Minoans And Their Libyan Connection??:

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Spider879
Oh I just remembered the

Beazely Collection , although not of the same era as the Minoans and in is fact Carthaginian, while it showed a blended populous, often times within the same family, it clearly showed subbed nosed north Africans, Tehnnu?? along side their Eurasian counter parts, probably descendants of the Temahu with incoming Levantines.

Ooh! Sweet!

However, that's from a later era... and some of what you're calling Africans are actually satyrs (according to the museum tags.) They are depicted as pale-skinned and snub-nosed in Greek art.

Oh you are correct some were indeed Satyrs , others were not, in this case Bes /Pan.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Spider879
Yes no doubt that the Carthaginians worshiped her as well, but it has been suggested that as early as the unification dynasty of Narmer, Libyans perhaps the Tehnnu were occupying the delta long before the creamy colored Temahu came on the scene, this is where Neith is from.

I don't think the evidence (skeletal, images such as the Hierankopolis rock art, DNA) supports the Tehnnu/Temahu scenario. I would agree that at some time in the past a much darker skinned people lived there before 8000 BC. But I think gradual immigration from the Mediterranean (and more specifically from the Arabian peninsula, according to the DNA evidence) was common enough that by 4000 BC they were pretty much what we see today.

I am not going to assume the incoming folks from the Arabian peninsula were particularly lite-skinned, although north Syrians may well have been during that time, however I think what became the Temahu, were part of the displaced Sea people who were in fact allies with various native Libyan tribes against Egypt during the time of Mereneptah, defeated and could not go back in the direction from which they came , they had no choice but to make life among their Libyan friends, it was about this time they came on the scene in Egyptian art.

originally posted by: Spider879
however I think what became the Temahu, were part of the displaced Sea people who were in fact allies with various native Libyan tribes against Egypt during the time of Mereneptah, defeated and could not go back in the direction from which they came , they had no choice but to make life among their Libyan friends, it was about this time they came on the scene in Egyptian art.

I'm not finding any good resources for what you mean by "Temahu". After my previous response, I went looking and only came up with sites that are apparently Making Stuff Up. One claimed that "Tamahu" meant "Westerner" but the Egyptian word (Manu, Imty) for Westerner (or West) isn't even close to that.

Can you give me some sources?

originally posted by: Spider879
Oh you are correct some were indeed Satyrs , others were not, in this case Bes /Pan.

What makes it interesting, though, is the question of how they decided "snub nose" for satyr. Socrates was depicted in a similar manner (snub nose, prominent brow, etc.) now that I think of it.

Dunno. I haven't really studied Greek art and Greek civilization very thoroughly.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Spider879
however I think what became the Temahu, were part of the displaced Sea people who were in fact allies with various native Libyan tribes against Egypt during the time of Mereneptah, defeated and could not go back in the direction from which they came , they had no choice but to make life among their Libyan friends, it was about this time they came on the scene in Egyptian art.

I'm not finding any good resources for what you mean by "Temahu". After my previous response, I went looking and only came up with sites that are apparently Making Stuff Up. One claimed that "Tamahu" meant "Westerner" but the Egyptian word (Manu, Imty) for Westerner (or West) isn't even close to that.

Can you give me some sources?

Francis Champollion's letter to his brother, and Gerald Massey's book of beginning, but I first came across it from Diop in his book The African Origin Of Civilization, him quoting Champollion's letter.
the below is from the Book of beginnings.
Gerald Massey.

The Egyptians identify themselves on the monuments as the Rut. A pictorial representation is found on the tomb of Seti I of four races of people arranged in groups of four men each. These are the Nahsi (negroes); the Hemu, men of a light brown hue, with blue eyes, and hair in a bag; the Tamahu, who are fair as Europeans; and the Rut, who are Egyptians. These are typical groups, not meant merely for conquered races, as may be gathered from the signification of their names. The Tamahu are light-complexioned people. In Egyptian, tama means people, and created. Hu is white, light, ivory. The Tamahu are the 'Created white' people. Na is black, ink. Neh, a blackbird. Su is the person, or birth. The Nahsu one black born, or, in Egyptian phrase, black from the egg (su). Hem is the rudder, to paddle, fish; hemi, to steer. The Hemu thus indicated are the sailors, seafarers, the people of the isles. The Isles of the Gentiles[77] might be rendered in Egyptian by the isles of the Amu or Hemu. The hieroglyphic hem is the sign of a water frontier.
www.masseiana.org...

I am guessing he meant the book of gates?? however you are in a better position than I to see if Temahu meant created white person or anything remotely like it, but the origin of that term goes back to Champollion.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Spider879
Oh you are correct some were indeed Satyrs , others were not, in this case Bes /Pan.

What makes it interesting, though, is the question of how they decided "snub nose" for satyr. Socrates was depicted in a similar manner (snub nose, prominent brow, etc.) now that I think of it.

Dunno. I haven't really studied Greek art and Greek civilization very thoroughly.

I am 99% certain that Pan is a Greek version of Bes which would account for the snubbed nose being he was a Ba-twa or pygmy, he was just as wild a party animal as Pan and carried much the same attributes, the goat legs of Pan and horn was a Greek thing.

originally posted by: Spider879

I concur, it's the only theory that made any kinda sense to me, as it doesn't violate any science with regards to age, and a tsunami to boot, in fact the legend may very well be a conflation of events one involving Santorini and the other some half forgotten tales of lands beyond the pillars of Herakles.

I agree with the conflation angle as well, you could start to roll all these disparate events together like some version of the history telephone game.

Another thing to consider is that there could have been lead up events to the large eruption/explosion which contributed to the myth as well.

originally posted by: Spider879
Francis Champollion's letter to his brother, and Gerald Massey's book of beginning, but I first came across it from Diop in his book The African Origin Of Civilization, him quoting Champollion's letter.
the below is from the Book of beginnings.
...(snippage)
I am guessing he meant the book of gates?? however you are in a better position than I to see if Temahu meant created white person or anything remotely like it, but the origin of that term goes back to Champollion.

Okay - what you've gotten ahold of is a source that's 150 years out of date.

The image is found in the Tomb of Seti I - a beautiful tomb, and contains some of the Book of Gates and the Book of What Is In the Amduat - but neither of those mentions foreigners by name (or foreigners... apparently they're not in the underworld or afterlife.) They are identified in another scene, though.

When I went looking further - turns out that most images identified by text as Libyans have skin the same color as the Egyptians (not black, in other words.) This is a consistent convention throughout ancient Egyptian art - (though there is an occasional dark-skinned one). Nubians are the ones shown with darkest skin.

The better rendition of the word for Libyan is "Tjemhu."

I don't think you should follow Massey -- as I read down the page you linked, I notice quite a few errors in spite of his also citing some good (but now outdated) material.

As you've said earlier, the ancient Egyptians called themselves "remetch en Kemet"(discussion here) - the modern term, Kemetians is not incorrect in this sense. I have no idea where "Rut" comes from.

The depiction of foreigners in Egyptian art usually follows certain rules. Syrians and people from the Near East in general are often shown with yellow skin, and wearing bright clothes in different colours; the adult males are shown bearded. Libyans were shown after the Old Kingdom with bright skin and tattoos. Nubians are shown with curly hair, dark skin and thick lips; the adult males are not shown bearded.

...certain ruler of Miam (Aniba) in Nubia, with the Egyptian name Hekanefer, is shown in a Theban tomb as Nubian, while he is shown in his own tomb (in Nubia) as Egyptian.

From here (written by Egyptologist

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Another thing to consider is that there could have been lead up events to the large eruption/explosion which contributed to the myth as well.

Geologically, though, the pre-events aren't a match for anything... and as the Roman reaction to the dangers of Pompeii shows, they were pretty unaware of these things.

originally posted by: Spider879
I am 99% certain that Pan is a Greek version of Bes which would account for the snubbed nose being he was a Ba-twa or pygmy, he was just as wild a party animal as Pan and carried much the same attributes, the goat legs of Pan and horn was a Greek thing.

I dunno. Bes has a lot of lion-like physical attributes.

On the other hand, it's as good a guess as anything until better evidence shows up.

a reply to: Byrd

One of the hypothetical scenarios he describes in the book to explain the Biblical accounts of the first born children dying in Egypt is a release of toxic gas due to seismic activity preceding the eruption.

I know it's a stretch but interesting to speculate.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Byrd

One of the hypothetical scenarios he describes in the book to explain the Biblical accounts of the first born children dying in Egypt is a release of toxic gas due to seismic activity preceding the eruption.

I know it's a stretch but interesting to speculate.

That's a HUGE stretch. Think about the physics of it - the inverse square law would apply with the dispersion of gas (and that's without measuring the impact of the wind). By the time anything got across the Mediterranean to Egypt, you're talking about one molecule in a roomful of air.

If you look at a map of the Aegean sea plate (involved in Santorini) you will see that it does not touch Egypt at all (misses it by hundreds of miles.) So any activity there would not impact Egypt and activity in Egypt wouldn't impact it.

a reply to: Byrd

Been awhile since I read it but I think he postulates that gas was released off the coast of Egypt due to seismic activity, not that it traveled from Santorini.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Byrd

Been awhile since I read it but I think he postulates that gas was released off the coast of Egypt due to seismic activity, not that it traveled from Santorini.

The problem is still the inverse-square law and the distance. If you look at the Agean Sea plate map, there's nothing there at the coast of Egypt.

a reply to: Byrd

Toxic gasses do not have to be released solely where plates meet. It could theoretically occur anywhere.

a reply to: Byrd

...not only that, but the volume of gas. Think of all the train wrecks where something toxic has been released. The area of impact is only a few miles and not farther. You could cite things like Lake Nios but there were some very unusual conditions there which do not occur in Egypt. For one thing, it occurred in a caldera. Egypt is not a caldera.

a reply to: Byrd

I am not making these claims, Charlie Pellegrino the volcanologist is.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Byrd

Toxic gasses do not have to be released solely where plates meet. It could theoretically occur anywhere.

They have to come from somewhere. They don't just form. In general the ones with the highest volumes and concentrations are those in volcanically active areas.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Byrd

I am not making these claims, Charlie Pellegrino the volcanologist is.

I don't see any evidence that he's a vulcanologist.

I see his bio on his website - Google Scholar doesn't turn up any papers of his involving vulcanology and I do see critical remarks indicating that he's not a vulcanologist.

a reply to: Byrd

I guess I was mistaken, it is still his theory however.