...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Motion Picture: Goddess of the Sun
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: Oh boy. I don't mean to be flippant here. I assumed that smart people like yourselves would be able to put these issues together for yourselves.[/QUOTE]Whom are you specifically referring to, and what "issues" are you talking about, that has a direction, and what direction is that? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: Horn Africans were the root of two important, cattle cultures. One of which is none other than that of the Proto-Egyptians- the second of which is that of the Proto-Indians.[/QUOTE]Are you suggesting that cattle domestication originates in the African Horn? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: Austronesians and Pygmoids already present in both regions prior to the cattle cultures already had established trade and cultivation between their respective populations in Southern Western Asia and Africa- Pleistocene era trade routes.[/QUOTE]What documentation attests to *Pleistocene* trade between Africans and Southwestern Asians? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: Because they already had a banana utilized primarily for fiber and had cultivated it towards that end before leaving the African continent, subsequent populations of Austronesians and Pygmoids that were to reach South Western Asia, recognized the wild banana plants growing in their new homelands. THey would quickly exploit the new wild bananas - this one was edible and grew much like their familair African species that was used only for fiber- stone age cultures need fiber and they also need food- fiber used to tie things together and food to feed oneselfe obviously-and through cultivation select breed the new wild bananas into fruit bearing cultivars that would be brought back to the continent of Africa and grown there-major food staples I might add not jsut sweet banans-.[/QUOTE]Relevance, with regards to your introduction of concepts like "Black Rock", "Oryx" and "Red Rock People, as well as "no black pharaoh in AE"? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: that the Austronesians and Pygmnoids had domesticated during the Pleistocene. i.e., Basenji dogs were introduced to South Western Asia and New Guinea where they would become the progenitors of the Indian Pariah dog, the New Guinea Singing Dog and the Australian Dingo Dog. Trade between these Pleistocene populations of our human family would insure that the genetic affinity between curly tailed barkless dogs descended of Canis simensis would remain for all intensive purposes, contiguous. In other words, these dogs are one anothers closest relatives. [b]Following the genetic trail of domesticated plants and animals helps us learn a great deal about human biodiversity and their routes of migration.[/b][/QUOTE]How does domesticated fauna and flora help us learn about human biodiversity? And again, what point does this lend in your concepts noted above? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: These Austronesian/Pygmoid cultures were dominated or assimilated by subsequent populations of Neolithic Horn Africans that migrated along similar trajectories and became the founders of a new population diaspora- one based on cattle.[/QUOTE]What genetic indicators point to this, with regards to the "Austronesian/Pygmoids" and "Neolithic Horn Africans"? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: The point being once again for the rhinoceri amongst you- the history of ethnicity and culture of Saharan Africa precedes that which concerns the Eurocentric/Afrocentric.[/QUOTE]??? What specifically is "that" which concerns the Eurocentric/Afrocentric, and why is it relevant here? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: The paper you have problems with on Cattle Domestication is nonetheless a peer reviewed paper which is largely on point and substantive.[/QUOTE]There is no problem [on my end] to speak of; your post had been *falsified* by up-to-date scientific studies - plain and simple. Your posts have been falsified with regards to African cattle domestication. Your contempt for truth, is a pristine example of dogma - latching onto subjective ideology in disregard for truth or objectivity. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: It could be argued and actually a number of you here have made it clear through your marginalization of said topics, (" its either domesticated or not period...") that your comprhension of animal and plant domestication is not your focus of interest. It is absolutely integral to the comprehension of said topic.[/QUOTE]This is a misguided statement. The onus is on you to establish the relevancy of every issue you introduce. You have yet to formulate a coherent case of how "bananas", "dogs" and "cattle" fit into your concepts of "Black Rock", "Red Rock" and "oryx" peoples, as well as "no black pharaohs in Ancient Egypt" and why certain people cannot be viewed as black unless they *literally* seem like it. If you can't put your case together, how do you expect anyone else to know any better? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: MArginalizing it or selective reading of objective anaylsis of said topic to directionally bolster your refutation of my position- knowing full well the majority of readers on this forum are not going to actually bother to read the papers Ive posted links to- they will accept your refutation on grounds of your dedication to your own intractable position-regardless- marginalizing the significance of the history of animal and plant cultivation by ancient cultures- from the Pleistocene onwards is evidence in my book that you are a directional thinker.[/QUOTE]What specifically has been marginalized by myself?...and how is this material- that is supposedly "marginalized" - relevant to those concepts of yours, noted time and again above? [QUOTE] Originally posted by Maahes: If it takes place in Asia it is not African and thus not in your field of interest.[/QUOTE]Relevancy?! What takes place in Asia has what relevancy to either the opening topic of this thread [i]OR[/i] your concepts described above? Goes without saying: If not relevant, why should it be of anyone's interest? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: I brought up these points to help some of you recognize hwo flawed the mentality is- the mentality that is based on learning from books and coloured maps- that is based on the significance of history as it relates to the Old Testament- whatever the expert is most educated in becomes their imprint.[/QUOTE]I must say, I've been quite patient with you. I refute your post on one issue or the other and I question you with others, only to have you come back with nothing substantial but ad homina. If I were to return this attitude, you'd be complaining again about how your person is being attacked, instead of what's being said. How about practicing what you preach, and come up with answers on questions being asked? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: They will not accept evidence that points to anything that does not agree with their view point - In this case, the argument I am making could be perceived as Afrocentric. I'm making the case that Horn Africans and before them the progenitors of the Austronesian/Pygmoid/Negrito population- were responsible for the southern western Asian cultural wellsprings- but because you are of the opinion that I am biased against black Africa -some of you here read that to mean that I beleive that Asiatics are responsible for the accomplishments of African civilizations.[/QUOTE]Smokescreen. Plain and simple - you're being asked to validate your claims, and clarify the point that you're trying to make, if there's any. There is no indication at this point, that you have an actual point to make, other than taking issue with the appellative of "black". [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: But then the point of discussing bananas, dogs and cattle is to elucidate the different strata of time and space here- another point that appears to be lost.[/QUOTE]Relevancy to your aforementioned concepts above! [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: What is my position? [/QUOTE]Good question, and one many of us have been asking you for some time now, while you've busy spewing out ad homina and other futile distracters. What was the point of the concepts you brought forth, along with that of select domesticated fauna and flora you brought up? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: Each and every paper that I have posted a link to here are on the required reading lists of anthropology professors from Columbia and Harvard who I have known for decades as mentors and friends. No one pretends to know all. It is important however to have an open mind and one that can recognize that bias blinds one to evidence that refutes popular theory.[/QUOTE]What evidence have you provided, that refutes what, and that warrants the open mind of the audience? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: My position is that Africa is the womb from which all human kind progressed. The first and earliest branches that would migrate into the nursery of Southern Western Asia blazed trails for subsequent migrations of different ethnic/racial stock.[/QUOTE]Working from a questionable premise: How do you define human "races"? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: Civilization grew from the expansion of the human psyche and from exploitation of new learned skills including cultivation of novel species and from trade between isolated populations. This is a humanist view and one that places emphasis on humanity above racial definition.[/QUOTE]Relevancy? I mean, who are you responding to here, that advocates "human races" to begin with? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: Egypt was not a land of white and blacks. Egypt was a land of Nilotic peoples. Different phases in development within Egyptian history might be categorized by ecological challenges and by the presence and or absence of specific ethnic groups.[/QUOTE]Are Nilotic peoples not "blacks"? If not, why not? How do you define "Nilotic peoples", and what ethnicities constitute this? You've dodged this question the last time I asked; perhaps, this won't be another missed opportunity for you to clarify yourself, and redeem yourself. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes: Oversimplification of the history or culture of any peoples within the region is disrespectful and a digression from the topic.[/QUOTE]Who's guilty of that, and according to what specific post(s)? [/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