Markus Soeder, Europe, Orient, and the Obsolete Colonial History Model

By: Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
[

][Post to BookMarks @ AfroArticles.com]

[ Posted On: 2008-01-12 ]

In two previous articles, 'Markus Söder, Germany, Turkey, Europe, and the Apostate Free Masonic, Anglo-French Elite' (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/markus-soder-germany-turkey-europe-and-the-apostate-free-masonic-anglo-french-elite.html), and 'Turkey as Birthplace of the European Identity, and Mr. Markus Soeder's Historical Ignorance' (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/turkey-as-birthplace-of-the-european-identity-and-mr-markus-soeder-historical-ignorance.html), we refuted traditional misconceptions and historical falsifications diffused by colonial academia attached to the Apostate Free Masonic Lodge.

We focused on two points, namely the current European disregard of the Islamic dimension of the European History and Culture, and the European ignorance of Turkey's historical identity as Birthplace of the European Culture and Civilization. All this is due to the dogmatic and totalitarian imposition throughout Europe's academies and universities of a viciously racist and utterly fallacious Greco-Romano-centric model of History.

The rejection of this model of History is crucial for the future of Europe, since no country can be successfully formed on a devastatingly wrong conception of its own historical past, and of the World History. Due to colonial times' perceptions and historiography, today’s European academia, statesmen, diplomats, legislators, intellectuals, and journalists still view the world through totally obsolete viewpoints.

Yet, it is essential to re-appraise European civilization’s dependence on Ancient Middle East civilizations, and to enumerate issues that must be taken into account before any European politician, like Mr. Markus Soeder, tries to say what is and what is not Europe.

Actually, for many long millennia, cultures developed on the territory of Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, England, and France did not influence the formation of European Culture and History as much as Asiatic and African cultures did.

In this feature, we will examine the formation of the Modern European Historiography whereby an important part of misunderstanding ad misconception lies.

Modern European Historiography

Modern European Science has been based on Humanism, which was formed at the end of the Middle Ages through the systematic rejection of theocratic viewpoints over and approaches to the phenomenon of the Mankind; these Christiano-centric approaches were gradually replaced with Humanism.

The approach started with Fine Arts, Philosophy, and Literature. Soon it expanded throughout the sphere of Sciences that it modified almost totally. Quite indicatively, the sciences dealing with History, Philosophy, Arts, Literature and other fields focusing on the way of life, the social structures and habits, and the material records dating in past periods, were all called ‘Humanities’.

The way to explore in various fields, from Astronomy to Chemistry, was also revolutionalized because of the academics’ and philosophers’ insistence on experiment and observation. It was then stated and accepted that, if the result of a pertinent observation contradicted a religious dogma established long ago (when research did not have the same, developed, means of observation), the religious dogma should be disregarded and obliterated, since it was the result (not of some God’s assertion but) of human poor means of understanding and evaluating situations.

Philosophical methods were added to all that, and Descartes became the starting point of modern academia. Later philosophers intensified their work in this direction, and in this way, various scientific schools emerged only to be soon replaced by other. A better assessment of sources and a new philosophical view would necessarily bring forth a change in the Search/Study for the Past (History) and in all the other academic disciplines. Gradually, the researchers had to focus on always more limited fields, and thus greater depth and over-specialization were achieved, bringing knowledge to unprecedented heights.

In the Renaissance era, the historical interest was concentrated on earlier European periods in which religion did not monopolize the measures, the approaches and the dimensions of Thought. In the same way a Roman priest of Jupiter would not interfere in Dio Cassius’ attempt of compiling a monumental Roman History, Christian priests had no word to say, when 15th and 16th century Europeans composed historical works on earlier or contemporary periods. This approach finally prevailed, and led to the basic division of the World History in three basic periods: Antiquity, Middle Ages, and Modern Times; today we know for sure that all this was abusively and peremptorily done. This division is in fact erratic, invalid and obsolete.

Limited Sources and Grave Anti-Clericalism of the Renaissance Academia

With the European historiographers’ sources being mostly – if not exclusively – Latin and Ancient Greek, the focus of the historical exploration and study was monopolized by Ancient Greece and Rome. Extremely few European scholars were well versed in Ancient Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Abyssinian Gueze that were all Biblical and Patristic languages.

The reason of this problematic situation is that, after the Crusades, Christian Europe was quasi-totally separated from the Islamic ‘Orient’ where all the Eastern Christian peoples, using the aforementioned languages, were living.

In addition, the loathsome and criminal Crusaders were most hated by all the Eastern Christian peoples (Greeks included), who have been discriminatingly and irrationally mistreated at the hands of the Crusaders as long as the latter ruled parts of the Eastern Mediterranean.

A third reason is that the very few who knew these scriptures, languages, and literatures were monks and theologians, whose interest was diametrically opposed to that of the Renaissance humanists.

Furthermore, the contents of the aforementioned languages – literatures had little attraction for the Renaissance humanists and their followers the classicists of the 16th and the 17th centuries.

These literatures had been evolved around the Christened peoples of the East, so there was no a chance for the partial humanists and classicists to find a Coptic text written in favor of Free Art and Thought, which would be considered profane under Coptic criteria.

In the same way, with their preconceived mindset, Renaissance humanists and classicists would never appreciate an Aramaic - Syriac text as there had never been a Syriac text to laud a democratic political system (supposedly established in Urhoy – Edessa of Osrhoene).

These vast complexes of literatures did not please the European academia, and were therefore erroneously and disreputably ignored.

For the aforementioned reasons, Turkish, Farsi and Arabic were also neglected.
Finally, a great number of now deciphered but then unknown scriptures, languages and literatures, involving Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Sumerian, Assyrian – Babylonian, Elamite, Hatti, Hittite, Ugaritic, Urartu, and Old Persian Cuneiform, as well Hieroglyphic Hittite, Hatti and Luwian (to name but a few), could not be taken into account. Names of entire civilizations and peoples like Sumer and Elam were unknown to the Renaissance humanists and classicists!

The Formation of an erratic Greco-Romano-centrism

It all led to an illogical and counterfeit Greco-Romano-centrism, which became the vertebral column of the European academics’ ‘World History’. When the colonial expansion of France and England in Africa and Asia started (second half of the 18th century), Greek and Roman History had already been formed into Modern Scientific Disciplines. This was normal.

What was not normal was that they were also the backbone of the ‘World History’.

Explorations, excavations, and decipherments led to the creation of new scientific disciplines (Egyptology, Assyriology, etc) during the 19th and the 20th centuries, and the knowledge acquired through the process dismisses either entire parts or the concept itself of the World History earlier adopted by the Renaissance humanists and classicists.

But for various reasons modern European scholars did not undertake a single effort of proper readjustment and modification, and did not embark on a single attempt of demolition of the obsolete Greco – Romano – centric version (or model, school, etc) of World History before the 1950s and the 1960s.

The issue was immediately linked with political interests, and that is why it was perpetuated until the 1980s and 1990s, when more serious and complex efforts of rejection of the obsolete model have been manifested in America – not in the European Mausoleum. Even worse, by now the problem became also educational, cultural and political.

The refutation of the obsolete Greco – Romano – centric model has to be spread out at the level of education and average culture; it will certainly jeopardize the position of thousands scholars, who have been formed - generation after generation - under a dictatorially imposed, false and obsolete model of World History.

The issue is crucial for the future of Europe, since no country can be successfully formed on a devastatingly wrong conception of its own historical past and of the World History.

The conclusion - tombstone of the obsolete Greco – Romano – centric model that is still in use in Europe is this: the expansion of Middle Eastern Civilizations brought Civilization and Culture to European territory.

Refutation of the Greco-Romano-centrism

Within the frame of a brief article, one cannot analyze issues that took volumes to the leading Orientalist, Prof. Dr. Martin Bernal, to discuss; and he did so mostly for the 3rd and the 2nd millennia BCE, limiting himself in the Oriental – Greek relations, whereas the phenomenon intensified mostly in the 1st millennium BCE, and in the first half of the 1st millennium CE. We intend therefore to be brief in all the points we present.

Minoan Crete: a point of Semitic, Anatolian and Khammitic convergence

The island that is still thought to be the cradle of civilization on European soil was a colony for 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE Semites from Canaan and Khammites from Egypt. Paradoxically still revered, Sir Arthur Evans after excavating a typically Canaanite temple at Cnossos (nearby Candia – Heraklion) called it ‘Palace of Minos’ in his unscientific rash to identify his findings with pages of Ancient Greek mythology that nobody was able to understand at those days.

How can a palace exist without toilets?

When a scholar is not able to resist his temptations and preconceived erroneous schemes, he has to be obliterated by the modern academic institutions. If today's British scholars are not courageous enough to proceed so, we have full proof that there is something utterly rotten in their kingdom.

Leading scholars like Astour and Gordon studied, criticized and reassessed the data already in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. In 2nd millennium BCE Crete, we have found five different scriptures, namely the Phaestos Disc writing (unique sample remaining of the writing in question), two ideogrammatic (also called hieroglyphic) writings, and two linear scriptures, conventionally called Linear A and Linear B.

There are no bilingual inscriptions with other major scriptures of the world of the 2nd millennium BCE Middle East (Egyptian Hieroglyphic in use in Egypt, Ugaritic Cuneiform Alphabetic and Byblic Syllabogrammatic in use in Canaan – Syria/Labanon/Israel, Hittite Cuneiform, Hatti Hieroglyphic, Palaic Hieroglyphic and Luwian Hieroglyphic in use in Anatolia – Turkey, Assyrian – Babylonian Cuneiform, Sumerian Cuneiform, Eblaite Cuneiform, Elamite Cuneiform, and Hurrian Cuneiform in use in Mesopotamia – SE Turkey/Syria/Iraq/Iran).

Texts in all these Cretan scriptures are scarce and short. The most numerous are those in Linear B, which has been deciphered in middle 50s by Ventris; it proved to be the earliest form of Ancient Greek used by the Achaeans in Mycenae, Cnossos, and elsewhere. But the Achaeans prevailed in Crete only late, after the destruction of the island following the Thera volcano eruption and the ensuing tsunami (ca. 1600 BCE); they used Linear A characters for their totally different – Indo-European – language. What about the earlier Cretan systems of writings?

The two hieroglyphic writings have not been deciphered but seem to have been influenced by Luwian Hieroglyphic in one case and by Egyptian Hieroglyphic in the other case.

A great linguist, Cyrus Gordon, deciphered and identified the famous Linear A writing as Canaanite dialect. For ideological reasons related to the perpetuation of academic colonialism, many scholars did not accept Gordon's conclusions because they would offer to the Semitic Canaanites direct preponderance over the supposed Indo-European identity of Europe.

Funds have not been raised for comparative studies whereas they should have been at the epicenter of academic interest; interdisciplinary research was canceled whereas it should have become top priority of specialists.

In addition, 'Greek' Pre-Historic Archeology that ridiculously deals with non-Greek civilizations, such as pre-Achaean Balkan civilizations, 'Aegean' and Minoan – Cretan civilizations, has been flooded by dogmatic approaches and bogus-theories like the disreputable Renfrew local isolationism, a comical theory according to which any cultural development anytime anywhere is not – and cannot be – a matter of foreign influence, being simply a testimony of local progress! Sheer absurdity.

However, with the progress made in several disciplines of Orientalism, and with the breakthrough of leading scholars like Martin Bernal, we have reconstituted a completely different picture than that contained in obsolete 'contributions' by Marinatos, Zois, Renfrew and others.

According to Ancient Egyptian texts there was a Horus of Crete, which testifies to local presence of Egyptian priests, who were annually sailing to serve their followers in Crete – and they did so in Ancient Egyptian language, not Greek.

The presence of Pelasgians in the island was already attested in Ancient Greek mythological texts, but the Pelasgians (Peleset in Ancient Egyptian texts) are the ancestors of the Philistines, having nothing to do with the Indo-European Mycenaean Achaeans. We will see below that they were the worst enemies of the Achaean Greeks, and this again was not unknown to Ancient Greek mythological sources.

At this point, we have however to make a point that the entire fabrication of the Colonial History has also a lot to do with false – if not perverted – reading of the Ancient Greek sources as well.

It could be easily understood by first year students that, when in a small island you meet four contemporaneous writings (Phaestos Disc writing, two hieroglyphic writings and Linear A), you've got to accept the co-existence of different peoples on that location, perhaps not necessarily four different peoples (since during the Antiquity we have encountered several cases of peoples using two different writing systems at the same time), but certainly more than two!

The most probable conclusion with regard to 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE Crete is that there were at least three populations of different origin on the island before the arrival of the Mycenaean Greeks (around 1600 BCE): there were Egyptians (Khammitic), Luwians (indigenous Anatolian population unrelated to the Indo-European Hittites of Anatolia) and Canaanites (Semitic). And they developed the first civilization on 'European' (or Asiatic / African?) soil. We will expand in a forthcoming article.

Article Source: http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard

About The Author: Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis - is Orientalist, Assyriologist, Egyptologist, Iranologist, Islamologist, Historian and Political Scientist. Dr. Megalommatis, 51, is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages.

| View Profile & All Articles By: Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis |

		Post Comment
		Blog This Article!
		Discuss Article in Forum(s)
		Publication \| Reprint Terms

Please Rate this Article

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive Ideology Articles Via RSS!

| Category Feeds | All-in-one Feed | Other Feed & Syndication Options |

Additional Articles From - Home | Politics | Ideology

	Print This Article
	Post Comment
	Add To Favorites
	Email To Friends
	Ezine Ready \| Syndication
	Make PDF Article
	Post To del.icio.us
	Post To Furl
	Add To Google Bookmarks
	Submit To Netscape
	Add To Yahoo! My Web
	Add Main Feed To Outlook
	Post to BookMarks @ AfroArticles.com

	Post To BookMarkAfrica.com

Site Home

Article Categories

More Search Options

Site Map

Submit Articles

Top Authors

Most Recent Articles