...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Unknown Man E and Ramses III Y haplogroup
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Doug said: [b]Mummification did not come from the Nile Valley. The oldest mummification was found first in the Sahara. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West. So the point is that those root cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. That is simply a fact. The biggest problem is that most of these cultures going back into prehistory did not have writing that we know of and that Archaeologists havent done enough digging. All of Africa has always been populated by Africans and that did not start with Bantus a few thousand years ago.[/b] Indeed. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West, and cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. KMT derives from this foundation and is one branch of a tree as someone says above, not the source. [i]"Following the indigenous development of pastoralism in the Sahara, settlers of the [Nile] Valley undertook a series of actions that culminated in the rise of dynastic Egyptian Civilization. The developments in Egypt were also enriched by a continuation of cultural interactions between the Nile Valley and its neighbors. Many similarities between Egypt and other African societies are related to this common past, a common heritage of which Egypt is an integral part. The cultural continuity with an African substratum and the strong historical cultural interactions between Egypt and other African societies clearly demonstrates that Africa was the cradle of Egyptian civilization."[/i] --F. Hassan, 1996, noted in Celenko 1996 Egypt in Africa. Pp 31-32 [IMG]https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/10/14/1350209666179/Dogo-Ndiaye-strokes-ram-P-009.jpg?width=1010&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=3acb854f7096077a6e76ba2d065ab6d4[/IMG] Doug says: [b]I didn't say that common African cultural elements started in the Sahara. These are traditions that are tens of thousands of years old. Humans did not start evolving culture in Africa when the Sahara was set. These things have been evolving since humans were born in Africa. [/b] People should keep in mind that the Sahara was once a lush greenbelt that cut across 1/3 of Africa giving plenty of time, space and scope for people to migrate to the Nile Valley and elsewhere. As for the Saharan starter-kit, the Sahara is one main factor, but it mixes with and cuts across many others. The Sahara for example extends into the Sudan. Going west it cuts across Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and even parts of Senegal. And some schlars show that this great belt while not uniform, and hugely diverse, did on some counts, have a common material and cultural foundation, so much so that some scholars speak of a trans-Saharan pastoral complex of lithic, artifictual and tool technology, and asscoiated systems of pastoralism and food priduction. QUOTE: [i]"The regional systems under review are traceable to what archaeologists call the Trans-Saharan Pastoral Technocomplex. From the fourth through the first millennia BCE, it stretched from the central Nile valley in the east to the Atlantic Sahara in the west and can be described as a sociocultural repository, a structural substratum, and an abstract and practical fund from which regional formations in the Sahara, the middle Nile valley, and the middle Niger basin could draw their content. Over the long duration it was a system of transformations. Its defining elements include distinctive lithic technologies and ceramic traditions, social hierarchy as a form of organization, megalithic funerary architecture with associated formalities, ceremonial complexes tied to astronomical rituals, rock art imagery, local and trans-local exchanges of luxury and utilitarian goods and exotica.."[/i] --RAY A. KEA. 2014. A Companion to Mediterranean History. p 426 The above was never a monolith but a loose pattern of interchange and common elements, incorporating diverse peoples. Also to take into account is that the Sahara overlaps to many areas that to disentangle what is "Saharan" from "non-Saharan" is a wasted exercise, particularly given the shifts of the Sahara banck and forth with a new southern tendency. So is the Sudan part of the "Sahara" or is it "non-Sahran"? In any event the Sahara is not needed to demnstrate numerous of the foundational cultural elements of KMT. The northeastern cultures further south are a kep source of Egyptian religion for example. [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nY5s-FK4d_Q/VnmJH3bv2aI/AAAAAAAACE8/DRkOLG5_oXM/s1600/egypt_african_substratum2.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ I understand your point, but China also had extensive relations throughout Asia yet nobody calls Chinese civilization "Pan-Asian" and the same was true with Rome in Europe but nobody calls Rome a "Pan-European" civilization. [/qb][/QUOTE]I would call Chinese civilization pan asian because it has many elements of culture that are common to Asia and its roots are in Asia. And China is a melting pot of various Asian traditions, ethnic groups and cultures. "Pan Asian" does not imply a political or ethnic identity as opposed to a common cultural framework. [/qb][/QUOTE]Agreed [with Doug] , and both China and Rome had that pan-continental reach. Kemet by contrast did not, and did not have the geographical advantages of Rome or China to make it a reality in the same way. If the Nile were fully navigable up to Ethiopia or East Africa it might have been possible, or if the East African coastline was full of natural harbors and bays facilitating transport, as the European coastline is. But as in much of Africa, sandbars, cataracts and waterfalls block extensive river navigation inland and to the ocean. By contrast Rome had not only the broad belt of the Mediterranean to work with in spreading its hegemony, but numerous European rivers extensively navigable to move men, material and technology. The Chinese had similar favorable transport routes inland, along with the relatively easy transmission belt of the SOuth CHina Sea and then the Pacific. The ancient green Sahara was just that, ancient, and had long dried up when Kemet and Kerma began their historical rise. Egypt the record shows was heavily limited by its geographic situation, in terms of empire building in Africa- a narrow strip of land surrounded by desert with the main waterway chopped up and blocked in multiple places. Such geog factors are not the only thing in the mix, but they are one key reason Egypt could hardly become the "central headquarters" of civilization in Africa hoped for by many, nor could there be a "Pan Egyptian" or "Pax Egypticana" on a near continental scale as with Rome or some of the major Chinese dynasties.. Van Sertima had a book called EGYPT CHILD OF AFRICA. Kemet was one child among many, an important one, but nevertheless a child. [/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