Subject: Re: Caucasian on the Columbia c7300 BCE
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter Van Rossum)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 13:55:25 GMT
In article <326B255D.7F6C@iceonline.com> Satrap Szabo writes:
Peter van Rossum wrote:
>> [Mr. Szabo's continuous misconceptions of race deleted, because it
>> doesn't add anything.]
>
>What exactly was one of my misconceptions of race? Please quote one.
O.k. how about this one. You said,
"I would suggest that the only reason for misclassifications and this
difficulty putting a fine line on it, is obviously due to the incredible
amount of mixing that has gone on in the world. Some people are more
distinctly of a race than someone else might be.
I will not concede that race is a moot point, or not classifiable.
I am sure that distinctly white, black, Asian, or other extremes can and
will be genetically identifiable, if not obvious to the untrained eyes.
The misclassifications will arise as a result of mixed geneology."
The interpretation I reach from this is that you believe there are a
finite number of "pure" races. Individuals for whom classifications are
relatively secure are those closest to these "pure" races - those that
fall in the cracks are the result of mixtures. As Ernst Mayr said,
"to speak of pure races is sheer nonsense" (Mayr 1970:397).
>>>I have done zero research or schooling in this area, but I feel pretty
>>>darn sure of my opinion.
>>
>> [Sarcasm on]
>> That's right Mr. Szabo your personal opinion obviously carries more
>> weight than the entirety of 150 years of physical anthropological
>> research on the topic.
>> [Sarcasm off]
>
>It does for me! And I have a feeling that you are misunderstanding the
>weight of 150 years of physical anthropological research on the topic.
I love this retort. I give you a number of direct citations of
anthropologists who argue that the race concept is a social, not biological,
one. Yet based on your admitted "zero research or schooling in this area"
you feel confident to conclude that: 1. your personal opinion carries more
weight than their scientific research and/or 2. I have misread the literature.
That's a classic.
>>>Sorry, I don't want to corrupt my mind with any of your suggested
>>>reading.
>>
>> I'm sorry I didn't mean to confuse you by bringing up actual facts.
>
>My point was that I don't need to drain away a portion of my life
>reading about how we can't yet classify race, and how this points to a
>lack of racial distinction, or whatever you think it points to. Any
>average Joe has this figured out better than you.
Again, in the face of scientific research which contradicts your opinion
you respond with unsubstantiated rhetoric.
>> Notice that it is 1 in 5 whites, not all whites. If you sampled a person
>> and they didn't have the trait, would this mean they were not white? Are
>> you starting to get the picture?
>
>I understand just fine that we can't fully identify consistent racial
>features. No single feature will show in all cases. So friggin what?
>That is just evidence of diversity integral in all races.
Here you seem to be holding to the notion that if we could just get our
hands on a longer list of traits the distinctions would appear. This is
not an unreasonable guess since its what the earliest researchers on
racial classification thought as well. However, as they added more and
more traits the picture never got clearer. This is why a majority of
anthropologists have abandoned the study of race as a biological concept.
>Surely you
>don't think that stands as evidence that racial division is obsolete. I
>would have to declare you an idiot if you thought that.
Racial divisions surely do exist but as I've said before they exist as
social constructs with little basis in biological fact. Let me try to
demonstrate it to you this way. There are a variety of definitions of
race (each has problems), but a good biological one is that a race is
a group who differ in the frequency of genetic characteristics from
other racial groups.
The problem becomes one of which genetic characteristics do we choose to
create our racial typology. In the U.S. this is largely based on a couple
of features like skin color, hair, eyes, shape of nose. However, we could
build an equally valid racial typology based on blood type, sickle cell
trait, or any other genetic characteristics. My point is that any of
these classification would be equally valid in a biological sense yet each
would produce a different number of "races" and the makeup of these "races"
would not be consistent across different classification schemes. Therefore,
the features used to form racial groups is the result of a social choice on
which variables to emphasize. Therefore, race exists as a social, not
a biological construct.
>> I won't hold my breath - but please feel free to hold yours.
>
>Thank you so much. I see I've endeared you to no end.
The reason my responses to you tend to be rather rude, is due to the
way in which you will argue a point ad nauseum without providing scientific
evidence for your position. The title of the group is SCI.archaeology,
yet you obviously feel that when scientific research contradicts your
personal opinion, it is the scientific research (not your opinion) which
should be disregarded. IMO it is the height of arrogance for you to
regularly rant on about conspiracies and archaeologists ignoring data, yet
feel no shame in doing the same yourself.
>You can accuse me of all you want. The substance to my last post was
>trying to explain that race actually *is* a real classification. That's
>why we have a word for it. Just because scientists, with their in depth
>research, can't yet distinguish race in ancient bones and whatnot,
>surely doesn't mean that race is an invalid classification. If they are
>having trouble classifying living examples, then I suggest it is just
>too complicated for you poor scientists and you just better pretend that
>race classification doesn't exist.
Again race does exist but only in a socially constructed sense. The fact
is that about 80-90% of the time forensic scientists correctly identify
the racial identity of an individual. But that is the racial identity
which would have been given to that individual by U.S. society, it is not
an objective biological classification. If you had read the Sauer article
I previously cited you would have seen:
"In ascribing a race name to a set of skeletonized remains, the anthropologist
is actually tranlating information about biological traits to a culturally
constructed labelling system that was likely to have been applied to the
missing person." (Sauer 1994:109)
and
"My contention here is that such a practice is not a vindication of the
traditional notion that there are four major human races, rather, it is a
prediction, based on skeletal morphology, that a particular label would
have been assigned to an individual when that individual was alive." (Sauer 1994:110)
You can ignore the scientific research if you like but be advised that
scientific research does not agree with your opinion.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Mayr, Ernst
1970 "Populations, Species, and Evolution, an Abridgement of Animal
Species and Evolution." Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Sauer, Norman J.
1994 "Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races don't Exist,
Why are Forensic Anthropologists so good at Identifying Them?" Social
Science & Medicine, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 107-111.
Subject: [ANN] ICRONOS 96 currently open
From: Pierre.Chauvaud@icare.fr (Pierre-Emmanuel Chauvaud)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:20:43 +0200
Press release
--------------
5th ICRONOS - BORDEAUX INTERNATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL FILM FESTIVAL
BORDEAUX, FRANCE
October, 21 to 27 1996
Established in 1988, Icronos is a biennial festival of recent films on
archaeology, partly organized around a theme, which serves as centerpiece
of a week-long, regional archaeology awareness program. Theme for fifth
festival in 1996 is Asia Minor.
Icronos is considered as one of the best Archaeological Film Festivals in
Europe. More than 200 productions were presented to an audience of 20,000
during its 4 precedent editions.
Extract from the regulations :
1. The Icronos - Bordeaux International Archaeology Film Festival is
organized every two years by non-profit organization A.F.I.F.A. (Bordeaux
International Archaeology Film Festival Association) ; the fifth edition
will take place from 21 to 27 of october 1996 included.
2. The main aims of the Icronos - Bordeaux International Archaeology Film
Festival are :
- make the public sensitive to archaeology, by presenting a selection of
the best films about results of archaeological studies and new scientific
methods applied to archaeology,
- get promotion to the above mentioned works.
3. The General Secretariat of A.F.I.F.A. is located in Bordeaux :
Association du Festival International du Film Archeologique
5, Rue Pascal Lafargue
33000 BORDEAUX - FRANCE
Phone number : (33) 56 39 41 96 - Fax : (33) 56 39 29 66
It has a secretary¹s office in charge of the films receipt :
ICRONOS - Inscriptions
20, Quai de la Monnaie
33000 BORDEAUX - FRANCE
Phone number : (33) 56 94 22 20 - Fax : (33) 56 94 27 87
4. May take part in the Festival, films concerning archaeology and its
technics, ethnology and patrimony, throughout the world.
Films of all categories (documentary, news, animation, research,
education,...), produced by any public or private body may enter the
competition, under the conditions stipulated in the present regulations.
5. Prizes will be awarded for the best films which deal with the major
theme of the Festival and other productions.
- the Great Prize of the Bordeaux International Archaeological Film
Festival
- the Special Prize of the Jury
- the Prize of the best excavation film
- the Prize of scientific methods applied to archaeology
- the Prize of the best experimental archaeology film
The Archeologia - Andree Faton Prize (FF 20,000) will be awarded to the
archaeologist whose film will be the best contribution to the presentation
of the results of research, in order to incite new productions.
-----
We're expecting you !
Subject: Re: Where do the roots of Germanic and Celtic words come from? was: Arabic Loan Words (was Kleins Comprehensive English Etymology)
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 22 Oct 1996 14:46:00 GMT
In article <54ef9e$ibs@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>
>>The Hab wrote:
>>>
>>> How about Egyptian dsrt --> English desert. Just a thought.
>
>>I just have my doubts as there is a
>>perfectly good Latin root for the English (same root as "deserted"). I
>>just don't know if there are any other IE cognates or not (besides in
>>the Romance langs. of course).
>
>A couple. desertus "deserted, abandoned, desert" comes from de-serere
>"to abandon" < "un-link". The IE root is *ser- "to link, join
>together", which gives a couple of other well-known Latin words
>(series, sort- "lot, fate, luck"). There are cognates in Sanskrit,
>Greek, Gothic, etc., mostly words for necklace, chain, etc. Here too
>possibly some Germanic and Celtic words for "to fuck, obscene, whore,
>etc.", and on a less physical level, Irish serc "love".
I often see reference made to Germanic, Celtic, Norse, Old English, etc;
as the origin of modern English words. When pressed for the root of these
words we are refered to Indo European. What I would like to see pinned down
is the actual route whereby each root diffused.
I doubt they were all coming from the same place at the same time, but
perhaps I am wrong about this. If they came from more than one place at
more than one time, what is the common denominator?
Where is the engine which acounts for their movement? Where is the
culture which which ties them together? If they are not the artifacts
of a common culture is their resemblence anything more than just an
apparent similarity? If they are the artifacts of a common culture
why would they diffuse by different routes at different times?
steve
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
>Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
>mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
>
>========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
>
Subject: Re: Egyptians were and are...
From: "S. F. Thomas"
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:36:45 -0400
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
> "S. F. Thomas" wrote:
>
> >But modern Egyptians--I have seen them with my own eyes--are
> >hardly homogeneous. They range from dark black to blonde and
> >blue-eyed.
>
> >It seems to me, coming from the Caribbean, where we have a
> >similar range of hues, and where the explanation is obvious,
> >ie. race-mixing, that the explanation in the case of Egypt
> >is the same.
>
> Yes.
>
> >Certainly, we know as historical fact, that
> >Egypt has had inflows of people from Greece, Rome, Persia,
> >Arabia, Turkey, etc., etc. The question which interests those
> >of us who come to your country and see all the statuary of
> >what to us look very much like Black Africans, is whether
> >they were the *original* Egyptians who *founded* the civilization
> >whose wonders, including the pyramids, we still gaze upon
> >today. It is a fair question, not one to be dismissed as
> >a priori absurd.
>
> You are right, it is a "fair" question, not to be dismissed on
> a-priori grounds. What I don't understand is how to match
> this with your own words, later on:
>
> >I expect you to deny it of course. As you seek to deny the
> >essential Black African-ness of those who created ancient
> >Egyptian high culture. But I won't believe you.
>
> I think you're not practising what you preach...
Perhaps if you would quote also that which went before,
you would find the answer to your question...
(( cuts ))
> In any case, there is no denying that Arabic is the language spoken in
> Egypt these days. But it was not the language of the Ancient Egyptian
> culture. Language is an important factor in determining ethnicity,
> more than skin colour. And the facts of the Egyptian language speak
> against a Nubian origin for Egyptian culture.
Interesting hypothesis re *origin*. Let's see what you have to say...
> The Ancient Egyptian
> language is not related in any way to modern Nubian or the ancient
> Meroitic language of Nubia (Kush).
Hmmm... I am no linguist, and certainly not competent in
any of the languages referred to. But you make a surprisingly
categorical statement, the kind that is easy to rebut. I wonder
what linguistic scholars would make of it.
> It is instead related to the
> languages of the Semites in the Near East, of the Berbers in the North
> African Maghreb, the Chadic peoples in North Nigeria (Hausaland) and
> the Cushitic peoples in the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia). This
> language family is called Afro-Asiatic nowadays (to avoid the earlier
> "racist" term Hamito-Semitic), and is indeed racially mixed: the
> Chadics and the Cushites are predominantly "black", the Berbers,
> Egyptians and Semites predominantly "white",
Here, you assert as fact that which is in question, viz.
that the *original* Egyptians were "predominantly white".
I know nothing about linguistics but I know a little about
logic. Here your logic breaks down. You commit the logical
fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question.
Somehow I now expect very little from the rest of your
linguistic exegesis.
> despite racial mixture in
> all groups. As the original "homeland" of the Afro-Asiatic language
> family is still unknown, we don't know if they were "originally"
> "black" or "white".
Now you return to *origin*, concluding lamely, ie. without
logical conclusion of any sort. You still don't know. And
your starting proposition is left undemonstrated. Your
exegesis has fallen flat as a logical exercise. But along
the way, in the clever fashion of the self-aware propagandist, you
have managed to slip in, cloaked as fact, that which you set
out to demonstrate. Surely, the afrocentrists have their
work cut out for them, cutting through all the crap that
passes for scholarship on the eurocentric side of the debate.
> In any case, it is likely that all modern humans
> (and thus all human languages) originated in Sub-Saharan Africa, so
> that we're all "black" originally, just gradually less so the longer
> it has been since one has been "out of Africa" and in colder/dryer
> climes.
Now you try to appear "reasonable", the better to appear
objective, and dispassionate.
> As to the Ancient Egyptians, the close ties with Semitic,
> Berber and Beja that their language betrays, make a local North
> African origin the most likely.
It is the conclusion you desire, but it remains undemonstrated.
Certainly, it fails my test of credibility when set against
the likenesses of Narmer, first pharaoh of Egypt, of Lord
Tera Neter, of the god Ausar, and of the sphinx. They all look
Black African to me. They are far more convincing proof of the
*origins* of the ancient Egyptians than a linguistic argument
that commits an elementary logical fallacy.
> If you have to put a racial tag to
> it: "brown".
I prefer Narmer, Lord Tera Neter, Ausar, and the sphinx:
all Black.
> But since the Nile valley is the gate between
> Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world (since the drying up of
> the Sahara desert), and the door to Nubia was always open both ways,
> racial mixture was to be expected, and indeed occurred.
No denying that. The question is when.
> ==
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
> Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
> mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
>
> ========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Regards,
S. F. Thomas
Subject: Re: Where do the roots of Germanic and Celtic words come from? was: Arabic Loan Words (was Kleins Comprehensive English Etymology)
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 15:59:47 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>I often see reference made to Germanic, Celtic, Norse, Old English, etc;
>as the origin of modern English words. When pressed for the root of these
>words we are refered to Indo European.
Not always. There are quite a few Germanic words that are unique to
Germanic: no IE root is known to exist. It may have been lost in all
but Germanic, but it in many cases the word will have been newly
created by the Germanic peoples after the split from IE, or borrowed
from some non-IE language with which they came in contact... If
daughter languages just preserved the total vocabulary of their parent
language "en bloc", it would be no fun. Individual words have
interesting individual histories, even if it is usually clear where
the bulk is coming from (in the case of English, from Old English,
which in turn got the bulk of its words from Germanic, which ... from
IE).
> What I would like to see pinned down
>is the actual route whereby each root diffused.
An etymological dictionary tries to do exactly that. No etymological
dictionary can be completely correct about all the words, and no two
etymological dictionaries agree everywhere. But again, there is
considerable agreement over the bulk. Not because of some secret
linguistic conspiracy, but because almost two centuries of studying IE
linguistics have filtered out most of the bad ideas and the unlikely
etymologies.
>I doubt they were all coming from the same place at the same time, but
>perhaps I am wrong about this. If they came from more than one place at
>more than one time, what is the common denominator?
>Where is the engine which acounts for their movement? Where is the
>culture which which ties them together? If they are not the artifacts
>of a common culture is their resemblence anything more than just an
>apparent similarity?
Mallory's book which you are reading (or have read) tries to find
answers to these questions. Renfrew's book too. I think they are
both right on some counts and wrong on others. Renfrews book
("Archaeology and Language") carries the subtitle: "The Puzzle of
Indo-European Origins". This is most appropriate.
The "big picture" given by archaeology is definitely not one of
intensive direct contact between, say, Continental Europe and the area
of Iran-India, one that would make the Indo-European connection
immediately obvious from the archaeological record. Far from it.
That is why Mallory and Renfrew have such a hard time fitting the
archaeological evidence to the linguistics. That is why at times the
issue has been largely ignored by archaeologists in general. It's an
issue imposed from outside, from linguistics, and does not follow from
the pots and pans themselves... But a connection there must be. The
linguistic record is crystal clear.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: "S. F. Thomas"
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 12:26:57 -0400
Katherine Griffis wrote:
>
> "S. F. Thomas" wrote:
>
> >Katherine M. Griffis wrote:
>
> >> >Why is it that there is no talk of "artistic canon" when
> >> >Nefertiti and pink skin tones are involved?
> >>
> >> For one, it's an Amarna Period art piece, S.F Thomas: during *that
> >> period*, the Egyptian Canon was not adhered to as closely. the
> >> artistic rule for the Amarna Period was *ankh em ma'at*, or "shown as
> >> it appears".
>
> >Interesting hypothesis, which I take with a large grain of
> >salt...
>
> Suit yourself: This IS and has been the view of Egyptian art LONG
> before Afrocentrism reared his head, and will continue to be, in
> relation to the religious views of the period. Even the Egyptians
> themselves noted the change in their texts (SEE: Amarna Letters, and
> in the Hymn to the Aten)
Look, I do not dispute that there is such a thing as an
artistic canon. Take a walk around Washington, DC and
take a look at all the statues. They all tend to look
young, vigorous, and trim. I fully expect that in real life
many had become old and decrepit before their statues were
commissioned, but the "artistic canon" allowed them to
be represented as perhaps they looked at their physical
peak. I imagine it was the same with the ancient pharaohs.
The sculptors were somewhat liberal in their interpretation
of the truth, to make their patrons look good. Make-up
artists today achieve much the same objective, in Hollywood
and tv. (You wouldn't want to see Dan Rather without his
makeup, for example.) The artistic canon also constrained
the poses that were presented, or at least preferred. I
do not believe, however, that there was any rule of artistic
canon that required a caucasoid face to be rendered as
africoid, or pale skin to be rendered black. I refuse
to believe that the canon required such massive distortion.
> >(( cuts ))
>
> >> So, in other words, we have NO OTHER works to cite here but Diop?
>
> >The truth or falsity of an argument does not rest on the
> >number of "experts" cited in support, rather on the quality
> >of the argumentation.
>
> Quite, and as I have pointed out several instances here, misquotes and
> "out of context" quotes from authors to make them *say* what they
> didn't say and mean somewhat establishes the *quality* of the
> arguments of "Afrocentrism" . When I see some more solid evidence
> than shown here, I will study it thoroughly, and likely agree with it.
Look, there was exactly one quote discussed on this newsgroup
where you claimed that Diop falsely quoted Maspero (if I remember
correctly). You claimed to have given the "full" quotation, but
as I recall, your "full" quote did not match Diop's supposedly
partial quote in *any* phrase. Therefore I questioned whether
you had proven your point. To date you have not responded.
If you are wrong in this one particular, I fail to see how you
can generalize, either as to Diop, or as to *all* afrocentrists.
Diop is an honest scholar. He distinguishes
fact from hypothesis, cites his sources, and gives argumentation
to support his views. Anyone who would attack Diop has an
open book with which to start. Dispute his facts. Dispute
his premises. Dispute his argumentation. It is all there for
those who would challenge him. It is the eurocentrists who,
by contrast, are maddening in their obfuscation, and their
penchant for incestuous citing of "authority".
Consider this one example, drawn from a recent exchange within
this very thread: I cited Diop's "African Origins" in making
the claim that Pharaoh Thutmose III, the so-called "Napoleon
of antiquity", looked Black African in appearance. A picture
of his bust appears on the cover of "African Origins". One of
my detractors said that Thutmose III was the least Nubian
looking of pharaohs that one could conceive, or words to that
effect. I said, well, here is a chance to prove Diop wrong
on a question of pure FACT. Is that the bust of Thutmose III,
or not. Nothing more is heard from this detractor on the subject,
but he leaves in a pout, calling me a "troll", and vowing not
to respond any more to my "drivel". Good Lord Almighty, give
me strength!
So if you would tear down Diop, cite me specifics.
> >(( cuts ))
>
> >> >See above. Refute Diop if you can. He lays bare facts,
> >> >hypotheses and arguments. Quite unlike so many eurocentric
> >> >propagandists who assert dogma and lay claim to false
> >> >authority.
> >>
> >> Would Diop to quote the references and cites he gives *correctly*,
> >> yes, I would buy into the fact that he has done the research without
> >> having *seen the actual evidence*. Hardly convincing, and hardly what
> >> I call *precise scholarship* here....
> >>
> >> Diop has attempted to make points in *many areas* that are just
> >> wrong; he attributes quotes to authors who have said *no such things*,
> >> and he draws conclusions from the barest of statements and cites, and
> >> usually with no evidence.
> >>
> >> Yet, you believe HIS works stand against *ACTUAL evidence and work in
> >> the field*, all because of some *perceived Eurocentric (READ: racist,
> >> according to Thomas here and others) conspiracy* that, based upon the
> >> last 30-40 years of research, is absurd. We *did have that problem*
> >> in the late 19th - early 20th centuries.
>
> >Thank you for that confession, at least.
>
> I haven't made any statement that *any other Egyptologist* would have
> made: it would be absurd to do otherwise. Egyptology's history shows
> us that there were *bounders and cads* in this profession, as in **any
> other**.
So now the shock troops of White Supremacy--the writers and
re-writers of history--are "bounders and cads". Please.
We are not talking here about love 'em and leave 'em
Romeos. We are talking about the perpetration of a massive
LIE to make white people feel good. By scholars. Who wear
about them the sanctimonious cloak of scientific dispassion
and objectivity. It is a fraud. And I for one am grateful
to Diop and others for exposing it.
> >> However, since about 1960,
> >> there have been *massive re-thinks* and re-writes of Egyptian history
> >> based on new evidence, new viewpoints, and aggressive scholars bent on
> >> learning the *truth* about the people and culture that give us better
> >> insight into the actual progression of the civilization.
>
> >Evidently the rethinking is not massive enough, and still
> >colored by eurocentric prejudices.
>
> Your opinion, primarily. I find that the majority of the work today
> in Egyptology attempts to be as objective and prejudice-free as
> possible: unfortunately, this has not always been true of Afrocentric
> works, with their tendency to say that "Egyptians today aren't REAL
> Egyptians as of long ago", and that "the Jews are not REAL descendants
> of Jewish peoples of old" (and by that, I mean, by birth: I am *well
> aware* that Judaism is a religious belief, and the designation of
> being a "Jew" is acquirable via conversion and intermarriage). This
> constitutes *racism* in its crassest form, and causes the whole field
> of Afrocentrism to be viewed with some apprehension and speculation.
Pot, kettle, black. Or should I say... cloud, snow, white.
> >( snip )
>
> >> Say what you want about what Yurco has pointed out, for example (and
> >> you have), but the issue of the massive *diversity* of the North
> >> African peoples in the pre-dynastic and earlier phases of history IS
> >> undeniable. It was not just ONE people who created Egypt, and they
> >> weren't ALL one race either (other than likely being *homo sapiens
> >> sapiens*).
> >>
> >> It was *many groups*, passing in and out of the Levant area over the
> >> period of thousands of years, settling, intermingling with several
> >> other groups, and so on. Some of these people eventually moved on to
> >> *other points in the Levant and Mediterranean*, and did final
> >> settlement there. This accounts for many *similar features* within
> >> cultures to that of Egypt, Mesopotamian, Dravidian, and even some
> >> Asiatic groups of the era.
>
> >This is an interesting (also ideological) *hypothesis*. As to the
> >unfolding of the Egyptian high culture, you have no argument from
> >me. There was clearly an intermingling of peoples. As to the
> >*origins*, however, I do not believe that there was intermingling
> >in the beginning. And in the beginning, the clear evidence it seems
> >to me supports a Black African provenance.
>
> I have yet to see any *clear evidence* as you suggest.
Take a look at the likenesses of Ausar, Lord Tera Neter,
Narmer, the sphinx.
> >> It is NOT
> >>
> >> ONE GROUP (from Africa) --------->-------------> ALL OTHER GROUPS
> >> AND CULTURES (Including the cultures of Egypt and so on)
> >>
> >> but more like
> >>
> >>
> >> SEVERAL DIFFERING GROUPS (traveling from various locations of the
> >> globe) -------->(settled and then traverse from) CENTRAL LOCATION
> >> (EGYPT, INDIA ETC.) -------> traveling and re-settling (permanently)
> >>
> >> / | | | | \
> >>
> >> Europe (Medit) Africa Near East Black Sea and Asia
> >>
> >> The issues are MORE complex than Diop presents, and can show the
> >> possibilities that man may have progressed from parallel developments
> >> all over the world , rather than a straight linear development. This
> >> is something that *has to* be considered as well, as not everyone can
> >> agree on the "Africa was first in everything" theory.
>
> >Yes, the eurocentric mind would naturally balk at that kind of
> >conclusion even if all the facts pointed in that direction. I have
> >my views as to why that is, which I think has to do with
> >the eurocentric mind inferring an assertion of Black superiority
> >in such a finding. Where no such inference is warranted. But
> >Whites have for so long labored under a delusion as to their own
> >superiority, manifest destiny, and so forth, that they can't stand
> >to have their really quite stupid bubble burst. It is a delusion,
> >in fact a psychosis, that has wrought great damange to people all
> >over the world. And it is time to give it a rest. Let us move on...
> >not based on ideology, feel-good or otherwise, but on truth. That
> >is what will set us ALL free.
>
> Here we can agree: however, there ARE adherents *****on both
> sides***** that claim by being FIRST implies superiority: I hold to my
> position of massive interaction AT THE BEGINNING of several peoples
> because this is where the **evidence and artifacts** leads me to
> conclude.
What evidence? What artifacts? And please, if you cite authority,
I am not buying it. Summarize instead the known FACTS, the
hypotheses they or you advance, and the REASONING in support of
your hypothesis. Don't just say well so-and-so says so.
> I don't care *which* peoples these are: the results are the
> same from the interaction and intermingling: Egyptian civilization.
> You, IMHO, tend to weaken your argument, by implying that I have some
> *prize* to win by saying this:
Your eurocentric scholars have certainly behaved as if there
were.
> I do not, nor should you. Actual TRUTH
> should be our combined goals, no matter **where** the evidence leads.
Quite. I can stand the truth. As can the afrocentric
scholars. But the eurocentric scholars sure
do tend to squeal like pigs when pricked with it,
Lefkowitz being the latest example.
>
> Regards ---
> Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
> Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
Regards,
S. F. Thomas
Subject: Re: Where do the roots of Germanic and Celtic words come from? was: Arabic Loan Words (was Kleins Comprehensive English Etymology)
From: Saida
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:54:59 -0500
Steve Whittet wrote:
>> I often see reference made to Germanic, Celtic, Norse, Old English, etc;
> as the origin of modern English words. When pressed for the root of these
> words we are refered to Indo European. What I would like to see pinned down
> is the actual route whereby each root diffused.
>
> I doubt they were all coming from the same place at the same time, but
> perhaps I am wrong about this. If they came from more than one place at
> more than one time, what is the common denominator?
>
> Where is the engine which acounts for their movement? Where is the
> culture which which ties them together?
I wish I knew the oldest languages of India (Sanskrit?) so that I could
compare them to Egyptian. I feel there is a link there. Last night I
was watching an Indian film and noticed that "ay" and "nay" (my
spellings) were used for "yes and "no", which are the same words, I
suspect, for these responses in Egyptian. I reason I say "suspect" is
that, as Gardiner says, "The number of Egyptian words which can
definitely be classed as interjections is very small". Which means that
there are not many examples in texts. Yet those we have are interesting
and rather telling.
"Hello" or "hail" is sometimes "h3" (ha) and variously "hy" (perhaps
"hai" because of the presence of two "reeds" together). There is also
"hy nk", "hail to thee". More rarely seen is "yh' (yich) which is like
"hey" or "yo!"
The term "ist" as been interpreted as "lo" and, perhaps, "behold" but
there is another word "mk" that seems to mean "behold" as well.
Therefore, perhaps "ist" has more the meaning of "verily", "truly" or,
plainly put, "yes". Gardiner says "for want of a better rubric, we may
place "tiw" (tiu) "yes" and the rare use of "nn" for "no".
Since Egyptian grammar says "No go there" (like my father used to do.
He also articulated "gerrare" for "Get out of here!") for "Don't go
there", the uses of "nn" or just plain "n" are rather confusing (at
least to me). It looks to me like sometimes we see "nn" for "don't,
aren't, etc." and sometimes "n". Also is the problem, should we think
this is "enen" or "nene", "en" or "ne". My idea is that "don't" (as an
imperative form) should likely be "ne" and "aren't or isn't" should be
"enen" rather like "ain't". This may be bad English grammar but it
comes so naturally to so many, that it may be habit of very, very long
standing.
I don't know about "tiw" because I have never seen it written in
context. It may even be another way of saying "true" or "truly", in a
formal way, but, as I said, I suspect the informal "yes" was "ay".
Calling Troy!!
Subject: Re: Egyptians were and are...
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 11:57:47 GMT
In article <326CEA0D.63758902@decan.com>,
"S. F. Thomas" wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>
>> "S. F. Thomas" wrote:
>>
>> >But modern Egyptians--I have seen them with my own eyes--are
>> >hardly homogeneous. They range from dark black to blonde and
>> >blue-eyed.
>>
>> >It seems to me, coming from the Caribbean, where we have a
>> >similar range of hues, and where the explanation is obvious,
>> >ie. race-mixing, that the explanation in the case of Egypt
>> >is the same.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >Certainly, we know as historical fact, that
>> >Egypt has had inflows of people from Greece, Rome, Persia,
>> >Arabia, Turkey, etc., etc. The question which interests those
>> >of us who come to your country and see all the statuary of
>> >what to us look very much like Black Africans, is whether
>> >they were the *original* Egyptians who *founded* the civilization
>> >whose wonders, including the pyramids, we still gaze upon
>> >today. It is a fair question, not one to be dismissed as
>> >a priori absurd.
>>
>> You are right, it is a "fair" question, not to be dismissed on
>> a-priori grounds. What I don't understand is how to match
>> this with your own words, later on:
>>
>> >I expect you to deny it of course. As you seek to deny the
>> >essential Black African-ness of those who created ancient
>> >Egyptian high culture. But I won't believe you.
>>
>> I think you're not practising what you preach...
>
>Perhaps if you would quote also that which went before,
>you would find the answer to your question...
>
>(( cuts ))
>
>> In any case, there is no denying that Arabic is the language spoken in
>> Egypt these days. But it was not the language of the Ancient Egyptian
>> culture. Language is an important factor in determining ethnicity,
>> more than skin colour. And the facts of the Egyptian language speak
>> against a Nubian origin for Egyptian culture.
>
>Interesting hypothesis re *origin*. Let's see what you have to say...
>
>> The Ancient Egyptian
>> language is not related in any way to modern Nubian or the ancient
>> Meroitic language of Nubia (Kush).
>
>Hmmm... I am no linguist, and certainly not competent in
>any of the languages referred to.
According to the Greenberg classification, Egyptian is not related,
except broadly, to any other language family. But no one has suggested
that Egyptians were isolated from impulses from all directions (mostly
from other areas of Africa though). Theophile Obenga, Diop and Fodor
are the main dissenting viewpoints. Ringe also attacks Greenberg's
methods in general.
Obenga, Theophile.
Ancient Egypt & Black Africa : a student's handbook for the study of
Ancient Egypt in philosophy, linguistics & gender relations / Th'eophile
Obenga ; edited by Amon Saba Saakana. London : Karnak House, c1992.
Series title: Frontline journal (London, England) ; no. 19.
Obenga, Theophile.
Origine commune de l'egyptien ancien, du copte et des langues
negro-africaines modernes : introduction a la linguistique historique
africaine / Theophile Obenga. Paris : L'Harmattan, c1993
Diop, Cheikh Anta.
Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues
negro-africaines modernes : complements a Parente genetique de l'egyptien
pharaonique et des langues negro-africaines / Cheikh Anta Diop. Paris :
Presence africaine, c1988.
Diop, Cheikh Anta.
Parente genetique de l'egyptien pharaonique et des langues
negro-africaines : processus de semitisation / Cheikh Anta Diop. Ifan-
Dakar : Les Nouvelles Editions Africaines, 1977.
Series title: Initiations et etudes africaines ; 32.
Fodor, Istvan.
The problems in the classification of the African languages;
methodological and theoretical conclusions concerning the classification
system of Joseph H. Greenberg. Budapest, Center for Afro-Asian Research of
the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1966.
Series title: Studies on developing countries (Budapest, Hungary) ; no.
5.
Ringe, Donald A., 1954-
On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison / Donald A.
Ringe. Philadelphia, Pa. : American Philosophical Society, 1992.
Series title: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society ; v.
82, pt. 1.
But you make a surprisingly
>categorical statement, the kind that is easy to rebut. I wonder
>what linguistic scholars would make of it.
>
>> It is instead related to the
>> languages of the Semites in the Near East, of the Berbers in the North
>> African Maghreb, the Chadic peoples in North Nigeria (Hausaland) and
>> the Cushitic peoples in the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia). This
>> language family is called Afro-Asiatic nowadays (to avoid the earlier
>> "racist" term Hamito-Semitic), and is indeed racially mixed: the
>> Chadics and the Cushites are predominantly "black", the Berbers,
>> Egyptians and Semites predominantly "white",
>
>Here, you assert as fact that which is in question, viz.
>that the *original* Egyptians were "predominantly white".
>I know nothing about linguistics but I know a little about
>logic. Here your logic breaks down. You commit the logical
>fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question.
>Somehow I now expect very little from the rest of your
>linguistic exegesis.
>
>> despite racial mixture in
>> all groups. As the original "homeland" of the Afro-Asiatic language
>> family is still unknown, we don't know if they were "originally"
>> "black" or "white".
>
>Now you return to *origin*, concluding lamely, ie. without
>logical conclusion of any sort. You still don't know. And
>your starting proposition is left undemonstrated. Your
>exegesis has fallen flat as a logical exercise. But along
>the way, in the clever fashion of the self-aware propagandist, you
>have managed to slip in, cloaked as fact, that which you set
>out to demonstrate. Surely, the afrocentrists have their
>work cut out for them, cutting through all the crap that
>passes for scholarship on the eurocentric side of the debate.
>
>> In any case, it is likely that all modern humans
>> (and thus all human languages) originated in Sub-Saharan Africa, so
>> that we're all "black" originally, just gradually less so the longer
>> it has been since one has been "out of Africa" and in colder/dryer
>> climes.
>
>Now you try to appear "reasonable", the better to appear
>objective, and dispassionate.
>
>> As to the Ancient Egyptians, the close ties with Semitic,
>> Berber and Beja that their language betrays, make a local North
>> African origin the most likely.
>
>It is the conclusion you desire, but it remains undemonstrated.
>Certainly, it fails my test of credibility when set against
>the likenesses of Narmer, first pharaoh of Egypt, of Lord
>Tera Neter, of the god Ausar, and of the sphinx. They all look
>Black African to me. They are far more convincing proof of the
>*origins* of the ancient Egyptians than a linguistic argument
>that commits an elementary logical fallacy.
>
>> If you have to put a racial tag to
>> it: "brown".
>
>I prefer Narmer, Lord Tera Neter, Ausar, and the sphinx:
>all Black.
>
>> But since the Nile valley is the gate between
>> Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world (since the drying up of
>> the Sahara desert), and the door to Nubia was always open both ways,
>> racial mixture was to be expected, and indeed occurred.
>
>No denying that. The question is when.
>
>> ==
>> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
>> Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
>> mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
>>
>> ========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
>
>Regards,
>S. F. Thomas
Subject: Re: Wars of conquest vs commerce
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 22 Oct 1996 16:54:01 GMT
In article <54bald$6h3@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>>In article <5477ge$j46@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>>>
>>>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually, if you look at Mallory, it becomes quite evident that
>>>>the Tochrian links to the languages of the Balkans come following
>>>>the march of Alexander the Great through Central Asia. What we
>>>>have here is the great world conqueror influencing the local
>>>>inhabitants of the Parthian mountains both linguistically and
>>>>culturally.
>>>
>>>Where does Mallory say that?
>
>>He starts on page 56
>>
>>>If you read Mallory, it becomes quite evident that he sees the
>>>Tocharians as descendents of the Afanasievo people, a culture from the
>>>3rd millennium BC from just north of the Tarim basin (upper Yenisei),
>>>with links to more western cultures like the erlier Samara/Khvalynsk
>>>and the contemporary Yamnaya (Pit-Grave culture) of the Pontic-Caspian
>>>area. There is no direct link between Tocharian and the "languages of
>>>the Balkans", and Alexander is not mentioned at all in connection with
>>>Tocharian.
>>
>>Yes, quite right. That is what Mallory seems to think.
>
>Fine. I'm glad we've sorted that out. Mallory says no such thing.
That is correct. That is why I used terms like "look at" or "read".
When I read Mallory I pull out whatever references I have to the
cultures he mentions. I can see where the sites are located
geographically either by reference to rivers, mountains, countries,
or map coordinates. (I use a lot of maps.) I also do a quick search
of the net to see what I get under any names of persons, places or
things either mentioned dirrectly or by a secondary source.
Mallory is fond of the "Pontic-Caspian" area. He mentions it frequently.
These is a bit of land where the Caucaus mountains divide the Black
and Caspian seas not far north of the headwaters of the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers. There is a route acoss the Caspian which continues
along the Aras river through the Pontic-Caspian to reach Mt Arat near
the Black Sea which dates from the 3rd and 4th milleniums BC.
The Andronovov culture is listed in other sources as very wide spread.
>
>But yes, I can see your logic:
>
>1. Mallory states some known facts about the Tocharians, and draws
>conclusion X.
Mallory actually draws no conclusion except to say that
1.) "It is attested in Chinese Turkestan in the 6th century AD"
2.) "The language was identified as Indo European"
3.) "The manuscripts concern business transactions connected
with the major caravan route that passed through the northern
region of the Tarim basin" (The Silk Road)
4.) "The language was named Tochrian after the historical Tokharoi."
5.) "The Tokharoi were known to the Greeks as a people who emigrated
from Turkestan to Bactria in the 2nd century BC"
( Alexander passes through in the 4th century BC)
6.) "They spoke the same language."
7.) "For closer linguistic connections we must look to Europe
where uniquely similar items of vocabulary and grammar are shared
with Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Armenian and possibly Phrygian"
8.) "They must have proceeded from somewhere in eastern Europe and
treked over 4000 miles to take up their historical seats"
9.) He mentions that our knowledge of the Tochrians historically
depends on Chineese documents dating from after 800 AD,
10.) He mentions the work of Robert Heine Gelden which shows
a similarity in Chinese and European metalwork c 800 AD (Silk Road)
11.) The migration seems to be set in general to the first
millenium BC"
12.) He mentions an alternative hypothesis that the similarities are
vestiges of a PIE.
13.) It is in this context that he mentions the Andronovov culture
14.) He also mentions the Afanasievo culture, it doesn't work either.
>
>2. You read Mallory, discard some of the facts, discard conclusion X,
>add some facts of your own, and draw conclusion W.
Mallory draws no conclusions about Tocharian other than
items 7, 8 and 11.
7.) "For closer linguistic connections we must look to Europe
where uniquely similar items of vocabulary and grammar are shared
with Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Armenian and possibly Phrygian"
8.) "They must have proceeded from somewhere in eastern Europe and
treked over 4000 miles to take up their historical seats"
11.) The migration seems to be set in general to the first
millenium BC"
>
>3. Therefore: "if you read Mallory, you draw conclusion W".
The first millenium BC is an historical epoch. The only large
migration of people from west to east through this region in
this period is Alexanders campaign into Parthia.
>
>This is misleading, as it is only true for a statiscally insignificant
>number of instances, namely for [you] == [Steve Whittet].
What other interpretation can you make than that the march of
1.)"an army of thousands of men"
2.)"from west to east"
3.)"in the first millenium BC"
most of whom spoke languages where
4.)"uniquely similar items of vocabulary and grammar are shared
with Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Armenian and possibly Phrygian"
meets Mallorys three criteria?
>
>>Even while he claims to hold that view he shows us something else.
>
>>He tells us there is no evidence of the Tocharians or there language
>>until the 6th to 8th centuries AD.
>
>The oldest Tocharian texts date from 600 AD, when writing was
>introduced into the area (together with Buddhism). This says nothing
>about the earlier history of the Tocharians.
>
>The earliest information about the Sinkiang starts about 200 BC, when
>the Chinese start interesting themselves for the area.
This is not long after the march of Alexander through the Parthian
mountains makes the first European connection to the Chinese.
> There is no explicit mention of the Tocharian language,
>as there is no explicit
>mention of Greek, Macedonian or Balkan languages either.
According to Mallory
"For closer linguistic connections we must look to Europe
where uniquely similar items of vocabulary and grammar are shared
with Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Armenian and possibly Phrygian"
>The Chinese show precious little interest in the languages of the
>barbarians, but, given that in the period from 200 BC to 600 AD
>there is no mention at all of population movements coming in
>from the west
Other than the march of Alexanders army into the Parthian mountains
which immediately preceeds this period.
[Hunno-Turkish tribes do move into the area from the north-east],
Sorry, that is both too late and in the wrong direction to meet
the first millenium BC/look to Europe criteria
>we can be confidentthat the Tarim Basin c. 200 BC was already
>inhabited by people who spoke Turkic, Iranian and Tocharian languages.
Where does Mallory say this?
He says the Huns spoke Turkic, Iranian and German
He says alternative models weigh the similarities between
Tochrian, Celtic, Italic and Hittite as essentially
archaic PIE features.
He says Tochrian preceeded Iranian into Turkestan
He says the archaeological evidence of the Tarim basin is
still far too poorly known to permit us to test our linguistic
theory archaeologicaly.
> Before 200 BC, there is no written evidence at all.
>
>>1.)The Andronovo culture dates to c 4500 BC yet there is no mention
>>of Tocharian until after the march of Alexander to the Parthians.
>
>Mallory links the Tocharians with the Afanasievo culture ("radiocarbon
>dates indicate that this culture began before 3000 BC and then
>continued throughout much of the third millennium", p. 225).
He does not link the Tocharians with the Afanasievo culture on p 225
he links the Afanasievo culture with the Pontic-Caspian (not very
well in my view, on the grounds of common Indo European characteristics
such as the use of horses.) He never mentions Tocharians on this page.
Where he discusses Tocharians he says:
"We need not be so perverse as to demand an exact correlation
between an archaeological culture, especialy one as vauge as the
Andronovans and a single linguistic group and it is entirely possible
that the ancestors of the Tocharians lurked behind some of those
Andronovov variants that appear in the southeastern area of its
distribution"
and he says " Prior to the late bronze age appearence of the Andronovo
cultuire across the Central Asian west Siberian Steppe there appeared an
enolithic culture whose boundaries were apparently confined to the
Minusinsk-Altai region 1000 km to the north of out Tocharians"
Sorry, but neither of these come close to making the cut.
>The later Andronovo culture ("Radiocarbon evidence suggests that the
>Andronovo culture may have begun to emerge in the early second
>millennium BC.", p. 227) is linked to the Iranians (or Indo-Iranians).
Not to the Tocharians
>
>>Mallory claims links to the Andanov [read: Afanasievo] culture are
>>possible, they occupy the same geographical territory
[No, read culture not Afanasievo]
>
>No they don't. The Afanasievo culture was located in the Upper
>Yenisey area, 1,000 miles to the north-west of the Tarim basin.
[I made no reference to the Afanasievo culture, however it is
interesting to note that Mallory locates both cultures in the wrong
place by several thousand miles. On page 227 he locates the
Andronovo culture surrounding the Aral sea (60 degrees longitude)
Their sites were actually around Lake Baykal (105-110 degrees longitude)
in the region of modern Irkutsk. thats 50 degrees of longitude at
70 miles per degree or 3500 miles off.
He locates the Afanasievo culture on page 225 in the region where
the Andronovo culture should be. He is a bit mixed up as are the
conclusions he derives from these misplacements.
>The theory linking the Tocharians to the Afanasievo culture is
>definitely not without problems. There are 1,000 miles to travel, and
>there is a gap of 2.5 millennia between the end of Afanasievo and the
>earliest Tocharian texts. We can only assume they were "en route".
He doesn't link them to either culture, but his association of
the Andronovov with the early Indo Iranians depends on his having
placed this culture 3500 miles east of their easternmost site.
>
>>The language was named Tocharian after the historical Tokharoi
>>who were known to the greeks to have emigrated from Turkestan
>>to Bactracia in the 2nd century BC
>>(shortly after the time of Alexander)
>
>The historical Tokharoi were Iranian, and have nothing whatsoever to
>do with the linguistic "Tocharians". The name "Tocharian" is simply a
>misnomer, but it's too late to change it now.
The passage above is what Mallory claims. Having looked at his
book I am willing to allow he is wrong in this as well.
>
>>Uniquely similar items of vocabulary and grammar are shared with
>>Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Armenian and possibly Phrygian
>
>And Hittite, and Celtic, and any other IE language for that matter.
>There is absolutely nothing in Tocharian to suggest a special link
>with the Balkans.
Mallory says.
"For closer linguistic connections we must look to Europe
where uniquely similar items of vocabulary and grammar are shared
with *Baltic*, Slavic, Greek, Armenian and possibly Phrygian"
>
>>2.)Alexander does provide a direct link between the language of the
>>Balkans (Macedonia) and the Tocharian language.
>
>No he doesn't. The army of Alexander spoke Greek.
"For closer linguistic connections we must look to Europe
where uniquely similar items of vocabulary and grammar are shared
with Baltic, Slavic, *Greek*, Armenian and possibly Phrygian"
>When Greeks established themselves in Bactria, their language
>was Greek, and remained so. The gap between Greek (or Macedonian)
>and Tocharian is enormous, not 900 years, as you are claiming.
That is not what Mallory says.
> Ever read a Tocharian
>text, or a grammar? Tocharian is, right after the Anatolian languages
>(e.g. Hittite), the most divergent member of Indo-European.
>The Afanasievo culture theory may have its problems, but they're
>peanuts compared to this.
Ok, taking into account that Mallory confused the locations of
the Afanasievo and Andronovov cultures, what's your explanation?
>
>>3.)A province in the Pontic Caspian Region, modern Turkmenistan,
>>is today called Balkan
>
>I can only find the Great Balkhan range in Turkmenistan. Sounds like
>Turkic to me.
The province is located in a swamp, the word for mountain
in that region is "Daglan", and you need better maps.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: discussion of the Bible's timeline for Egypt
From: Eliyehowah
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 12:03:30 +0000
>Why? So you can tell me it is the "infalable word Of God". Sorry, mister=
,
>your God not mine.
## I have NEVER said to anyone INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD. But you have the aud=
acity
to not only accuse, but then answer your insincerely SORRY.
>>Sorry to generalize by saying Ramses (1314 BC? 1304 BC? 1290 BC? there
>>are still 1322 BC floating around based on a false Sothic July 20 for Mem=
phis).
>I dont know enough about the Astrological Calendars to make that assertion=
=2E
>And I know that even the best scholars and scientists cannot or have not
>been able to narrow it down to the specific decade, and yet in one fell
>swoop you seem to be qualified to do so. How can this be? =
## I work with calendars. I am NOT fixing Ramses; I am fixing the year that=
Egyptians calculated the canon chronology. Since Memphis Sepdet rose annual=
ly
on July 17 for centuries before drifting to July 18, it stands to reason
they would hold to their 4-year leap of the star as our July 17. Thus 1310 =
BC or
by using the 600-year cycle of venus as 1800 Egyptian years as 1290 BC.
955y =3D 768y +187y
dyn 1-5 to start of Hyksos
=3D 768y 3089-2321 TPC, but 338y 2368-2030 BC Genesis
(real 768y record was 2368-1600 BC)
dyn 6-8 =3D 187y 2321-2134 TPC, but 87y 2030-1943 BC Genesis
(12th dynasty Egypt ended all previous dynasties 1-4 =
and 6-11)
(dynasty 5 died in 2030 BC)
dyn 9 & 10 contemporary with 11
dyn 11 =3D 143y 2134-1991 TPC, but 43y 1986-1943 BC Genesis
(Manetho says 43 years for dyn 11)
(dyn 9-10 can therefore be either 2029-1986 =3D=
43 =3D 1986-1943 BC
dyn 12 is shifted by 48 years
based on Phaophi 16 of 1824 BC as Jan 6 seasonal solstice new year
and/or Pharmuthi 16 of 1824 BC as July 10 sothic solstice at 23=B0 Quban
rather than Memphis July 17 sothis of 1872 BC.
This 48-year shift fits so conveniently to please either chronology due to
it being the difference between 243-year sidereal venus and 291-year calend=
ar venus.
The 291-year period is 3600 moons....original Chaldean "ho Saros" =3DOsarsi=
ph =3D Osiris.
>>The Egyptians DID believe in the Flood of Noah. This is evident by the 40=
-day
>>creation myth of Osiris dead in his coffin. It is further evident by
>January (Janus)
>>named after Egyptian Jannes and being the winter solstice month (Jan 6 eq=
uated
>>with Tybi 6) as the end of that 40 days starting the seasonal year with W=
INTER
>>not Sepdet (Sothis) since that Flood whose constellation is AQUARIUS...th=
e
>Inundation.
>>So you have yet to prove the Egyptian flood is Sothic Nile versus the
>Aquarius season
>>of Creation's Inundation. =
>>> >Biblically, the Hyksos established Memphis in 2030 BC ten years before=
>Narmer became Mena by gathering the kings of the 42 nomes into a HOUSE or
>Pharaoh.
>>> Where have you established these dates from?
>>Herodotus (and other Greek sources) verify 350 years from Egyptian Creati=
on
>(Flood)
>>to Pharaoh. This agrees with the Bible which indicates Noah's existence k=
ept
>>the Shemetic-Hamitic division enforced til he died 350 years after the Fl=
ood.
>Oh you mean the arising from the Nun. Yes thats mythos, not literalism. =
Or
>are you aware of symbological thought?
## I am not aware of this rising Nun, yet very interested.
(Nun? earth? water? if so yes, I think you mean the diagram of Geb and the
outstretched body of stars....? !@#$%^&*()
>>The contrast of Egyptian Septuagint Genesis to Greek Septuagint Genesis
>>to Hebrew Genesis. The Alexandrian Egyptian Septuagint aligns exactly
>>with the Turin Papyrus canon until the Greeks removed Cainan as a
>>130-year old person, recognizing that Cainan is a word for Chaldea.
>>Thus Arpakshad became father to Chaldea at 130. In Hebrew chronology,
>>this 130th year is Peleg building his house with the birth of Reu.
>Fine, I will take a look at it.
## ## =
193 years =3D Flood 2370 BC to 2177 BC
793 years =3D Flood 2970 BC to 2177 BC (venus 600+193)
913 years =3D Flood 2370 BC to 2177 BC (sothic 720+193)
the 720 is obtained in the papyrus by increasing 6 generations
by 100 years and then adding 130 years for Cainan. The 10 years is then
removed by taking 60 years away from Abram's birth to 130-year Terah,
and a lunar 50 years (618 moons) is added to Nahor. This causes a 48-year
shift in the 12th dynasty moving it from the correct 1943 BC to the
Papyrus calculation of 1991 BC as well as to the end of the Dynasty,
Joseph's 7 years 1737-1730 becomes 1785-1778. The dream took place in
the year of July sothic venus (sidereal 1786 BC but calendrical 1738 BC).
243-year sidereal versus 291-year calendar from Ur's suicide 2029 BC.
>>Arpakshad born Julian Apr 4 of 2368 BC until Peleg founds Ur in 2239 BC).=
>>However in the Turin Papyrus the Flood is quite clearly 3090-3089 BC
>How is it then that there are sites in Egypt that are older and clearly
>undestroyed by 'flood' then?
## I view such questions as unsolved puzzles, that I am willing to resolve
versus those who always resolve puzzles by scoffing their sources.
At least I have not turned the Bible into a UFO dropoff of Neanderthals.
>>** FIGURES **
>>TCP vs. Genesis =
>>3090 BC / 2370 BC Flood
>>135 35
>>130 --
>>130 30
>>134 34
>>239 239
>>------ ------
>>768 338 Peleg of Ur dies same year as Unas of Saqqara
>>> The Hyksos did *not* establish Memphis in 2030 BC; it was originally
>>> called Men-Nefer, the capital city for most of the Pharaonic periods.
>>Men (Mena) made Memphis into a city in 2020 BC as part of the agreement
>>for these Shemetic kings to join in creating the united city-states as on=
e
>>HOUSE of Pharaoh.
>Again, Im aware of this, but the date is not something that even the
>scholars agree on. You have narrowed it down to the last decade.
>>> it is centered on the modern village of Mit-Rahinea.
>>>It was the capital
>>> of the first Lower Egyptian Nome and the administrative capital during
>>> the EARLY dynastic periods! Which means 3100-2686 BC, quite a
>>> difference of dates. It is claimed that it was founded by Mena but that=
>>> is not substantiated. As for the cities deities, they are as follows:
>>> Ptah, Sekhmet and Nefertem these are the most ancient of all the Kemeti=
c
>>> deities, so your "Osiris" references are very much out of place in this=
>>> city and it simply ' just doesnt wash'.
>>The Hamitic Egyptians pushed the observance of Osiris out of the city.
>>That is why the Hyksos kings who founded Memphis and created the calendar=
>>then left with the Israelites as citizens of a better nation.
>But the Memphite Triade was older. Why would it be necessary to 'push it =
out'?
Older? I'd have to debate. Ptah is an older god...since I believe him to be=
Tau or Tamuz. Yet as Mars, he did not mark the Flood as 360 years until 200=
9 BC
or 20 years AFTER Osiris, and being the 12th year of the HOUSE (Pharaoh).
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/3Dbabel.gif
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/3Dbabel2.GIF
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/3Dbabel3.GIF
>>> As for the Hyksos, I think you need to read a bit more ancient history.=
>>> The Hyksos migrated into Egypt in the *late* Middle Kingdom and rose to=
>>> power in the Second Intermideiate period which was 1800-1600 BC) again,=
>>> your dates are sadly off by *any* chronology.
Note the 1600 BC. This is from 768 years as 2368 BC Arpakshad 2nd year
after Flood til Israel slavery as if that ended this Shemetic rule.
But Egyptians took it as counting 768 years to the START of Shemetic Hyksos=
(Peleg's & Unas' deaths...thus changing the 2368-2030 BC into 3089-2321 BC)=
This verifies the death of the 5th dynasty as the start of 518-year Hyksos
til the exodus of Israel...but Egypt adds an additional 243-year venus.
>I cited from The Ancient Egyptian Dictionary, Edited by the British
>Museum (see the citation under Memphis, page 180 written by Ian Shaw and
>Paul Nicholson , Abrams Publishing....I do assume you have seen it?) You
>can also see the citation on the "Hyskos' on page 136 of same said book.
No. But am interested.
> The 518 years
>>of Hyksos are from Peleg's (and Unas' death of 5th dynasty) 2030 BC to th=
e
>>Exodus of 1513 BC. Sepdet (Sothis) drifted 180 days forward in 720 years
>>so that the 25-year lunar calendar (309 moons) switched seasons in 725 ye=
ars
>>(Ur's foundation 2239 BC to 1514 BC plagues of Egypt).
>Where is the archeaological evidence for both the 'plagues' and the
>existence of Moses? Im not being insolent, Im asking. I want something el=
se
>other than the bible.
>>> >It was in 2029 BC that they created Osiris as the moon-god of the Nile=
>valley, the same year as Sokar, being respectively the deaths of Peleg in
>Ur, and Unas
>>> >years after Set (the Big Dipper) was established in the pyramid platea=
u
>(2170 BC).
>The Pyramids Plateua was built in the Second and Third dynasty which is
>2686-2613 BC. How is it you are able to dispense with 600 years of histor=
y?
>Please see Page 233 of the Dictionary of Ancient Egypt.
720 years are added by Sothis...ancient Egyptian scholars of Ramses refusin=
g
to recognize the Exodus change of calendar (6-month move of 5 epagomenal da=
ys).
The 600-year erroe is from venus drifting 6 zodiac constellations (150 leap=
days
and 30 days drift back). It comes from disputing over venus of the Flood as=
being
Aquarius or Leo (winter or summer). Educational systems of the world back t=
hen
had grown so fast just as today, that many people thought they learned the
same things and did not. It became apparent when they disputed Marduk
as Mars or Jupiter. And the bright one as Venus or Jupiter. And days for ye=
ars
or months for years. I believe that the confusion of languages was no mirac=
le
but a great systematic error as we are currently experiencing again.
>>> *sigh* Wasir or Ausar (Osiris) was regarded as the originator of Egypt=
,
>>> he taught the people to govern and to farm and plant. Please cite you=
r
>>> sources for your dating because you are completely off on both the
>>> mythos and the time periods. His original cult center was the Osirion
>>> at Abydos, which some believe was built by Sety I. (1294-1279 BC).
>>Abydos is assigned to Osiris only because it is the burial place of Narme=
r
>>who was renamed as Mena in 2020 BC.
>No, thats 3100 BC, why the reason for the large discrepency in years?
The discrepency is due to the first four dynasties having literal human
lifespans of 450 years so that they died after the 5th dynasty had died.
This is why the Egyptians could were CONFUSED (as babel) in figuring the
puzzle out. The 3rd & 4th dynasties *ARE* buried with 12th dynasty belongin=
gs
and scholars take liberty to presume the tombs were opened by
12th dynasty to worship. But NOT so biblically. Again, Mena is not the firs=
t
Pharaoh but created the Pharaoh (as Pope chooses kings). The original Phara=
oh
was actually a United Nations, and its secretary of state was Mena.
3100 BC is the epoch (Hindu flood) 3090 BC epoch (Egyptian flood), and
today's scholars presume the TPC places Mena there. As stated evidence prov=
es
it was 350 years after the epoch. Egypt =3D 3090-2750 but Genesis =3D 2370-=
2020
that Narmer became Mena by creating Pharaoh at Noah's death.
>>(Narmer-rod killed his slang nickname Nimr-rod by agreeing in 2020 BC
>>with the Hyksos who founded Memphis in 2030 BC that they would in
>>the future call him Mena not Nimrod. He died at the age of 500 according
>>to Moslems.
>
>Give me a break. 500? If you find solid evidence *anyone* having that
>lived that long, then I will put store in that figure, if not, its just
>folklore.
>
>>> >But in 1601 BC Jannes insisted that
>>> >Osiris was the winter solstice moon appearing after the dark 40-day sk=
y
>of the Flood.
>>This is where the 768-year record enslaved Israelites as intruding Hyksos=
=2E
>>But the Hyksos had entered Egypt in 2030 BC 280 years before Joseph did
>>(in 1750 BC at 17 when Hammurabi died), and 302 years before Jacob his fa=
ther
>>brought the whole family of 70 with three generations of servants.
>Believing the
>>768-year record was Hyksos intrusion on their calendar, the Egyptians saw=
fit
>>to place it as 3089-2321 BC (Unas dies and Hyksos invade).
>
>Again, thats the wrong time period. That is not Late Middle Kingdom. Una=
s
>was 2375-2345 BC, the Hyksos invasion didnt occur until the end of the 13=
th
>Dynasty, which places that date at c. 1800-1650 BC. Again, we have a
>hideous discrepency in dates here.
>
> However, this
>>increases the span by 243-year venus. (518+243 or 243+518). This venus of=
>2321 BC
>>is 243 years before 2078 BC (birth of Haran measuring 3600 moons from Flo=
od)
>>but is 292-year calendar dated venus to 2029 BC where Parker informs us
>>that Osiris is lunar and assigned to the month Koiak. You will find your
>>Isis-Osiris on May 5/6 dated Koiak 24/25 as the original Christmas or sui=
cide
>>at Ur C-14 dated as 2030 BC according to the 1969 Nobel 12 world conventi=
on
>>in Sweden.
>
>Again, I will investigate your data further, but I should warn you the dat=
es
>which I cite are from a 1995 source. I think the British Museum is pretty=
>well renowned as scholarship in Egyptology goes.
>
>
>>> Which Rameses, sir/madam? There were *ELEVEN* of them! Can you give me=
>>> a clue as to which one you might possibly mean?
>>
>>>> Excuse me, forgive my insolence, or ignorance or both, but just *who* =
is
>>> Phamenoth?! I cannot find one single reference to this person anywhere=
,
>>> not even in BUDGE!!
>>
>>Greek names in original inaugurated order; Thoth became 1st month in 1513=
BC
>>reinauguration after Hyksos left as new citizens of Israel following Mose=
s.
>>[7] Thoth [1] Phamenoth
>>[8] Phaophi [2] Pharmuthi
>>[9] Hathyr [3] Pachon
>>[10] Koiak [4] Pauni
>>[11] Tybi [5] Epeiph (=3Dsothic month of Exodus in 15=
13 BC)
>>[12] Mecheir [6] Mesore
>
>Thank you. I also received an email from an associate who uses the Kemeti=
c
>wording, and she explained it to me. The use of the Greek is what confuse=
d
>me. As I said, I dont use it if I can help it. Thank you for the informat=
ion.
>
>>> However, biblically
>>> >the 7th month THOTH
>
>Understood. Thank you.
>> =
>>> Excuse me?! Month of Thoth?! Are you even remotely familiar with the
>>> Egyptian calendar!? The year was divided into three seasons, Akhet
>>> (inundation), Peret (springtime) and Shemu (harvest).
>>
>>These seasons are the names from 1513 BC onward. During the 12th dynasty
>>these seasonal names are Akhet (winter date of Noah's Flood), Peroyet
>(coming-forth)
>>and Shemu (deficiency). Sorry, you are wrong, it doe NOT mean harvest.
>
>According to the Old Kingdom sources it does. We are talking about a
>language that we are still learning more about daily, which have multiple
>meanings attached to them. 16 tenses etc etc. I find it amusing that you=
>can just simply state Im 'wrong'....If I said a particular word in
>Kemetic/Egyptian, I could mean alot of different things. You have to take=
>into account determinatives, etc etc. =
>>
>>>As to the name of the months, none called "Thoth", which is the Greek
>'equivalent'
>>>of the Kemetic (Egyptian) word which is Dejhuti. =
>>
>>How wrong you are, since any and every book of calendars will tell you th=
at
>>Thoth is the Greek name for the first month.
>
>Would you please look up the name of Dejhuti or of Tehuti...Any source wil=
l
>tell you that it is an earlier version of the greek word, 'Thoth'. You
>dont have to take my word for it. See' The Neteru of Kemet' by Tamara Leg=
an. =
>
>>>Might I suggest a basic course in the language of the ancient Egyptians
>>and a perusal of the book "Calendars of Ancient Egypt" by R.A. Parker.
>>
>>You are 10 years too late for your suggestion.
>>I have two copies of Parker's book you list here. Which shall I scan for =
you,
>>the highlighted with my notes, or the clean copy.
>
>Actually, believe it or not, if you are *truly* offering it, I would love =
to
>see your notes. This has been an enlightening exercise. Thank you for
>calling me on my shit. I do apolgize for my abruptness and rudeness. I
>would be more than happy to glean whatever knowlege from you I can. I may=
>be loud and obnoxious at times, but I know when to shut up and listen. Ju=
st
>keep any prosteltizing and attempts of converting me back to Christianity
>and I think we can agree to disagree.
>>
>>
>>> (snipped a lot of mixed up nonsense from Newage and biblical sources
>>> that have not yet been substantiated.Thats quite a hodge podge! Would=
>>> you be so kind as to cite your sources? )
>>
>>You presume it is new age. Your accusation is false. Though I must admit
>>you certainly are bold enough to stand up as the TRUTH for the whole worl=
d.
>>Dont be so sure God wont knock you down very hard.
>
>Im sure He/She might. I guess I take a more objective view that *all
>*scripture, not just that of the Hebrews and Christians has inherrent valu=
e,
>and one not to the exclusion of the other. =
> While I agree with some of Rohl's assertions as
>>> *possibilities*,
>>
>>Do NOT accuse me of being a Rohl worshipper. I think back to your line on=
e
>>over the stink of who I thought the quote belong to. You should look at
>>yourself and how you aimlessly accuse where my sources are from.
>
>Again, my apologies.
>
>>Rohl (who cares); New Age (bull...new age is the American acceptance of v=
ery
>>old Hindu and Chinese notions); presumptuousness that I dont read Parker
>>or Gardiner...(better quit lady/ oops mister.)
>
>That's "Lady" when it suits me to be one. At other times its just simply
>'Bitch'. So, my question to you is what is wrong with Hindu texts and
>Chinese ones that predate the Christian ones by thousands of years. Why i=
s
China's calendar (Jan 6 of 2029 BC solstice eclipse MONKEY-year, see Maya)
was recalculated as 2637 BC as 600 years before 2037 BC. The 8-year shift
is from 2 days of Sothic drift, and the 600 years is venus. The calculation=
of the Flood as 2953 BC came from the exodus year being 1513 BC.
1440 Egyptian years =3D 1460 Sumerian years
## Because Arpakshad (Noah's grandson) was father of Chaldea (Cainan at 130=
)
Hindu calculated Shelah's death (Arapkshad's son) as Chaldea's death.
Shelah died in 1900 BC AFTER Chaldea's fall (rising lunar eclipse of 1914 B=
C
1913? ) only 6 years before Babylon took over in 1894 BC. The 3600-year
Babylonian SHAR counts from 1626 BC as 2400 AM from Adam. 1625 BC is
the death of Ammizaduga who recorded the venus tablets which were copied
thruout the land. But the Hindu in 702-700 BC (May Taurus venus/
January Aquarius venus) presumed Babylon to be the original Chaldea,
assigned its death to that of Shelah (1900 BC) as being Ammizaduga
and 1901 BC as 3600 AM with 2400 years to the 6000-year End in 500 AD.
So ancient chronologies of China and Hindu are NOT as ancient as claimed
and are found to be miscalculations of known Babylonian chronology.
The factor remains the same...THEY CONFUSED THE LANGUAGE OF THE RECORDS.
No miracle, but rather error educated to the masses, the faulty system
of teaching the masses the lie instead of the truth they snuffed out.
That is why the Bible says the FACTs of the Flood are what will kill
the world again by ignoring the actual geological changes.
PS. What is your opinion on what is deforming all the American frogs
this year? Further, I just got back to work, and the employees were
talking that oral sex again to avoid AIDS. Would you say they have
been educated correctly?
BTW 1894 BC is
476 years after the Flood. Hippolytus said this was 3258 BC flood to
Egypts July 20 Thoth 1, 2782 BC calendar and that the Great Pyramid was
the tower of Babel...you can see this comes from presuming that the 476 AM=
of Babylon's first year as being the tower, and that it was at Giza.
Helps confirm that Narmer is Nimrod. But Nimrod born in 2270 BC built Babel=
before Peleg built Ur in 2239 BC. (30-year old Nimrod is 2240 BC) This
makes Nimrod 100 years old when the Giza shaft was aimed at Thuban in 2170 =
BC.
And thus ties in the 100-year cycle of SET for the great pyramid.
2370-2270-2170-2070-1970-1870-1770 dies at 500, buried at Abydos.
Africanus then presumes 476 AM is from Adam, says Mena is Adam 5500 BC,
thus pyramid is from his son SETH as 5024 BC, and he records that Egypt til=
its end is 5524 years. Stupidly scholars then use this 5524 years to claim =
Mena
as preceding his 5500 BC Adam...when Africanus is clearly stating that the
current Egypt would be destroyed at the end of 6000 years in 500 AD as
5524 years from the pyramid foundation. ALL THIS they presumed from the yea=
r
1894 BC founding rebuilt Babel as Babylon. SEE, I study human error, and
find it successful to discovery of truth.
>>The pyramid texts are 6th dynasty. They are the DEATH of the 5th dynasty
>>which is in full agreement of being Peleg's death (2030 BC not 2321 BC).
>No, they are 5th Dynasty. The Pyramid Texts of Unas are dated at 2375-2345=
>BC. But there isnt enough of a discrepency in your dates versus mine to
>cause me discomfort. (You really are stuck on the 2030/2020 Bc date)
## It is a calendar shift caused by Venus. The Bible was written with the
1513 BC exodus which began the New Kingdom, but the Turin Papyrus was writt=
en
under Ramses (in 1290 BC).
I agree 5th dynasty....but I am referring to 5th dynasty deaths not reigns.=
Thus when people die, it is their survivors who do the writing, so I felt
free to say 6th dynasty. But yes...short Bile chronology has 5th dynasty
humans dying from shorter life than any other humans of Noah's family.
The 5th dynasty deaths were a shock to the world dying at only 240 years
though Noah was still alive at 940. Thus the pyramids (observatories)
dropped in size (no time nor manpower to build anymore), and when the sky
precessed they became useless and so their 450-year old ancestors who
died during the 12th dynasty were buried in them like gods of great longevi=
ty.
>Your right. I was wrong to have answered in such an insolent manner. BTW=
,
>for the record, my nick is a signature that I have had for about 12 years.=
>When Computers were new and there were a dozen Chris' in our lab, I
>shortened my given name to be Xina, like Xmas
## XENA? The show is like Hercules. You know the type. Big strong woman eq=
uals
a big brass bra. (waiting for that Viking yodle or opera-ette)
If a woman jumps on me (ignoring EVERYTHING I was referring to), I have a
tendency to feel she's a short-haired lesbian in a 3-piece suit castrating =
me.
(Can you tell I got a dad who finds peace each day away from home?
Picture the prejudice stereotype of a German man marrying the prejudice ste=
reotype
of an Italian woman....and you got the correct picture. Although throwing
dishes has stop, but its her age. I find it hard to believe her claims that=
she works on her Christian personality while I buck everything.)
Believe me, I have been threatened by the very Church I feel will save.
I would have beaten Noah up to stay on his ark.
>Thank you in furthering my education. That is meant, believe it or not,
>with sincerity.
You are welcome. I am not a scholar of this world, but a man of faith
looking at the Bible as a skeleton to true history and true science.
I do NOT alter true history nor science to fit what others claim the
Bible says, and so frequently look at science and religion and SHOUT out
YOU ARE BOTH WRONG.
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/myPhoto.gif
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24 =
elijah@wi.net
elijah@execpc.com
asteroid@execpc.com
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif