analyze? Do you expect the ossuary to conflict with the images Sennacherib made of the conquest of Lachish and its leadership bowing down to him.
And it is sure is amazing as all hell that as much as I post about Lachish, including the bas-reliefs, that GOOGLE consistently misses caching it. If I can dig it out again I'll for sure personally cache it.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Other than the Lachish ossuary are there any verifiable Israelite remains to analyze? Do you expect the ossuary to conflict with the images Sennacherib made of the conquest of Lachish and its leadership bowing down to him.
1. Outside of the the Lachish remains I am unaware of any verifiable Israelite remains. This is one reason we see the possible proliferation of psuedo-science regarding this culture. Turbaned Israelities of Harlem ,etc.
2. Given Egypto-Kushite suzeraintry of this region since the 19th Dyansty one would expect to find Egypto-Kushites stationed in this region. This is very different from the claim that the Ancient Israelites were primarily Black.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bioarchaeological Analysis of Cultural Transition in the Southern Levant Using Dental Nonmetric Traits
Ullinger et al.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 128:466–476 (2005)
"The proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg et al., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht. Dothan, however, may have had slightly more Egyptian genetic influence than Lachish. The location of Dothan along a major international highway between Egypt and Mesopotamia(as well as the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia) during the Late Bronze Age may shed light on this finding (Mullins, 2002)."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see what the Hebrew-Israelites of Harlem and elsewhere (or the white shirt and black tie Mormons) of the 20th century have to do with a two thousand six hundred year old boneyard in Judah.
Lachish was Judah's second major city. It and its pictured bearded leaders were not beardless Egypto-Kushites(???) stationed anywhere.
You may not want the ancient Judahites to be a black people but your wishes have no effect on them. Neither the literature of the Judahites or their bones or their conquerors depictions nor on the iconography or literature of their later Roman conquerors.
Why don't you have a problem with penguin dressing Jews of Monsey? Whites claiming Israelite ancestry is acceptable to you whereas blacks claiming Israelite ancestry isn't palatable. Who taught you how to think like that and to use anachronistic extrapolation?
----
OK. I see where after making the false wishful statement that Lachish's citizens were billeted Nile Valley troops that you posted in contradiction to yourself. Guess you'll believe it now that yous see Simon says it. After all it's unreliable if a black man sez it. It can only be believed if Simon says.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Lachish was Judah's second major city. It and its pictured bearded leaders were not beardless Egypto-Kushites(???) stationed anywhere.
Evergreen Writes:
- Beards on Assyrian captives does not make them Israelites. Sadam Hussein was bearded when the Americans captured him as well. In addition, even **if** these images represented ancient Israelites instead of Egyptians/Kushites stationed in Israel it in no way implies that all or even most ancient Israelites were Black.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be nice to find out if the info from the first post represents peer reviewed research.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OK. I see where after making the false wishful statement that Lachish's citizens were billeted Nile Valley troops that you posted in contradiction to yourself. Guess you'll believe it now that yous see Simon says it. After all it's unreliable if a black man sez it. It can only be believed if Simon says.
Evergreen Writes:
Now Cipher! My mind is free. I deal with and treat my people on the basis of equality, not on the basis of some psuedo-scientific "chosen/select people" school of thought. This is grafted science. Windsor was still worshiping the golden-calf in the desert. He didn't make it into the promissed land Elijah messaged.
The archaeology of the EBA southern Levant is indicative of a SW Asian sphere of influence not a Sahelian/Sudanese experence as we see in proto-dynastic Egypt.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are not Assyrian captives. They are Judahites. Their beards belie your claim to their being "Egypto-Kushite"(???)
It's not a matter of even if. The scenes are of Sennacherib's conquest of Lachish and keep your wishing they remain contemporaneous images of Judahites by their conquerors.
Oh, yeah. Of course they're not black. Only the extreme so-called hideous negro of Eurocentric anthropology is black. That's why in your world even after convincing yourself they were "Egypto- Kushites"(???) they still aren't black because said "Egypto-Kushites"(???) aren't black either.
Amazing how those who have it in for Jews allow their illness to blindside them against their other dearly held tenets. See you dislexic logic:
P1 - Egypto-Kushites are black. P1 - But Judahites can't be black. P2 - Lachish's phenotype is due to them being Egypto-Kushites. C - Yet even if they're Egypto-Kushites they're still not black.
Duh-uh???
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Lachish was Judah's second major city. It and its pictured bearded leaders were not beardless Egypto-Kushites(???) stationed anywhere.
Evergreen Writes:
- Beards on Assyrian captives does not make them Israelites. Sadam Hussein was bearded when the Americans captured him as well. In addition, even **if** these images represented ancient Israelites instead of Egyptians/Kushites stationed in Israel it in no way implies that all or even most ancient Israelites were Black.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calm down and quit spouting ideology. A cracked ideology that got you into this mess to start with.
I'm dealig with primary 7th century BCE documentation and osteo remains and and 1st century CE primary documents.
You on the other hand are talking 20 the century BA religions.
You can't make the bas-reliefs, the ossuary, or the Roman records go away by conjuring up 20th century willow the wisps. Nor has anyone but you tried to make pre-dynastic "Sahelian/Sudanese" (???)out of NK era Judahites.
You've clearly spelled out the bias that fuels you. You imagine yourself some champion of the people tilting the windmill of their displaced religosity.
That's not what it's about. It's about assessing the available material as unbiasedly as possible.
Quit while you're ahead lest your exposed hatred come to consume you.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OK. I see where after making the false wishful statement that Lachish's citizens were billeted Nile Valley troops that you posted in contradiction to yourself. Guess you'll believe it now that yous see Simon says it. After all it's unreliable if a black man sez it. It can only be believed if Simon says.
Evergreen Writes:
Now Cipher! My mind is free. I deal with and treat my people on the basis of equality, not on the basis of some psuedo-scientific "chosen/select people" school of thought. This is grafted science. Windsor was still worshiping the golden-calf in the desert. He didn't make it into the promissed land Elijah messaged.
The archaeology of the EBA southern Levant is indicative of a SW Asian sphere of influence not a Sahelian/Sudanese experence as we see in proto-dynastic Egypt.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: They are not Assyrian captives. They are Judahites. Their beards belie your claim to their being "Egypto-Kushite"(???)
Evergreen Writes:
Having a beard and living in Judahian territory does not make one a Judahian anymore than living in Crown Heights and having a beard make one a Jew. More psuedo-science.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course they're not black. Only the extreme so-called hideous negro of Eurocentric anthropology is black. That's why in your world even after convincing yourself they were "Egypto- Kushites"(???) they still aren't black because said "Egypto-Kushites"(???) aren't black either."
Evergreen Writes:
I never said these images did not represent Black people. No issue with them being Black. The point is these images do NOT provide evidence that the Ancient Israelites were primarily Black. This is my point.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Amazing how those who have it in for Jews allow their illness to blindside them against their other dearly held tenets.
Evergreen Writes:
I don't have anything against the modern Jewish people of the ancient Eurasian people of Judah and Israel. What I am against is psuedo-science pretending to be science.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
The African Origin of Civilization By Cheikh Anta Diop
"After many ups and downs, the Canaanites and the WHITE TRIBES, SYMBOLIZED BY ABRAHAM AND HIS DESCENDENTS (Isaac's lineage), blended to become in time the Jewish people of today"
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I'm dealig with primary 7th century BCE documentation and osteo remains ....
Evergreen Writes:
Please provide your peer-reviewed source that claims that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but living in Crown Heights does make one a Brooklynite.
Indeed, you do sling some smoky pseudo-science that can't dissipate the solid bas-reliefs and bones.
Being one of the leaders of Lachish at the time Sennacherib conquered makes one a Judahite. Again, and you can't sidestep your major blunder, the beards make you a wrong when you try to make "Egypto-Kushites"(???) out of the Judahites of Lachish.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: They are not Assyrian captives. They are Judahites. Their beards belie your claim to their being "Egypto-Kushite"(???)
Evergreen Writes:
Having a beard and living in Judahian territory does not make one a Judahian anymore than living in Crown Heights and having a beard make one a Jew. More psuedo-science.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Indeed, you do sling some smoky pseudo-science that can't dissipate the solid bas-reliefs and bones.
Evergreen Writes:
Again, I ask....where can I find the peer-reviewed source that supports you bizzare claim that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people? At least Marc Washington can put up half a fight with his version of psuedo-science. All you dwell on is beards.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: That's it back pedal, save face.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: I never said these images did not represent Black people. No issue with them being Black.
Evergreen Writes:
Why would I need to back pedal when I never made the claim that these images were not of Black people? Is this the best you can do? Instead of side-tracking, answer my direct question:
Where can I find the peer-reviewed source that supports you bizzare claim that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people?
You can fool those 17 year-old kids impressed by your turban and sandals as they get off the subway, but you can't fool me!
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still can't over how silly it was to try to make beardless "Egypto-Kushites" out of bearded Lachish Judahites and then turn around and say that your "Egypto-Kushites" weren't black. Pseudo-science par excellence and the very primer of illogical progression.
I strongly suggest you avail yourself of the material I've posted the forum supporting that the southern Levantine populations were black. They are plethora. You can start with the links I gave above in this thread which, obviously, you've ignored.
My claim is that the Judahites of Lachish were black. You tried but failed to assail that fact.
I'm not a weasel chasing monkey. You can use the internal search engine to complete your task of re-reading all the contemporaneous and self acclaimed colour of the Judahites in sources ranging from 7th century BCE to 4th century CE, from the Lachish material, the Andromeda mythos, Tacitus, the Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer, etc.
You on the otherhand have presented absolutely nothing from anywhere about the colour affiliations of either Judahites, Israelites, Hebrews, or Semites.
Until you do (and you won't find anything primary other than what I've put up -- including the bas-relief supposedly depicting Jehu of Israel which is not a black phenotype) I bid you adieu.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: My claim is that the Judahites of Lachish were black.
Evergreen Writes:
Then I appologize, we are arguing two different things. You seem to be claimimg that some Judahites at Lachish were Black. I can accept that **SOME** of the people in this one town were Black.
I am stating that there is no evidence that the people of Israel and Judah (more than just Lachish) were primarily a Black people. Nor is there any evidence that most of the people in the one city of Lacish were Black. A few images of Assyrian captives with beards have some of our people coming up with far-fetched tales of the lost-tribes of Israel in Cameroon and Missisippi.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're making an ass out of your assumption of what clothes I wear and again expose your ass and the hatred that fuels and discolors any attempted analysis you try to make of the primary evidences. No objectivity. We see you're an subjective self-admitted hater of the Black American group the Hebrew-Israelites. What happened? Did one of them steal your woman? Personally I don't give a damn one way or another about the Hebrew Israelite thing. Try something else if you want to bait me because you don't know anything about ancient Israel and Judea or what opinions their contemporaries held about them or the southern Levant in general.
Anyway, attacking ethnicities is very petty and makes you little more than a racialist disguising himself as a progressive.
Again I advise you to quit while you're ahead lest your exposed hatred come to consume you even more than it has since I first counseled you (you've shown you have nothing against the white brooklynites choice of assumed spirituality yet you hate the black Harlemites in their decided religiosity. Why do Black Americans hate each other over the silliest things like the right of individual self-determinination in religious identity?).
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: That's it back pedal, save face.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: I never said these images did not represent Black people. No issue with them being Black.
Evergreen Writes:
Why would I need to back pedal when I never made the claim that these images were not of Black people? Is this the best you can do? Instead of side-tracking, answer my direct question:
Where can I find the peer-reviewed source that supports you bizzare claim that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people?
You can fool those 17 year-old kids impressed by your turban and sandals as they get off the subway, but you can't fool me!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evergreen, I am not of your people. You are utterly consumed in your hatred or wish to control Black Americans their choice in religious identity. I feel sorry for you, really I do. You have devovlved from the person who was a lofty Thought and whose methodology and objectvity I so admired into a rigid tree who's recently displayed very thinly veiled disturbing racialist ideology. I hope you get some quality relax time and a ticket to the tropics to just loll around and enjoy and just let your mind go.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Try something else if you want to bait me because you don't know anything about ancient Israel and Judea or what opinions their contemporaries held about them or the southern Levant in general.
Evergreen Writes:
Bottom line, you have **FAILED** to provide any evidence what so ever that the people of ancient Judah or Israel were primarily a Black people. The reason you have failed to provide this data is because it is non-existant.
There is a history of REAL Black people in the southern Levant within the holocene and this is with the Natufian people. These Blacks were absorbed by the indigenous Eurasian populations of the region. The southern Levant was inhabitated primarily by Eurasian people by the Late Bronze Age when Israel and Judah formed as kingdoms.
Misinterpreting a few isolated decontextualized images does not prove a primary Black presence in the region during the period in question. Analysis of linguistics (Semitic is spoken by people of primarily Eurasian background except in Ethiopia), dna (Eurasian genes predominate in modern Palestine and among modern Jews), biological anthropology (see data above on dental analysis of these people) and the historical record indicate that since the Natufian phase we have seen no major peopling of the southern Levant from tropical Africa.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Evergreen, I am not of your people. You are utterly consumed in your hatred or wish to control Black Americans their choice in religious identity. I feel sorry for you, really I do. You have devovlved from the person who was a lofty Thought and whose methodology and objectvity I so admired into a rigid tree who's recently displayed very thinly veiled disturbing racialist ideology. I hope you get some quality relax time and a ticket to the tropics to just loll around and enjoy and just let your mind go.
Evergreen Writes:
Boo-hoo. Quite crying and man-up.
I reiterate:
Please provide your peer-reviewed source that claims that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people.
Save the drama-queen tactics. I have no sympathy for psuedo-science.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
"The brachycephalic yellow races, and the Semites (Arabs or Jews) appear only within the confines of the Mesolithic Period, probably following great migratory currents and the cross-breeding which followed it."
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Other than the Lachish ossuary are there any verifiable Israelite remains to analyze? Do you expect the ossuary to conflict with the images Sennacherib made of the conquest of Lachish and its leadership bowing down to him.
1. Outside of the the Lachish remains I am unaware of any verifiable Israelite remains. This is one reason we see the possible proliferation of psuedo-science regarding this culture. Turbaned Israelities of Harlem ,etc.
2. Given Egypto-Kushite suzeraintry of this region since the 19th Dyansty one would expect to find Egypto-Kushites stationed in this region. This is very different from the claim that the Ancient Israelites were primarily Black.
Sure...
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I fail to see what the Hebrew-Israelites of Harlem and elsewhere (or the white shirt and black tie Mormons) of the 20th century have to do with a two thousand six hundred year old boneyard in Judah.
Lachish was Judah's second major city. It and its pictured bearded leaders were not beardless Egypto-Kushites(???) stationed anywhere.
You may not want the ancient Judahites to be a black people but your wishes have no effect on them. Neither the literature of the Judahites or their bones or their conquerors depictions nor on the iconography or literature of their later Roman conquerors.
Why don't you have a problem with penguin dressing Jews of Monsey? Whites claiming Israelite ancestry is acceptable to you whereas blacks claiming Israelite ancestry isn't palatable. Who taught you how to think like that and to use anachronistic extrapolation?
----
OK. I see where after making the false wishful statement that Lachish's citizens were billeted Nile Valley troops that you posted in contradiction to yourself. Guess you'll believe it now that yous see Simon says it. After all it's unreliable if a black man sez it. It can only be believed if Simon says.
quote:Calm down and quit spouting ideology. A cracked ideology that got you into this mess to start wit
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: And what does this tell us about the Ancient Israelites?
It tells us that the Ancient Egyptians and so-called "Israelites" had been genetically separated for a substantial period of time during the period discussed here, and that the Egyptians showed an African tendency not found (or at least much less significant) in southern Levant peoples. Thus, sorting the Israelites or other southern Levant populations into a "black African" category alongside the Egyptians is not justified. Now as for the limb ratios of Levant peoples, I would imagine that they (as well as the ratios of other non-black Mediterranean peoples like Middle Easterners and Southern Europeans) were intermediate between black Africans and northern Europeans. They were, after all, living in a subtropical (as opposed to tropical or temperate) zone.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Other than the Lachish ossuary are there any verifiable Israelite remains to analyze? Do you expect the ossuary to conflict with the images Sennacherib made of the conquest of Lachish and its leadership bowing down to him.
And it is sure is amazing as all hell that as much as I post about Lachish, including the bas-reliefs, that GOOGLE consistently misses caching it. If I can dig it out again I'll for sure personally cache it.
Those "reliefs" are not painted. Just as there are black people with straight hair, so are there non-black people with curly hair. There is no race with a monopoly on a certain hair texture.
Now as for the Israelites' skin color, I will refer you to the old Biblical story of Noah's sons and their descendents. The Hebrews traced their ancestry to Shem, the dusky race. Ham was the progenitor of peoples we would call "black" today. Claiming the Israelites were black goes against how they described their own skin color---that is, dusky and tanned.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Other than the Lachish ossuary are there any verifiable Israelite remains to analyze? Do you expect the ossuary to conflict with the images Sennacherib made of the conquest of Lachish and its leadership bowing down to him.
1. Outside of the the Lachish remains I am unaware of any verifiable Israelite remains. This is one reason we see the possible proliferation of psuedo-science regarding this culture. Turbaned Israelities of Harlem ,etc.
2. Given Egypto-Kushite suzeraintry of this region since the 19th Dyansty one would expect to find Egypto-Kushites stationed in this region. This is very different from the claim that the Ancient Israelites were primarily Black.
Sure...
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I fail to see what the Hebrew-Israelites of Harlem and elsewhere (or the white shirt and black tie Mormons) of the 20th century have to do with a two thousand six hundred year old boneyard in Judah.
Lachish was Judah's second major city. It and its pictured bearded leaders were not beardless Egypto-Kushites(???) stationed anywhere.
You may not want the ancient Judahites to be a black people but your wishes have no effect on them. Neither the literature of the Judahites or their bones or their conquerors depictions nor on the iconography or literature of their later Roman conquerors.
Why don't you have a problem with penguin dressing Jews of Monsey? Whites claiming Israelite ancestry is acceptable to you whereas blacks claiming Israelite ancestry isn't palatable. Who taught you how to think like that and to use anachronistic extrapolation?
----
OK. I see where after making the false wishful statement that Lachish's citizens were billeted Nile Valley troops that you posted in contradiction to yourself. Guess you'll believe it now that yous see Simon says it. After all it's unreliable if a black man sez it. It can only be believed if Simon says.
quote:Calm down and quit spouting ideology. A cracked ideology that got you into this mess to start wit
^^^^^Co-sign.
Evergreen Writes:
Alive-(What Box), all "clowning" aside the point is there is a real Black history we find in Ancient Egypt. Eurocentrists have a vested interest in seperating Black people from their historic past in North Africa. The White Power Structure is based upon the false teaching that White people founded what we call civilization. It is obvious that what we call civilization is based and rooted in North Africa. North Africa was originally inhabited by Black people at the time so-called civilized society began. Hence they are forced to create a fictious history of ancient White North Africans. Black people have responded with the truth in our history. But they try and negate this response by making our argument seem fringe and psuedo-scientific. Hence, we have a duty to expose the psuedo-scientists in our community who are like Trojan Horses, destroying our credibility from within. This goes for blatant psuedo-scientists like Marc Washington or psuedo-scientists such as alTakruri who garb their psuedo-science in anthropological rhetoric.
The Blackness of the late bronze age Levant is not proven by a few images of miscontextualized bearded Assyrian images.
1. Those images may be Egyptians or Kushities stationed in Lachish.
2. Even if these images were of Judahians, this in no way implies that these images are reflective of the entire population of Judah and Israel as a whole. They may be images of men who were BOTH Egyptian/Kushite and Judahian. We know that Egypt/Kush governed this region, hence it is possible that Egyptian/Kushites married into the Judahian elite. The average Judahian would look no more like this elite image than the average Egyptian looked like the light-skinned Egyptian elite sons of SW Asian women and Africa men in the New Kingdom paintings.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Interesting revelation, and it isn’t even that new. How early are the specimens form Palestine and Byblos regions, according to the author?
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Why? And what does this tell us about the Ancient Israelites?
And what of the ancient Israelites? That there is no close affinity between predynastic Lower Egyptians and Palestinians of the same period is no shocker, now if the Mesolithic skeletons showed no affinity[the Natufians] maybe we could call this into question. the crania in question are from a much later period.
The first one comes across the term 'Yisrael' - which becomes 'Israel' - in archaeology, is back in the 13th century B.C., and interestingly in Egypt. To that extent, "ancient Israelites" are irrelevant to Predyanstic-age Egyptian specimens and Levantine ones.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
And what of the ancient Israelites?
Evergreen Writes:
Some have claimed that the Ancient Israelites were primarily a Black people. Others have claimed this belief to be psuedo-scientific. Data on Bronze Age Palestinians may be usefull in assessing this claim.
Don’t know if this would make ancient Israelites "black", but certainly the people who became so-called, where migrants from the Nile Valley who would move into the Levant, and would eventually lay the foundation of Israel as a polity, with the assistance and participation of the pre-existing inhabitants of the region. The idea that ancient Israelites comprised of immigrants from the Nile Valley, is not something I would consider to be pseudo-science; but then, your concern is of another issue, which is whether ancient Isrealites were “primarily a Black people”. That would depend on whether you see ancient Egyptian society of the 15th century- 14th century BC as being of “primarily Black people”, and whether the same would apply to the in situ Levantines, with whom the Nile Valley migrants co-habited in the Levant.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Bioarchaeological Analysis of Cultural Transition in the Southern Levant Using Dental Nonmetric Traits
Ullinger et al.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 128:466–476 (2005)
"The proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg et al., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht..."
Risdon may have had his shortcomings, but this has nothing to do with the deduction that gene flow from the Nile Valley may in part explain the pattern of the diversity seen in the Lachish specimens.
quote:
"...Dothan, however, may have had slightly more Egyptian genetic influence than Lachish. The location of Dothan along a major international highway between Egypt and Mesopotamia(as well as the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia) during the Late Bronze Age may shed light on this finding (Mullins, 2002)."
The author's contradiction comes across in this piece. First, he/she says, "The proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported, only to then suggest that the Nile Valley influence does in fact occur, by saying, "Dothan, however, may have had slightly more Egyptian genetic influence than Lachish".
Moreover, the Lachish crania were obviously recognized as being quite heterogeneous, to the extent that it could not be deemed a single inbreeding population. So, it will be interesting to see how even the dental traits could be deemed the same across such a heterogeneous group.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Bioarchaeological Analysis of Cultural Transition in the Southern Levant Using Dental Nonmetric Traits
Ullinger et al.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 128:466–476 (2005)
"The proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg et al., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht..."
Risdon may have had his shortcomings, but this has nothing to do with the deduction that gene flow from the Nile Valley may in part explain the pattern of the diversity seen in the Lachish specimens.
Speaking of Risdon's shortcoming, it would be this:
Risdon’s work (1939) is the only study that examines the Lachish series as its major focus. Using metric variables in the now credited Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.) (Fisher, 1939; Seltzer, 1937; Howells, 1973), he concludes that the Lachish series represents Upper Egyptians, who were residents in Lower Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty and who immigrated to Lachish during that time (between 1567 and 1320 BC), remaining endogamous.
Nothing about the Lachish crania in question, is suggestive of a single inbreeding population or that it was *entirely* made up of migrants from the Nile Valley. *If* this is specifically what Ullinger et al. were rejecting, and NOT the idea of gene flow from the Nile Valley, then I stand corrected about their contradictory assertions. It seems from that piece though, that they were trying to downplay the prospect of gene flow from the Nile Valley in however way they could - e.g. resorting to the trivial issue of which group might have gotten more Egyptian influence over whom. Risdon would however, be correct in the gene flow aspect of his assessment.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
....ancient Israelites comprised of immigrants from the Nile Valley ...
Evergreen Writes:
1. What is your source for this claim?
Much of claims about Israelite history comes from Biblical accounts. And so, this history must use Biblical accounts and try to reconcile them with archaeological finds. Bio-anthropology may also come in handy.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
2. Where did they migrate from in the Nile Valley?
3. When did they enter the Nile Valley and from where?
4. When did they migrate out of the Nile Valley and into the Delta of Egypt?
5. When did they migrate out of Egypt?
From the Merneptah Stele, courtesy of James P. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures vol. 2 (1958), we have:
The princes are prostrate, saying: “Mercy!” No one raises his head among the Nine Bows. Desolation is for Tehenu; Hatti is pacified; Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; Hurru is become a widow for Egypt! All lands together, they are pacified; Everyone who was restless, he had been bound.
President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York Gary Greenberg’s take on this, is as follows:
“A curious feature of this inscription is that Israel is the only name with a grammatical determinative signifying people instead of land. To almost all biblical scholars the grammar suggests that here we have a picture of ancient Israel in its post-Exodus, pre-Conquest stage. This discovery caused quite a shock to the academic world of 1896, the year in which the monument was discovered. At that time most biblical and Egyptological scholars identified Merneptah as the pharaoh of the Exodus. On this new evidence historians had to date the even to an earlier time…
The inscription does not tell us what language Israel spoke, but it does imply that Israel, despite its lack of identification with a specific territory, stood as a powerful military force. The text places it among several major political entities. (Hatti was the Hittite Kingdom; Hurru was the Hurrian kingdom; Ashkelon and Gezer were two of the most substantial city-states in Canaan.) The context suggests that it wouldn’t have been listed if it hadn’t been thought worthy of mention as a defeated force. Its presence as a large powerful force without a territory of its own suggests that this Israel came from somewhere else.
It could not have arrived there much earlier than the middle of the reign of Ramesses II, otherwise it would likely have been identified with the territory where it was found. This suggests it arrived within forty years of the death of Horemheb, a time frame that would be consistent with both the biblical claim that Israel entered Canaan about forty years after the Exodus and the Atenist theory that the Exodus occurred shortly after the death of Horemheb.
It is also interesting that the very first mention of the name Israel occurs in Egyptian writing; it does not appear again in the historical record for almost four hundred years afterward.…
…Patriarchal history draws upon Egyptian mythology. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their key family members correspond to a family of popular Egyptian deities associated with the Egyptian god Osiris. Most of the events depicted in the patriarchal accounts come directly from Egyptian literary sources and themes, and I will examine the precise mythological incidents that gave rise to the biblical sources. If this evidence is as obvious as I suggest, the reader may well be tempted to ask why biblical scholars and Egyptologists failed to uncover these connections. There are a number of reasons for such oversights.
When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the people brought with them the many stories about Egyptian gods and goddesses, stories they believed to be true histories of their country. But because the Israelites were militantly monotheistic, with a strong prejudice against the god Osiris, the deities were transformed into human ancestors. As with any immigrant group, after centuries of immersion in new cultures and surroundings, the settlers adopted the traditions and beliefs of their new neighbors, often integrating their old beliefs with the newly learned traditions. And as the biblical prophets make clear, over and over, Canaanite culture exerted a mighty force over the Israelites.
The Egyptian deities, already transformed from gods to heroic human ancestors, came to look less and less like Egyptians and more and more like Canaanites. Atenist religious views melded with local traditions. Over the centuries numerous political and religious feuds developed, and old stories were retold in order to favor one group over another. Then came conquest and destruction. Most of Israel disappeared from history after the Assyrian conquests. Those Israelites remaining were captured by Babylon and force-fed Babylonian culture and history. Shortly thereafter, the Hebrews were liberated from Babylon by the Persians, and close culture contact between the two nations existed.
In the morass of conflict, Israel lost touch with its Egyptian roots. By the time modern scholars came to review its history, the long religiously orthodox image of Israel as firmly rooted among Semitic tribes wandering in Canaan and Mesopotamia was fixed in the Western mind. Biblical scholars saw no need to apply to Egypt the scholarly intensity of research reserved for the Semitic world. Israel was Canaanite. Biblical history was assumed true, at least in its outline. That the biblical scribes and redactors could have committed such a major error in location never entered the biblical mind.” - Greenberg, The African Origins of the Jewish People, 1996
BTW Gary Greenberg, based on status of evidence at the time of his writing this piece back in the mid-90s, doesn't believe that the original Israelite immigrants from Kemet spoke a Semitic language, but believes this came about later on, when they co-habited with the in situ populations of the Levant. It must be noted though, we know from recent discovery, specifically in 1998, "proto-Sinaitic" or "proto-Canaanite" type scriptures were found in Upper Egypt, showing that it was developed from hieroglyphics. Of course, this doesn't necessarily prove that Semitic speaking folks developed it, but that people who used it in Egypt, took it with them to the Levant.
1) Where do you assume the "ancient Israelites" came from, if not ultimately formed by immigrants from the Nile Valley who cohabited with in situ Levantine inhabitants, by the 13th century B.C.?
2)When did they get there?
3)What evidence do you have about their existence that suggests that they lived as disparate but contemporaneous society with the predynastic and/or 1st Dynastic Egyptians?
Will do for now, pending your responses.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Now, questions for you
Evergreen Writes:
I will answer your questions when you give me a straight forward answer to mine. Mystery, psuedo-science and myth (the Bible) does not count.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Risdon’s work (1939) is the only study that examines the Lachish series as its major focus. Using metric variables in the now credited Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.)
Evergreen Writes:
I assume you meant to say the DISCREDITED Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.). I am not sure what value a discredited study brings to this question?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
I will answer your questions when you give me a straight forward answer to mine.
Have you not read my responses? Tell me why they are not straight.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Mystery, psuedo-science and myth (the Bible) does not count.
I agree. Perhaps you can point out which aspects of my post above are pseudo-science and why, and then provide your material to the contrary.
Please, do answer my questions; it is what helps nurture a civil discourse. You don't have to wait, as answers to your questions in no way relieve you from your obligation to answer the questions asked of you. Doing so, would be a copout.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
[QUOTE]Risdon’s work (1939) is the only study that examines the Lachish series as its major focus. Using metric variables in the now credited Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.)
Evergreen Writes:
I assume you meant to say the DISCREDITED Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.). I am not sure what value a discredited study brings to this question?
Thanks for the correction of the typo; I hand-copied the piece from a pdf file. If you don't know why the piece was posted, which has nothing to do with what you just cited, then you must not have read the post you took it from. Can't help you, if that's the case.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Thanks for the correction of the typo; I hand-copied the piece from a pdf file. If you don't know why the piece was posted, which has nothing to do with what you just cited, then you must not have read the post you took it from. Can't help you, if that's the case.
Evergreen Writes:
You are correct. I do not know why this discredited study is still being circulated. You cannot help me with this type of source material.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Is there **ANYONE** who can provide crisp and concise proof that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people? No cut and pastes, no long-winded diatribes, no Biblical quotes, no out of date racial studies, just the facts....please.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the correction of the typo; I hand-copied the piece from a pdf file. If you don't know why the piece was posted, which has nothing to do with what you just cited, then you must not have read the post you took it from. Can't help you, if that's the case.
Evergreen Writes:
You are correct. I do not know why this discredited study is still being circulated. You cannot help me with this type of source material.
I'm wondering if you were fully conscious when you wrote this response, but man, I don't have the slightest clue what it has to do with what you're citing.
Firstly, the citation isn't from Risdon's work; it is Keita's study, assessing his predecessors on the subject.
Secondly, Keita's assessment hasn't been descredited.
Thirdly, as I was telling you in what you just cited, you don't seem to be taking the Keita extract for what it was cited, but rather, deriving some irrelevant yet-to-be-discern significance from the tiny piece of the greater extract, which was not the emphasis of the citation to begin with.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is there **ANYONE** who can provide crisp and concise proof that the people of ancient Judah and Israel were primarily a Black people? No cut and pastes, no long-winded diatribes, no Biblical quotes, no out of date racial studies, just the facts....please.
I understand your frustration; it is easier to place blame elsewhere, when the fault lies on the level of zeal and effort you put into reading what you've been provided. Your copout plea is duly noted.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic