...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egypt Africa Cultural Diffusion ?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big O: [QB] [i]"Phoenicians were a semitic people related to other peoples of the Levant. They were not negroid. Their closest relatives were cananites and other semitic peoples in the area, and they also have affinities with people in Lebanon of today."[/i] Here is a coin from Carthage representing it's main people; [IMG]https://oi1067.photobucket.com/albums/u440/Treday90/2hn58vb_zpszrf19cw0.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://oi1067.photobucket.com/albums/u440/Treday90/2edwaxu_zps8zknojnu.png[/IMG] Nations Negres et Culture - Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop​ Semitic according to Dr. C.A. Diop means semi white and semi Black. Semites are mixed race individuals. Nothing pure about them. In order to be mixed you have at least two elements. The evidence provided shows that the Black element came into Asia before the white element. The dating again is around 1,400-1,200 BC for this region. This mixing correlates with the collapse of the Bronze age around the Mediterranean. [i]"Here is a facial reconstruction of a 2500 years old Phoenician from Carthage."[/i] Here is an actual coin from Carthage. [i]"The "Grimaldi" did not build the European megaliths. The earliest West european megaliths are about 7000 years old, but the Grimaldi findings are 26,000 to 22,000 years old"[/i] Build up that strawman all you would like. The fact is the early Europeans until the end of the Bronze age were Black Africans. All of the "accomplishments" in what is now called "Europe" was that of Black Africans. Scholars have spoken on the nature of the interactions between the aboriginal Africans of the land and the coming whites from the Caucus. [i]"Later Anatolian farmers whose descendants mixed with the hunter gatherers were also light skinned. Most passage graves were built by those farmers, also some dolmens"[/i] The reason why this is so irrelevant is that the phenotype is determined by the skulls. The NEGROID skulls that characterize those Neolithic populations in the Levant, Turkey and Europe define the phenotype. These people were tropically adapted, and those same genes that are found in those non Africans claiming to be "light skinned" are also found in modern Black African populations; [i]"The strongest association is in SLC24A5, which is a well-known pigmentation gene (Lamason et al., 2005... including missense mutations that influence skin and eye pigmentation (Table 2), [b]are at high frequency in the KhoeSan[/b] ... these variants arose in southern Africa more than 100,000 years ago and were later selected for in Europeans after the out-of-Africa migration.. [b]Because African populations often carry the ancestral (i.e., dark) allele for skin pigmentation genes[/b] identified in Eurasians, allusions to [b]African skin pigmentation have ignored the great variability in this phenotype across Africa.[/b] Here, we reiterate [b]that skin pigmentation varies more in Africa than in any other continent, and we show that pigmentation in African populations cannot simply be explained by the small number of large-effect alleles discovered in Eurasians.[/b] Even in lightly to moderately pigmented KhoeSan populations, the [b]polygenicity of skin pigmentation is much greater than in Eurasians[/b] , encompassing both known pigmentation genes as well as novel loci." --Martin et al., 2017, An Unexpectedly Complex Architecture for Skin Pigmentation in Africans. Cell 171, 1340–1353[/i] [i]"A good example is the civilisations in the Americas who developed many institutions and material culture that was rather similar to those in the old world. Still there are no real tangible evidence for any contacts, less cultural exchange before 1492 (except for some vikings who came to Newfoundland around the year 1000, but who did not make any big impact)."[/i] That's not a good example to prove your point lol. [IMG]https://oi1067.photobucket.com/albums/u440/Treday90/2qiwcjn_zpsto1i1mqm.jpg[/IMG] [i]A.6' 7,11 X-ray findings of the skulls in [b]Mayan Indians were suggestive of sickle cell disease.[/b] 20 It has also been described in Mexicans. The sickle cell trait was found in 7.3 per cent of a series of over eight thousand Negroes,9 with a higher percentage in South African natives.10 [/i] https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC1643817&blobtype=pdf AND [i]". We then used a combination of forward time simulation, phylogenetic network analysis, and coalescent analysis to infer [b]a single origin of the sickle allele approximately 7,300 years ago, during the Holocene Wet Phase or Green Sahara."[/b] [/i] This came into the Americas within the last 2,000 years. An African and particularly Niger-Congo mutation dating to the last 10,000 years was found in the remains of one of Meso-America's greatest civilization. The same sickle cell that was found in pre-dynastic-dynastic Khemetic nobles-royalty. There is a clear link in these civilizations as indicated by ONE particular peoples, and that is the NC speaking family. [i]"They are not contemporary, you can not just take random artifacts from totally different time periods and compare them. That is not science, it is just lookership. If you want to prove the connectio you have to show more contemporary artifacts that are from the same time, and you must show that the shape of the more recent one comes directly by cultural diffusion from the makers of the older ones. Or even better you have to show artifats that are made in Egypt but found in sites that belong to other peoples."[/i] lol No I don't. The evidence speaks for itself supreme cultural continuity from Khamet into contemporary Equatorial Africa and vicinity. Once again we see the Khametic religion on display among peoples in Western Africa supporting a migration from Nile Valley civilization. [IMG]https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/u440/Treday90/mia_.1893c.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/u440/Treday90/Tut_coffinette.jpg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill[/IMG] The Nok civilization was the first agricultural civilization in West Africa, and that only makes sense as even admitted by White academia to have diffused from Nile Valley civilization; [IMG]https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/u440/Treday90/IMG_6392.jpg[/IMG] The History of Crop Cultivation in West Africa: A Bibliographical Guide M. A. Havinden You have agriculture coming from Nile Valley civilization, and you have Nile Valley religion coming into Western Africa as a result of a wholescale movement of people between 2,000 and 1,500 BC. Now is there context behind why there may have been a migration during this period? Did the Hyksos dominate parts of Khamet and the Sinai which were formerly owned by natives? There were natives in that region despite the bulk of the peoples being in the south. We know that because the Hyksos were reportedly brutal to the natives in the region. So we have a circumstance (hostile takeover/war) that warrants a migration of people during the period when the Nok (& Olmec ;) ) civilization begins to spring up. "Tracing the Bantu Expansion from its source" The Greenbergian theory of the Bantu migration from Cameroon has been debunked on every level. No genetic evidence from early West-Central African to Southern suggest the presence of the Bantu. Not not to mention it FAILS to explain why E-M2 dominates the Western Sahara as well. Archaeology nor ecology supports this theory. Not to mention NO BANTU'S claim this Greenbergian theory of their origin. Here is the criticism of the theory that was OMMITED in the final version of UNESCO 1974; [IMG]https://oi1067.photobucket.com/albums/u440/Treday90/Babtu-debunk2%201_zpscckyvfct.jpg[/IMG] [i]UNESCO deleted S. Lwanga-Lunyiigo on 'Bantu movement' from the paperback. Even in the 1988 they apologized for printing SLL's original contribution which begins: "Basing my conclusion on archaeological evidence, I suggested recently that the speakers of Bantu languages occupied from very early times a broad swath of territory [b]running from the Great Lakes region of East Africa to the shores of the Atlantic in Zaire and that the supposed movement of Bantu speakers from West Africa to central, eastern, and southern Africa did not take place.[/b] [24]" [24] Lwanga-Lunyiigo, S. (1976) The Bantu problem reconsidered Current Anthropology 17,2, pp. 282-6[/i] [/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