...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
The various faces of Africans: East to West & visa versa
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Super car: [QB] [QUOTE]jluis: Physical boundaries, the only ones that have REAL antropological revelance, are ecologycal divides. This is an statement. The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier.[/QUOTE] What evidence do you have that Africans were never able to pass through the Sahara desert, when in fact they are Africans living in that zone as we speak? [QUOTE]jluis: It means that people must invent and prepare well ways to cross it (because it is not an easy cross).[/QUOTE] What ways have been artificially built in order to make Africans move through the Sahara desert, when in historic times, they didn't need one to move through? [QUOTE]jluis: There may be "Africans" (I take black people) in the Sahel belt.[/QUOTE] You can say that again; hence, making your earlier statement about the Sahara being a barrier to the movement of people, a very questionable one. [QUOTE]jluis: But there are not continous connections between North and South. Y'know, it takes some effort to cross Sahra...[/QUOTE] I take it that you aren't aware of the historic trade routes between sub-Saharan and the Muslim world of North Africa, and those in West Asia. As a matter of fact, not too long ago, I posted an article in this very thread, that mentions something about these north and sub-Saharan connections. (see the earlier Stephen Corey article) However, where is your evidence, inspite of what I just said, that suggests there were no continuous connections between the north and the south? [QUOTE]jluis: The forest belt. Well, it is another kind of barrier for human beings. African forest, south of the Sahel, it is a tough way to travel.[/QUOTE] Again, I ask, which forest belt are you talking about? [QUOTE]Any people trying to cross it needs a completedly different ecology to do it. From dry environment to lush, wet environment. From pasture to deep forest. I think it took some time to Africans to adapt to forest.[/QUOTE] LOL. Are you suggesting that some Africans adapted to a forest environment, while others couldn't? [QUOTE]jluis: I take the ecological difference between Sahel and the tropical forest is evident in its own.[/QUOTE] The only problem is that the logic of your explanation thus far, isn't so evident. [QUOTE]jluis: About coast/inland. Well, here we pass from the ecological to the cultural. In the coast it was far more easy to get and trade with other peoples, coming from the sea (the Shirazi and the Swahili, and the Red Sea traders and the Somali, for instance.[/QUOTE] Well of course, the coast made it possible for people to trade; I don't think anybody here suggested otherwise. But how does that act as a barrier between, let's say inland Somalis and coastal Somalis? Land-locked people have always had connections with coastal people, in order to benefit from trade. Do you have a specific example(s), in which people living "inland" weren't able to interact with people living in or have access to the coastal areas? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3