There were some very dramatic climate changes over a period of 60,000 years. We know the Arabian Peninsula was a times well water and somewhat lush with animals like Ostriches.. http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/201203/discovery.at.al-magar.htm excerpt A wet epoch in Arabia, starting after the last Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago, and enduring for about 5000 years, allowed widely varied flora and fauna to flourish. Evidence of this is abundant in rock art throughout the western Arabian Peninsula, where depictions of various equids appear along with other species, such as cheetah, hippo, hyena and giraffe, which disappeared as the climate dried to desert. How and when the horse appeared is a matter of both emerging science and Saudi cultural prideĀthis latter evidenced not only by today's pride in Arabian horses, but also by the rich legacy of poetry and legend, going back deep into pre-Islamic times, that that surround and celebrate the desert-bred Arabian horse.
yes but that doesn't make the desert any less of a genetic bottle neck...whether it's a mountain range, ocean or desert, geographic barriers can and do slow genetic movement...
Well.. it didn't stop the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula.. At one point the Persian Gulf was a river basin that ran out of Mesopotamia at Shat al Arab to the Indian Ocean.
the bible is book of fairy tales, it also has a story of a man who built a boat big enough to carry samples of every specie on the planet and enough food to feed them for an extended period, and he accomplished this with just his family... Egyptian history is well recorded there was no displacement... I'll try find it or you could ask him yourself apparently he's quiet responsive to such requests...
Evidence suggests their presence in the Sahara desert as far back as 1000 BC, but the first written record of them is from 500 BC by the Greeks. Contrary to contemporary accounts, recent research has revealed that the Garamantes were highly civilised, living in large-scale fortified settlements, predominantly as oasis farmers with innovative water extraction techniques. It was an organised state with towns and villages, a written language and state of the art technologies. The Garamantes were pioneers in establishing oases and opening up Trans-Saharan trade. http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2011...from-ancient-civilisation-discovered-in-libya There's a long article in National Geographic.. It is thought that the society declined and fragmented around 1,500 years ago due to change in climate conditions or overuse of the limited water resources.
and it didn't stop asians from reaching north america or africans reaching europe but geographic bottlenecks are barriers to genetics...
More on the Garamantes. in the Sahara 650 miles south of Tripoli. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...a-libya-lost-civilization-science-satellites/
Yet there would have been no desert between AEgypt and Sudan/Ethiopia because this is where the Nile is and this is the area in duscussion???? We are talking about the Nile valley civilzation, not Kingdom of Congo.
Firstly, it is a ppl's HISTORY, not yours and that doesnt give you the right to be so dismissive of anothers culture and secondly, the Library of Alexandria was one of the largest in the world, you must know what happened to it? Who knows what was lost. Judging from your comments then, one can safely assume then that you are on the palestine side rather than Israel if you hold any opinion at all that is?
no disrespect to wyly but it he does seem to have some strange opinions that seem to have come from long held 'colonial' beliefs. - - - Updated - - - its not helping that you keep repeating yourself, no offense but your point is not communicating, maybe you could explain what you mean more concisely.
I think what hes trying to say is that invading armies couldnt have displaced the AEgyptians in a few centuries due to the bottle necks at Gaza and sahara..but nobody EVER said it happened in a few centuries, its more likely of a process of a few THOUSAND years.
If you mean Arab Muslims, Islam was a religious movement that swept thru.... but it was not a physical migration or displacement. I don't think the Canaanites were black.... and Egypt controlled them as vassal states forever.
I've a christian background so the bible IS part of my culture...every ethnic/tribal group in history saw themselves as the center of the universe one tiny Semitic tribe among many in Palestine are not significant... something of that magnitude is not lost... off topic
agreed there were of course conquering arabs who remained in each land after their movement swept through each land but they never outnumbered the Egyptians or other large populated areas, they imposed their language through taxation but genetically they would be assimilated into the greater population...
Arabs were trading with Egypt long before Islam.. and they have found Pharaonic inscriptions in Arabia that are 3,000 years old... so I am not sure what you mean exactly.. The Arabs were also trading with Mesopotamia .. East Africa and the Indus Valley.. Where there is commerce there has to be some mixing. - - - Updated - - - Arabs were trading with Egypt long before Islam.. and they have found Pharaonic inscriptions in Arabia that are 3,000 years old... so I am not sure what you mean exactly.. The Arabs were also trading with Mesopotamia .. East Africa and the Indus Valley.. Where there is commerce there has to be some mixing.
a few thousand years indicates the genetic influx is only a trickle and a small influx would physically disappear into the greater population...to physically displace a population it would be quick and with a massive influx of new people, in a civilization such as eygpt that wouldn't have gone unrecorded, instead we see an uninterrupted recorded historical progression...we do see record of the Kush/ /Nubian invasion that supplied the black Pharaohs of the 25th dynasty, it was ruling elite not a displacement of Egyptians and that dynasty only lasted until the Assyrians drove out the Nubians 100 yrs later and set up a vassal state reinstalling the previous Egyptian line of Pharaohs of the 24th dynasty...and that was followed by about 300 years of Persian and Egyptian rule until the Macedonian Ptolemies followed by the roman period...
traders did mix but their numbers would small and wouldn't have a significant effect on the larger population, the traders could not have imposed their language or religion on Egypt that was the result of an armed invasion and political domination the arab invaders taxed local populations, they were exempt from taxation if they spoke arabic, it was very effective method for imposing cultural domination...
The population of Egypt was rather small.. under 4 million and all of Arabia only had 700,000 people.. So when they invaded Egypt how did they force anything on them?
force of arms...if you lose a war and the victors tell you to do something you do what you're told if you wish to keep your head attached to your shoulders... for the average peasant life didn't change much, just new tyrants in charge and if you learned to speak their language you avoided taxation, that rule effectively ended the Egyptian cultural ties to their ancient past..the arabs never were driven out and after a few hundred years their language and religion became part of modern Egyptian culture... size of invading force is not very relevant in controlling larger populations, the mongols conquered and controlled populations many times their numbers through absolute terror...
The OT is Israelite history, the story of exodus, captivity is not yours therefore you dismiss it, its not unusual to do so. Any invading culture is likely to dismiss or appropriate the conquered ppl's history.
