Sumer: the "black-headed" vs. the "red-faced"

[Taomeow]

29 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Here you go then   -  K.3364 - Wiki   .

 

Ah, interesting!  So apparently the "red-faced" were "Adam," the indigenous population.  And we also get the Sumerians=Aryans of course (" Laurence Waddell (...) maintained that the Sumerian royal dynasty was blonde (Aryan) while the lower masses (or 'subject' people) dark black haired primitives.[31] )  I wonder where he got that, but then, he was the real-life prototype of Indiana Jones, and in all likelihood the inspiration for all later generations of Pan-Sumerians, including Sitchin and our very own Gendao.   His "Aryan Origin of the World's Civilization" was first published in 1917 and formulated Pan-Sumerianism asserting that many cultures and ancient civilizations, such as the Indus Valley Civilization, Minoan Crete, Phoenicia, and Dynastic Egypt, were the product of Aryan Sumerian colonists. 

 

@Apech -- what do you think about the Sumerian origins of Dynastic Egypt proposed by this theory?

 

For those who haven't checked out the tablet referenced by Nungali -- here it is:

 

The god Mir-ku* (noble crown) in concern, raised a protection? lord of noble lips, saviour from death of the gods imprisoned, the accomplisher of restoration, his pleasure he established he fixed upon the gods his enemies, to fear them he made man, the breath of life was in him. May he be established, and may his will not fail, in the mouth of the dark races which his hand has made. The god of noble lips with his five fingers sin may he cut off; who with his noble charms removes the evil curse.   *Marduk   In the light of what my coy informer has been telling me, these lines are of particular interest: "he fixed upon the gods his enemies, to fear them he made man."  That's pretty much his story of far-away "prehistory": his civilization at war with another, and that another modifying humans of the time (very antediluvian, but I don't remember his exact time frame...  will have to doublecheck) to make supersoldiers and unleashing them onto his kind.  His kind doesn't like our kind because of that, nothing personal -- traumatic history, they were apparently minding their own business but then their first encounter with humans came, in the form of terrifying supersoldiers under their enemy's control.  (Nevermind my asides regarding my informant since I don't really want to "go there," just making some brief notes when some of the stories he's been telling seem to be independently corroborated by some of "our" sources, for a possible closer investigation.)   

[gendao]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

Ah, interesting!  So apparently the "red-faced" were "Adam," the indigenous population.  And we also get the Sumerians=Aryans of course (" Laurence Waddell (...) maintained that the Sumerian royal dynasty was blonde (Aryan) while the lower masses (or 'subject' people) dark black haired primitives.[31] )  I wonder where he got that, but then, he was the real-life prototype of Indiana Jones, and in all likelihood the inspiration for all later generations of Pan-Sumerians, including Sitchin and our very own Gendao.   His "Aryan Origin of the World's Civilization" was first published in 1917 and formulated Pan-Sumerianism asserting that many cultures and ancient civilizations, such as the Indus Valley Civilization, Minoan Crete, Phoenicia, and Dynastic Egypt, were the product of Aryan Sumerian colonists.

Except, I had never heard of these old researchers...or this text...yet somehow I came to the same conclusion independently a century later...  (And Sitchin wasn't harping about colonialists vs aborigines, either.)

*slow clap*

Quote

"This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of the red earth".

 

Sayce, acknowledging the aforementioned links believed that the "dark race" described in K. 3364 (line 18) was a dark reddish skinned aboriginal race of "primitive Babylonia" that were invaded by a white skinned Semitic race.  According to Sayce, the original "dark race" were Sumerians of the Turanid race, who "belonged to the dark-skinned division, though it is not necessary to suppose them to have been black as the Negro".  Henry Rawlinson supported Sayce's views and further asserted that the ancient Babylonians knew of two principle races, as found in their inscriptions: "the Adamu, or dark race and the Sarku, or light race".  The Sarku (or Sarcu) Sayce and Rawlinson maintained were the Semitic colonists who were white skinned.

Rawlinson believed that both the aboriginal "dark race" and light skinned Semitic colonists are found preserved in Genesis. 6:1–7 as the "sons of God" and the "daughters of man".  Sayce concluded by asserting that the Sarku modified Adam to denote their own "white Semitic population" after the dark red skinned Sumerian aborigines were conquered.

Oh boy, doesn't this metanarrative sound familiar???  SEMITIC (Anunnaki/Sumerian/Abrahamic/Jewish/Christian/"civilizing"/etc.) COLONISTS destroying the older ABORIGINES?

 

All we're missing is the Lyran/Pleiadian connection, now!  Who says I'm on the "false trail?"

Edited December 27, 2019 by gendao

[Nungali]

29 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Ah, interesting!  So apparently the "red-faced" were "Adam," the indigenous population.  And we also get the Sumerians=Aryans of course (" Laurence Waddell (...) maintained that the Sumerian royal dynasty was blonde (Aryan) while the lower masses (or 'subject' people) dark black haired primitives.[31] )  I wonder where he got that, but then, he was the real-life prototype of Indiana Jones, and in all likelihood the inspiration for all later generations of Pan-Sumerians, including Sitchin and our very own Gendao.   His "Aryan Origin of the World's Civilization" was first published in 1917 and formulated Pan-Sumerianism asserting that many cultures and ancient civilizations, such as the Indus Valley Civilization, Minoan Crete, Phoenicia, and Dynastic Egypt, were the product of Aryan Sumerian colonists. 

 

Oh dear !  My old long thread on the Aryans  ( here on DBs somewhere )  is rolling in its grave !

 

We have to remember a LOT of this old stuff and its interpretations (via then mindset) is basically , not just western ( and of that time) but Biblical .   ( Like a lot of New Age stuff that 'developed' by ignoring academia and re adopted old biblical racist stuff .)

 

Basically, they didnt have that much else to go back then .  Even the British Museum back then had  Biblical exhibits explanations and timelines .

 

 

 The Timechart History of the World: 6000 Years of World History . Great empires, dynasties, rulers from King Solomon to present times - a panorama of history covering 40 centuries before Christ and 20 centuries after his birth. Over 30 feet of history, with more than 400 illustrations providing a complete overview of each civilizationshistory. Based on the famous and now very rare Victorian wallchart with much material specially reproduced form the world famous British Library.Hhere is the page that shows development in Mesopotamia ;

apparently from Nimrod ... from Cush ... from Ham ... from Noah .     They didnt even know  anything before 'Chaldea'

A book I am reading at the moment ; 'Egypt's Making' by Michael Rice outlines the early Mesopotamian influences on Egyptian culture.

 

( Something I wrote elsewhere ) ;  Well, 'the two lands' where not unified all the time . Perhaps northern / lower valley cultures had an influx of development from the Levant and southern / upper valley had influx from Mesopotamia ?

Wadi Hammamat seems a key area ; the river snakes to the east , the wadi shows cave art of perhaps the beginnings of Pharaonic culture ( see Toby Wilkinson - ' Genesis of the Pharaohs '  *) . It then travels east to Quseir on the Red Sea where they have found the oldest maritime port in the world yet found .

The book I am reading at the moment postulates a trade link across Arabia ( and a lot more about Arabian influence ). There is also a sea trade link from BMAC ( for lapis and other things ) through to IVC and then by sea to Quseir .

Perhaps there was an overland route through Iran as well ?

 

*  Also in this book Wilkinson  starts off with some good info about the history of interpreting these things, how it passed through the Biblical age, and age of predominately western Euro  academics, then others including the 3rd world got their academics and views broadened and then he goes on to the modern approach of 'evidence based' archaeology.  He cites the above 'Empire model' view ;

' that many cultures and ancient civilizations, such as the Indus Valley Civilization, Minoan Crete, Phoenicia, and Dynastic Egypt, were the product of Aryan Sumerian colonists.  ' as the beginning of the problem because the finds in the  Wadi Hammarmat  where the same ones these old school archaeologists and Toby himself where looking at .

 

Now this old school model is out ... BUT  ... there is still a lot of answered stuff about what these finds indicate , like in the Rice book .  Rice also makes a case ( I havent got to that part yet ) about unknown developments and hints of it in the Arabian Peninsular .

 

 

( Sorry, editing probs )

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

@Apech

terest: "he fixed upon the gods his enemies, to fear them he made man."  That's pretty much his story of far-away "prehistory": his civilization at war with another, and that another modifying humans of the time (very antediluvian, but I don't remember his exact time frame...  will have to doublecheck) to make supersoldiers and unleashing them onto his kind.  His kind doesn't like our kind because of that, nothing personal -- traumatic history, they were apparently minding their own business but then their first encounter with humans came, in the form of terrifying supersoldiers under their enemy's control.  (Nevermind my asides regarding my informant since I don't really want to "go there," just making some brief notes when some of the stories he's been telling seem to be independently corroborated by some of "our" sources, for a possible closer investigation.)   

 

[ The bit that got 'edited'  out   ^  &  : ]

 

Rice talks about a basic difference between the Sumerians and Egyptians .

 

The Sumerians where gloomy and class ridden, their Gods made lesser Gods to do their work for them, and then the lesser gods made people to do their work for them . Except Enki, the god of Earth, he seemed to be on peoples side .  He cites other factors as well to do with location and climate  . But the Egyptians seemed a lot happier and positive mostly,  they worked in partnership with their Gods and seemed to rejoice in their work and country . It seemed more predictable , unlike Sumer, so that 'apprehension' was projected towards the gods  .

 

(Rice puts it a lot better than me of course , but because its a physical book I cant  copy and paste here ) .

[Nungali]

44 minutes ago, gendao said:

Except, I had never heard of these old researchers...or this text...yet somehow I came to the same conclusion independently a century later...  (And Sitchin wasn't harping about colonialists vs aborigines, either.)

*slow clap*

Oh boy, doesn't this metanarrative sound familiar???  SEMITIC (Anunnaki/Sumerian/Abrahamic/Jewish/Christian/"civilizing"/etc.) COLONISTS destroying the older ABORIGINES?

 

All we're missing is the Lyran/Pleiadian connection, now!  Who says I'm on the "false trail?"

 

 

This is even more embarrassing for you than what you said in the other thread about ancient building techniques !

 

and that was VERY embarrassing. 

 

But then again, its your reputation ..... I suppose you can do whatever you want with it .

[gendao]

52 minutes ago, Nungali said:

This is even more embarrassing for you than what you said in the other thread about ancient building techniques !

 

and that was VERY embarrassing. 

 

But then again, its your reputation ..... I suppose you can do whatever you want with it .

Ah yes, you had thoroughly explained it all...just like how simply stacking 2 LEGOs together explains how to build anything in the universe!  Nothing more to see here, folks!

Edited December 27, 2019 by gendao

[Taomeow]

2 hours ago, gendao said:

 

Oh boy, doesn't this metanarrative sound familiar???  SEMITIC (Anunnaki/Sumerian/Abrahamic/Jewish/Christian/"civilizing"/etc.) COLONISTS destroying the older ABORIGINES?

 

All we're missing is the Lyran/Pleiadian connection, now!  Who says I'm on the "false trail?"

 

At least read the article referenced for chrissake, don't go running to the shelter of the next new age nazi little helper from it, it won't bite.  All it will do is help you wrap your head around the fact that the SEMITIC all caps population was the NATIVE all caps population.  They were the ABORIGINES.  The COLONISTS all caps were SUMERIANS.  Or rather, they were REFUGEES or SETTLERS or NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT AND IT'S A SCIENTIFIC FACT -- and SEMITIC ABORIGINES didn't interfere with their activities in any way FOR TWO THOUSAND YEARS -- until the CIVILIZED and the NATIVE populations finally clashed.  And even then nobody colonized anybody until...  wait...  wait a minute...  shit, I'm talking to Gendao.  I almost forgot.  Nevermind.  Not gonna happen.  "Wrap your head around" -- who am I kidding?..  Nevermind.

 

I think it's time for you to bid your farewell out of this thread.  You've successfully proved that the impenetrability of your head is the envy of all those mighty walls, from Gobekli Tepe in Turkey to Sacsayhuaman in Peru to the Great Wall of China.  I won't bother knocking anymore.  Nobody home.  

[Taomeow]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

 But the Egyptians seemed a lot happier and positive mostly,  they worked in partnership with their Gods and seemed to rejoice in their work and country .

 

Slaves rejoiced in their work?  Let me guess...  9 to 5, medical insurance, paid vacations, perhaps free lunch in the cafeteria?  A gym?  And of course a generous pension plan, that goes without saying. 

 

But I don't doubt they were proudly patriotic.   Or at least "seemed" to be.  Perhaps "a lot happier and positive" is the default state of a people living in a better climate?  I live in a city that has the reputation of having the best climate on Earth (among cities that is, I'm pretty sure there's lots of rural areas whose weather is nicer -- and it's too dry and not green enough for me personally, I miss the rain and occasionally even the snow and a lot of other real world stuff.)  And, yes, everybody who can afford a good life here seems a lot happier and more positive than those who just get on the road and go elsewhere because they can't be happy and positive while having nowhere to live, work, or get helped when sick.  So...  I think Egypt would be a nice place to be happy and rejoice if it wasn't a horror show for too many -- but then, when you're a slave owner rather than a slave, things always look nicer.  Incidentally, in Sumer, slaves were never a major work force.  What about Egypt?  

 

[Earl Grey]

11 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Slaves rejoiced in their work?  Let me guess...  9 to 5, medical insurance, paid vacations, perhaps free lunch in the cafeteria?  A gym?  And of course a generous pension plan, that goes without saying. 

 

But I don't doubt they were proudly patriotic.   Or at least "seemed" to be.  Perhaps "a lot happier and positive" is the default state of a people living in a better climate?  I live in a city that has the reputation of having the best climate on Earth (among cities that is, I'm pretty sure there's lots of rural areas whose weather is nicer -- and it's too dry and not green enough for me personally, I miss the rain and occasionally even the snow and a lot of other real world stuff.)  And, yes, everybody who can afford a good life here seems a lot happier and more positive than those who just get on the road and go elsewhere because they can't be happy and positive while having nowhere to live, work, or get helped when sick.  So...  I think Egypt would be a nice place to be happy and rejoice if it wasn't a horror show for too many -- but then, when you're a slave owner rather than a slave, things always look nicer.  Incidentally, in Sumer, slaves were never a major work force.  What about Egypt?  

 

Well, diverting briefly to a different place...slaves in culture groups from precolonial times around what is now modern day Southeast Asia—especially those who we identify as Siam and Angkor—were more like indentured servants who could buy their own freedom. Some even voluntarily became slaves to pay off debts and were treated as family members, a far cry from how they were treated in the New World.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Earl Grey

[Apech]

5 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Ah, interesting!  So apparently the "red-faced" were "Adam," the indigenous population.  And we also get the Sumerians=Aryans of course (" Laurence Waddell (...) maintained that the Sumerian royal dynasty was blonde (Aryan) while the lower masses (or 'subject' people) dark black haired primitives.[31] )  I wonder where he got that, but then, he was the real-life prototype of Indiana Jones, and in all likelihood the inspiration for all later generations of Pan-Sumerians, including Sitchin and our very own Gendao.   His "Aryan Origin of the World's Civilization" was first published in 1917 and formulated Pan-Sumerianism asserting that many cultures and ancient civilizations, such as the Indus Valley Civilization, Minoan Crete, Phoenicia, and Dynastic Egypt, were the product of Aryan Sumerian colonists. 

 

@Apech -- what do you think about the Sumerian origins of Dynastic Egypt proposed by this theory?

 

For those who haven't checked out the tablet referenced by Nungali -- here it is:

 

The god Mir-ku* (noble crown) in concern, raised a protection? lord of noble lips, saviour from death of the gods imprisoned, the accomplisher of restoration, his pleasure he established he fixed upon the gods his enemies, to fear them he made man, the breath of life was in him. May he be established, and may his will not fail, in the mouth of the dark races which his hand has made. The god of noble lips with his five fingers sin may he cut off; who with his noble charms removes the evil curse.   *Marduk   In the light of what my coy informer has been telling me, these lines are of particular interest: "he fixed upon the gods his enemies, to fear them he made man."  That's pretty much his story of far-away "prehistory": his civilization at war with another, and that another modifying humans of the time (very antediluvian, but I don't remember his exact time frame...  will have to doublecheck) to make supersoldiers and unleashing them onto his kind.  His kind doesn't like our kind because of that, nothing personal -- traumatic history, they were apparently minding their own business but then their first encounter with humans came, in the form of terrifying supersoldiers under their enemy's control.  (Nevermind my asides regarding my informant since I don't really want to "go there," just making some brief notes when some of the stories he's been telling seem to be independently corroborated by some of "our" sources, for a possible closer investigation.)   

 

I'm not a fan of racial theories - but they did find some Dynastic mummies to be semitic DNA - so maybe the Dynastic Egyptians came from the Middle East rather than Africa - but still I think most Nile Valley dwellers were probably African.  I am partial to the theories which place the origin of the Old Kingdom back to the end of the last ice Age - but it is unproven.

 

 

[Taomeow]

The New Year in Sumer was not celebrated at the end of December, of course, it was still astronomically correct.  The New Year's feast, however, was even more special then than it is now.  The land was vast and wealthy, the people worked hard and got little for themselves.  Everyday food consisted of bread, dates, porridge, some fish, some greens, and beer.  Few could afford more than that.  A government employee received rations -- a designated amount of grain, vegetable oil, and beer.  No one could afford meat -- it was the food of the gods, Dingir.  The Dingir were getting meat every day.  The rulers and their families were of course invited.    

 

Only during the New Year's celebrations the black-headed "masses" ate meat.  The once-a-year feast was copious, the tables sagging under the weight of many dishes, sweets, and wine.  And everybody rejoiced and feasted, with loud and boisterous celebrations and singing and dancing in every yard and on every street.  That's how they lived, looking forward to the New Year all year round.  They knew the future will never fail to bring joy.  Once a year.

 

9 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

Well, diverting briefly to a different place...slaves in culture groups around modern day Southeast Asia—especially those who we identify as Siam and Angkor—were more like indentured servants who could buy their own freedom. Some even voluntarily became slaves to pay off debts and were treated as family members, a far cry from how they were treated in the New World.

         

Technically, it was the case in many places, beginning with Sumer -- indentured servants or peasants could enter slavery voluntarily, and did if it was their only way to survive, and legally a slave could buy his or her freedom -- sometimes practically too but more often theoretically.  Theoretically they could, but practically, e.g., in Tibet, not only could slaves never put together enough coin to buy their freedom but their "debt" grew, was inheritable, and in the 1950s, e.g., one-third of the population were born into slavery already owing a debt incurred by their parents, great-parents and great-great-parents.  I tend to be rather skeptical about any and all stories of the good old days of "gentler, kinder slavery."  Yes, some slaves were treated almost like family, including in the US, with "indoor" slaves quite often treated a whole lot better than the "outdoor" slaves, and incidentally considering themselves a special privileged social class and snubbing their field-working brethren.  Slavery is not a way of life that fosters human normality, and all kinds of projections are psychologically possible, of course -- and one can treat a slave like family, especially considering lots of family members (notably females, younger sons, children in general) were often treated as slaves themselves.     

[Earl Grey]

10 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

The New Year in Sumer was not celebrated at the end of December, of course, it was still astronomically correct.  The New Year's feast, however, was even more special then than it is now.  The land was vast and wealthy, the people worked hard and got little for themselves.  Everyday food consisted of bread, dates, porridge, some fish, some greens, and beer.  Few could afford more than that.  A government employee received rations -- a designated amount of grain, vegetable oil, and beer.  No one could afford meat -- it was the food of the gods, Dingir.  The Dingir were getting meat every day.  The rulers and their families were of course invited.    

 

Only during the New Year's celebrations the black-headed "masses" ate meat.  The once-a-year feast was copious, the tables sagging under the weight of many dishes, sweets, and wine.  And everybody rejoiced and feasted, with loud and boisterous celebrations and singing and dancing in every yard and on every street.  That's how they lived, looking forward to the New Year all year round.  They knew the future will never fail to bring joy.  Once a year.

 

         

Technically, it was the case in many places, beginning with Sumer -- indentured servants or peasants could enter slavery voluntarily, and did if it was their only way to survive, and legally a slave could buy his or her freedom -- sometimes practically too but more often theoretically.  Theoretically they could, but practically, e.g., in Tibet, not only could slaves never put together enough coin to buy their freedom but their "debt" grew, was inheritable, and in the 1950s, e.g., one-third of the population were born into slavery already owing a debt incurred by their parents, great-parents and great-great-parents.  I tend to be rather skeptical about any and all stories of the good old days of "gentler, kinder slavery."  Yes, some slaves were treated almost like family, including in the US, with "indoor" slaves quite often treated a whole lot better than the "outdoor" slaves, and incidentally considering themselves a special privileged social class and snubbing their field-working brethren.  Slavery is not a way of life that fosters human normality, and all kinds of projections are psychologically possible, of course -- and one can treat a slave like family, especially considering lots of family members (notably females, younger sons, children in general) were often treated as slaves themselves.     

I would say the slavery that exists today in modern Southeast Asia is worse than it was precolonial and precapitalistic times!

 

But yes, not a fan of slavery nor am I saying it was ever better in another culture or time, just describing a different place.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Earl Grey

[gendao]

11 hours ago, Taomeow said:

At least read the article referenced for chrissake, don't go running to the shelter of the next new age nazi little helper from it, it won't bite.  All it will do is help you wrap your head around the fact that the SEMITIC all caps population was the NATIVE all caps population.  They were the ABORIGINES.  The COLONISTS all caps were SUMERIANS.  Or rather, they were REFUGEES or SETTLERS or NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT AND IT'S A SCIENTIFIC FACT -- and SEMITIC ABORIGINES didn't interfere with their activities in any way FOR TWO THOUSAND YEARS -- until the CIVILIZED and the NATIVE populations finally clashed.  And even then nobody colonized anybody until...  wait...  wait a minute...  shit, I'm talking to Gendao.  I almost forgot.  Nevermind.  Not gonna happen.  "Wrap your head around" -- who am I kidding?..  Nevermind.

 

I think it's time for you to bid your farewell out of this thread.  You've successfully proved that the impenetrability of your head is the envy of all those mighty walls, from Gobekli Tepe in Turkey to Sacsayhuaman in Peru to the Great Wall of China.  I won't bother knocking anymore.  Nobody home.  

Sorry, I was merely using the term "Sumerian" regionally as per the site (K.3364 - Wiki) that Nungali spoonfed you.  But which he then blasts as outdated after I (poorly-assuming he vets his own links) quoted from, lol.  Yet then he still waffles upon...based on the latest bargain bin book he's reading by Michael Rice.

 

But I guess the main, million-dolla question is - did these ancient civilizations arise indigenously and independently...or were they spread by a colonialist diaspora?  And if the latter...then who were these colonialists and where were they from?

 

So, enough about semantics.  Let's get back to who the real founders of Sumeria were from???  Answer me this - who were the reptilian coneheads found in the Ubaid culture...that may have led to the founding of Sumeria?  Paging Nungali...

Later on, depictions became more humanized (as the Sumerians had to censor the more realistic images?)...

Quote

The Annunaki deities were worshiped by the Ancient Sumerians. In the Sumerian religion, they were forbidden to show the Annunaki Gods in their true form, so instead, the Sumerians depicted them as anthropomorphic animals in place of their true form. Later on the Sumerian ethnic group has been replaced by Akkadians then later Babylonians until they’ve been converted to monotheistic religions such as Zoroastrianism and Christianity.

The Anunnaki have no defined appearance, although according to the fertile crescent mythology, the Anunnaki are most likely to look like humans in their original forms, but in larger height. The Anunnaki are a shape-shifting race and can mold themselves into many shapes and sizes.

But still many Anunnaki were shown wearing cone hats...or had coneheads?

Edited December 27, 2019 by gendao

[Apech]

Cone-heads wearing hats? Just wondering.  Also what they doing with those pogo sticks???

[Taomeow]

26 minutes ago, gendao said:

 (...) the site (K.3364 - Wiki) that Nungali spoonfed you. (...) So, enough about semantics. 

 

 

Indeed.  

 

[Taomeow]

8 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I'm not a fan of racial theories - but they did find some Dynastic mummies to be semitic DNA - so maybe the Dynastic Egyptians came from the Middle East rather than Africa - but still I think most Nile Valley dwellers were probably African.  I am partial to the theories which place the origin of the Old Kingdom back to the end of the last ice Age - but it is unproven.

 

 

 

Ah, I see.  Well, there's no such thing as "semitic DNA" to begin with, the term actually derives from linguistics (despite being incessantly misapplied to all manner of racial theories) and in reality refers to a family of related languages, spoken by not necessarily related ancient peoples (including probably some Africans too --  King Solomon, e.g., is likely to have been black.)  I was thinking more in terms of historical accounts, but my timeframes are a bit hazy, don't know which was the chicken and which was the egg, and whether the Egyptian egg may have been from a totally different bird or the same one.  I would probably fall for Pan-Sumerianism too if it wasn't for my somewhat better (than with Egypt or the Indus Valley) handle on China, Southeast Asia and the Americas.  

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, gendao said:

Ah yes, you had thoroughly explained it all...just like how simply stacking 2 LEGOs together explains how to build anything in the universe!  Nothing more to see here, folks!

 

No, not at all . This is what you do gendao and this is why people react to you the way they do .

 

You asked several questions and made certain specific claims . I answered them . I am not going to rehash it here and disrupt the the thread more - if anyone wants to see it they can go to the other thread .

 

Also I noticed you never came up with a valid response there , but came here into this thread and  started it all up again here , without addressing ANY of the things you where previously demolished on .... instead, just citing 'lego block' explanations and posting a picture of lego blocks .

 

As if I am going to say stacking lego blocks explains everything in the universe  ... ridiculous, exaggerated  and stupid retort ! 

 

Then again, maybe you are just posting stuff like this to disrupt this thread . Then again, maybe even that is beyond your awareness and you just convulsively spew stuff without forethought or consideration ?

 

The more you go on with this the sillier you and your 'theories' are  seen to be .

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Slaves rejoiced in their work?  Let me guess...  9 to 5, medical insurance, paid vacations, perhaps free lunch in the cafeteria?  A gym?  And of course a generous pension plan, that goes without saying. 

 

But I don't doubt they were proudly patriotic.   Or at least "seemed" to be.  Perhaps "a lot happier and positive" is the default state of a people living in a better climate?  I live in a city that has the reputation of having the best climate on Earth (among cities that is, I'm pretty sure there's lots of rural areas whose weather is nicer -- and it's too dry and not green enough for me personally, I miss the rain and occasionally even the snow and a lot of other real world stuff.)  And, yes, everybody who can afford a good life here seems a lot happier and more positive than those who just get on the road and go elsewhere because they can't be happy and positive while having nowhere to live, work, or get helped when sick.  So...  I think Egypt would be a nice place to be happy and rejoice if it wasn't a horror show for too many -- but then, when you're a slave owner rather than a slave, things always look nicer.  Incidentally, in Sumer, slaves were never a major work force.  What about Egypt?  

 

 

Rice seems to be suggesting its about the rivers and that the T & G system was prone to more devastating flooding and droughts, where the Nile was more reliable . Since both cultures depended on the river so much and the river/s had been integrated into their psyche , he assumes this had an effect on their attitudes to nature , hence 'Gods' and life .

 

It might go against things , but yes, slaves can be happy , it depends how they are treated .  Even a promise of reward in the afterlife can make people happy ......  not that I condone such beliefs, but I am just thinking about a persons individual or collective happiness - to them  ... to us it might seem a tragedy !

 

I guess we go on their writings , if they seem to be in wonder and ecstasy about their  world and work, thats very different from people that bemoan and wail and feel unsecure and threatened .

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I'm not a fan of racial theories - but they did find some Dynastic mummies to be semitic DNA - so maybe the Dynastic Egyptians came from the Middle East rather than Africa - but still I think most Nile Valley dwellers were probably African.  I am partial to the theories which place the origin of the Old Kingdom back to the end of the last ice Age - but it is unproven.

 

 

 

Well .... the Nile  IS in Africa     

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, gendao said:

Sorry, I was merely using the term "Sumerian" regionally as per the site (K.3364 - Wiki) that Nungali spoonfed you.

 

Oh dear, more crap !  I  am not  nor does TM need any 'spoonfeeding' , that was sent and clearly said so  as a response to EG .

 

Can you get anything right ?

 

Quote

 

  But which he then blasts as outdated after I (poorly-assuming he vets his own links) quoted from, lol.  Yet then he still waffles upon...based on the latest bargain bin book he's reading by Michael Rice.

 

Others here know whats going on . You dont seem to be able to focus  your attention, or comprehend what is happening

 

Basically, you are out of your depth, and your Dunning - Kruger retorts aren't helping you .

 

I suggest you take it to your other thread which you just necroed with these same posts and pics .

 

 

 

Quote

 

But I guess the main, million-dolla question is - did these ancient civilizations arise indigenously and independently...or were they spread by a colonialist diaspora?  And if the latter...then who were these colonialists and where were they from?

 

 

 

If anyone else asked me this question, I would offer my opinion on it  ... but not for you !

Edited December 27, 2019 by Nungali

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

 

Ah, I see.  Well, there's no such thing as "semitic DNA" to begin with, the term actually derives from linguistics (despite being incessantly misapplied to all manner of racial theories) and in reality refers to a family of related languages, spoken by not necessarily related ancient peoples (including probably some Africans too --  King Solomon, e.g., is likely to have been black.)  I was thinking more in terms of historical accounts, but my timeframes are a bit hazy, don't know which was the chicken and which was the egg, and whether the Egyptian egg may have been from a totally different bird or the same one.  I would probably fall for Pan-Sumerianism too if it wasn't for my somewhat better (than with Egypt or the Indus Valley) handle on China, Southeast Asia and the Americas.  

 

Substitute DNA similar to populations from the Levant if you wish.

[Apech]

31 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Well .... the Nile  IS in Africa     

 

I'm in denial.

[Taomeow]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Rice seems to be suggesting its about the rivers and that the T & G system was prone to more devastating flooding and droughts, where the Nile was more reliable . Since both cultures depended on the river so much and the river/s had been integrated into their psyche , he assumes this had an effect on their attitudes to nature , hence 'Gods' and life .

 

It might go against things , but yes, slaves can be happy , it depends how they are treated .  Even a promise of reward in the afterlife can make people happy ......  not that I condone such beliefs, but I am just thinking about a persons individual or collective happiness - to them  ... to us it might seem a tragedy !

 

I guess we go on their writings , if they seem to be in wonder and ecstasy about their  world and work, thats very different from people that bemoan and wail and feel unsecure and threatened .

 

But how would Rice know?..  We're talking emotions here.  Their outer manifestations in Egyptian "ordinary" folks is an unknown to him, but even if it was known, would anyone buy what slaves manifest for the record?  Not me... 

 

The Soviet Union where I grew up was, in its early and middle phases at least, essentially built by two kinds of slaves, the happy ones who rejoiced in their work, and the unhappy ones who were accused of not rejoicing in their work enough and made a lot more miserable as punishment (covering up economic incentives, as punishments are wont to do, even today in the US with all its overflowing private for-profit prisons, sort of two birds with one stone, or more than two.)  So the happy ones who wanted to stay out of the worst of misery made sure they rejoiced enough.  Did Rice ever think of this kind of dynamics? 

 

I've seen it in action.  I've read my grandfather's letters to his teenage daughter, my mother, e.g., sent from Moscow when he went there on a business trip.  They were amazing letters.  Most of what was written was either written by a happy subject glorifying the gods, the rulers, the country, the system and every brick in the pavement of the shining road to communism...  OR by a smart subject who knew that a private letter is not necessarily private and had an eye on any other eyes that might read it. 

 

Oh, and you'll never guess the amount of self-censorship I apply when writing anything myself, despite seeming more outspoken than many.  I'm my grandfathers' descendant.  I never knew either of them but the one who was rejoicing enough survived longer, the other one was slightly less happy I guess, ever so slightly.  He was executed. 

 

Bottom line: I believe any kind of slavery is the end of the story of human happiness.  Even the delusional or cleverly deceptive kinds of happiness in slavery are really misery and pain and self-negation.  I don't think we're cut out to be happy slaves at all.  Maybe happiness-simulating robots, that's all over the place.  But I don't really trust happiness displays that are not really backed up with our legacy of freedom, something civilization took away from everybody.  

Edited December 27, 2019 by Taomeow

[Nungali]

Well, I would have to cite the writings of both Egypt and Sumer  and compare them to demonstrate - which is beyond the scope of this thread .  He is going on their literature , whether by an elite or a king or a slave owner , he is comparing one to the other .

 

I am not condoning any form of slavery, of course , its just a comparison of the elements of their beliefs myths and  writings.  A cultural comparison, not an attempt to justify slavery .

 

A background  might help to understand , but thats  also a veer off  the subject , perhaps .

 

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastic_race_theory

 

 

 

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I'm in denial.

 

You should have put on 'black face' make up to say that .  

 

Spoiler

Another aside folks  - ancient Egypt was considered part of the Mediterranean  along with the Nth Africa ( a 'modern concept /  continent' *  ) coast .  It extends east into the Levant .  Influx into Egypt from this area is recognised. Perhaps it blended with the indigenous ( coming in from the 'de-greening' Sahara ) and people, pre-Dynastic times, coming down the Nile .

 

Afro-centrists insist on a more modern continental  definition of Africa, claiming the Nile  and  its development was due wholly to an influx from the south .

 

.... and getting back to early agriculture .   ' They' often or nearly always 'neglect' to mention Africa ;

 

" Between 10,000 and 8000 BC, Northeast Africa was cultivating wheat and barley and raising sheep and cattle "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Africa#Emergence_of_agriculture_and_desertification_of_the_Sahara

 

" On the African continent, three areas have been identified as independently developing agriculture: the Ethiopian highlands, the Sahel and West Africa.^[45] By contrast, Agriculture in the Nile River Valley is thought to have developed from the original Neolithic Revolution in the Fertile Crescent. Many grinding stones are found with the early Egyptian Sebilian and Mechian cultures and evidence has been found of a neolithic domesticated crop-based economy dating around 7,000 BP.^[46][47] Unlike the Middle East, this evidence appears as a “false dawn” to agriculture, as the sites were later abandoned, and permanent farming then was delayed until 6,500 BP with the Tasian and Badarian cultures and the arrival of crops and animals from the Near East."

 

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/culturalanthropology/chapter/neolithic-revolution/

 

also , where to draw the line  for 'proper agriculture' ;   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150722144709.htm

 

 

Of course, there is also early  development in China as well, I sure Ms. Meow will get to that at some stage .

 

 

 

 

 

 

....

Edited December 28, 2019 by Nungali