So Ancient Egyptians really looked like this?

[Asante]

LETS LEARN

Jews of the Middle East

• 
  

While all Jews have roots in the Middle East, Mizrahi Jews never left it.

BY LOOLWA KHAZZOOM

Upon examining the history and heritage of the Jewish people, we find that Judaism is deeply connected to the Middle East and North Africa: Sarah and Abraham came from Mesopotamia, the land that is today Iraq — the same land where the first yeshivas and the Babylonian were developed. The festival celebrates the liberation of ancient Iranian (Persian) Jews, and Passover tells the story of ancient Egyptian Jews. Hebrew developed alongside other Semitic languages in the Middle East and North Africa and Jewish prayers and holiday cycles reflect the weather patterns of that region. (It was not, for example, meant to snow in the .)




Regardless of where Jews lived most recently, therefore, all Jews have roots in the Middle East and North Africa. Some communities, of course, have more recent ties to this region: m and Sephardim, two distinct communities that are often confused with one another.

The Beginnings of the Jewish People
Mizrahim are Jews who never left the Middle East and North Africa since the beginnings of the Jewish people 4,000 years ago. In 586 B.C.E., the Babylonian Empire (ancient Iraq) conquered Yehudah (Judah), the southern region of ancient Israel.

Babylonians occupied the Land of Israel and exiled the Yehudim (Judeans, or Jews), as captives into Babylon. Some 50 years later, the Persian Empire (ancient Iran) conquered the Babylonian Empire and allowed the Jews to return home to the land of Israel. But, offered freedom under Persian rule and daunted by the task of rebuilding a society that lay in ruins, most Jews remained in Babylon. Over the next millennia, some Jews remained in today’s Iraq and Iran, and some migrated to neighboring lands in the region (including today’s Syria, Yemen, and Egypt), or emigrated to lands in Central and East Asia (including India, China, and Afghanistan)

ADVERTISING
Sephardim are among the descendants of the line of Jews who chose to return and rebuild Israel after the Persian Empire conquered the Babylonian Empire. About half a millennium later, the Roman Empire conquered ancient Israel for the second time, massacring most of the nation and taking the bulk of the remainder as slaves to Rome. Once the Roman Empire crumbled, descendants of these captives migrated throughout the European continent. Many settled in Spain (Sepharad) and Portugal, where they thrived until the Spanish Inquisition and Expulsion of 1492 and the Portuguese Inquisition and Expulsion shortly thereafter.

During these periods, Jews living in Christian countries faced discrimination and hardship. Some Jews who fled persecution in Europe settled throughout the Mediterranean regions of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, as well as Central and South America. Sephardim who fled to Ottoman-ruled Middle Eastern and North African countries merged with the Mizrahim, whose families had been living in the region for thousands of years.

In the early 20th century, severe violence against Jews forced communities throughout the Middle Eastern region to flee once again, arriving as refugees predominantly in Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and the Americas. In Israel, Middle Eastern and North African Jews were the majority of the Jewish population for decades, with numbers as high as 70 percent of the Jewish population, until the mass Russian immigration of the 1990s. Mizrahi Jews are now half of the Jewish population in Israel.

Mizrahi Jews Around the World
Throughout the rest of the world, Mizrahi Jews have a strong presence in metropolitan areas — Paris, London, Montreal, Los Angeles, Brooklyn, and Mexico City. Mizrahim and Sephardim share more than common history from the past five centuries. Mizrahi and religious leaders traditionally have stressed chesed (compassion) over humra(severity, or strictness), following a more lenient interpretation of Jewish law.

Despite such baseline commonalities, Middle Eastern and North African Mizrahim and Sephardim do retain distinct cultural traditions. Though Mizrahi and Sephardic prayer books are close in form and content, for example, they are not identical. Mizrahi prayers are usually sung in quarter tones, whereas Sephardic prayers have more of a Southern European feel. Traditionally, moreover, Sephardic prayers are often accompanied by a Western-style choir in the synagogue.

Mizrahi Jews traditionally spoke Judeo-Arabic — a language blending Hebrew and a local Arabic dialect. While a number of Sephardic Jews in the Middle East and North Africa learned and spoke this language, they also spoke Ladino — a blend of Hebrew and Spanish. Having had no history in Spain or Portugal, Mizrahim generally did not speak Ladino.

In certain areas, where the Sephardic immigration was weak, Sephardim assimilated into the predominantly Mizrahi communities, taking on all Mizrahi traditions and retaining just a hint of Sephardic heritage — such as Spanish-sounding names. In countries such as Morocco, however, Spanish and Portuguese Jews came in droves, and the Sephardic community set up its own synagogues and schools, remaining separate from the Mizrahi community.

Diversity Within the Communities
Even within the Mizrahi and Sephardi communities, there were cultural differences from country to country. On Purim, Iraqi Jews had strolling musicians going from house to house and entertaining families (comparable to Christmas caroling), whereas Egyptian Jews closed off the Jewish quarter for a full-day festival (comparable to Mardi Gras). On Shabbat, Moroccan Jews prepared hamin(spicy meat stew), whereas Yemenite Jews prepared showeah (spicy roasted meat), among other foods.

As Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews are a minority of Jews in North America, their heritage remains foreign to many North American Jews of Central and Eastern European heritage (known as Ashkenazim). Yet just as the world begins to embrace multiculturalism, so too has the Jewish community begun to acknowledge and celebrate the wonderful cultural diversity that exists among its own people.

This biblical based conjecture is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing. I provided peer reviewed studies on the general biological affinities of the Northeastern Africa and the Near East, which proved that they were originally Black Africans. What particular passage in this mess that you present is a direct refutation of the information that I put forward about early farmers of the Near East having close biological affinities with "Niger -Congo" or "Negroid" Africans? Don't spam irrelevant bullshyt to save face in a debate.

 

[Jemmy]

Keep in mind, some of these other west African civilizations came thousands of years after ancient Egypt was over.

It seems people always try to crunch ancient history into a 50-year time span.

We can talk about other African civilizations without shytting on Ancient Egypt.









@Asante point about the time line is critical.
Most of what is called 'Ancient Egypt' was ruled by people native to that land.

You're talking about a 2,600 year period (From about 3,100 to 500 BC). Within that time, one dynasty was foreign (the Hyksos). They ruled for about a 100 years.

The late period (around 500 BC onward) when first the Nubians, then the Assyrians, then the Persians ruled (25th - 29th dynasties). With the 30th dynasty, native Egyptians took it back for about 40 years (this was the last native Egyptian dynasty). Then started the Greeks, then Romans.

Again, for a good 2,600 years there was native rulers.

Their culture was so strong it lasted for 2,600 years virtually uninterrupted. That's longer than any culture in the history of the world.

Even after the Persians and the Greeks conquered Egypt, they kept calling themselves Pharaohs. So invaders adopted their culture. So it's actually closer to 3,000 years.

Exactly.
Most of the DNA from these mummies that have been released and highlighted on CNN and other media are from the late periods when the Greeks in Romans occupied Egypt.

Kemit's trading partner, the Kingdom of the Yam, I believe there is growing evidence that they were around the Lake Chad basin area (Egyptian hieroglyphs have been found in the basin area). Most maps have it below Nubia. Hieroglyphs mentioning the Kingdom of the Yam date from 2300 - 2100 BC.

Here's an article on the Egyptian and lake Chad region connection:
Unreported Heritage News: Ancient Egyptians made the arduous trek to Chad new research suggests

Here's the hieroglyph:

Ancient Egypt and the Chad area had to be strongly connected at some point. I’d say the Chadic speakers like the Hausa along with the Fulani had a strong presence in Ancient Egypt.

 

[Sccit]

This biblical based conjecture is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing. I provided peer reviewed studies on the general biological affinities of the Northeastern Africa and the Near East, which proved that they were originally Black Africans. What particular passage in this mess that you present is a direct refutation of the information that I put forward about early farmers of the Near East having close biological affinities with "Niger -Congo" or "Negroid" Africans? Don't spam irrelevant bullshyt to save face in a debate.

WHAT U POSTED IS ALL HEARSAY WIT ZERO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER

 

[Budda]

what??!!!

Are you aware that im born and raised in an African country?!

My own tribe has practiced our uniqque tradition and identified as what we are for many CENTURIES, and you gon come here and tell me thats false?

the coli dot com, yall

If anything this means you’re more likely to be uneducated about your own history! See how you say centuries... small time lines, a lot of the actual knowledge on that continent in regards to African people comes from outside of the continent.

 

[Kairi Irving]

Brendan Frasier in The Mummy head ass

Nathan Drake in Uncharted 1 face ass boy

 

[The Darkness]

Typical cac response

Yes. The word "Anu" is literally another way of saying "Bantu". Of course it's also connected to the word "Annunaki".

reminds me of Anu and Padomay

 

[kwazzy100]

This comparison has nothing to do with your refuted claims of "Arabs in dynastic Egypt". In your photo above the two groups on the right were certified FOES of ancient Kemet. While one two on the left were indigenous to the Hapi Valley.

You missed this representation of the Ikami as indistinguishable from other black Africans;

What does this prove? Still goes to show how multi racial Ancient Egypt was in later years. You're acting like I'm saying the Europeans, Persians, and Arabs originated there, which I have not said. However, not everyone that lived there or ruled the nation weren't from African origin. Not all of them, that's my point. Rulers like
Ptolemy VIII Physcon and Cleopatra are examples.

 

[Asante]

What does this prove?

That the ancient Kemites depicted themselves in the same manner as black Africans from other regions of the continent.

Still goes to show how multi racial Ancient Egypt was in later years

The foreigners who populated Kemet in it's later periods are the direct reason why the culture and civilization fell. Dynastic culture originated in Nubia, and harbored in the areas of Lower Nubia and Upper Kemet. The foreigners settled in the northern region of the nation along the Mediterranean in the Delta. The question to ask you is why in the fukk are you trying to validate "Multi racial" Kemet when we know that that was it's downfall. What point are you trying to validate? That non blacks gravitate towards black culture like moths to a light until the overwhelm the culture, and eventually destroy it?

However, not everyone that lived there or ruled the nation weren't from African origin. Not all of them, that's my point. Rulers like
Ptolemy VIII Physcon and Cleopatra are examples.

Those were terrible periods during the history for the native Kemites, so again what the fukk is your point? You cannot be black saying stupid shyt like this.

 

[Asante]

WHAT U POSTED IS ALL HEARSAY WIT ZERO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER

So a peer reviewed study is "hearsay". Man shut the fukk up. You made a fool of yourself throughout this thread trying to hold on to your little debunked theories.

 

[GASign]

Yeah they be putting that stuff in textbooks for the public school system.

It was years ago I came across an article or picture of a young breh that was a farmer dressed in old tattered clothes and they had a white boy as the Pharaoh. It was titled "From Pharaoh To Farmer" or something like that. Be weary of what they teaching your kids in school if you sending them there.

 

[Sccit]

So a peer reviewed study is "hearsay". Man shut the fukk up. You made a fool of yourself throughout this thread trying to hold on to your little debunked theories.

A PEER REVIEWED STUDY BROUGHT THEM TO A THEORY

DO U KNOW WHAT A THEORY MEANS?

BECAUSE U CALLIN WHAT IM SAYIN A THEORY WHILE POSTING YOUR OWN

 

[kwazzy100]

The question to ask you is why in the fukk are you trying to validate "Multi racial" Kemet when we know that that was it's downfall. What point are you trying to validate?

Because that's it's history. I have never pointed out the highlights of the kingdom, YOU have to spin your narrative.

Those were terrible periods during the history for the native Kemites

Those were never my points about multi racial in the kingdom.
You're just scraping out points of history.

It's like saying there were only whites who inhabited Ancient Rome.

 

[Asante]

Because that's it's history.+

No the fukk it's not. This is what Cac's promote in order to justify their rhetoric about black inferiority that only came about in the last 200 years. In

I have never pointed out the highlights of the kingdom, YOU have to spin your narrative. At the UNESCO Conference of 1974 C.A. Diop and T. Obenga proved in every single category (linguistics, biological affinities, culture, archaeology) without contest from their opponents that the ancient Kemites were not only black Africans, but are clearly the ancestors of West, South and Central Africans. The Cacs who filled the room could only admit that these Africans came prepared to prove their argument, and with that they pulled an I'm white and I say so. Meaning that before the Africans made their arguments these Cacs were actually ready to come together and baselessly assert that ancient Kemet was of an Asiatic origin. That being said, they without cause said that it wasn't black, but multi racial. They used the word multi racial as a way to deny that this was a black African civilization which reflected the only evidence presented. White people cannot handle blacks being the creators of the World's most influential civilizations (Nubia and Kemet), so they had to insert themselves and others into the picture. It's like saying that hip hop while it's clearly of black origin, because it is so integral in every culture from America to Korea it must be multi racial in origin. Those other people who are taught through white propaganda that they are superior to us blacks cannot accept that such an important aspect of their daily lives (music and culture) is owed to those people whom they feel superior to. They do not what to accept that this great thing came from black people, and black people exclusively.

Those were never my points about multi racial in the kingdom.

Again you are fukking flawed, and or a Cac who cannot help but lie and deceive on this mater. The Origins of the dynastic culture and civilization of Kemet came from black Africans, not Europeans nor Asiatics;

"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528​

Do you see have the biological evidence proves that it was not a mixed race civilization upon the civilizations foundation, and core population for most of the dynastic era? So essentially non blacks came unto a black land to absorb black culture, and slow mf's like yourself wishes to attribute the black culture to the non black culture vultures who flocked to it. Typical Cac logic. The Oxford Encyclopedia also confirms it's African origin;

"Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed
harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time).

Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...

Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision,
and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.."

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....." "Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans."
Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28

Source: The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, 2001. Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p.28​

You're just scraping out points of history.

Yes THE ORIGIN OF THE CIVILIZATION. That is the most import "point" of the civilization to understand where it came from. You are starting in the New Kingdom after Kemet received immigrants as a result of their own imperialism. You are trying to say that the late immigrants were somehow just as important to the information about the civilization, as those who actually created the civilization. You sound like Cac repeating dumb anti black rhetoric.

It's like saying there were only whites who inhabited Ancient Rome.

Now why in the fukk would we equate Rome or Greece with white, when we know tha the original peoples of those lands and civilizations were black African migrants. European scholars have known this for centuries. After 1,400-1,200 BC white nomads came into Europe the Caucus, and brought about a Dark Ages to the preexisting black Neolithic civilizations of the Mediterranean. Blacks are the foundation of all civilization;

"THE MEDITERRANEAN RACE
Preface

WHEN this little book was first published in an Italian edition in 1895, and in a German edition in 1897, I was still unable to obtain many anthropological data needed to complete tha picture of the primitive inhabitants of Europe. In the English edition the book is less incomplete, richer in anthropological and ethnological documents, and hence more conclusive; it also contains replies to various objections which have been brought forward. This English edition, therefore, is not so much a translation of a work already published as a new book, both in form and arrangement

The conclusions I have sought to maintain are the following :- +

(1.) The primitive populations of Europe, after Homo Neandertkalensis, originated in Africa; these constituted the entire population of Neolithic times.

(2.) The basin of the Mediterranean was the chief centre of movement whence the African migrations reached the centre and the north of Europe.
(3.) From the great African stock were formed three varieties, in accordance with differing telluric and geographic conditions: one,.,peculiarly African, remaining in the continent where it originated; another, .the Mediterranean, which occupied the basin of that sea; and a third, the Nordtic:, which reached the north of Europe. These three varieties are the three great branches of one species, which I call Eurafrican, because it occupied, and still occupies, a large portion of the two continents of Africa and Europe.
(4) These three human varieties have nothing in common with the so-called Aryan races; it is an error to maintain that the Germans and the Scandinavians, blond dolichocephals or long-heads (of the Reihengraber and Viking types), are Aryans; they . are Eurafricans of the Nordic variety.

(5.) The Aryans are of Asiatic origin, and constitute a variety of the Eurafrican: species,• the physical characters of their skeletons are different from those of the Eurafricans.
(6.) The primitive civilisation of the Eurafricans is Afro-Mediterranean, becoming eventually AfroEuropean.

(7.) The Mycenrean civilisation had its origin in Asia, and was transformed by diffusion in the Mediterranean.

(8.) The two classic civilisations, Greek and Latin; were not Aryan, but Mediterranean. The Aryans were savages when they invaded Europe: they destroyed in part the superior civilisation of the Neolithic populations, and could not have created the Greco-Latin civilization

(9.) In the course of the Aryan invasions the languages of the Eurafrican species in Europe were transformed in Italy, Greece, and elsewhere, Celtic, German, Slavonic, etc., being genuine branches of the Aryan tongue; in other cases the Aryan languages underwent a transformation, preserving some elements of the conquered tongues, as in the NeoCeltic of Wales. Some of these conclusions no longer arouse the same opposition as when I first brought them forward. The arguments meeting with most resistance are those tending to overthrow the ancient conception of an Aryan civilization.

THE FUTURE WILL ENABLE US TO SEE THESE QUESTIONS MORE CLEARLY. G. SERGI.

ROME, Feoruary, 1901." ​

 

[Ziggiy]

They weren't black but they weren't white either

Negged for idiocy

 

[Asante]

A PEER REVIEWED STUDY BROUGHT THEM TO A THEORYp

No actually the hypothesis is essentially the theory, and the hypothesis is the basis of scientific inquiry you dumbass.

DO U KNOW WHAT A THEORY MEANS?

A thought that needs to be tested. i.e the scientific process dumbass.

BECAUSE U CALLIN WHAT IM SAYIN A THEORY WHILE POSTING YOUR OWN

What you're saying is a hypothesis informed by ignorance, and validated by NOTHING. What I've stated are the implications of the results of already tested hypothesis, i.e the conclusions of the peer reviewed studies. Peer reviewed means that the results of testing the hypothesis was reached by multiple qualified individuals. Nothing that you say makes any fukking sense, so stop the hoe babble and accept your schooling.