Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Hyksos, Habiru, and the Hebrews


  • Please log in to reply
207 replies to this topic

#196    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,455 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 03 May 2011 - 09:50 PM

View PostHarte, on 03 May 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

No, my hat's off to you buddy!

You obviously are better at resisting temptation than I am.

Actually, Kmt is such a wimp I was motivated to defend him LOL.

...

Harte

I heard that! Yes, I've been paying attention. I'm probably just going to wait till I get home to contribute a proper reply to dmgspycat's rather rambling post.

And besides, in case you haven't been keeping tabs, Harte, my moniker is no longer kmt_sesh. It's now honeybunchkins.

LOL I hope I'm not encouraging you people.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#197    ShadowSot

ShadowSot

    Stinky Cheese

  • Member
  • 6,874 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Oops.

Posted 03 May 2011 - 09:52 PM

Oh not at all, Honeybunchkins...


Don't need no further encouragement  :devil:

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
-Terry Pratchett

#198    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,455 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 03 May 2011 - 10:03 PM

View PostShadowSot, on 03 May 2011 - 09:52 PM, said:

Oh not at all, Honeybunchkins...


Don't need no further encouragement  :devil:

D'oh!

Oh well. The damage is done.

I see you jumped in earlier about dmgspycat's unkind comment about my poor mummy avatar. I suppose dmgspycat is not aware of the fact that this is an actual mummy, and mummies don't tend to look terribly pretty. Now, I've gone to pains to clarify that the mummy in my avatar really isn't me, but I've always thought the photo in your avatar was you. I was just too polite to comment.

Whatever the case may be, you and I might have two of the most unattractive avatars at UM. One ought to take pride in that. Well, then there's questionmark's freakish mutant foot, which tends to stick in one's mind. :w00t:

Affectionately yours,
honeybunchkins

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#199    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,415 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 03 May 2011 - 11:00 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 03 May 2011 - 09:50 PM, said:

I heard that! Yes, I've been paying attention. I'm probably just going to wait till I get home to contribute a proper reply to dmgspycat's rather rambling post.

And besides, in case you haven't been keeping tabs, Harte, my moniker is no longer kmt_sesh. It's now honeybunchkins.

LOL I hope I'm not encouraging you people.

Now HB, what would even make you think that?  :w00t:

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#200    ShadowSot

ShadowSot

    Stinky Cheese

  • Member
  • 6,874 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Oops.

Posted 03 May 2011 - 11:07 PM

What? I always thought that ugly mug  was yours!
Felt some relief I wasn't the  only camera breaker here...

Shucks.  

So, who's mummy is it? Ramses?

Maybe you should ave something a bit younger:

Posted Image

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
-Terry Pratchett

#201    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,455 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 03 May 2011 - 11:39 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 03 May 2011 - 11:00 PM, said:

Now HB, what would even make you think that?  :w00t:

cormac

Careful there, cormac, or dmgspycat might name you cuddlemuffins. :devil:

View PostShadowSot, on 03 May 2011 - 11:07 PM, said:

What? I always thought that ugly mug  was yours!
Felt some relief I wasn't the  only camera breaker here...

Shucks.  

So, who's mummy is it? Ramses?

Maybe you should ave something a bit younger:

Posted Image

If I've said it a thousand times I'll say it a thousand more: the photo in the avatar is not me! I've never claimed to be as good looking as that mummy, anyway.

The mummy is in our Egyptian exhibit at the Field Museum. He lived hundreds of years after Ramesses II (over 500 years, actually). Funny, though, a lot of museum visitors comment that he looks like Ramesses. I kind of agree so I like to joke that with the scores of kids Ramesses was known to have, this mummy, Harwa, might be a descendent.

That's an excellent mummy in your pic. Not Egyptian, I'd guess, or am I wrong? It reminds me of the naturally preserved mummies on display in Palermo.

But if I were going for a younger look, I'd probably go royal like this putative prince:

Posted Image

I've always liked the hair. I have very little left, myself. Imagine, I'm envious of a mummy's hair. :lol:

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#202    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,089 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 04 May 2011 - 12:07 AM

Maybe we should start a poll, "What will be Kmt's new avatar??"

Posted Image


#203    ShadowSot

ShadowSot

    Stinky Cheese

  • Member
  • 6,874 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Oops.

Posted 04 May 2011 - 02:07 AM

Quote

The mummy is in our Egyptian exhibit at the Field Museum. He lived hundreds of years after Ramesses II (over 500 years, actually). Funny, though, a lot of museum visitors comment that he looks like Ramesses. I kind of agree so I like to joke that with the scores of kids Ramesses was known to have, this mummy, Harwa, might be a descendent.

The facial features were what made me think of Ramsses, I was thinking Ramesses or his line. Good to know I'm not alone in that mistake, though.

Quote

That's an excellent mummy in your pic. Not Egyptian, I'd guess, or am I wrong? It reminds me of the naturally preserved mummies on display in Palermo.

I'm not sure, actually. Stumbled across it on a website. To me it looks like one of the Inca child sacrifices, but according to the site it's a late period Egyptians mummy.


It's one from the  St. Louis Science Center.
Looks like it's from around 50 to  130 AD.
So not actually late period after all, but during the Roman period.


Did find another picture of your man Harwa: Posted Image

From an old post of yours actually from another forum. With the large picture, looks a bit less like Ramesses, to be honest.

Quote

But if I were going for a younger look, I'd probably go royal like this putative prince:
That's prince Prince Thutmose, correct?

Both my father and my grandfather went bald fairly early, I've started on th habit of wearing hats so's to get people used to the idea of seeming me in  'em.  
Or turbans, except when I visit the airport.

Edited by ShadowSot, 04 May 2011 - 02:09 AM.

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
-Terry Pratchett

#204    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,455 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 07 May 2011 - 02:22 AM

View Postdmgspycat, on 03 May 2011 - 06:26 AM, said:

I have friends like you that I do not talk to anymore since they feel so important to have a degree from some college they are experts at every subject now. What a waste of money.

It's been a few days since you posted, dmgspycat, and you've yet to rejoin the discussion. As can be seen by many of the posts following yours, it would appear your invectives and bullying are not looked on favorably. I myself try to avoid name calling and finger pointing because I prefer to stick to substance. Perhaps you've not returned because of the negative responses to your post, or perhaps you're a flame-and-dash kind of poster who likes to try to raise a fight but doesn't care to remain to defend yourself. Or, perhaps you were waiting for someone to reply to the points you tried to make, which I earlier said I wanted to do and have now returned to this thread to do so.

I don't like to demean or ridicule other posters, which too often makes one seem childish, but I separated your opening line just to remark how sad I find it that you have such little regard for education. That's a personal choice, but I find it still sadder that you should disavow friends simply because they are educated. I consider my friends precious and respect them for who they are, whether or not they are educated.

Quote

You sling words around like you are some kind of expert on this subject which you are not.

No, I am not. Nor in any post or in any context at any point in my life have I claimed to be an expert. As other posters who know me will tell you, more than once I've stressed I am not a professional historian. I would thank you to cease from trying to misrepresent me. In the end only you look bad in the attempt. Stick to the merit of a debate, defend or refute the points in question, but avoid bullying. It's silly. And it certainly doesn't intimidate me.

Quote

You claim access to University records yet you cling to the old belief system that was handed down by religious scholars who are not to be trusted.


I'm a docent at a couple of Chicago museums and because of this I have full access to the Archives of the Oriental Institute. Yes, this is factual. It hardly makes me special. All faculty, students, staff, and volunteers at the O.I. have the same access. At the same time, although I do personally know or am at least acquainted with several Egyptologists, Assyriologists, and other specialists in the study of the ancient Near East, I neither know nor have ever met a "religious scholar." If you think an Egyptologist or an Assyriologist is a "religious scholar," I suspect you don't really understand the nature of historical research. The fact that you refer to their considerable body of work as "old belief system" reflects this lack of understanding.

Quote

Don't you understand history has been revised to accomodate certain religions and peoples?


Please show me professional citation or references establishing this. The conspiracy angle is often played by the fringe and there's a reason no one takes it seriously. Perhaps you can provide a specific example that I can review and critique. You defend yourself, I'll defend myself.

Quote

Would a scholar have us believe some regular guy named Moses parted the Red Sea on command? Give it a rest will you.


I know of no professional and respected historian who even argues that Moses was real. As far as that goes, I know of no professional and respected historian who argues that the events in Exodus even happened.

Quote

Do yourself a favor honeybunchkins...

That's the one part of your post I enjoyed. Reminds me of when I lived in the South.

Quote

...read more about DNA. It blows the cover off your beloved "theories" you academics hide behind.

This is a decidedly odd statement, you must understand. It is the world of academia and science that has brought us our understanding of genetics. On one hand you're vilifying legitimate science and on the other you turn to it to support your argument. That, of course, falls flat. But again, provide a specific example through citation and reference that supports your argument so I can review and critique it. You defend yourself, I'll defend myself. I cannot think of a single instance whereby your statement might stand up, but I await your response.

A

Quote

lso love how you disavow carbon dating and DNA tests when it doesn't fit your preconcieved notions.


Please show me specifically where I've done this. This is the sort of thing I always staunchly avoid doing, so if I am guilty of it, I will cop to it. I await your response.

Quote

Egypts sphinx has water damage from an ancient time, in other words it's very much older than 5000 years.

Your turning to the theory of Robert Schoch, who has been roundly disproved. Although a properly trained geologist, he churned out a very incomplete argument that has won the support of no colleagues, as far as I'm aware. I invite you to study the web pages of the Giza Plateau Mapping Project, starting from here. The archaeological and geological investigations conducted by the GPMP have definitively settled the issue and clarified what was argued all along: the Sphinx was carved during the reign of Khafre, in Dynasty 4. If you can refute their findings with something surpassing the limited scope of Schoch's gambit, I await your response.

Quote

Have you ever looked at any other cities buried under 100-300 feet of water that have been discovered lately? We had cities before 10,000 b.c., Egypt was one of them.


I've read a little about them. To the last these "cities" appear to exist only in half-baked fringe websites and in the loony books of fringe authors. I am not aware of a single properly trained researcher, scientist, or historian who agrees. By the way, Egypt is not a city. You might remember that it's a country. Please clarify your statement and let me know the city in Egypt to which you're referring.

Quote

Wake up and get with the program. Anyway,the Hyksos are the same people as the 'Jews', the semitic blood proves it, it's all over Avaris.


I rather doubt you even read my OP when I initiated this discussion. Rather than rehash what's already been written, I encourage you to read the OP and debate me on the points I made regarding the Hebrews and Hyksos. Sweeping generalizations based on considerably outdated thoughts will simply not do. At least try to corroborate your statement. The Semitic blood proves it? I think not. Yes, the Hyksos were largely Semites, as the majority of evidence from their material culture points to an origin from Syro-Palestine. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "blood," however. Hyksos burials tended to be the same as Canaanite burials, meaning very few Hyksos appear to have been mummified. Moreover, even though DNA can be extracted from skeletal remains, I am not aware of any DNA tests performed on Hyksos human remains. The most it would tell us is that they were of the region of the Levant. DNA is not going to identify someone as Hebrew, for goodness sake. But before I drone on further, return to the OP and debate me on the points I made.

Quote

Another thing I will school you on is the fact that the Bible Patriarchs are none other than Hyksos Pharoahs that ruled Egypt for a time until they migrated off to Canaan.

The Hyksos originally came from Canaan, as is obvious. There is evidence for these Asiatics migrating into Egypt going back to Dynasty 12. They most certainly didn't migrate off to Canaan. As we know, they were violently expelled, took refuge in a walled city in the Negev desert, and were slaughtered almost to a man. The Hyksos more or less ended in that siege in the Negev 3,500 years ago. And if these Hyksos kings were the biblical patriarchs, don't you think it a tad odd that they worshiped Baal and Astarte and built pagan-style shrines at Avaris?

I'll continue this debate in a second post.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#205    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,455 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 07 May 2011 - 02:27 AM

Continued from the above.

Quote

...The DNA, semite blooded, spoke Aramaic, the biblical patriarchs ties to Egypt by admission especially Abraham, the city Avaris and its semite mummies, the discovery of other Semite mummies in the Valley of Kings, the worship of Amen the god of the Hapiru/Hyksos.

No DNA evidence to support your argument. But again, I invite you to provide credible scientific findings to the contrary. Aramaic was not yet widely spoken at this point in time; that became the common language of the Levant in the Early Iron Age, under the Assyrian Empire who used it for administrative purposes. Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Hyksos certainly did not. I cannot think of any shrines or temples the Hyksos built to venerate Amun. They venerated the typical Canaanite deities and certain Egyptian deities, especially Set, but Amun is not evidenced as widely popular among the Hyksos population. Avaris has yielded few mummies, period, but it's hardly surprising that people from a Semitic heritage lived in Egypt. They probably did in prehistory, coming from the Levant. This hardly makes them Hebrews. Hebrews are but one segment of a much wider Semitic family.

Quote

This is why Egypt revolted against Ahkenaten and his worship of a sun god named Amen.He was a foreigner who forced a foreign god on them!


There is no evidence that the country rose up against Akhenaten. His personal god was the Aten, not Amun. These are really very fundamental mistakes you're making. It was Akhenaten who proscribed the worship of Amun and closed the great temples at Karnak. And Akhenaten was hardly a foreigner, considering the ample evidence identifying him as the son of Amunhotep III, one of the greatest kings in pharaonic Egypt. I'm sensing shades of Josephus and perhaps a bit of Manetho in your post. Interesting things they wrote. Historically accurate? Rarely.

Quote

King Tut -also related to the semites. You would have us believe that the Hyksos were separate from all of this while these things were going on....PLEASE!

We can now positively identify the father of Tutankhamun, through DNA analysis conducted 2007 to 2009, although the identity of the father remains in question. We know the identity of Tut's mother thanks to the same analysis, although who exactly she was also remains unknown. What is known is that both Tut's mom and dad were the children of Amunhotep III. In February 2010 I started a discussion about these genetic analyses, which can be found here. Is it possible Tut had Semitic ancestry? Absolutely. But again, Semitic does not necessarily mean Hebrew any more than Germanic means German. The Hebrews did not yet exist in Tut's time, and there can be no ties made with the Hyksos. If you're looking for a possible connection, one might be made with the family origins of Ramesses II, but that's another debate.

Quote

Also it's funny to see the Afrocentrists trying to lay claim on Egypt going on and on about how white people are denying that they ruled Egypt and stole their identity. Ridiculous


I fully agree. I have spent considerable time in other venues debating against Afrocentrists, which is a futile task at best. Eurocentrists are just as bad. Neither has a legitimate historical platform from which to present real-world theories. I'd wager that if most Afrocentrists could trace their genetic line back through Africa, they would find no connections with pharaonic Egypt. I can guarantee you no Eurocentrist would be able to.

Quote

...all one has to do is read the Egyptian historian Manetho, or follow archeological data.Look at the DNA
.

This is another odd statement. I'll set DNA aside: even though you've referenced it numerous times, you've provided no data or references to corroborate your statements. Generalizations are not corroboration. But in point of fact, it is archaeology and related fields that through time have helped us to see how wildly inaccurate Manetho was with many if not most of his accounts. No professional historian uses Manetho as a primary source for research. You can read what's preserved of his accounts and enjoy them, but if you take them for factual history as we understand the term, you're very much on the wrong path.

Quote

Who built Timbuktu? Wrong. It was the Berbers, and among other things traded out of that city, slaves was one of them. How can indigenous tribespeople be these great city builders of old when there is no evidence to support their claims? You want to do some real scholarly work? Tell me where the Berbers, Guanches, Basques came from. Where is the land that produced these people and their unique DNA? Of course they too have an ancient tie to Egypt but Im sure you already knew that. Did you know also they had Guanche mummies in the Canary Islands that are 9000 years old? This is not insignificant, they were not black yet spoke a neolithic Saharan language, Dravidian. Just get tired of hearing from self appointed scholars who are stuck in their ways and from racists blaming white people for everything.

I don't have much to say on the rest of this. Timbuktu has nothing to do with pharaonic Egypt and even less to do with the Hyksos, Habiru, and the Hebrews. The same is true for the Guanches of the Canary Islands and especially the Basques. Only the Berbers might be relevant, given their North African origin, but there's no point in debating them in a topic not related to them.

Yet another odd statement: Neolithic peoples of the Sahara spoke Dravidian? You do understand, don't you, that Dravidian is a language family containing more than 80 different languages--nearly all of which are spoken in India. Moreover, as far as I'm aware, the earliest evidence for this language family dates to the Early Iron Age, not to the Neolithic, and certainly not in Africa. Of course it's possible the Dravidian languages go back even farther, but please present corroboration for your argument.

Were you to research languages and their origins, you would know the large Semitic language family originated in Africa. Only later did it spread north to the Levant. Ancient Egyptian was an Afro-Semitic language, a mixture of African and Semitic tongues. No hint of Dravidian in ancient Egyptian.

I certainly hope in your concluding line that you're not trying to present me as a racist. I am as pasty white as any person with Northern European ancestry. It would seem I, however, do not have a problem with the simple fact that many ancient Egyptians were black. Many were brown, many were light brown, none were white. Then again, I do not approach historical research with bias. I couldn't care less what color people are. It's irrelevant what shade of color the skin of ancient Egyptians were: what matters is the incredible things their civilization achieved.

Quote

PS your avatar is ugly.

A face only a mummy could love.

I remain uncertain whether you are indeed a flame-and-dash poster, dmgspycat. If so, then this debate ends here and I am fine with that. I took the time to write this post not for your benefit because I'm sure you couldn't care less, but for the sake of striking a balance. I found your comments to be deficient in historical and scientific merit but long in invective and bullying, so it remains to be seen if you care to reply to me. If you're thinking about it but plan to reply with only more invective and bullying, then please don't bother. I likely won't bother to respond. I require substance and corroboration--a direct and substantive addressing of the points I've made. Anything less is not really worth your time or mine.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#206    The Skeptic Eric Raven

The Skeptic Eric Raven

    Master Blaster

  • Member
  • 11,065 posts
  • Joined:08 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gulf Coast of Mississippi. Missing TX.

  • One day love will find me.....

Posted 10 May 2011 - 10:00 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 07 May 2011 - 02:27 AM, said:

Continued from the above.



No DNA evidence to support your argument. But again, I invite you to provide credible scientific findings to the contrary. Aramaic was not yet widely spoken at this point in time; that became the common language of the Levant in the Early Iron Age, under the Assyrian Empire who used it for administrative purposes. Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Hyksos certainly did not. I cannot think of any shrines or temples the Hyksos built to venerate Amun. They venerated the typical Canaanite deities and certain Egyptian deities, especially Set, but Amun is not evidenced as widely popular among the Hyksos population. Avaris has yielded few mummies, period, but it's hardly surprising that people from a Semitic heritage lived in Egypt. They probably did in prehistory, coming from the Levant. This hardly makes them Hebrews. Hebrews are but one segment of a much wider Semitic family.



There is no evidence that the country rose up against Akhenaten. His personal god was the Aten, not Amun. These are really very fundamental mistakes you're making. It was Akhenaten who proscribed the worship of Amun and closed the great temples at Karnak. And Akhenaten was hardly a foreigner, considering the ample evidence identifying him as the son of Amunhotep III, one of the greatest kings in pharaonic Egypt. I'm sensing shades of Josephus and perhaps a bit of Manetho in your post. Interesting things they wrote. Historically accurate? Rarely.



We can now positively identify the father of Tutankhamun, through DNA analysis conducted 2007 to 2009, although the identity of the father remains in question. We know the identity of Tut's mother thanks to the same analysis, although who exactly she was also remains unknown. What is known is that both Tut's mom and dad were the children of Amunhotep III. In February 2010 I started a discussion about these genetic analyses, which can be found here. Is it possible Tut had Semitic ancestry? Absolutely. But again, Semitic does not necessarily mean Hebrew any more than Germanic means German. The Hebrews did not yet exist in Tut's time, and there can be no ties made with the Hyksos. If you're looking for a possible connection, one might be made with the family origins of Ramesses II, but that's another debate.



I fully agree. I have spent considerable time in other venues debating against Afrocentrists, which is a futile task at best. Eurocentrists are just as bad. Neither has a legitimate historical platform from which to present real-world theories. I'd wager that if most Afrocentrists could trace their genetic line back through Africa, they would find no connections with pharaonic Egypt. I can guarantee you no Eurocentrist would be able to.

.

This is another odd statement. I'll set DNA aside: even though you've referenced it numerous times, you've provided no data or references to corroborate your statements. Generalizations are not corroboration. But in point of fact, it is archaeology and related fields that through time have helped us to see how wildly inaccurate Manetho was with many if not most of his accounts. No professional historian uses Manetho as a primary source for research. You can read what's preserved of his accounts and enjoy them, but if you take them for factual history as we understand the term, you're very much on the wrong path.



I don't have much to say on the rest of this. Timbuktu has nothing to do with pharaonic Egypt and even less to do with the Hyksos, Habiru, and the Hebrews. The same is true for the Guanches of the Canary Islands and especially the Basques. Only the Berbers might be relevant, given their North African origin, but there's no point in debating them in a topic not related to them.

Yet another odd statement: Neolithic peoples of the Sahara spoke Dravidian? You do understand, don't you, that Dravidian is a language family containing more than 80 different languages--nearly all of which are spoken in India. Moreover, as far as I'm aware, the earliest evidence for this language family dates to the Early Iron Age, not to the Neolithic, and certainly not in Africa. Of course it's possible the Dravidian languages go back even farther, but please present corroboration for your argument.

Were you to research languages and their origins, you would know the large Semitic language family originated in Africa. Only later did it spread north to the Levant. Ancient Egyptian was an Afro-Semitic language, a mixture of African and Semitic tongues. No hint of Dravidian in ancient Egyptian.

I certainly hope in your concluding line that you're not trying to present me as a racist. I am as pasty white as any person with Northern European ancestry. It would seem I, however, do not have a problem with the simple fact that many ancient Egyptians were black. Many were brown, many were light brown, none were white. Then again, I do not approach historical research with bias. I couldn't care less what color people are. It's irrelevant what shade of color the skin of ancient Egyptians were: what matters is the incredible things their civilization achieved.



A face only a mummy could love.

I remain uncertain whether you are indeed a flame-and-dash poster, dmgspycat. If so, then this debate ends here and I am fine with that. I took the time to write this post not for your benefit because I'm sure you couldn't care less, but for the sake of striking a balance. I found your comments to be deficient in historical and scientific merit but long in invective and bullying, so it remains to be seen if you care to reply to me. If you're thinking about it but plan to reply with only more invective and bullying, then please don't bother. I likely won't bother to respond. I require substance and corroboration--a direct and substantive addressing of the points I've made. Anything less is not really worth your time or mine.
Since he didn't seem to have any real info that was his only recourse.

........the sleeper has awoken!
Sometimes we need a kick in the butt to wake us up. Well, I'm up now!Boo ya.


...there are many things in life that will capture your eye, but very few will capture your heart. These are the ones to pursue. These are the ones worth keeping..."

#207    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,455 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 10 May 2011 - 11:43 PM

View PostThe Skeptic Eric Raven, on 10 May 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:

Since he didn't seem to have any real info that was his only recourse.

That's more or less what I figured, Skeptic. And it's rather evident in dmgspycat's rambling post that he/she was more interested in preaching than in discourse or debate. The post was a decidedly odd mix of railing against orthodox research and misrepresenting orthodox research ("...read more about DNA. It blows the cover off your beloved 'theories'..."), so the motivations and intent are rather difficult to discern.

In the end, as I feared, dmgspycat must prefer the flame-and-dash approach: pop out of nowhere, throw out a bunch of wild claims, flame a poster or two, and disappear back into the shadows. I feel I more than adequately responded to that post, so it's up to dmgspycat to defend himself/herself. I'm waiting.

But I'm not holding my breath. :rolleyes:

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#208    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,218 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 10 May 2011 - 11:44 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 10 May 2011 - 11:43 PM, said:

But I'm not holding my breath. :rolleyes:

I would not either, but don't expect much more than flaming Chapter II.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users