Yemen and Africa
Troy Sagrillo
>
> >
> >Although I believe there was a Ham and a Shem and a Japheth, I don't
> >believe that the present classification of who is "Hamitic" and
> >"Shemitic" follows biblical traditions-->it is a modern construct...and
> >the biblical groupings were based on culture and politics, BTW. Also,
> >"Semitic" and "Hamitic" are not even ethnic terms, they are solely
> >linguistic.
> >
> >: > (including Mersriam, the Egyptians BTW)
>
> Yes they existed . Just as Muhammad and Abraham existed. For they (Ham
> Shem Japhet) were the sons of Noah.
The List of Nations in Gen. is without HISTORICAL merit (I am NOT
arguing against its religious merit!!!) and is frequently in error from
a factual point of view. There is NO extra-biblical ***historical***
evidence of the existance of Noah, his sons, their grandsons, etc. In
fact the Bible contridicts itself on just who is a descendent of who
over and over again in various chapters. As a document written at a
particular moment in history, by a group of Jewish religious elites, it
has a definate political and religious agenda which is divorced from
"history" as understood by that word today. As such, the List of
Nations, and much else in the OT -- such as the story of Abraham or the
Exodus -- is not HISTORICALLY valid as evidence (Religion is another
matter, and I do NOT discount the value there). *Assuming* that the OT
is historical *fact* and then arguing a point based on it, is like
assuming that Mallory's La Morte d'Athur is a factual representation of
life in 5th century AD Britain and going off to locate the present
resting place of the Holy Grail without stopping to realise that the
Holy Grail does not exist (since an assumption was made that it in fact
DOES). I do NOT wish to start, or get into, a religous argument, and
will drop this matter here.
> And Ham is the Biblical ancestor of
> the blacks (canaanites).
Canaanites are NOT black -- they were Semites and the DIRECT ancestors
of both Phoenicians and the Hebrews. (And yes, we DO have pictures of
them in Egyptian art, and they're not black -- even YOU MIGHTY KUSH have
said so!)
> Hams' first sons included Kush (Ethiopia)
Kush is NOT *modern* Ethiopia -- it is northern Sudan. If you want to
use the Classical Greek meaning of "Ethiopia" then say so (and realise
that I can use the Classical meaning of "Africa" (only for North Africa)
as well).
> who was
> a black , and Mersraim (Egypt) ; who was also a black.
> Well at least here , some of the facts of history *remain* in order.
"SOME" being the operative word here. Yup, the Kushites WERE black!
[snip of vulgarities and discussion regading a 19th century book, based
on an Arab original written before AD 956, that MIGHTY KUSH cites as a
current piece of research supporting his supposed claims]
> >Even moron's stupid reference admits that Ge'ez is a remnant of the
> >ancient Yemenite language later on in the book...hehehhehe...
> ^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^
> This guy is not but a mere jester, a fool ; not to be taken seriously.
> I never said anything about Ge'ez . You have a distorted memory.
Re-read the post -- it says the BOOK you cited mentions Ge`ez is a
Semitic language introduced from Yemen into Ethiopia, not YOU. Take a
happy pill and relax.
> >but MK won't
> >mention this to you:-).
>
> I couldn't care less.
[snip]
> >
>
> The Nubians/Kushites of Upper Egypt and the Sudan had been building
> monuments and temples before Yeminite intervention (1,000 b.c.). So it is
> relatively insignificant to the cultural development of these early
> Africans.
Your missing the point. Who cares what was going on in each area? It is
irrelevant in this discussion. The Nubians of Egypt and the Sudan had
NOTHING to do with the Yemeni presence in Ethiopia and Eritrea (since
they were in EGYPT and the SUDAN). And the same holds true for their
influence on the South Arabians of Yemen. Only after the Axumite kingdom
of Ethiopia occupied the Christian Nubian kingdoms did the two regions
have any significant political and cultural exchange.
> >
> >The Hab
>
> THE MIGHTY KUSHITE
Troy
THE MIGHTY KUSHITE
>THE MIGHTY KUSHITE wrote:
You have an absolute point concerning the usage of biblical texts as
foundations for historical claims. Most people are aware of the potential
bias of such ancient writings. For it is the reason why I have never once
stated such sources as evidence for my claims. Instead I present factual
evidence discovered by recent archaeological field work ; as you will see
below.
>
>Canaanites are NOT black -- they were Semites and the DIRECT ancestors
>of both Phoenicians and the Hebrews. (And yes, we DO have pictures of
>them in Egyptian art, and they're not black -- even YOU MIGHTY KUSH have
>said so!)
Hmm. You have pictures ehh ? Why is it you have no problem with lying ? Is
this typical of most scholars holding or sharing your ideologies ?
Probably.
Here is a quote : "these people have very brown skin. This reflects the
Phoenician's habit of coloring thier statues reddish-brown in order to
reproduce the tint of the skin. The nose is straight, sometimes slightly
concave. More often it is fleshy, occasionally flat at the end. The mouth
is average, sometimes quite wide. The lips often are thick, the cheekbones
vry prominent". (Eugene Pittard, Les Races et L'histoire. Paris, 1924,
Pg.108)
Ive seen Phoenician art. And one piece in particular was a wall painting
of the Phoenicians at a sea port in which they are painted extremely dark
brown. I'll be glad to look it up for anyone.
>
>Kush is NOT *modern* Ethiopia -- it is northern Sudan. If you want to
>use the Classical Greek meaning of "Ethiopia" then say so (and realise
>that I can use the Classical meaning of "Africa" (only for North Africa)
>as well).
You are quite wrong my friend. I thought you were an expert in this field.
Obviously not.
Kush, as it is known to Historians and archaeologists who specialize in
this field ; encompassed the greater region of Ethiopia as well as the
Sudan and Upper Egypt. In fact , it was the African/Nubian cultures ;
Kerma and C-group that gave bith to the greater cultural aspects of
Axum(capitol of Kush) during the long Pre-period of interaction.
Here is a quote : "Fottovich (1988), observed features on pre-Aksumite
pottery resembling those of the Sudanese peoples labelled by
archaeologists as kerma and C-group, and suggests that even such cultural
features as the stelae, so characteristic of the later Ethiopian funerary
customs, derived from early Sudanese prototypes. Some of these features
date back to the late 3rd and early 2nd millenia BC. And the discovery of
evidence of fairly complex societies in the region at this early date
suggests, to quote Fattovich; 'a more complex reconstruction of state
formation in Ethiopia' " ('Aksum An African civilization of late
Antiquity' Stuart Monro-hay; head of excavations at Aksum 1989)
So the ancient city and culture of Axum was beyond doubt that of the
African type. It was NOT a semitic culture.
>
>"SOME" being the operative word here. Yup, the Kushites WERE black!
>
>[snip of vulgarities and discussion regading a 19th century book, based
>on an Arab original written before AD 956, that MIGHTY KUSH cites as a
>current piece of research supporting his supposed claims]
Forget that evidence by which you felt so threatened by. SEE ABOVE.
>
>> >Even moron's stupid reference admits that Ge'ez is a remnant of the
>> >ancient Yemenite language later on in the book...hehehhehe...
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>> ^^^^^^^
There is no evidence, no proof of the origins of Ge'ez in Arabia. Only the
Coptic Christians of Ethiopia have the very ealiest traces of written
script in this language.
>> >but MK won't
>> >mention this to you:-).
>>
>> I couldn't care less.
>
>
>> >
>>
>> The Nubians/Kushites of Upper Egypt and the Sudan had been building
>> monuments and temples before Yeminite intervention (1,000 b.c.). So it >>is
>> relatively insignificant to the cultural development of these early
>> Africans.
I STAND CORRECT.
>
>Your missing the point. Who cares what was going on in each area? It is
>irrelevant in this discussion.
It is very relevent.
>The Nubians of Egypt and the Sudan had
>NOTHING to do with the Yemeni presence in Ethiopia and Eritrea
I feel like I'm talking to a small child here. Look, Aksumite culture,
(religion custom and architecture) was already fully established in
Ethiopia by the time of the Yemenite arrival. For the Yemenites came and
simply wanted to live in the civilization created by the blacks. And
Aksum's most important trade was by way of the Blue Nile to Egypt. Do you
understand that ?
>(since
>they were in EGYPT and the SUDAN). And the same holds true for their
>influence on the South Arabians of Yemen. Only after the Axumite kingdom
>of Ethiopia occupied the Christian Nubian kingdoms did the two regions
>have any significant political and cultural exchange.
I hope you are not a professor.
SEE ABOVE. Where are getting this fairytale nonsense. Stop telling lies.
>
>>Yemen was coquered by king Kaleb of Kush BTW.
>> >The Hab
>>
>> THE MIGHTY KUSHITE
>
>Troy
>
THE MIGHTY KUSHITE may the truth be known
Charles Curtis
Hey Mighty Kushite, you one bad mofo. They best have their shit
ddouble-checked and crossed referenced before messin' with you.
I recall reading a book entitled "The Destruction of Black Civilization"
if I recall correctly some years back that basically agrees with most of
your research.
In Northern Africa in particular it appears that the problems of the
Asiatic invader persist even to this day. They've basically taken over
the whole of Northern Africa and continue to push South in Ethiopia.
I wholeheartedly agree, although my credentials in the antiquities are
few, that the civilization encountered by the Asian invader was firmly
rooted and most likely in a state of decline when he returned to from
whence he came.
Blackman in SA
Troy Sagrillo
> You have an absolute point concerning the usage of biblical texts as
> foundations for historical claims. Most people are aware of the potential
> bias of such ancient writings. For it is the reason why I have never once
> stated such sources as evidence for my claims.
Glad we agree. However, you *did* claim that Ham, Shem, etc. existed
historically and then continued to use them as the "fathers" of various
ethnic groups. The only evidence of this is the Bible. I am glad you now see
the fallacy of using such.
> Instead I present factual
> evidence discovered by recent archaeological field work ; as you will see
> below.
>
> >
> >Canaanites are NOT black -- they were Semites and the DIRECT ancestors
> >of both Phoenicians and the Hebrews. (And yes, we DO have pictures of
> >them in Egyptian art, and they're not black -- even YOU MIGHTY KUSH have
> >said so!)
>
> Hmm. You have pictures ehh ? Why is it you have no problem with lying ? Is
> this typical of most scholars holding or sharing your ideologies ?
> Probably.
Look at *any* photo of Egyptian art with Canaanites/Syro-Palestinians/
"Asiatic", etc. and you will see them. Are they black?
Even the tomb of Ramesses III frequently mentioned by Afrocentrists has a
depiction of 2 Canaanites included among the "Cattle of Re" (humans) -- and
as the Afrocentrists love to point out, they are lighter than the Nubians and
the Egyptians. It's right there.
> Here is a quote : "these people have very brown skin. This reflects the
> Phoenician's habit of coloring thier statues reddish-brown in order to
> reproduce the tint of the skin. The nose is straight, sometimes slightly
> concave. More often it is fleshy, occasionally flat at the end. The mouth
> is average, sometimes quite wide. The lips often are thick, the cheekbones
> vry prominent". (Eugene Pittard, Les Races et L'histoire. Paris, 1924,
> Pg.108)
Have you ever seen a Lebanese? A Syrian? A Jew of Middle Eastern origin?
> Ive seen Phoenician art. And one piece in particular was a wall painting
> of the Phoenicians at a sea port in which they are painted extremely dark
> brown. I'll be glad to look it up for anyone.
Go for it! Especially since Phoenicians rarely depicted themselves, and NEVER
in colour! (You'll need some Egyptian art for that instead)
> >Kush is NOT *modern* Ethiopia -- it is northern Sudan. If you want to
> >use the Classical Greek meaning of "Ethiopia" then say so (and realise
> >that I can use the Classical meaning of "Africa" (only for North Africa)
> >as well).
>
> You are quite wrong my friend. I thought you were an expert in this field.
> Obviously not.
If you look in a dictionary of ancient Greek or Latin, you will see that the
words spelt "Africa" and "Ethiopia" in English, refered to different places
than now. You were using "Ethiopia" in the Classical sense, and I am merely
asking that we use it in the modern way. Is that so hard for you to
understand???
> Kush, as it is known to Historians and archaeologists who specialize in
> this field ; encompassed the greater region of Ethiopia as well as the
> Sudan and Upper Egypt. In fact , it was the African/Nubian cultures ;
> Kerma and C-group that gave bith to the greater cultural aspects of
> Axum(capitol of Kush) during the long Pre-period of interaction.
Hello! I was arguing about TERMINOLOGY!!!!!! The WORD "Kush" AS USED IN
EGYPTIAN TEXTS does ***not*** refer to any part of Ethiopia (in the *Modern*
sense of the word). Nor do any archaeologists use it in such a manner. Wake
up! The capital of Kush is NOT Axum! The kingdom of Kush was gone by the time
Axum was a capital! No one except you has ever made this ludicrous statement.
And I can assure you that the author of your quote would disagree with you.
> Here is a quote : "Fottovich (1988), observed features on pre-Aksumite
> pottery resembling those of the Sudanese peoples labelled by
> archaeologists as kerma and C-group, and suggests that even such cultural
> features as the stelae, so characteristic of the later Ethiopian funerary
> customs, derived from early Sudanese prototypes. Some of these features
> date back to the late 3rd and early 2nd millenia BC. And the discovery of
> evidence of fairly complex societies in the region at this early date
> suggests, to quote Fattovich; 'a more complex reconstruction of state
> formation in Ethiopia' " ('Aksum An African civilization of late
> Antiquity' Stuart Monro-hay; head of excavations at Aksum 1989)
If Fattovich and Monro-Hay see evidence of Kerma and C-Group material culture
in Ethipia in the late 3rd and 2nd millenia bce (note the term "pre-
Aksumnite"), I am not at all surprised. Why shouldn't be there? All I am
asking is that we be specific about terminology, especially since "Ethiopia"
and "Kush" are words that you bandy about and seem to think apply to all of
east Africa.
> So the ancient city and culture of Axum was beyond doubt that of the
> African type. It was NOT a semitic culture.
Once again, I am NOT claiming that Axum is a non-African city, or that the
people living there were not Africans. What I AM saying is that there is a
SIGNIFICANT linguistic and material culture presence of South Arabian
(Semitic language speaking peoples) origin, which influenced the later
development of the Ethiopic languages and culture. (Similar in concept to
Saxons in Briton.) Do you understand? Am I clear?
[snip]
> There is no evidence, no proof of the origins of Ge'ez in Arabia. Only the
> Coptic Christians of Ethiopia have the very ealiest traces of written
> script in this language.
Ge`ez is a Semitic language strongly related to the South Arabian Semitic
languges of Yemen and Saudi Arabia (including modern Mehri), in the same
manner that English is a Germanic language strongly related to the dialects
of northern Germany and the low countries. The script used in written
Ethiopic languges (such as Ge`ez and Amharic) is plainly derived from the
monumental inscriptions of Arabia (which ultimately goes back to a Canaanite
origin). This is just basic fact and not debatable. Go pick up a book on
comparative Semitic languages and see for yourself.
> >>
> >> The Nubians/Kushites of Upper Egypt and the Sudan had been building
> >> monuments and temples before Yeminite intervention (1,000 b.c.). So it >>is
> >> relatively insignificant to the cultural development of these early
> >> Africans.
>
> I STAND CORRECT.
>
> >
> >Your missing the point. Who cares what was going on in each area? It is
> >irrelevant in this discussion.
>
> It is very relevent.
>
> >The Nubians of Egypt and the Sudan had
> >NOTHING to do with the Yemeni presence in Ethiopia and Eritrea
>
> I feel like I'm talking to a small child here. Look, Aksumite culture,
> (religion custom and architecture) was already fully established in
> Ethiopia by the time of the Yemenite arrival.
I am not arguing this!!!!!! READ WHAT I SAID!!! I wrote: "The ***Nubians of
***Egypt and the ***Sudan had NOTHING to do with the ***Yemeni presence in
Ethiopia and Eritrea"! WHERE in this statement do I deny that the Axumi
culture was already fully established? If you would stop changing the point,
you might understand me. (Small child indeed!)
> For the Yemenites came and
> simply wanted to live in the civilization created by the blacks. And
> Aksum's most important trade was by way of the Blue Nile to Egypt. Do you
> understand that ?
Yes! I was NOT arguing against this! WAKE UP MAN!
> >(since
> >they were in EGYPT and the SUDAN). And the same holds true for their
> >influence on the South Arabians of Yemen. Only after the Axumite kingdom
> >of Ethiopia occupied the Christian Nubian kingdoms did the two regions
> >have any significant political and cultural exchange.
>
> I hope you are not a professor.
> SEE ABOVE. Where are getting this fairytale nonsense. Stop telling lies.
Look, see an eye doctor. You are obviously having problems reading.
gri...@usa.pipeline.com
<blac...@earthlink.net>' wrote:
>Hey Mighty Kushite, you one bad mofo. They best have their shit
>ddouble-checked and crossed referenced before messin' with you.
Civilization" if I recall correctly some years back that basically agrees
with most of your research."
origin base of Egypt.
Is there like a special library all the Afrocentrists go to?
Really pathetic.
Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
TGlyphs
I really resent the way you label people of a race,
or the Afrocentrists, i.e. "Oh God, another one,"
Why can't you respect someone else's opinions,
as it seems that yours are little by little falling short
of real evidence. You are not God. You are not
the supreme specialist of Egyptology, if there ever
was in fact one. Yeah right. Why do you get so
nervous? It's interesting that you who probably
look so European, really resent black Africans, who
have so many ties (in appearance, scientifically, &
all the similarities to existing tribes that live in the continent
of Africa today. Why not express his opinion. And
those professors (like us, not of African background) who have
studied all this info, have found evidence of history being
rewritten to exclude certain groups. So why not question?
You are the one who is pathetic because of your great
fears. Calm down & act rational & stop name calling because
everyone does not think like you. This is the 20th century!!!
Try not to think like a small-minded paranoid American
Raider of the Lost Ark, jewel-discovering, romance seeking
armchair archaeologist WANNA BE!!!!!!!!!
TG
info in Egypt
Katherine Griffis
'tgl...@aol.com (TGlyphs)' wrote:
(Most insulting tripe that *I* have ever seen)
OK: that's it: Be aware that defamation is an actionable offense, even on
the newsgroup and on e-mail. And by actionable, we are talking potential
lawsuit here.
After being warned that further action would be dealt with if you posted
this letter you sent me, you did so anyway. When I sent you e-mail to
inform you I was taking action, you claim not to have bothered to have read
it. So, in case you didn't:
This has been turned over to administration of your server: you deal with
them from now own. No further communication -- here or on my e-mail.
I am dead serious about this. NO FURTHER POSTS OR E-MAIL about me.