Oh that’s interesting, maybe I’ll make a post on the subject some time soon. It’s not exactly common these days, but it has some surprisingly strong historic cultural roots - for example, the Scottish “declaration of independence”, properly titled the Declaration of Arbroath ~1100 ad, included as a fundamental claim the direct descent of the Scots from the “lost tribes” of the Israelites, additionally there is so-called “british isrealism”, and so on. These cultural relics or beliefs being separate and distinct evidence from the migrational, geographic, genetic, linguistic, and broader historical evidence of which there is certainly quite a bit - enough such that I think our current paradigms can be demonstrated as incorrect, but not enough to propose a 100% wholistic, coherent, fleshed-out substitute, which is an unfortunate roadblock to really any paradigm shift.
Hey u/AlfredicEnglishRules, have you ever come across the claims of British Isrealism generally or Robert Sepehr specifically? What was your take on them?
The term is Lost Tribes of Israel. There has been tons of scholarly work on the subject. Basically, the Jews aren't the only tribes of Israel in the Bible. When Israel the country split, most of the tribes were led by Ephraim in the north, and then disappeared after the invasion of Babylon. The only real reference in the Bible is that they were pushed to the north or destroyed.
Middle Eastern cultures hold the Bible as a history as well as a religious text, so they trace their families back to the book. I've met people who can open the Bible and point out an ancestor in it. Usually it's a town that's been rebuilt several times over, but the locals say it's in the Bible.
Europeans wanted to be like this, so many referenced the lost tribes as possible ancestors. There were cultures pushed to the north, but hardly any knowledge on who. Tons of people have written, went on digs, and proclaimed to be descended from a lost tribe.
Mormons believe the main people in the Book of Mormon are a lost tribe, and that the English and western European people are from the tribe of Ephraim. They have a special blessing that tells you what tribe you are from.
Any works since about the 1930's has said that the Lost Tribes is a myth, and anyone who believes it should be openly mocked. People have tried to find connections, or written books about the subject, but they aren't accepted as scholarly works. It's actually hard to find them if you go looking.
Yeah nice primer - can you clarify this part though:
Any works since about the 1930's has said that the Lost Tribes is a myth, and anyone who believes it should be openly mocked.
Are you saying the italicized part, or are you saying every mainstream scholarly work since the 30’s has put forward the air of mockery?
That Sepehr guy is a classically trained anthropologist with books “published” on the subject. I don’t deny that theorists have been pushed out of the mainstream of anthropology (honestly anthropology seems to me to be a quite totally subverted field of study, but that’s another subject)
Also, tangent but, how many generations ago do you think you were a sub-Saharan African? Isn’t it funny that anthropologists don’t question the notion that we wuz africanz but if you say we wuz jooz they lose their damn minds? Not you necessarily but the mainstream of the field
They are openly mocked. If you don't lock them, you will not be published. It's one of the reasons why the Many Peoples theory for the Americas is not talked about publicly. The idea that several groups found the Americas opens the idea of one being Israelite.
Anthropology has had problems for a long time. Our job is to explain cultures to other cultures. It was originally for Europeans about any culture considered outsider. The first native anthropologists I know about were the brothers Grimm. We only talk about the fairy tales, not why they were collecting them. Many papers and academic journals demand the people being studied be viewed as weird foreigners. Doing comparisons is often difficult because one group is foreign and the other is normal.
What we see now is academics trying to make the weirdness as the actual culture, and that it needs to be accepted. Two spirits, fafafine, ritualistic cannibalism and others are real, but not in the way explained. It's really obvious that they're politicizing it when you see that the standard two year study is being ignored for graduate level programs. If you say what the committee wants to hear, they ignore all the checks we put in to make sure the truth is found.
Oh that’s interesting, maybe I’ll make a post on the subject some time soon. It’s not exactly common these days, but it has some surprisingly strong historic cultural roots - for example, the Scottish “declaration of independence”, properly titled the Declaration of Arbroath ~1100 ad, included as a fundamental claim the direct descent of the Scots from the “lost tribes” of the Israelites, additionally there is so-called “british isrealism”, and so on. These cultural relics or beliefs being separate and distinct evidence from the migrational, geographic, genetic, linguistic, and broader historical evidence of which there is certainly quite a bit - enough such that I think our current paradigms can be demonstrated as incorrect, but not enough to propose a 100% wholistic, coherent, fleshed-out substitute, which is an unfortunate roadblock to really any paradigm shift.
Hey u/AlfredicEnglishRules, have you ever come across the claims of British Isrealism generally or Robert Sepehr specifically? What was your take on them?
The term is Lost Tribes of Israel. There has been tons of scholarly work on the subject. Basically, the Jews aren't the only tribes of Israel in the Bible. When Israel the country split, most of the tribes were led by Ephraim in the north, and then disappeared after the invasion of Babylon. The only real reference in the Bible is that they were pushed to the north or destroyed.
Middle Eastern cultures hold the Bible as a history as well as a religious text, so they trace their families back to the book. I've met people who can open the Bible and point out an ancestor in it. Usually it's a town that's been rebuilt several times over, but the locals say it's in the Bible.
Europeans wanted to be like this, so many referenced the lost tribes as possible ancestors. There were cultures pushed to the north, but hardly any knowledge on who. Tons of people have written, went on digs, and proclaimed to be descended from a lost tribe.
Mormons believe the main people in the Book of Mormon are a lost tribe, and that the English and western European people are from the tribe of Ephraim. They have a special blessing that tells you what tribe you are from.
Any works since about the 1930's has said that the Lost Tribes is a myth, and anyone who believes it should be openly mocked. People have tried to find connections, or written books about the subject, but they aren't accepted as scholarly works. It's actually hard to find them if you go looking.
Does that help?
Yeah nice primer - can you clarify this part though:
Are you saying the italicized part, or are you saying every mainstream scholarly work since the 30’s has put forward the air of mockery?
That Sepehr guy is a classically trained anthropologist with books “published” on the subject. I don’t deny that theorists have been pushed out of the mainstream of anthropology (honestly anthropology seems to me to be a quite totally subverted field of study, but that’s another subject)
Also, tangent but, how many generations ago do you think you were a sub-Saharan African? Isn’t it funny that anthropologists don’t question the notion that we wuz africanz but if you say we wuz jooz they lose their damn minds? Not you necessarily but the mainstream of the field
They are openly mocked. If you don't lock them, you will not be published. It's one of the reasons why the Many Peoples theory for the Americas is not talked about publicly. The idea that several groups found the Americas opens the idea of one being Israelite.
Anthropology has had problems for a long time. Our job is to explain cultures to other cultures. It was originally for Europeans about any culture considered outsider. The first native anthropologists I know about were the brothers Grimm. We only talk about the fairy tales, not why they were collecting them. Many papers and academic journals demand the people being studied be viewed as weird foreigners. Doing comparisons is often difficult because one group is foreign and the other is normal.
What we see now is academics trying to make the weirdness as the actual culture, and that it needs to be accepted. Two spirits, fafafine, ritualistic cannibalism and others are real, but not in the way explained. It's really obvious that they're politicizing it when you see that the standard two year study is being ignored for graduate level programs. If you say what the committee wants to hear, they ignore all the checks we put in to make sure the truth is found.
It's annoying.