posted
Most researchers on this forum have been led to believe that the only Africans in Asia were the first out of Africa (OOA) people who left Africa 65kya. Because the researchers here,may have only read Diop—not DuDois, Rogers and Jackson they know nothing about ancient Black history outside Egypt.
Afrocentricity –is the theorectical perspective found on a African centered consciousness that locates African behaviors within the context of African psychological, cultural and sociological experiences and agency. As a result, it is not the data being used to examine an African phenomenon , it is the approach the researcher uses to illuminate and understand that phenomenon. This research method is used by most researchers on this forum.
I respect this form of research but I am an Afrocentric researcher. As noted previously Afrocentrism examines the history of African and Black people using the ancient model of history. These researchers recognize the social science research methods of linguistics, history, anthropology and archaeology as appropriate means to undertstand and illuminate the past of African and Black people.
No Afrocentric scholar looks at every culture in Asia and the Americas as African. They only point too specific civilizations in Asia and the Americas as African, i.e., the Sumerians and Elamites, Xia and Yi-Shang of China, Indus Valley, megalithic civilizations of Southeast Asia, the Lapita culture of the Pacific, and the Olmec civilization of Mexico. All of these people arrived in Asia and the Americas after 3000 BC. They point to these civilizations because there is aracheological, textual and linguistic evidence pointing to their direct and recent African origins.
The archaeological, linguistic, anthropological, epigraphic and historical research make it clear that the decendants of the OOA populations did not create and develop the River Valley Civilizations: Sumer, Elam, Indus Valley and Xia China.It was the Kushites who introduced architecture, sciences, agriculture, writing and etc., to ancient China, Sumer-Elam, Minoan Crete and Olmec America. If you don't recognize these people you don't understand the history of the world. Without the Kushites there would be no history to write of these lands. How can an intelligent person like you say the Kushites were "irrelevant". Are you mad?
If you had read the work of J.A. Rogers, DuBois and etc. you would know this. Most writers here concentrate on trying to "Liberate" from a themselves from white conciousness, while using white scholars as the basis of their research. This "Liberation will never take place unless you read authentic Afrocentric research by scholars who were expert in their fields.
The problem of many researchers on this forum is that you don't understand research in a field of study. If you understood research in a field of study, you would know that Afrocentrism is a mature social science which has research paradigms recognized in the past that new Afrocentric scholars either confirm or disconfirm through their research. This is why Eurocentric scholars never attack the work of Afrocentric scholars like DuBois, George Jackson, J.A. Rogers, C.A. Winters and etc. because their research is founded on solid scholarship. Granted many Eurocentric influenced writers attack the body of work—but never experts in the field.
posted
I feel that their should be three criterion that indicates the founders of a particular civilization was African, or the result of indigenous development and creation of ancient Asian , European and American Blacks.
These criteria are: 1. Archaeological and anthropological evidence linking the Africans to a particular civilization; 2. Presence of genetically related languages; and 3. Historical evidence and social technologies invented over the past 5k years.
The archaeological evidence is clear. The River Valley civilizations of Africa and Asia were related.
The Africans who took civilization to Asia used a common black and red ware that has been found from the Sudan, across Southwest Asia and the Indian Subcontinent all the way to China (Singh 1982:xxiv) .The earliest use of this BRW was during the Amratian period (c.4000 3500 BC). The users of the BRW were usually called Kushites.
The best evidence for Africans founding the first civilizations are vessels from the IVBI workshop at Tepe Yahya (c.2100 1700 BC). The IVBI workshop vessels have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are distributed from Egypt to Mesopotamia; and Soviet Uzbekistan, to the Indus Valley
The archaeological evidence suggest a widespread dispersal of of Proto Saharan tribes between 3800 2500 BC. This explains the common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and sites in Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and early Heladic Greece.
This archaeological evidence shows an African origin for the River Valley civilizations.
Henry Rawlinson used the Book of Genesis to find the identity of the Mesopotamia. He made it clear that the original inhabitants of Babylonia were represented by the name Nimrod and were represented by the family of Ham: Kushites, Egyptians and etc. This name came from the popularity among these people of hunting the leopard (Nimri). And as noted in earlier post the Egyptian and Nubian rulers always associated leopard spots with royalty, just as Siva is associated with the feline. As a result, Rawlinson used an African language Galla, to decipher the cuneiform writing.
The Sumerians and Elamites came from Africa, like the founders of the Indus Valley civilization. This is why the Elamite and Sumerian languages are closely related to African and Dravidian languages.
The Kushites when they migrated from Middle Africa to Asia continued to call themselves Kushites. This is most evident in place names and the names of gods. The Kassites, chief rulers of Iran occupied the central part of the Zagros. The Kassite god was called Kashshu, which was also the name of the people. The K-S-H, name element is also found in India. For example Kishkinthai, was the name applied to an ancient Dravidian kingdom in South India. Also it should be remembered that the Kings of Sumer, were often referred to as the " Kings of Kush".
The major Kushite tribe in Central Asia was called Kushana. The Kushan of China were styled Ta Yueh-ti or "the Great Lunar Race". Along the Salt Swamp, there was a state called Ku-Shih of Tibet. The city of K-san, was situated in the direction of Kushan, which was located in the Western part of the Gansu Province of China.
The Elamites later conquered Sumer. They called this line of Kings,he "King of Kish'. This term has affinity to the term Kush,that was given to the Kerma dynasty, founded by the C-Group people of Kush. It is interesting to note that the Elamite language, is closely related to the African languages including Egyptian and the Dravidian languages of India.
The most important Kushite colony in Iran was ancient Elam. The Elamites called their country KHATAM or KHALTAM (Ka-taam). The capital of Khaltam which we call Susa, was called KHUZ (Ka-u-uz) by the Aryans, NIME (Ni-may) by the people of Sumer, and KUSHSHI (Cush-she) by the Elamites.In the Akkadian inscriptions the Elamites were called GIZ-BAM (the land of the bow). The ancient Chinese or Bak tribesmen which dominate China today called the Elamites KASHTI. Moreover, in the Bible the Book of Jeremiah (xlxx,35), we read "bow of Elam". It is interesting to note that both Khaltam-ti and Kashti as the name for Elam, agrees with Ta-Seti, the ancient name for Nubia located in the Meroitic Sudan.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ these seem to be a simulated responses to questions concerning your deliberate misrepresentation of Asante's term and early twentieth century black scholars and researchers. lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
. Many Indian researchers believe that they originated in Africa. B.B. Lal, who did research in Nubia and India, is sure that the Dravidians were related to the C-Group of Nubia (see: Lal, B , "The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963).
Researchers have found a high frequency of the 9bp deletion in the M macrohaplogroup including unclassified M* (Thangaraj et al, 2008). Thangaraj et al. (2008) note that 60% of the Indians carry one of the M Macrogroup lineages including unclassified hg M*. These researchers note that among these Indians the typical transitions of 9bp were 16311. . The typical transitions for African 9bp are 16311,16223 and 16189. The 9bp transition at 16311 are congruent among Dravidians and West Africans.
There are a number of shared African and Indian Y-chromosome haplotypes. These haplotypes include Y-hg T-M70 and H1. Haplogroup T-M70 is found among several Dravidian speaking tribal groups in South India, including the Yerukul (or Kurru) , Gonds and Kols. Y-haplogroup T-M70 is found in the eastern and southern regions of India (Trivedi et al, 2008). It has a relatively high frequency in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh (Sharma et al, 2008). Sharma et al (2008) in a study of 674 Dalits found that 89.39 % belonged to Y-hg K*, in relation to Dravidian speakers it was revealed that Y-hg T-M70 was 11.1%. Trevedi et al (2008) report that Y-hg T-M70 is predominately found among Upper Caste Dravidians at a frequency of 31.9. The highest frequency of T-M70 in the World is found among the Fulani (18%) of West Africa.
In addition to the anthropological/archaeological evidence other researchers note a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages. These studies include the following:
Aravanan, K P , "Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans", Journal of Tamil Studies 10,(1976)pages 23-27.
Aravanan, K P , Dravidians and Africans , Madras, 1979.
N'Diaye, C T, Vers une theorie du Sino-Africaine , Dakar,1972. Mimeo.
Aravanan,K.P. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India, Journal of Tamil Studies, 1980, pp.20-45.
Lahovary, N , Dravidian Origins and the West, Madras: Longman,1957.
N'Diaye, C.T. The relationship between Dravidian languages and Wolof. Annamalai University Ph.D. Thesis.1978.
Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P., Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques, Bulletin de L'IFAN, no.1, 1979, pp.100-132.
Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P. Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain, Bull. IFAN, No.1, 1976,pp.127-157.
As you can see the Dravidians originated in Africa. This view is supported by the archaeological and linguistic data.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Note how the Mayan chief painted himself Black to welcome Ekchuah. Also look at how the leading personage before the Black travler kneels.
Vase from Chama Guatemala
Given the discovery of numerous Olmec artifacts depicting Blacks begs a number of questions: “Were there Black or African people in ancient America? Do the African heads of the Olmec confirm an African presence in Mexico or do they show present-day Mayan people? What is the relation between contemporary Black Costa Chicas (negrocostachicanos) and Blacks depicted in Olmec artifacts? The idea of mestizaje was developed by Jose Vascoucelos. Mr. Vascouselos became Minister of Education in 1921. During his tenure Black heroes of Mexican history were whitened as Vascoucelos pursued a policy of homogenization of Mexicans (Cuevas, 2004). In 1946, Black Mexicans were rediscovered by Aguirre Beltran (1972) when he found the Blacks in Costa Chica. This was a rediscovery because the idea of mestizaje stressed the idea that there were only Mexicans, and not Amerindians, Whites or Blacks. The only problem with this idea was that Black Mexicans became associated with poverty and ignorance. These Blacks also experience much discrimination throughout Mexico, and much hostility in Costa Chica (Vaugh, 2005a, 2005b).
The Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast of Mexico. The 1990 Mexican census recorded 66,000 Negrocostachicanos. These Mexicans live in African style huts and practice rituals which may be of African origin (Vaugh,2005a). Most researchers believe that the Negrocostachicanos are decendants of marrons or runaway slaves (Aguirre Beltran, 1972; Vaugh,2005a). But none of the Blacks of Costa Chica have songs about slavery and its hardships (Baja.com.2005).The Negrocostachicanos say “they are not they insist, the descendants of African slaves. There was never slavery here, even in ancient times” (Baja.com,2005). Bobby Vaugh (2005b) noted that he found “no consciousness of slavery among people in Costa Chica” (p.5). Another researcher, noted that “Housewives in San Jose Estancia Grande and Santiago Tapextla [in Costa Chica] say their ancestors did not come from Africa, that their families have always lived right here” (Baja.com, 2005, p.6). The fact that the Negrocostachicanos claim that they were never slaves has troubled some researchers who believe that the only Blacks in Mexico came to the New World with the Spanish. Although this is the popular view concerning the origin of Blacks in Mexico, this view may be Eurocentric because the archaeological and historical evidence indicate that Blacks were already in Mexico when the Spanish made there way to Mexico.
Leo Wiener in the African Discovery of America (1922), provides a detailed account of the Black gods of Mexico in the third volume in this series of books. Wiener outlined that the Blacks were traveling merchants in Mexico selling cocao, feathers and other products. The major Black gods of the Mexicans was Quetzalcoalt, and the Mayan gods L and M, Xaman and Ekchuah these gods are depicted in the Codex Troano(Wiener, 1921, [vol.3] p.258). Sahagun tells us that Ekchuah was also the god of the Amanteca. The Nahuatl term Amanteca, was probably the name of the Mandinka or Mandinga people who were the foundation of the Olmec people (Winters, 2005).
Ekchuah and the Mayan God M, was the god of merchants and warriors. He is also depicted in the Codex Cortesianus and 17 times in the Madrid Codex.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
After 800 BC the Olmec entered Western mexico. At this time it appears that the Mokaya were “Olmecizied”. At this time we see the introduction of Olmec ceramics, culture items and writing.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Olmec played a prominent role in the rise of Mayan civilization. In Guatemala, we find jaguar stucco masks on the pyramids of EI Mirador Structure 34, Cerros Structure 5C-2nd, E-VII Sub at Takalik Uxaxatun, and Structure 5D 22-2nd at Tikal. These jaguar masks are identical to Olmec jaguar masks: Stela C Tres Zapotes, the La Venta Sarcophagus, and Monument 15 La Venta. In this presentation, we test the hypothesis that there is a correlation between the pre-Classic Guatemalan writing and the (Epi)Olmec writing of Mexico. The purpose of this project is to compare these symbols to fully decipher the inscriptions of Guatemala, and to learn more about the religious and political system of the pre-Classic Guatemalans.
Most researchers have assumed that this pyramid was built by the Maya. Although this is the popular view, this pyramid was probably built by the Olmec. And the Maya probably built a new pyramid over the original Olmec pyramid.
Under many pyramids found in Guatemala and Belize we find stucco-modeled jaguar pyramids. These pyramids with jaguar mask and large earrings predate all the Mayan pyramids. They are found at Uaxactun, Tikal and Cerros.
Most researchers have assumed that this pyramid was built by the Maya. Although this is the popular view, this pyramid was probably built by the Olmec. And the Maya probably built a new pyramid over the original Olmec pyramid.
Under many pyramids found in Guatemala and Belize we find stucco-modeled jaguar pyramids. These pyramids with jaguar mask and large earrings predate all the Mayan pyramids. They are found at Uaxactun, Tikal and Cerros.
We see new Black civilizations rise along the Pacific coast after 500 BC. Between 500-200 BC Guatemala was a center of Black civilizations. Some of these civilization include San Bartolo, Izapa and Kaminaljuyu. The founders of these civilizations were probably the ancestors of the Black Costa Chicas the negrocostachicanos.
The Negrocostachicanos are responsible for the pre-Classic pyramids the Maya built their pyramids upon. They left us numerous inscriptions on artifacts from Izapa, San Bartolo and Kuinaljuyu they may provide us with keen insight into their history and civilization.
Stone head From San Bartolo
The San Bartolo, Guatemala murals are very beautiful they were discovered by William Saturno of the University of New Hampshire. These murals were found in an unexcavated pyramid. Entering a looter’s trench Dr. Saturno dug into the pyramid and discovered the murals. Much of the mural was destroyed when the Maya built another pyramid over the original structure.
King Kali
The San Bartolo pyramid has two murals. One of the murals is of a procession of people on a boat . The other mural is of King Tali, sitting on his pyramid.
On the boat there are a number of figures. Moving from right to left we see four standing figures nearest the end of the boat. These figures are carrying bundles raised above their heads.
In front of these figures we see several symbols. These symbols provide context to the procession.
There are a number of female figures on the boat. The woman near the Corn God has writing symbols on their faces. The kneeling figure holding the vase on the far left side toward the end has the words gyo ti “righteous cult specialist” on her cheek.
The standing female figure in front of the last three symbols placed in front of the person carrying gifts has the words ti i “she is righteous” written on her cheek.
Another Black chiefdoms was situated at Kaminaljuyu. Mike provides an interesting monument from this site.
It is clear that Blacks along the Pacific coast the Negrocostachicanos are descendants of the original Africans who lived in Mexico, Belize and Guatemala for thousands of years. The Blacks along the Gulf are mainly of African Slave origin.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I call these early colonizers of China Africans because they came from Africa. A good example of the use of the proper term to identify people is the case of America. The first people to live here were Amerinds. Today Europeans dominate North America. Although we call these people Americans, they are Europeans who practice a European culture.
The Blacks of Xia came from Africa. And practiced an African culture. Therefore I call the peoples of Asia who can be dated to the Kushite-Group C dispersal/migration out of Africa after 3500BC: Africans.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Due to the African origin of the first Americans, some Amerind groups mixed with the original African Americans and later Africans taken to America during the Atlantic Slave Trade. I have made it clear that I believe that the present Amerind population probably only entered Mexico and South America after 1000 BC.
I have pointed out that:
1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia
2) during the OOA event mush of Siberia and North America was under ice from 110,000 - 10,000BC. As a result there was no way Siberians could cross Beringa before the end of the ice age
3) Ice even separated much of South America east to west .
. 4) the first Americans appear in Brazil, Chile and Argintina Latin America around 30,000 BC
5)using craniometric evidence I have pointed out that the first Americans look like Africans not modern Amerinds
6) using craniometrics I have pointed out that Asia was dominated by the Australian population until the rise of Suhulland when the Melanesian people appear in the area, at this time the Beringa was still under Ice
7) I pointed out that the Melanesian type reach East Asian mainland by 5000 BC, long after Africans had settled Latin America
8) between 15,000-12,000 we see numerous African populations in Mexico and Brazil; and statues dating to this period have even been found off the Yucatan coast in the Caribbean
9) these first Americans did not look like the Australians or modern Amerinds
10) iconography of PreClassic people like the Cherla, Ocos and other groups is of Negroes not Amerinds like the Maya
11) Amerind groups not associated with African slaves carry African genes
12) Maya carried African y chromosome
13) Mayans carry African genes
14)Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast
15) The Dufuna boat makes it clear that Africans probably had the technology to travel to the Americas 15,000 years ago.
16) Fuegians 100-400 BP carried haplogroup A1. Hg A1 is an African haplogroup.
17) Amerinds carry haplogroup N, just like Africans.
18)The y chromosome STRs of the Fuegians include DYS434,DYS437,DYS 439, DYS 393, DYS391,DYS390,DYS19, DYS 389I, DYS389II and DYS 388 (see: Garcia-Bour et al above). Except for DYS390 and DYS388 they are characteristic of haplogroup A1 . A1 is recognized as an African haplogroup.
Amerindians carry the X hg. Amerindians and Europeans hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has also been found throughout Africa (Shimada et al,2006). Shimada et al (2006) believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 ( Martinez-Cruzado, 2001; Ribeiro-Dos-Santos,1996). Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times.
References:
Martinez-Cruzado, J C, Toro-Labrador, G, Ho-Fung, V, Estevez-Montero, M A, Et al (2001). Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals substanial Native American ancestry in Puerto Rico,Human Biology, Aug 2001
Makoto K. Shimada*, , Karuna Panchapakesan , Sarah A. Tishkoff , Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr* and Jody HeY, Divergent Haplotypes and Human History as Revealed in a Worldwide Survey of X-Linked DNA Sequence Variation, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(3):687-698
In conclusion, the first Americans came from Africa--not Siberia as you maintain. These people probably came to the Americas by boat.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: ^ these seem to be a simulated responses to questions concerning your deliberate misrepresentation of Asante's term and early twentieth century black scholars and researchers. lol
Ignorant people always LOL when they don't understand something. you present no original research in your comments only critism of the original research of Mike, Marc and I.
You are a fool and self-hater. This is why you feel confident to ride the coat tails of your white heroes to define your ideas relating to research.
Not really. I have just extended the definition of Afrocentrism to reflect the reality of Afrocentrism as a social science method.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go fock yourself you pseudo-scholar and fake ass Afrocentric. Garvey as an "existentialist Afrocentric"? LOL! I thought I saw it all from you, crackpot.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Go fock yourself you pseudo-scholar and fake ass Afrocentric. Garvey as an "existentialist Afrocentric"? LOL! I thought I saw it all from you, crackpot.
Tell that to your mama so she can get her Ho ass off her knees and get a real job.
This shows your hate of AA scholars. You hate us because negroes like you have no nerve--and get on your knees before Europeans who provide you with your historical reality.
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: Dr. Clyde, try and petition China's universities to institute the information from your ground breaking research into their curriculum.
**Where is the LOL icon**
This is unnecessary, any Chinese student that has studied the Classics know that the founders of Chinese civilization were the Li Min, and their own ancestors were called Han/Hua. Here is a video which explains this phenomena.
posted
Clyde still trying to make up bogus classifications based on meaningless associations. The point being that blacks have been in Asia since the first humans left Africa and there was no break in this presence. Therefore, you cannot claim that blacks ever stopped being in Asia as they are still there and have always been there. So your point of Africans having to continually go back to Asia and reinforce the black presence there is quite infantile.
Nevertheless, in antiquity the Africans did continue to move around between places in Asia and Africa and there wasn't any limit on their movement. In fact there was much more movement of populations around the world in ancient times than some European scholars like to give credit to. But that does not change the fact that blacks have been in Asia all along and did not need new migrations from Africa to get there. Case in point, Papua New Guinea and Australia or the Andaman Islands. None of these populations have any recent African blood and they are typical of the remnants of the most ancient populations in Asia. And that is not to mention the populations elsewhere in Asia like India, the Philippines and so forth.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many researchers fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).
The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2).[/] The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia.[b] Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).
This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.
Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).
The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.
By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7). The craniometrics make it clear the Australians are not related to the Melanesians.
Reference:
1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.
2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.
3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.
5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
First of all the original migrants OOA population had different features than the contemporary Africans.
Here is an Australian
Here is a contemporary Africans
You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.
Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\
Fijians
Australians
A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that the former population resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].
The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.
There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].
The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.
Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.
References 1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.
2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.
3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.
4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.
5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).
6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76
7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.
8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.
9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.
10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.
11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.
12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).
13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are other genetic markers which point to a relationship between the Fijians and Africans. For example, haplogroup V appears in New Guinea, while haplogroup IV has been found only in New Guinea, Near Oceania and Northwestern most Micronesia according to Merriwether et al., Mitochondrial DNA in the South Pacific, p.159, in SS Papilia, R. Deka & R. Chakraborty (Ed.), Genomic Diversity.In Cordaux et al.,Mitochodrial DNA analysis reveals diverse tribal histories of tribal populations from India, Eur. J Hum Genet (2003)11(2):253-264, in figure 2 notes that Clusters X1 and X are found in Africa and the Pacific.
The figure makes it clear that Africans and PNG share X,and Xl.This proves a relationship exist.
Africans and Fijians share the Y-Chromosome K-M9. The K haplogroup is found in Africa and Oceania. The common Fijian Y-chromosome is M-M4; it exist as derived subgroup M-P34 of Melanesians. Both of these genes are found in among Africans see: Figure 2, in Wood et al., Contrasting Patterns of Y chromosome, Eur J Hum Genet (2005),13:867-876.
Merriwether et al. Origins and dispersal in the mtDNA region V 9bp deletion and insertion in Nigeria and the Ivory Coast, Am. J Hum Genet (1994) noted that Africans and Asians share the T-->C transition at nt position 16189 and the D-loop sequence of nts 15975 to 00048.
Researchers have also found that the Tanzanian M1 haplogroup cluster with people from Oceania (Gonder et al, 2006).
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Many researchers fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).
The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2).[/] The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia.[b] Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).
This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.
Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).
The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.
By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7). The craniometrics make it clear the Australians are not related to the Melanesians.
Reference:
1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.
2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.
3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.
5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
First of all the original migrants OOA population had different features than the contemporary Africans.
Here is an Australian
Here is a contemporary Africans
You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.
Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\
Fijians
Australians
A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that the former population resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].
The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.
There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].
The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.
Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.
References 1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.
2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.
3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.
4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.
5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).
6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76
7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.
8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.
9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.
10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.
11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.
12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).
13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241
Clyde, do you not realize that none of the populations you are referring to are Africans? That is why the craniometrics of Australians and Melanesians do not match Africans. Blacks in Asia are Asians. Period. You keep trying to twist all the facts and turn it into something that it isn't, which is to somehow put an "African" label on any and all blacks outside of Africa. Yes, the first people in Asia came from Africa, but that was over 40,000 years ago. You cannot keep calling them Africans if they haven't been to Africa in 40,000 years. This is where you keep trying to find some way of putting more recent migrations of Africans into Asia in order to support a claim that certain black Asians are Africans. But you are ignoring the fact that the blacks of Asia are the oldest and most diverse populations of Asia and therefore, you cannot distinguish between them and the rest of Asians. They are all Asians.
That said, this does not mean that there hasn't been more recent contact and interaction between Africa and Asia. Of course there has been. However, to try and lump some black Asians as "Africans" and others as "not Africans" based on absurd guessing is silly. The reality is much more complex than that.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Many researchers fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).
The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2).[/] The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia.[b] Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).
This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.
Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).
The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.
By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7). The craniometrics make it clear the Australians are not related to the Melanesians.
Reference:
1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.
2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.
3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.
5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
First of all the original migrants OOA population had different features than the contemporary Africans.
Here is an Australian
Here is a contemporary Africans
You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.
Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\
Fijians
Australians
A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that the former population resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].
The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.
There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].
The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.
Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.
References 1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.
2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.
3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.
4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.
5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).
6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76
7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.
8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.
9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.
10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.
11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.
12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).
13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241
Clyde, do you not realize that none of the populations you are referring to are Africans? That is why the craniometrics of Australians and Melanesians do not match Africans. Blacks in Asia are Asians. Period. You keep trying to twist all the facts and turn it into something that it isn't, which is to somehow put an "African" label on any and all blacks outside of Africa. Yes, the first people in Asia came from Africa, but that was over 40,000 years ago. You cannot keep calling them Africans if they haven't been to Africa in 40,000 years. This is where you keep trying to find some way of putting more recent migrations of Africans into Asia in order to support a claim that certain black Asians are Africans. But you are ignoring the fact that the blacks of Asia are the oldest and most diverse populations of Asia and therefore, you cannot distinguish between them and the rest of Asians. They are all Asians.
That said, this does not mean that there hasn't been more recent contact and interaction between Africa and Asia. Of course there has been. However, to try and lump some black Asians as "Africans" and others as "not Africans" based on absurd guessing is silly. The reality is much more complex than that.
You can't read. So I will explain to you what was written in the post.
This post was explaining that the Melanesians and Australians are not related. It also shows that the Melanesian live along the coast and the earlier Australian population live in the highlands.
Also, I don't guess.
It is clear you know nothing about archaeology in the Pacific or the spread of the various populations in the area.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You can't read. So I will explain to you what was written in the post.
This post was explaining that the Melanesians and Australians are not related. It also shows that the Melanesian live along the coast and the earlier Australian population live in the highlands.
Also, I don't guess.
It is clear you know nothing about archaeology in the Pacific or the spread of the various populations in the area.
And I will keep it simple as well. You are continually trying to tie the Mande people in West Africa to any and all blacks outside of Africa as if blacks have not been there since day one. Therefore you keep trying to find ways of linguistically tying everything back to the Mande whether it makes sense or not. My point is that ALL people came from Africa and that in places like Asia that presence is still plainly visible due to the continued existence of such people. Given that blacks from Africa settled there from 60,000 years ago, then it should be obvious that the people involved in those migrations were not West Africans or Mande. And if there were subsequent movements back (and forth) between Africa and these other places, then how many were involved, where were they from and what linguistic and cultural packages did they carry and when? How would you distinguish between the traditions that had been passed down and developed from older traits brought out of Africa thousands of years ago versus those brought by the "new" African arrivals? You can't, not without more meticulous research and study and certainly not research or study focusing solely on West Africa. If anything you should be looking at all of Africa, including East Africa, but your obsession with the Mande makes most of what you claim simply laughable at best and not able to be taken seriously.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The first dynasty of China was Xia (She-ya). The Xia civilization of ancient China. lasted from 2205 to 1766 B.C. According to the Guben zhu Shu zhi Nien, the Xia dynasty "from Yu to Zhieh had seventeen kings... and lasted 471 years". (Chang 1987)
Archaeologists believe that the major Xia sites are located in Shanxi and Henan. According to Chang (1987) northern Henan towards the end of the Longshan period was the eastern part of the Xia culture.
Xia was probably situated in the Yihe and Luohe river valleys, and along the Yinghe and Ruhe rivers. The capital of Xia was located in the Sangshan mountains.
The origins of Xia go back to the Longshan period. During the Longshan period burial goods included a large number of weapons, including stone lanceheads and arrows. This suggests that intersocial conflict was at its height during the Longshan periods, and warfare may have played a role in the rise of Xia. The Longshan neolithic is characterized by wheel-made pottery, bronze working, ceramics, wheeled vehicles, writing, rich grave goods and furnishings.
The Chinese histories tell us much about Xia. According to Chinese tradition the Xia built their settlements near rivers, lakes and streams. The Xia Dynasty is mentioned in the oracle bone records.
The leaders of Xia were granted rule based on their Ssu (clan) membership. The Xia naming system employed the ten celestial stems the same as the Shang people. (Chang 1980,p.353)
The national tree of the Xia li min was the pine. This tree was used in the earth ritual.
Xia social organization, and life was based on the clan . The totems of the major Xia clans were aquatic animals: fish, tortoise, turtle and etc. This view is supported by the myth recorded in the Annals of the Bamboo Books, which claims that Yu's mother swallowed a spirits pearl before the birth of Di (Lord) Yu, founder of the Xia Dynasty. Moreover , the dragon motif is common at Xia sites. A pan vessel was found at Taosi, with a red painted dragon motif.
The Chinese histories make it clear that the Xia had writing and tortoise books. This view can be supported by the pottery marks on the Longshan and Erlitou pottery. (Chang 1987, p.265)
Erlitou pottery is often inscribed with various signs and symbols. Fish were incised on a piece of bone, but up to now, oracle bone inscriptions have not been found. (Chang 1987, p.314)
Today archaeologists believe that the Erlitou culture is the Xia Dynasty. This is supported by the fact that the historical text place Xia in Henan and southern Shanxi. These Chinese provinces are the main areas where Erlitou artifacts have been discovered. Chinese archaeologists have suggested that the Henan Lungshan culture and the Erlitou I-III periods are representative of the Xia Dynasty. (An 1986)
Xia is considered the first dynasty of the sandai (three Dynasties) of ancient China: Xia, Shang and Zhou. There are many references to the Xia people. The Xia people were recognized as westerners, because they settled the middle Yellow river region of China. As a result they were called the Hua Xia "the middle states people".
There are numerous textual references to Xia. Han Fei Tzu writing in the third century B.C., in his Shih Guo, observed that:
"Yu made the ritual vessels painting the interior black and the exterior in red."
The tradition recorded by Han, of the black-and-red ware for the Xia li min suggest some relationship of Xia to the Yangshao culture which also used BRW and analogous pottery signs.
Chang (1987) believes that the legendary sages and heroes of China, probably lived during the Lungshan culture period. The Lungshan culture had walled cities and evidence of rank and rituals. This clearly illustrates how archaeology can compliment textual history.
The artifacts of Erlitou include BRW, red, black and buff wares. These artifacts were made of stone, shell and bronze. The bronze instruments found by archaeologists at Erlitou sites correspond to the descriptions by Yuan Kang, in the Yueh Zhueh Shu, quoting the philosopher Feng Hu Tzu of the tools made by the Xia. Yuan Kang wrote that:
"In the Age of Yu, weapons were made of bronze, for build -ing canals...and..houses...."
The black-and-red ware (BRW) common to the Fertile African Crescent was also used in China. There is affinity between the BRW from Nubia, and the pottery from Yangshao sites in the Henan and Gansu sites of China.
The textual history of Xia is synthesized in the Chinese book Shih Zhi. This evidence from the Shih Zhi, was used by Hsu Husheng , of the Chinese Institute of Archaeology, to find the xu (ruins) of Xia: the Xia xu. Hsu Husheng using this source hypothesized that the center for traditional Xia Dynasty towns was the Loyang plains and the Dengfeng river valley. This coincides with the Erlitou sites of this area which date to 2100- 1800 B.C.
The Xia people were recognized as being different people from the mongoloid Chinese they politically dominate China today as a people that came from the west (i.e., Iran), before they settled the middle Yellow river. A Zhou saying observed that :
"The rituals [or rules of] the Three Dynasties [sandai] are one".
The early Xia lived on mounds, in houses made of grass and mud. Pounded earth walls surrounded Xia villages to protect the li mim from attack. The Xia probably spoke a Manding language. This view is supported by the earlier discussion of the analogy between ancient Chinese and Manding.
The major clan totem of the Xia as mentioned earlier was the dragon. The zu (clan) or tsu was the basic point of social organization for the li min.
In China the dragon was regarded as the deified serpent. (Andersson 1973, p.7) It also denoted the symbol of perfect man, the son of Heaven, the Emperor.
The clan emblem for the ancient Manding was the first lizard/dragon. A dragon is nothing more than a giant lizard. This dragon motif was also found in Iran and Babylonian Assyrian civilization and the Anau civilization in Russia, which had similar painted pottery to the pottery styles of Henan (Xia). (Winters 1983c)
The Xia li min built their settlements near rivers, lakes and streams. They are mentioned in the Oracle bone writing. The sacred tree of the Xia was the pine. The Xia naming system was the same as that used by the Shang.
The founder of the Xia Dynasty was Yu. His father was Gun. Myths about Gun are found throughout southwest Shanxi. Yu's son founded the Pa culture. The Pa culture was a megalithic culture. Great Yu was the regulator of the waters and builder of canals. He invented wetfield agriculture.
Yu was born in Shihnew. His mother was Sewege (Seuge). She is alleged to have become pregnant and swallowed a spirit's pearl.
Under the orders of Emperor Shun, Yu was to dredge the Yellow river. Yu traveled the empire for 10 years draining the land of water. One tradition claims that "but for Yu we should all have been fishes".
Beginning with Xia the fundamental political unit of this dynasty and succeeding dynasties of China was the yi or walled town. These yi were organized into small and large guo (states). Each guo, was known as a shih.
The administrator of the guo was a member of an agnati clan or xing. The xing, ruled over members of their own clan and non- related clans living in the various yi, forming the guo.
Emperor Shun, appears to have given Egeu, his son, the princi -pality of Shang, and Yu the principality of Xia. After the death of Shun, Yu became the leader of the confederation of Seihshin: the large guos of Xia and Shang. According to Gu Tsu Yu, in the Du Shih fang yu Zihiyao, written in the 1600's:
"It is traditionally stated that when Yu assembled the lords at Dushan there were ten thousand states [cities] that came carrying jades and silks".
The second great leader of the Xia Dynasty was Qi, the son of Di (Emperor) Yu. According to the Guben zhu Shu Zhi Nien, the Xia dynasty had seventeen kings and lasted 471 years.
The Xia Dynasty remained strong until the tyrant , Zhieh, came to power. In 1766 B.C., Zhieh was deposed and exiled by Zheng Dang, ruler of Shang.
There are thirty references to the capital of Xia in the Zo Zhuan, Guo Yu , and Guben zhu Shu Zhi Nien. Loyang plain in central Henan, especially the region of Dengfeng and Yuxien in the upper Ying river valley, and the area near the Fenhe river valley in southwestern Shanxi south of mount Ho are usually mentioned in these sources as the area where the Xia capital was established.
The first capital of Xia was Yangcheng. This city was in southwestern Shanxi. Archaeologist believe that Taosi and Wangchenggang may be Xia cities.
Taosi dates to 2500 to 1900 B.C. Here the people raised oxen, pigs and sheep. They grew millet. Their homes were built half-way below ground. They smelted copper. The coiled dragon motif is common at this site along with crocodile skin drums.
The Taosi site is important because the artifacts excavated from the more than 1,000 tombs, indicate that a hereditary system of chiefs and class was already established.
The dragon motif at Taos may have been the totem of the Xia dynasts at Taosi. This would correspond to Chinese legends of the Long (Dragon) ethnic group. Huan Long (Dragon Breeding Clan) and Yu Long (Defend the Dragon) clan. The dragon legends are associated with the Chinese sages Yan, Yao, Shun and Yu.
The capital of Xia Yangcheng is believed to be the city of Wangshenggang. As mentioned earlier the yi, or 'walled city', was the basic political unit of Xia. These walls were built layer upon layer and called hangtu. Chinese traditions allege that Yu's father, Gun, built the first hangtu.
Wangshenggang site is 10,000 sq. meters . It is situated near the Wudu river. This structure contains skeletons of all ages.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, S , "Sons of Suns: Myth and Totemism in Early China", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (BSOAS) XLIV,(1981) pages 290-326.
Allan, S , "Drought, Human Sacrifice and the Mandate of Heaven in a Lost Text from the Shang Shu", BSOAS XLVII, (1984) pages 523-535.
An Jinhuai, "In Search of China's Oldest Capital", China Pictorial, (1986) pages 39-41.
An Jinhuai, "The Shang City at Cheng-chou and related Problems", In Studies of Shang Archaeology, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986) pages 15-48.
Chang, K C , "Prehistory and Early Historic Culture Horizon and Traditions in South China", Current Anthropology 5, no.5
Chang, K C , The Archaeology of Ancient China, New Haven: Yale (1964), pages 359-375.
Chang, K C , Shang Civilization, New Haven: Yale University Press,1980.
Lacouperie, T de , The Languages of China before the Chinese, London: David Nutt, 1887.
Lacouperie, T de, "Origin from Babylon and Elam of the Early Chinese Civilization: A summary of the Proofs", Babylonian and Oriental Record 3, no5 (1989), pages 97-110
Ling Shun-Sheng , A Study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double and Deck Canoes of ancient China, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean, Taipei: Nankang, 1970.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "A Note on the Unity of Black Civilizations in Africa, IndoChina, and China", PISAS 1979, Hong Kong: Asian Research Service,1980b.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "Are Dravidians of African Origin", P.Second ISAS,1980,( Hong Kong: Asian Research Service, 1981b) pages 789- 807.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "Further Thoughts on Japanese Dravidian Connection", Dravidian Language Association News 5, no.9 (1981c) pages 1-4.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Blacks in Ancient China,Part 1:The Founders of Xia and Shang", Journal of Black Studies 1, no.2 (1983c).
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "Possible Relationship between the Manding and Japanese", Papers in Japanese Linguistics 9, (1983d) pages 151-158.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "Further Notes on Japanese and Tamil", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 13, no.2 (June 1984c) pages 347-353.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Indus Valley Writing and related Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC", India Past and Present 2, no.1 ( 1985b), pages 13-19.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils", Journal of Tamil Studies , no27 (June 1985c), pages 65-92.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia", India Past and Present 3, no.2 (1986c)pages 225- 241.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad Winters,"The Dravidian Origin of the Mountain and Water Toponyms in central Asia", Journal of Central Asia 9, no.2 (1986d), pages 144-148.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "Review of Dr. Asko Parpolas' "The Coming of the Aryans". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18, no.2 (1989) , pages 98-127.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Dravido Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", Central Asiatic Journal 34, nos.1-2 (1990), pages 120-144.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The first writing of Africans was the Thinite script. This writing was used by Blacks in the Nubia, like the Niger-Congo people who migrated out of this region into West Africa and the rest of Africa.
This script provides many of the signs that are included in later scripts used by Africans.
In Nubia, Black Africans were using Thinite symbols before the rise of Egypt to record their ideas and report on important events.
At this time your people may have been living in the caves of the Caucasus mountains.
This writing was later used by Africans to write inscriptions throughout Middle Africa.
The evidence of this writing is found throughout the Sahara. By the time Mande speaking people settled Dar Tichitt they left numerous inscriptions.
The people of Dar Tichitt were Mande speakers. These Mande speaking people also lived in the Fezzan where they were called Garamante/Garamandes. The Garamante settled Crete and are recognized as the Eteo-Cretans or Minoans.
As you can see from the above chart the Linear A signs and Mande/Manding signs are identical. If you look careful you will note that Africans, or Black people had also taken their writing system to Anatolia were your ancestors were living in the Caucasus mountains as hunter-gatherers.
The Minoans, who were Africans instroduced Linear A, whose signs are identical to the writing left by Africans throughout the Sahara, Tichitt and presently represented in the Vai script.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ancient Greek Heroes of Homer were Black not blonds. The most famous Black in Greek literature was Memnon.
Memnon and his Black Squires
Many people living in Greece were of African origin..Homer claimed that Mycenae was ruled by Agamemnon. In the Iliad Agamemnon is decribed as xanthos, which means brown in Greek, not white.Agamemnon is in direct descent from Epaphos, the Black ancestor of the Pelasgic house. Aeschylus in Prometheus Bound, describes Epaphos as "swarthy of hue" and that he originally lived in Africa.
Xanthos means red-yellow which equals brown: a group of colors between red and yellow in hue that are medium to low in lightness and low to moderate in saturation. If Greeks are blond it today it is due to their admixture with northern Europeans.
As a result, we see that Memnon (top picture) and Achiles (bottom picture) were depicted as Blacks in Greek art.
There are other Afro scholars besides these two researchers. I mention the major researcher in this area: Parker who proved the original Greeks were Black.
Parker,G.W. (1917) . "The African Origin of Grecian Civilization".Journal of Negro History, 2(3):334-344.
___________. (1981). The Children of the Sun. Baltimore,Md.:Black Classic Press.
Parker used the Greek language and history to prove his thesis.
He observed that:
It is important to remember that the stories of Homer related to the Black Greeks. Homer was Black--not white.
In the tales of Homer, for example the Greeks of his time used long shields.
The white Greeks used short shields.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I wish we could separate the history of the Middle East from race, but it is impossible to do so because of the desire of Eurocentrists to make Semitic speakers members of the “white” race.
The controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.
To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians. Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.
As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.
Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.
A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.
A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.
Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.
Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.
The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.
It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.
Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area.
As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.
There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves şalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin.
Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black.
In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.
The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.
Gutian/Sumerian
To make the Sumerians “white” textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
There is an abundance of evidence that the Egyptians had long settled many parts of ancient Greece.
In the ancient writings of the Greeks, the Egyptians were called Melampodes or "blackfeet". The Egyptians were also called Danaans in Greek history.
The Egyptians established many colonies in ancient Europe. The Egyptians called themselves Melampodes or "Blackfeet". The Egyptians were also called Danaans in Greek history. According to Hyainus in Fabula, and Apollonius Rhodius when the Danaans came to Greece they were a combination of diverse African tribes.
When the Danaans came to Greece they took away part of Argolis from the Canaanites. The Danaans took the Mysteries of Themoporia and the oracle of Dodona to Greece. This view is supported by the discovery of an inscribed stone in the Peloponnese that had Egyptian writing on it dating to the Vth Dynasty of Egypt. Greek traditions speak of Egyptian colonies founded by Cecrops who settled Atica, Danaus the brother of Aegyptus was the founder of Argolis. Danaus is alleged to have taught the Greeks agriculture and metallurgy.
This short review of the Classical literature relating to the African identity of the Egyptians suggest that the views held by Lefkowitz in relation to an Egyptian presence in Egypt may not be correct.Numerous archaeologist have found abundant evidence of Egyptians settled in Greece long before the coming of the Indo-European-Aryans to Anatolia.
Cecil Torr in Memphis and Mycenae , discussed the inscriptions of Amemhotep found in a Mycenaean tomb at Ialysos in Rhodes and an 18th Dynasty scarab dating to the same period. As a result of the discovery of these artifacts Torr speculated that there were relations between Egypt and Greece between 1271 and 850 B.C.
The discovery of Torr was only the tip of the iceberg. Since the discovery of these artifacts in the 19th Century, archaeological evidence of Egyptians in Greece during the 2nd millennium has also been reported by J.D.S. Pendlebury, William A. Ward, and S.W. Manning .
Pendlebury provides a detailed discussion of the Egyptian material found at Laconia, Argolid, Thebes in Boeotia, and Athens. Pendlebury like Torr, believes that there were close relations between Greece and Egypt between the 12th and 7th centuries B.C.
Pendlebury's Aegyptiaca, has been excellently followed up by N. J. Skon Jedele, in her recent dissertation on Egyptian artifacts found in Greece. This dissertation provides even more examples of Egyptian artifacts found in Greece than those recorded by Pendlebury over sixty years ago.
Manning gives a well balanced discussion of the Egyptian material found in the Aegean area dating between the Old Kingdom and Dynasties 10 and ll. The work of Hankey and Warren indicate that there is archaeological evidence for Egyptians in ancient Greece, contrary to the false claims of Lefkowitz in Not Out of Africa.
End Notes
1. Lefkowitz, Not out of Africa, p.157.
2.Cecil Torr, Memphis and Mycenae, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1896) p.61.
3.Ibid., pp.64-65.
4. J.D.S. Pendlebury, Aegyptica: A catalogue of Egyptian objects in the Aegean Area, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1930.
5. William W. Ward, Egypt and the Mediterranean World 2200- 1900 B.C., Beirut: American University of Beirut. 1971.
6. S.W. Manning, The absolute chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Most researchers on this forum have been led to believe that the only Africans in Asia were the first out of Africa (OOA) people who left Africa 65kya. Because the researchers here,may have only read Diop—not DuDois, Rogers and Jackson they know nothing about ancient Black history outside Egypt.
Afrocentricity –is the theorectical perspective found on a African centered consciousness that locates African behaviors within the context of African psychological, cultural and sociological experiences and agency. As a result, it is not the data being used to examine an African phenomenon , it is the approach the researcher uses to illuminate and understand that phenomenon. This research method is used by most researchers on this forum.
I respect this form of research but I am an Afrocentric researcher. As noted previously Afrocentrism examines the history of African and Black people using the ancient model of history. These researchers recognize the social science research methods of linguistics, history, anthropology and archaeology as appropriate means to undertstand and illuminate the past of African and Black people.
No Afrocentric scholar looks at every culture in Asia and the Americas as African. They only point too specific civilizations in Asia and the Americas as African, i.e., the Sumerians and Elamites, Xia and Yi-Shang of China, Indus Valley, megalithic civilizations of Southeast Asia, the Lapita culture of the Pacific, and the Olmec civilization of Mexico. All of these people arrived in Asia and the Americas after 3000 BC. They point to these civilizations because there is aracheological, textual and linguistic evidence pointing to their direct and recent African origins.
The archaeological, linguistic, anthropological, epigraphic and historical research make it clear that the decendants of the OOA populations did not create and develop the River Valley Civilizations: Sumer, Elam, Indus Valley and Xia China.It was the Kushites who introduced architecture, sciences, agriculture, writing and etc., to ancient China, Sumer-Elam, Minoan Crete and Olmec America. If you don't recognize these people you don't understand the history of the world. Without the Kushites there would be no history to write of these lands. How can an intelligent person like you say the Kushites were "irrelevant". Are you mad?
If you had read the work of J.A. Rogers, DuBois and etc. you would know this. Most writers here concentrate on trying to "Liberate" from a themselves from white conciousness, while using white scholars as the basis of their research. This "Liberation will never take place unless you read authentic Afrocentric research by scholars who were expert in their fields.
The problem of many researchers on this forum is that you don't understand research in a field of study. If you understood research in a field of study, you would know that Afrocentrism is a mature social science which has research paradigms recognized in the past that new Afrocentric scholars either confirm or disconfirm through their research. This is why Eurocentric scholars never attack the work of Afrocentric scholars like DuBois, George Jackson, J.A. Rogers, C.A. Winters and etc. because their research is founded on solid scholarship. Granted many Eurocentric influenced writers attack the body of work—but never experts in the field.
.
If I am following you correctly, there was a OOA, then another wave left, much later. This time they spread civilization among those who left previously, correct?
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: If I am following you correctly, there was a OOA, then another wave left, much later. This time they spread civilization among those who left previously, correct?
Yes. There were five major migrations out of Africa :
1. 60kya Australians introduced hg M
2. 40kya Khoisan introduced hg N to Eurasia
3. 20kya Pgymy/Anu people introduced mtDNA A and y-hg R
4. 6kya Kushite Migration re-introduced mtDNA hg M,and y-hg E and R1b
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: If I am following you correctly, there was a OOA, then another wave left, much later. This time they spread civilization among those who left previously, correct?
Yes. There were five major migrations out of Africa :
1. 60kya Australians introduced hg M
2. 40kya Khoisan introduced hg N to Eurasia
3. 20kya Pgymy/Anu people introduced mtDNA A and y-hg R
4. 6kya Kushite Migration re-introduced mtDNA hg M,and y-hg E and R1b
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic