|
|
Post by Brandon S. Pilcher on Apr 7, 2010 0:44:06 GMT -5
Most people who have seriously considered the physical appearance of the ancient Hebrews would argue that they look like stereotypical Southwest Asians---that is, olive complexions and dark hair. However, on Egyptsearch, I have met many posters who are of the opinion that the ancient Hebrews were in fact black. What is their evidence for this? This is how the ancient Egyptians depicted Southwest Asians living in the region inhabited by the Hebrews:  The Southwest Asians are the people with dark yellow complexions. They certainly aren't white, but they don't look black to me, unless you consider Halle Berry, Barack Obama, or other people of mixed heritage "black". |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 7, 2010 3:02:24 GMT -5
Most people who have seriously considered the physical appearance of the ancient Hebrews would argue that they look like stereotypical Southwest Asians---that is, olive complexions and dark hair. However, on Egyptsearch, I have met many posters who are of the opinion that the ancient Hebrews were in fact black. What is their evidence for this? This is how the ancient Egyptians depicted Southwest Asians living in the region inhabited by the Hebrews: The Southwest Asians are the people with dark yellow complexions. They certainly aren't white, but they don't look black to me, unless you consider Halle Berry, Barack Obama, or other people of mixed heritage "black". That depends on the time frame it seems that the further back in time you go the Blacker they were see Al Takruri's quotes on Shem being Black and beautiful..Quote An impeccable Hebrew source (not even Aramaic) is
the Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer who classed the entire
Shemitic people as black.
Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful,
Hham was blessed black like the raven, and
Yapheth was blessed white all over.
There's only one authentic set of contemporary images
of Judahites and that is Sennacherib's reliefs of the
conquest of Lachish. The hair of the Judahites is nappy.
As a refresher of what was forgotten though only
posted a few days ago by more than one member ..
www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=001894I gave this answer before and I'll give it again; The remains found at Lakish:The excavation uncovered a mass of human bones,which was estimated to from the remains of fifteen hundred individuals..remains of 695 skulls were brought to London by the British expedition...curiously,the crania indicate a close resemblance to the population of Egypt at this time...the relationships found suggest that the population of the town in 700 B.C was entirely of Egyptian origin..they show further,that the population of lakish was probably derived from upper Egypt.James e Brunson You guys understand the significance of the above? followed by this statement by Pliny The Elder-Roman Naturalist.... That Syria was once the domain of Cepheus, an Ethiopian king,Tacitus wrote that the Romans believed that the Jews originated in Ethiopia but fled the persecutions of the King. Strabo,even earlier,stressed that people of Western Judea was Africiod: But although the inhabitants are mixed up thus,the most accredited reports in regards to the people of Jerusalem represents the ancestors of the present Judeans as they are called Egyptians. |
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 7, 2010 11:42:16 GMT -5
In my opinion, the evidence suggests that the Hebrews were an Asiatic people with an African base, introduced some time earlier. In addition to what truthcentric points out, wall reliefs just prior to the Hyksos invasions show a distinct population of incoming migrants from the north who again, resemble other Asiatics in style and dress, but have noticably dark skin approaching the hue seen on Egyptians (see "Exodus Decoded")., and much darker than later depictions showing SW Asians as yellow or similar in complexion to later Lybians It would be absured to suggest there was no significant black base to the ancestral Hebrews which is reinforced the farther one goes back. The ancient presence of blacks in Israel-Palestine cannot be divorced from the earlier migration of the Natufians. The Natufians migrated out of Africa and inhabited what was the historical land of the Hebrews. Some linguists associate the Natufian dispersal with the introduction of Semitic into the near east. Over time, the dominant population in Asia, which would have been Asiatic, would come to intermingle and take on the language and culture of these African incomers (Ehret explained this process in an interview posted on ES). Thus, the black elements eventually become diluted as the original population remains isolated from other black breeding populations, however I'm sure Nile valley migrations kept the African sub-stratum of the Hebrew population large enough to be discernible or large enough for a few Roman and Greek writers to identify a relationship between Hebrews and some Africans. I would not argue that the Hebrews were "black" with the same veracity that I would in reference to the Egyptians. I mean, Kemp addressed this indirectly and found no relationship between ancient Egyptians and early Palestinians but then again, the sample size was small. At the end of the day, I don't think there's enough evidence to say but I'd lean towards the idea that they were similar to the dark-skinned segments of the modern day Palestinian population.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Apr 7, 2010 12:10:27 GMT -5
In my opinion, the evidence suggests that the Hebrews were an Asiatic people with an African base, introduced some time earlier. In addition to what truthcentric points out, wall reliefs just prior to the Hyksos invasions show a distinct population of incoming migrants from the north who again, resemble other Asiatics in style and dress, but have noticably dark skin approaching the hue seen on Egyptians (see "Exodus Decoded")., and much darker than later depictions showing SW Asians as yellow or similar in complexion to later Lybians It would be absured to suggest there was no significant black base to the ancestral Hebrews which is reinforced the farther one goes back. The ancient presence of blacks in Israel-Palestine cannot be divorced from the earlier migration of the Natufians. The Natufians migrated out of Africa and inhabited what was the historical land of the Hebrews. Some linguists associate the Natufian dispersal with the introduction of Semitic into the near east. Over time, the dominant population in Asia, which would have been Asiatic, would come to intermingle and take on the language and culture of these African incomers (Ehret explained this process in an interview posted on ES). Thus, the black elements eventually become diluted as the original population remains isolated from other black breeding populations, however I'm sure Nile valley migrations kept the African sub-stratum of the Hebrew population large enough to be discernible or large enough for a few Roman and Greek writers to identify a relationship between Hebrews and some Africans. I would not argue that the Hebrews were "black" with the same veracity that I would in reference to the Egyptians. I mean, Kemp addressed this indirectly and found no relationship between ancient Egyptians and early Palestinians but then again, the sample size was small. At the end of the day, I don't think there's enough evidence to say but I'd lean towards the idea that they were similar to the dark-skinned segments of the modern day Palestinian population. I agree with this. I think the African base was diluted after years and years of mixing, the Near East has been a zone that has received mixture repeatedly based on its location. The Natufians if I'm correct, had affinity with tropically Africans craniometrically but I believe their body proportions were cold adapted, Evergreen made a post on this some time ago, I'll have to look it up. |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 7, 2010 12:21:55 GMT -5
In my opinion, the evidence suggests that the Hebrews were an Asiatic people with an African base, introduced some time earlier. In addition to what truthcentric points out, wall reliefs just prior to the Hyksos invasions show a distinct population of incoming migrants from the north who again, resemble other Asiatics in style and dress, but have noticably dark skin approaching the hue seen on Egyptians (see "Exodus Decoded")., and much darker than later depictions showing SW Asians as yellow or similar in complexion to later Lybians It would be absured to suggest there was no significant black base to the ancestral Hebrews which is reinforced the farther one goes back. The ancient presence of blacks in Israel-Palestine cannot be divorced from the earlier migration of the Natufians. The Natufians migrated out of Africa and inhabited what was the historical land of the Hebrews. Some linguists associate the Natufian dispersal with the introduction of Semitic into the near east. Over time, the dominant population in Asia, which would have been Asiatic, would come to intermingle and take on the language and culture of these African incomers (Ehret explained this process in an interview posted on ES). Thus, the black elements eventually become diluted as the original population remains isolated from other black breeding populations, however I'm sure Nile valley migrations kept the African sub-stratum of the Hebrew population large enough to be discernible or large enough for a few Roman and Greek writers to identify a relationship between Hebrews and some Africans. I would not argue that the Hebrews were "black" with the same veracity that I would in reference to the Egyptians. I mean, Kemp addressed this indirectly and found no relationship between ancient Egyptians and early Palestinians but then again, the sample size was small. At the end of the day, I don't think there's enough evidence to say but I'd lean towards the idea that they were similar to the dark-skinned segments of the modern day Palestinian population. No real disagreements here but I would add that the home of these people as per Biblical and other narratives placed them at the out start of their history in the city of Ur. land of the Sumerians another black folk this time Asiatic and not African but like you pointed out they mingled with Kanaanites who had long standing Nile valley connections..so they remand Blacks for sometime for how they described themselves per Al Takruri's Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer But there must of been a time when they came under influence from more lite-skinned folks..btw the Asiatics  often shown are not necessarily Hebrews.. |
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 7, 2010 13:41:32 GMT -5
But there must of been a time when they came under influence from more lite-skinned folks..btw the Asiatics often shown are not necessarily Hebrews.. See, this is why I don't trust most tomb scene reproductions. This is the exact tomb scene that I was referencing via what I saw from Exodus Decoded (only place I saw an actual photograph of that image) and the Semites were no where near that yellow. Take a look towards the end of the clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBBvvDl25F4Clearly brown complexioned. I'm not nit picking over something so trivial either, it's just that I made a statement and that image sought to contradict what I'd just claimed. |
|
jari
Scribe
Posts: 289
|
Post by jari on Apr 7, 2010 14:06:02 GMT -5
But there must of been a time when they came under influence from more lite-skinned folks..btw the Asiatics often shown are not necessarily Hebrews.. See, this is why I don't trust most tomb scene reproductions. This is the exact tomb scene that I was referencing via what I saw from Exodus Decoded (only place I saw an actual photograph of that image) and the Semites were no where near that yellow. Take a look towards the end of the clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBBvvDl25F4Clearly brown complexioned. I'm not nit picking over something so trivial either, it's just that I made a statement and that image sought to contradict what I'd just claimed.   These images were taken directly from the Wall...How they became so Yellow and lighter is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by Brandon S. Pilcher on Apr 7, 2010 16:47:32 GMT -5
Come to think of it, it's reasonable to conclude that prior to the migration of Indo-Europeans and other lighter-skinned peoples into Southwest Asia during the Bronze Age, most Southwest Asians in antiquity would have been quite dark-skinned. Consider that the skin color mutations responsible for the relatively light skin of modern Southwest Asians first appeared in Europe just 12,000-6,000 years ago, right when Southwest Asia was experiencing the Neolithic revolution. Unless someone can show that there was a major migration of Europeans into Southwest Asia during the Neolithic, it's most likely that Southwest Asia was a land of black people back when it was the cradle of civilization.
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 8, 2010 0:10:18 GMT -5
But there must of been a time when they came under influence from more lite-skinned folks..btw the Asiatics often shown are not necessarily Hebrews.. See, this is why I don't trust most tomb scene reproductions. This is the exact tomb scene that I was referencing via what I saw from Exodus Decoded (only place I saw an actual photograph of that image) and the Semites were no where near that yellow. Take a look towards the end of the clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBBvvDl25F4Clearly brown complexioned. I'm not nit picking over something so trivial either, it's just that I made a statement and that image sought to contradict what I'd just claimed. Yeah Sundiata and Jeri I should have been more careful but I forgot that the painting was in the tomb of Beni-Hasan so I did not go to the source but yes I can see a qualitative difference  Btw Jeri did we get an ID on who the Blacks on the upper right-hand corner are?..I thought the could have been Minoans but they could also be Kanaanites. |
|
|
|
Post by RED WHITE BLUE PLUS CHRISTIAN on Jul 31, 2010 12:38:58 GMT -5
When they left Egypt there was a mixed Multitude. So, they were mixed.
|
|
|
|
Post by gigantic on Aug 2, 2010 9:09:08 GMT -5
Anansi, for argument's sake, assuming the Shemites were Black, how does that prove the hebrews were Black? The first Hebrew, Abram, was ten generations removed from Shem; that is a millennia period (approximation). In a thousand years, through admixture, diet and environmental factors, an ethnic group can undergo drastic changes in their phoenotype.
Be that as it may, when one reads Sefer_h'Hanowk (The Book of Enoch), Shem is described adomee (ruddy), while Ham and Yafet are described shacor (dark) and laban (light), respectively.
You need to pursue more scholarship. What you've presented in the query is extremely flawed.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Aug 2, 2010 9:43:37 GMT -5
welcome RAH. Don't flood the boad with too many threads wtih the same nonsensical theme and you should be OK.
===fat fingers!!
|
|
|
|
Post by gigantic on Aug 2, 2010 9:47:52 GMT -5
^Well, thank you (I think).
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Aug 2, 2010 10:02:33 GMT -5
Anansi, for argument's sake, assuming the Shemites were Black, how does that prove the hebrews were Black? The first Hebrew, Abram, was ten generations removed from Shem; that is a millennia period (approximation). In a thousand years, through admixture, diet and environmental factors, an ethnic group can undergo drastic changes in their phoenotype. Be that as it may, when one reads Sefer_h'Hanowk (The Book of Enoch), Shem is described adomee (ruddy), while Ham and Yafet are described shacor (dark) and laban (light), respectively. You need to pursue more scholarship. What you've presented in the query is extremely flawed. Well being that Semites were originally dark at one point (before they leave the Horn of Africa some 15kyrs.B.C) and that part of their home-land point of origin is Sumer as per biblical lore land of another black people,non Semitic how ever I am not saying that they remained exclusively black as they did move around and engaged a multitude of people who they could and did intermixed but it is clear that they always had black folks amongst their numbers, one clue? is the name Phineas which according to Bibi cal lore was the priestly cast. Charles B Copher Quote: There are good grounds for believing that the family of Moses was of black Cushite origins.Support comes in the form of Egyptian names carried by members of the family as well as by other Hebrews: Moses,Phinehas,Hophni,Meriari,Pashur,etc, especially Phinehas,which means Black,Negro,Nubian etc.
This last name it is to be observed was the name of a grandson of Aaron,and was carried by members of the priesthood through the period of Babylonian exile.
BLACKS AND JEWS IN HISTORICAL INTERACTION:
THE BIBLICAL/AFRICAN EXPERIENCE |
|
|
|
Post by gigantic on Aug 2, 2010 11:19:35 GMT -5
^Were there dark people among the shemetic and possibly Hebreac ranks? Yes. But I take exception to this idea that because you are dark skin it means you are "Black." This is a typical Afrocentrist ploy to anchor him/herself to the history of l'est gens de couleur (I am using this term loosely to represent a population neither white nor black). It's a sort of 'Trojan Horse'; a back door entrance, if you will. Any African blood in semites plays no significant role in their cultural, technological, and intellectual achievement. MODERATOR INTERVENTION
I will not tolerate ape:African humanity analogies. Semitic civilization has nothing to do with the remote African ancestry, just as sumerian civilization has nothing to do with the remote African ancestry. Follow? |
|
