Where did the Egyptians come from?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2003 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Archeologists have never figured out where the Egyptians came from. Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson says, "They don't seem to have an ancestry, they don't seem to have any period of development, they just seem almost to appear overnight. This has left people pondering, and of course it has been fertile ground for the unorthodox who suggest it was all planted by aliens, or visitors from Atlantis." But he has the answer: they were there all the time.
From examining early rock art which contains images similar to those inscribed on the great Egyptian monuments, Wilkinson decided that they were once stone-age nomads who moved their herds when the Nile flooded every summer. There are no written records from the early Egyptians, but their carvings tell the story of seasonal nomads who left the river valley when the Nile flooded. It was only later that they learned to tame the Nile and began farming. Once that happened, they had the leisure to develop a complex government, hieroglyphics and monumental building techniques.

"I think one of the most striking things is the shape of the boat

www.unknowncountry.com...




posted on May, 16 2003 @ 10:27 PM
link   
This is a load of bunk.

They found the first sources of Egyptian Writing, very basic carvings depicting where a battle happend, thought to be the battle between the first Pharaoh uniting south and north.

Before that there was no writing, no stone work and hence, no archaelogical trace of them.

But after that writing appeared abruptly, as a system to collect taxes, such as ones twos, little pictures denoting what the tax was, grain, cattle...such.

From there the writing system advanced.

I don't see where the point of this article is, because no one knows where Vikings came from, where did the indus river valley peoples come from? The Sumers?

They seem to pop up over night because it is a quick transition in one thing.

The ability to write.

Because the northmen could not write down their history, as much as we know of them only comes from myth, comes from stuffs preserved in peat, mainly burials in bogs.

And it is those subtle clues that we think we know what they were like, but like most things we must speculate as to how they came to be as we know them.

Because there was no writing.



posted on May, 17 2003 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Bye Bye Hammerite...

Next time, feel free to comment on a thread, but if you intend to try to shoot it down, please have supporting links to back you up.



posted on May, 17 2003 @ 02:05 AM
link   
What does anyone know about Khemet being a colony of Kush? They are related in the Torah.
I know that some Afrocentric scholars exagerate and even lie at times but many people are too quick to discredit them. Many people are white supremacist and don't even realize it.


Peace



posted on May, 17 2003 @ 05:18 AM
link   
I watched a program that seems to support this theory. It showed ancient stone circles deep in the desert that were believed to be used as communal firepits by wandering nomads. It developed the theory that those nomads eventually migrated towards the delta, learned about agriculture and settled down to become who we now know as the Egyptians.



posted on May, 17 2003 @ 05:38 AM
link   
It's always hard even to begin on topics like these: even in the much-better documented worlds of the Greeks and Romans- folk-histories were the rule of the day: people looked at the present and devised a suitably glorious past.
One can imagine -looking at the case of the Two Kindoms, a situation analogous to China where smaller warring states were eventually amalgamated and the histories were "created" to make centuries, of what was probably inglorious squabbling, appear Grand History.
In short we guess and look for analogies.



posted on May, 17 2003 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Linguistics is often the best answer -and precious little is solid on the early Egyptians here (the same script problems as the Chinese: no easy phonetic identification); but Egyptian was almost certainly a Semitic language related to Babylonian, Sumerian etc: so the easiest fit is either a move East from Egyppt: or West from Mesopotamia.
I'd favour the latter for various reasons: largely "best guesses" on philological issues.
Any "Afro-centred" hyopothesis (and I've never seen anything worthy of being called a hypothesis) may be right; but it is at best wishful thinking given current knowledge.



posted on May, 18 2003 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Remember that Kish(first kingship of the Sumerians) and Kush(Ethiopians) are synonymous.
Could the ancient Khemetians have been descendents of the ancient Ku#es!?

Remember we all came from black people. They could have been straight haired black people but black nonetheless. Just look at the non-mixed people of India(Tamil, Naga, Dravidians, etc.). They could easily have been of the Ku#es.


Peace



posted on May, 18 2003 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider
Bye Bye Hammerite...

Next time, feel free to comment on a thread, but if you intend to try to shoot it down, please have supporting links to back you up.



Hmmm. I dunno. I think you were a little hard on him there. Although I normally disagree with everything else he has said, he does have a point here.
The written word is power. Sure there were a few cave paintings before which told us a little about our ancestors but nothing ever really became concrete until we discovered the written word.
When you're going back over 4 thousand years everything is speculation unless you've got writings or fossils. And even then, nothing is for sure.

The thing that amazes me about the Egyptians is not where they came from. It's what they did once their civilisation was established. Their grasp of mathematics and astronomy seems to be far in advance of it's time. But then you could say the same for the pyramid building cultures of South America.

What I wonder at the most is not where they physically came from, it's where they thought they were going that intrigues me.



posted on May, 18 2003 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Egyptians came from Kush.



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Care to elaborate?



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 03:41 AM
link   
We're probably all well aware of Kush (Cush, Kish) in the context of Bablyonia/Mesopotamia and Genesis.
But, I'd like to see the evidence that Egyptians regarded themselves as having come from there.
Or, is this another "Kush"?



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Really, without some sort of solid reference/evidence such topics degenerate all too often into Afro-centric assertion.
It may be that the Egyptians were "African" in origin (whatever that might mean precisely); but it is fair to say that scholarship would tend to refute this and the most ardent supporters of this view (it's scarcely a hypothesis since it is all too often simply assumed) tend to be propagandists.



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 12:42 PM
link   
on Egyptians being more from Mesopotamia.... Much of their history and lifestyle, writing, etc. bears this out...



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I'm still waiting to see something solid on this other "Kush".
yes, we all know the name and that it may or may not have been Nubia etc. blah...yawn; but I'd like to see anything any more definite from any reputable historian.
And certainly anything verifiable that suggests the Egyptians believed they came from Kush.
Oraatht there was a "Kush" at the sort of time. perhaps 4 millennia BC that we are considering.



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Or I rest my case that this is affirmative actin drivel and we're back in Alex Haley Roots & Fraud land.



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 01:33 PM
link   
And no drivelling Biblical pseudo-scholarship, please. "Cush" occurs in Genesis, Chronicles, Psalms and Isaiah and it is just part of the line of Noah through Ham (hence Hamitic peoples).
No one could ascertain where the name could be applied to from the Biblical evidence; but there is a better case, if you look at the texts, for Mesopotamia, than for some semi-mythical African kingdom -for which there is no case at all..



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 04:26 PM
link   
It is a known fact that when the Bible says "Kush" it's referring to the Ethiopians. Kush is synonymous with Kish of Mesopotamia; the first people to have "kingship lowered from heaven". The lineage comes from Ham. The Egyptians are synonymous with Mizraim a son of Ham. This is revealed not only in the Torah but cuneiform writings as well. The Babylonians, Hittites(whites who used heiroglyphics), Sumerians(probably black) and Akkadians(semitic or a black and white mixture) should all have a record of this.

The Bible is a mix of lies and truth but why would the Bible try to make the Khemetians look black if they weren't. Unless the Hamites were white. Can anyone honestly say that the Ku#es/Ethiopians were ever "white".


Peace




[Edited on 5-19-2003 by BuddhaCession]

[Edited on 5-19-2003 by BuddhaCession]



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The Hittites did what??



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Thewy used a cuneiform script: this is known to almost all children above the age of two.
Only "hieroglyphic" on drivel-boards!
Cyberchums anxious to ensure that their heads remain right may check a brief scholarly index here: iiasnt.leidenuniv.nl...
One of the world's better universities.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join