It does appear that memory is returning, though, but probably as members of the Northern Kindom, not of a specific tribe therein, would be my guess. 
Posted on 08/15/2002 2:39:11 PM PDT by LostTribe
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It does appear that memory is returning, though, but probably as members of the Northern Kindom, not of a specific tribe therein, would be my guess.
All the earliest skeletons/mummies found from the Black Sea into the Gobi desert were Caucasian. It was only much later that the Asian skeletons (mixed) began to appear (in that region) and even later 'full bloodied' Asian skeletons began to appear.
"Although traffic had been moving through Central Asia for millennia, whether across the steppe or from oasis to oasis along the edges of its deserts, it was Zhang Qian (d. 114BC)who brought Western Regions to the attention of the Han government."
It was the Han government that finally (after many failed attempts) conquered the Caucasian territories all the way back to Bactria. Many fled the Han armies all the way back to the Caspian and Black Seas. (These folks ought to begin to turn up in some of your studies)
The 'red-haired' folks were mentioned as being around at the same time as the 'baldies.' So....
I just gotta move that Mummies book up on the reading schedule...
I just gotta move that Mummies book up on the reading schedule...
Well... how long have I been trying to lead you out of the darkness...ahem? (my expectations are that you could/can make a lot of connections that I cannot.)
Ha. Quite a while. Got a Grandson here now and He's gotta come first. 18 month old is into walking big time and pushing things around and it's quite a treat to watch.
Ostrogoths
That could well be true. Some scholars place a great deal of emphasis on intra-tribal cohesion during the migrations westward and northward, to the point of citing Biblical and other evidence they feel links certain tribes to certain current countries.
Unlike the basic Lost Tribes of Israel history outlined at my Profile, I have never felt entirely comfortable making those associations.
What is your source for the idea that Phoenician means red haired? My understanding is that Phoenician is the Greek translation of Canaan, which is related to the word for purple, not red. The word Edom is related to red.
It's doubtful the Phoenicians called themselves that name. The word means "red-haired men", so it presumed to be a nickname. Phoenicians were not Canaanites. Different physical body stock altogether, so there would not be any realtion to "purple".
Source "Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets". Much of the info came from translation of the tablets, including inscriptions from writings of peoples in the region. Evidently the Phoenicians were rather warlike and got themselves written up fairly regularly. I would guess conflicts and killing were worth going to the trouble of carving accounts thereof in stone.
Source "Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets".
Virtually all encyclopedias and legitimate history books say that the Phoenicians were indeed Canaanites and that both names come from a purple dye that they extracted from a Levantine mollusk called the murex.
What makes you think that this book "Missing Links" is more authoritative than all other history books?
I wouldn't waste any time on that buffon Inyokern. He can't get anything right, even after you tell him. He's been repudiated and found wrong time after time on his same pet issues, but keeps returning like a bad smell from under the porch.
Your time is better spent petting your dog then trying to teach Inyokern anything.
The Phoenicians were tall, blue eyed, read haired people. This we know from ancient descriptions of them. The Canaanites were not. Therefore Phoenicians were not Canaanites. If a history text says they were, the history text is wrong, or out of date.
Encyclopedias and legitimate history books are riddled with errors. Much of what is in them is simply repeats of original research done in some past time, usually before new finds and evidence came to light. Very little of the history of the fetile cresent area was based on translation of the Assyrian tablets in the British museum. Why? I have no idea. Just probably laziness. The translations were published in 1930, but were unordered and unorganized.
The historical articles in encyclopedias frequently are not written by historions, but whoever won the commission to write the article. Add to that the unsettled questions that historians argue over even today.
Missing Links is an exhaustive analysis of the Assyrian tablets. The Assyrians tablets were written at the time in question. The analysis includes other manuscripts and inscriptions describing events during the time period. History tests reference prior works by historians, who reference prior works by other historians, much of it out of date, I would reckon.
As an experiment, call up an ancient history department at any good college and ask the director for an opinon on how many disputed theories there are now about ancient history of any kind, and how many conflicting schools of thought. Historical theories are not more settled than archeological theories or geological theories. Basically, you pick the theory that blows your skirt up.
Otherwise, read the book, and make your own judgement.
I suppose I can go along with that. However, I object to LostTribe repeatedly stating his personal theories as FACT, when they are just theories, and are not widely accepted among most historians, archaeologists or religious scholars.
>I do not claim any qualifications.
You have said all we need to know.
A prima facie case has to stand until it's conclusions are successfully challanged by overturning the facts and evidence or the conclusions with new, or other interpretaions of the, facts. What losttribe presents are facts, and he presents his conclusions based on them.
If the facts are right, the conclusions logically have to stand as fact until alternate conclusions that fit the facts come along to say they're not the right conclusions. I can't see any way out of that process and still come to the truth of the matter.
This is where we disagree. When we speak of ancient history, it is difficult to call ANYTHING anyone says a "fact." It is all theory.
LostTribe's theories are not agreed with by most scholars. The fact that he read some book published in Muskogee, OK that sells for $11.00 does not make him correct and 90% of historians and biblical scholars wrong.
Meant to say, Unlike the conclusions drawn by some at links from the basic Lost Tribes of Israel 3-MINUTE HISTORY at my FR LostTribe Profile, I have never felt entirely comfortable making those associations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.