posted
An interesting discussion started in another thread that involved how many ancient African cultures built in stone versus those that did not.
The first issue is how you define a "culture". The second issue is how many built in stone.
My impression is that there were more cultures in Africa that DID NOT build in stone than those that DID. Building in stone alone is NOT a sign of advanced civilization, since many groups around the world built primarily in wood, mud brick and other such less durable materials.
Either way, the point of this thread is to lay out FIRSTLY, how many cultures can be identified from Africa around 1000 BC and how many of these cultures built in stone. I am going to do some research to come up with some well defined "cultures" and then do some research into how many DID build in stone. If anyone has some lists of cultures and whether they built in stone or not during or sometime after this period, please list the "culture" or group, time period and whether they did build in stone.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know the ancient/medieval cities of darfur built their cities in stone. early civilization in darfur in the sudan? yes,darfur had a great civilization. in nubia some other parts of the sudan,axum and egypt used stone,but wood and mudbrick AND BRICK was used too.rome used wood for many of their buildings and the greeks used wood and mudbrick as well. The great civilization of ancient ghana used stone,mali to some extent and the songhay. In northern south africa stone was used and mozambique in those medieval civilizations and some other areas of africa in all regions. It depends on the culture and what is nearby to use for building.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I define a culture as a group with a central set of shared characteristics: location, language, dress, art, music, dance, ceremony and religion. The problem here is that you can have a "culture" as small as a few thousand that often gets overlooked next to large cultures that number in the millions. So part of the problem is to actually IDENTIFY all the DISTINCT cultures in Africa, say at around 1000B.C. Lets not forget, that those that built in stone are EASIER to identify, since those remains will be still available for us to study. However, pastoral groups and nomadic groups who build in mud, wood and grass probably wont be as easy to identify. This compounds the problem of trying to identify the distinct cultures that existed in Africa (or anywhere else) 3000 years ago.
If you look at this site, it lists the language groups for various places in the world. Nigeria alone has 400+ languages. If you say each language group is a culture.... then that is 400 right there. If you group them according to major language dialects or other means, you may be able to boil it down. In this list for Nigeria, you have groups like the Hausa who number in the millions, next to groups that number in the hundreds or thousands.
Here is a map of some of the major language groups in Africa:
Now, even though different people speak the same language, does not always mean that their cultures are the same. It requires a lot more in depth study in order to classify cultures, especially those that arent the more well known ones like the Hausa or Zulu.
Another good map would be to list the major population centers in Africa from, say 3000 B.C. and identifying whether these were pastoral/nomadic versus sedentery communities.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it boils down to "lumpers" and "splitters" in the areas of sociology and anthropology.
One can focus on specificities and argue that there are hundreds of cultures in Europe and America, yet others would claim that in Europe that there are only 3 or 4 basic cultures: Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean--with Basque and Lapp thrown in as footnotes.
Or to take another example: how many Native American cultures are there. Some w ill say only 3 while others will say hundreds.
We can also factor in Papua New Guinea where there are supposedly thousands of languages--a bit hard to believe though given that Papua is an island about half the size of Nigeria.
Re African cultures: note that the vast majority of the precolonial population were involved in village agriculture and livestock rearing. Next in numbers were the pastoralists. But so-called "hunters and gatherers" were no more than 1% of Africa's populations--e.g. the San of the Kalahari and the Twa of the Congo.
What could probably lead to "building in stone" would be increase in population due to a favourable ecological environment If the environment is suitable--rocks, flat lands, etc.--building in stone would no doubt gurantee permanence of structures.
It seems more reasonable to explain the differences in architectural styles in Africa mainly in terms of innovation being the function of necessity.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: I know the ancient/medieval cities of darfur built their cities in stone. early civilization in darfur in the sudan?
Thought Writes:
Of course hundreds of Neolithic stone vilages have been discovered, yet unexcavated at Mahal Crater in Darfur.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: I know the ancient/medieval cities of darfur built their cities in stone. early civilization in darfur in the sudan?
Thought Writes:
Of course hundreds of Neolithic stone vilages have been discovered, yet unexcavated at Mahal Crater in Darfur.
Where did you come across this info?
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: I know the ancient/medieval cities of darfur built their cities in stone. early civilization in darfur in the sudan?
Thought Writes:
Of course hundreds of Neolithic stone vilages have been discovered, yet unexcavated at Mahal Crater in Darfur.
not just villages,but cities as well in the late ancient and in medieval and early modern times.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
basil davidson books. lost cities of africa is one book,of course alot of these cities are not really lost and some things in his books needs to be updated but overall his books are really good.
darfur is another site in sudan that needs more research and it's happening but slowly.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
basil davidson books. lost cities of africa is one book,of course alot of these cities are not really lost and some things in his books needs to be updated but overall his books are really good.
darfur is another site in sudan that needs more research and it's happening but slowly. There are other works but i can't recall them now,you might have to type in dafur civilization or something like that in the search engine.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In terms of architecture, AE seems to be worlds apart from the rest of Africa in Antiquity. The same is true in terms of naturalistic art, glassware and writting. However, these are superficial differences that can occur rapidly due to trade as well as local inventiveness. What is important is that there are significant cultural similarities between AE and the rest of Africa.
Still this thread seems to be silly. Point is that the rest of Africa, outside of the Nile Valley, does not have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE in antiquity. However, the absence of evidence is not proof of abscence.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: In terms of architecture, AE seems to be worlds apart from the rest of Africa in Antiquity. The same is true in terms of naturalistic art, glassware and writting. However, these are superficial differences that can occur rapidly due to trade as well as local inventiveness. What is important is that there are significant cultural similarities between AE and the rest of Africa.
Still this thread seems to be silly. Point is that the rest of Africa, outside of the Nile Valley, does not have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE in antiquity. However, the absence of evidence is not proof of abscence.
Actually, urbanization in ancient Egypt was pretty sparse compared to other civilizations in Africa! There are actually West African kingdoms that have had traditionally more cities than Egypt!
As far as "naturalistic" art, have you not seen the famous Benin bronze sculptures?? Such art was prevalent in West Africa, not just the simple carved wooden caricatures people usually associate with Africa.
As for writing, that to was developed independently in other areas of Africa, and new archaeological evidence is only scratching the surface as to the antiquity of these scripts in places like West Africa.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: In terms of architecture, AE seems to be worlds apart from the rest of Africa in Antiquity.
How so? Because the rest don't show gigantic Pyramids, or...?
quote:osirion: The same is true in terms of naturalistic art, glassware and writting.
I will acknowledge that many African societies don't seem to have adapted writing as early as the Nile Valley populations had, and perhaps, this is one area various folks, outside of Africa, feel that the AE has been able to reveal more about themselves in comparison to other African groups. In many African societies, stories about the past, were handed down through oral traditions. This still happens, although in many areas, it is gradually disappearing. Likewise, there were developments elsewhere in Africa, that didn't take place in the ancient nation of Egypt. As for your claims about naturalistic art and glassware, if you can elaborate on what you mean by that, and provide us with what you consider authoritative sourcing, this would be appreciated.
quote:osirion: However, these are superficial differences that can occur rapidly due to trade as well as local inventiveness. What is important is that there are significant cultural similarities between AE and the rest of Africa.
Still this thread seems to be silly. Point is that the rest of Africa, outside of the Nile Valley, does not have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE in antiquity. However, the absence of evidence is not proof of abscence.
Which specific the "rest of Africa" do you know about, and about which, you can explain why they don't have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE? I agree, the "absence of evidence is not proof of abscence", which is why it would be nice to know the basis of your deductions.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also getting back to Doug's main topic, how accurate is his claim that sedentary urbanisation was rare phenomenon in Africa, let alone those with stone buildings??
I think the study that Supercar presents here which speaks of Egyptian urbanisation is quite revealing and may represent a significant model in the development of urbanisation elsewhere on the continent.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An impressive concentration of some 2500 years old megaliths (about 29000 in a small area, some weighing ten tons)sculpted in laterite stone in the region of Senegambia has been found.
Do you think the people who made these monuments are the direct ancestors of the later civilization in the same area, that was described by Herodotus??
I forgot what the name of this kingdom was called but I believe it was mentioned in his Histories.
Mind you, prehistoric megalithic structures are found spread through the Sahara from Niger to Sudan.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: In terms of architecture, AE seems to be worlds apart from the rest of Africa in Antiquity.
How so? Because the rest don't show gigantic Pyramids, or...?
quote:osirion: The same is true in terms of naturalistic art, glassware and writting.
I will acknowledge that many African societies don't seem to have adapted writing as early as the Nile Valley populations had, and perhaps, this is one area various folks, outside of Africa, feel that the AE has been able to reveal more about themselves in comparison to other African groups. In many African societies, stories about the past, were handed down through oral traditions. This still happens, although in many areas, it is gradually disappearing. Likewise, there were developments elsewhere in Africa, that didn't take place in the ancient nation of Egypt. As for your claims about naturalistic art and glassware, if you can elaborate on what you mean by that, and provide us with what you consider authoritative sourcing, this would be appreciated.
quote:osirion: However, these are superficial differences that can occur rapidly due to trade as well as local inventiveness. What is important is that there are significant cultural similarities between AE and the rest of Africa.
Still this thread seems to be silly. Point is that the rest of Africa, outside of the Nile Valley, does not have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE in antiquity. However, the absence of evidence is not proof of abscence.
Which specific the "rest of Africa" do you know about, and about which, you can explain why they don't have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE? I agree, the "absence of evidence is not proof of abscence", which is why it would be nice to know the basis of your deductions.
I made no deductions but merely stated the fact that in terms of architecture, glassware, writting and naturalistic art, the artifacts we have of AE society (and that of the Nile Valley societies), far excel that of other African societies in terms of technological advancement.
I believe this thread happens to be about stone buildings which are architectural achievements of a society. The Nile Valley far surpasses that of any achivements made in the rest of Africa pre-AD period.
Naturalistic art of the Ife is significant as an example but is of much more recent advent.
This is one of the most enchanting Ife naturalistic artifacts. Art like this if found all over West Africa. However, art like this was produced in the last millenium.
quote:Which specific the "rest of Africa" do you know about, and about which, you can explain why they don't have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE? I agree, the "absence of evidence is not proof of abscence", which is why it would be nice to know the basis of your deductions.
I made no deductions but merely stated the fact that in terms of architecture, glassware, writting and naturalistic art, the artifacts we have of AE society (and that of the Nile Valley societies), far excel that of other African societies in terms of technological advancement.
Well then, where are the material [requested] that provide the basis of your FACTS? I see a lot of empty words, but no substance.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone doesn't have the same appraisal on naturalistic art being so advanced. It doesn't involve much artistic imagination to precisely copy nature. Talented artist capture the mood or impress by their use of form, line, texture, balance, etc., just as well or better than than technical naturalists display their mastery.
Then again some Africans have metaphysical reasons for not replicating nature esecially when it comes to the human form, image, and likeness.
The same goes for architecture. Who knows what a particular culture thought about buildings and why? What constitutes advanced architecture? What is the need or motivation for grand monumental architecture and are those drivers "universal"?
Eurocentric standards are not the epitome. Many Euro/western artists consider romantic and naturalistic art sterile and academic. Traditional African art profoundly influences modern Euro/western art and is a major contribution to human culture.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: The same is true in terms of naturalistic art, glassware and writting.
Still this thread seems to be silly. Point is that the rest of Africa, outside of the Nile Valley, does not have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE in antiquity. However, the absence of evidence is not proof of abscence.
I believe this thread happens to be about stone buildings which are architectural achievements of a society. The Nile Valley far surpasses that of any achivements made in the rest of Africa pre-AD period.
Naturalistic art of the Ife is significant as an example but is of much more recent advent.
This is one of the most enchanting Ife naturalistic artifacts. Art like this if found all over West Africa. However, art like this was produced in the last millenium.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Everyone doesn't have the same appraisal on naturalistic art being so advanced. It doesn't involve much artistic imagination to precisely copy nature. Talented artist capture the mood or impress by their use of form, line, texture, balance, etc., just as well or better than than technical naturalists display their mastery.
Then again some Africans have metaphysical reasons for not replicating nature esecially when it comes to the human form, image, and likeness.
The same goes for architecture. Who knows what a particular culture thought about buildings and why? What constitutes advanced architecture? What is the need or motivation for grand monumental architecture and are those drivers "universal"?
Eurocentric standards are not the epitome. Many Euro/western artists consider romantic and naturalistic art sterile and academic. Traditional African art profoundly influences modern Euro/western art and is a major contribution to human culture.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: The same is true in terms of naturalistic art, glassware and writting.
Still this thread seems to be silly. Point is that the rest of Africa, outside of the Nile Valley, does not have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE in antiquity. However, the absence of evidence is not proof of abscence.
I believe this thread happens to be about stone buildings which are architectural achievements of a society. The Nile Valley far surpasses that of any achivements made in the rest of Africa pre-AD period.
Naturalistic art of the Ife is significant as an example but is of much more recent advent.
This is one of the most enchanting Ife naturalistic artifacts. Art like this if found all over West Africa. However, art like this was produced in the last millenium.
Actually I am expecting an answer like that and to some degree must agree that abstract art shows more imagination and therefore is an advancement in spiritual expression. However, when I said advancement I meant technological advancement. It takes a great deal of technology to replicate nature precisely (using the correct proportions and geometry, etc). The refinement of techniques to produce the naturalistic art of the Ife is far more technically advance than what we see in terms of masks from New Guinea.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which specific the "rest of Africa" do you know about, and about which, you can explain why they don't have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE? I agree, the "absence of evidence is not proof of abscence", which is why it would be nice to know the basis of your deductions.
I made no deductions but merely stated the fact that in terms of architecture, glassware, writting and naturalistic art, the artifacts we have of AE society (and that of the Nile Valley societies), far excel that of other African societies in terms of technological advancement.
Well then, where are the material [requested] that provide the basis of your FACTS? I see a lot of empty words, but no substance.
You mean you want me to produce evidence that there is more AE artifacts of glassware, naturalistic art and architecture than any other African society outside of the Nile Valley groups?
Propesterous! Why should I do that. It is rather simple for anyone who has studied African history to see that AE is rich in arhitectural and artistic atifacts, we still haven't found 80% of it. I agree that the culture of AE is absolutely African and not much different than the rest of Africa but the technology used to produce the artifacts is an entirely different issue.
Perhaps the synergy of cultural trade brought about the difference? The Eurocentric model has been profoundly dealt a blow since there's little evidence of IndoEuropean genetic flow into Egypt. However, we cannot deny the potential of the impact of trade. Traveling Hebrews spreading ideas that when mixed with the indigenous African technologies produces something new and unique. Doesn't impact culture but would change the landscape of the technologies used to exhibit such culture in architecural and artistic ways. Egypt lies in the crossroads of trade between the Kushitic people and the Semitic. Trade routes have existed for thousand of years precisely through Egypt. The exchange of ideas have a way of building upon each other to produce ingenius solutions.
All a bunch of armchair logic ;-)
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: You mean you want me to produce evidence that there is more AE artifacts of glassware, naturalistic art and architecture than any other African society outside of the Nile Valley groups?
That wouldn't be a bad idea to start with, but more importantly, how many historic African cultures do you know well enough to come to such a conclusion? Because, like I told someone else, you'd have to know quite a bit about historic African cultures, so as to come to such a conclusion, and pass it of as FACT. We need more than your word, that it is the case; we need material behind those words. So far, you haven't produced zip.
quote:osirion:
Propesterous! Why should I do that.
The idea of corroboration may be propesterous to you. Nonetheless, that is what your credibility is based on; whether it has substance, or just wild claims that make you feel better about yourself. That's why you should do that; it is common sense, in discourse.
quote:osirion: It is rather simple for anyone who has studied African history to see that AE is rich in arhitectural and artistic atifacts, we still haven't found 80% of it.
If it is rather simple, as someone who has studied African history, then you shouldn't have any problem telling us to what extent you know the 'rest of Africa's' historic cultures, so as to make the kind of claims that you are so obviously comfortable in making. As someone who has studied African history, why keep us waiting on the substance that was asked of you?
quote:osirion: I agree that the culture of AE is absolutely African and not much different than the rest of Africa but the technology used to produce the artifacts is an entirely different issue.
Well, elaborate on this.
quote:osirion: Perhaps the synergy of cultural trade brought about the difference? The Eurocentric model has been profoundly dealt a blow since there's little evidence of IndoEuropean genetic flow into Egypt. However, we cannot deny the potential of the impact of trade. Traveling Hebrews spreading ideas that when mixed with the indigenous African technologies produces something new and unique.
What were these Hebrew ideas that mixed with 'indigenou African technologies' to produce 'something new and unique'? Please, enlighten us on this issue!
quote:osirion: Doesn't impact culture but would change the landscape of the technologies used to exhibit such culture in architecural and artistic ways. Egypt lies in the crossroads of trade between the Kushitic people and the Semitic. Trade routes have existed for thousand of years precisely through Egypt. The exchange of ideas have a way of building upon each other to produce ingenius solutions.
All a bunch of armchair logic ;-)
There was trade in Africa elsewhere, and exchange of ideas, and so? If you can elaborate on the aforementioned specifics, perhaps we will get somewhere logically with these claims of yours.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about this "refined technology" stuff. What makes it so much better or advanced than "home made" craftsmenship?
Reminds me of how mass produced European iron tools sold cheaply in west and central Africa that led to the loss of home grown technology. Yeah, the imported from Europe advanced technology mass produced stuff was inexpensive compared to the traditional goods but it was cheaper (shoddy) yet pricing allowed easy replacement.
Lo and behold after common tools could no longer be made locally, because the native manufacturers couldn't make a living competing against cheap but inexpensive Euro imports so the technology was not passed along, the price of the imports trebled or would only be traded for precise native commodities (say like: I'll trade 100 hoe tips so you can grow food to eat, but I'll only accept 5 teenagers as payment).
As for art pieces, there's more to making fine quality wooden sculpture than whittling away at a twig. How do you know if it's not as involved as cire perdue? I guess the less involvement the more advanced the technology.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ...when I said advancement I meant technological advancement. It takes a great deal of technology to replicate nature precisely (using the correct proportions and geometry, etc). The refinement of techniques to produce the naturalistic art of the Ife is far more technically advance than what we see in terms of masks from New Guinea.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which specific the "rest of Africa" do you know about, and about which, you can explain why they don't have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE? I agree, the "absence of evidence is not proof of abscence", which is why it would be nice to know the basis of your deductions.
I made no deductions but merely stated the fact that in terms of architecture, glassware, writting and naturalistic art, the artifacts we have of AE society (and that of the Nile Valley societies), far excel that of other African societies in terms of technological advancement.
Well then, where are the material [requested] that provide the basis of your FACTS? I see a lot of empty words, but no substance.
You mean you want me to produce evidence that there is more AE artifacts of glassware, naturalistic art and architecture than any other African society outside of the Nile Valley groups?
Propesterous! Why should I do that. It is rather simple for anyone who has studied African history to see that AE is rich in arhitectural and artistic atifacts, we still haven't found 80% of it. I agree that the culture of AE is absolutely African and not much different than the rest of Africa but the technology used to produce the artifacts is an entirely different issue.
Perhaps the synergy of cultural trade brought about the difference? The Eurocentric model has been profoundly dealt a blow since there's little evidence of IndoEuropean genetic flow into Egypt. However, we cannot deny the potential of the impact of trade. Traveling Hebrews spreading ideas that when mixed with the indigenous African technologies produces something new and unique. Doesn't impact culture but would change the landscape of the technologies used to exhibit such culture in architecural and artistic ways. Egypt lies in the crossroads of trade between the Kushitic people and the Semitic. Trade routes have existed for thousand of years precisely through Egypt. The exchange of ideas have a way of building upon each other to produce ingenius solutions.
All a bunch of armchair logic ;-)
Egypt was the most advanced civilization in most parts of the world during the old kingdom. MOST cultures on the planet had not "advanced" as far as Egypt. So to say that other parts of Africa were not as "advanced" is not really a big deal. But getting back to my point about African cultures and where the Egyptian style of carving, glass working and stone building came from, I think it is ALL African. My opinion is that there was a unique confluence of cultures from the Sahara, the Nile, Sudan and Ethiopia that started the trends that led to dynastic Egyptian culture. These ideas then spread to other parts of the world. The problem, as I was trying to say earlier, is that the African cultures that LED to Egypt, either in the Sahara or along the Upper Nile, have largely disappeared, because they did not build in stone and it is hard to piece together the EXACT composition and culture of all the peoples involved in Egypt's early development. What we do know comes from large sites in Abydos and elsewhere, where TOMBS have been found. Pretty much MOST of what we know about Egypt comes from temples and tombs. If it wasnt for those temples and tombs having painted and carved scenes of daily life, we would surely be at a loss to explain Egyptian culture at all, and it wouldn't be as fascinating to us today. Another problem is the flooding of lake Nasser and the ongoing strife in the Sudan, with another dam being built, possibly flooding areas of ancient Kush as well.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: You mean you want me to produce evidence that there is more AE artifacts of glassware, naturalistic art and architecture than any other African society outside of the Nile Valley groups?
Propesterous! Why should I do that. It is rather simple for anyone who has studied African history to see that AE is rich in arhitectural and artistic atifacts, we still haven't found 80% of it. I agree that the culture of AE is absolutely African and not much different than the rest of Africa but the technology used to produce the artifacts is an entirely different issue.
Whether or not Egypt and the Nile Valley as a whole had the most material wealth in terms of artifacts and architecture is irrelevant. Greece and the Mediterranean coasts also have the greatest examples of artifacts and architecture in Europe.
What's your point?
quote:Perhaps the synergy of cultural trade brought about the difference? The Eurocentric model has been profoundly dealt a blow since there's little evidence of IndoEuropean genetic flow into Egypt. However, we cannot deny the potential of the impact of trade.
As stated before, no genetic marker has been conclusively identified for Indo-Europeans. As such, there has been little evidence of Indo-European genetic flow in India, Central Asia, and even Europe for that matter!
Also, the Eurocentrics have other models besides that of the Indo-European one. There is still the pervasive model of non Indo-European Near-Eastern "kacazaoids", such as "caucasoid" Semites.
Speaking of which..
quote:Traveling Hebrews spreading ideas that when mixed with the indigenous African technologies produces something new and unique. Doesn't impact culture but would change the landscape of the technologies used to exhibit such culture in architecural and artistic ways. Egypt lies in the crossroads of trade between the Kushitic people and the Semitic. Trade routes have existed for thousand of years precisely through Egypt. The exchange of ideas have a way of building upon each other to produce ingenius solutions.
LOL So you are still professing your theory of a (Jewish)Hebrew-helping-hand in the development of Egyptian civilization. Can you give us any evidence of such a claim?
quote:All a bunch of armchair logic ;-)
And your little theory isnt?
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: There was trade in Africa elsewhere, and exchange of ideas, and so? If you can elaborate on the aforementioned specifics, perhaps we will get somewhere logically with these claims of yours.
Do you know what is meant by armchair logic?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Egypt was the most advanced civilization in most parts of the world during the old kingdom. MOST cultures on the planet had not "advanced" as far as Egypt. So to say that other parts of Africa were not as "advanced" is not really a big deal. But getting back to my point about African cultures and where the Egyptian style of carving, glass working and stone building came from, I think it is ALL African. My opinion is that there was a unique confluence of cultures from the Sahara, the Nile, Sudan and Ethiopia that started the trends that led to dynastic Egyptian culture. These ideas then spread to other parts of the world. The problem, as I was trying to say earlier, is that the African cultures that LED to Egypt, either in the Sahara or along the Upper Nile, have largely disappeared, because they did not build in stone and it is hard to piece together the EXACT composition and culture of all the peoples involved in Egypt's early development. What we do know comes from large sites in Abydos and elsewhere, where TOMBS have been found. Pretty much MOST of what we know about Egypt comes from temples and tombs. If it wasnt for those temples and tombs having painted and carved scenes of daily life, we would surely be at a loss to explain Egyptian culture at all, and it wouldn't be as fascinating to us today. Another problem is the flooding of lake Nasser and the ongoing strife in the Sudan, with another dam being built, possibly flooding areas of ancient Kush as well.
We are not debating about which African culture was the most advance, but the point that there were other cultures in Africa that were advance and sophisticated. And that civilzations in Africa were not some rare novelty but was much more widespread in the continent than people think!
quote: “Ancient Egypt is one of the earliest examples of (primary) state formation, and Predynastic data should elucidate general processes which may be applicable to other cases of state formation. but we only have a partial understanding of the Predynastic, based on different types of data in the north and south. Possibly new and forthcoming evidence from the Delta will provide information on the processes of state formation and unification there, but in the south there is the problem of so many missing settlement data, which are needed in order to make theoretical generalizations.
Despite the problem of poorer settlement evidence in Upper Egypt, the emerging picture of Egypt in the 4th millennium B.C. is of two different material cultures with different belief systems: the Predynastic Naqada culture of Upper Egypt and the Maadi culture of Lower Egypt. Archaeological evidence in Lower Egypt consists mainly of settlements, with very simple burials in cemeteries, and suggests a culture different from that of Upper Egypt, where cemeteries with elaborate burials are found. While the rich grave goods in several major cemeteries in Upper Egypt represent the acquired wealth of higher social strata, the economic sources of this wealth cannot be satisfactorily determined because there are so few settlement data, though the larger cemeteries were probably associated with centers of craft production. Trade and exchange of finished goods and luxury materials from the Eastern and Western Deserts and Nubia would also have taken place in such centers. In Lower Egypt, however, settlement data permit a broader reconstruction of the prehistoric economy, which at present does not suggest any great socio-economic complexity.”
Also…
“Only more recently has interest in Upper Egypt shifted to the detailed excavation of Predynastic settlements. But such settlements, located on spurs above the floodplain, are deflated, with little or no evidence of permanent architecture. Missing, or perhaps deposited under alluvium, are large (fortified?) sites on higher ground of the floodplain, such as Kemp (1989: 33) posits; an exception is Nekhen, probably founded on a Nile levee, as shown by coring and sondage in 1984 (Hoffman, Hamroush, and Allen 1986: 181).
As materially wealthy as Egypt was, even the evidence of its urbanisation is scanty compared to its contemporaries in Eurasia!
Even Ausar himself has stated many times that Egypt is known to many scholars as a "civilization without cities" since there were actually very few cities relative to the actual size and distribution of its culture.
Even West Africa had more cities and urban centers than the Nile Valley, but as to exactly how many and how extensive its own material wealth is may not be fully known because of difficult preservation.
"The flood plain of the Middle Niger of West Africa is line with hundreds of ancient tells rivaling those of Asia both in area and in clues to the emergence of city life...the Middle Niger is dominated by numerous monumental tumuli (McIntosh 1991:203)." - R.J. McIntosh
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:LOL So you are still professing your theory of a (Jewish)Hebrew-helping-hand in the development of Egyptian civilization. Can you give us any evidence of such a claim?
well actually that's still the mainstream (biblical)opinion, that the Hebrew(Jews) buildt the pyramids, if not with their engineering skills atleast their labour due to enslavement.
Btw, is their any evidence that Eyptians enslaved hebrews (outside the jewish religious scripts)?
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Very little if any. Also the Km.t did not use slave labour to build pyramids. Many peoples impressions of the social structure of Km.t is derived from the Hollywood movie - the Ten Commandments.
The social structure in that movie are really based on the plantation south of the confederate United States.
Unlike the America's or Ancient Greece, Km.t was never a slave society.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: There was trade in Africa elsewhere, and exchange of ideas, and so? If you can elaborate on the aforementioned specifics, perhaps we will get somewhere logically with these claims of yours.
Do you know what is meant by armchair logic?
Do you know what I mean by 'substantiation' or 'corroboration'...and add to that, do you know what I mean by, we are still waiting on the specifics asked of you?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Very little if any. Also the Km.t did not use slave labour to build pyramids. Many peoples impressions of the social structure of Km.t is derived from the Hollywood movie - the Ten Commandments.
The social structure in that movie are really based on the plantation south of the confederate United States.
Unlike the America's or Ancient Greece, Km.t was never a slave society.
Correct. Slaves in Egyptian society were foreigners-- usually Asiatics, but during the pyramid age of the Old Kingdom, the slave population was so minimal (if there even was one) that such an immense labor task for them was impossible.
FACT is the pyramids were built by Egyptian citizens are part of both their civic and religious duty to honor their divine king.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: You mean you want me to produce evidence that there is more AE artifacts of glassware, naturalistic art and architecture than any other African society outside of the Nile Valley groups?
Propesterous! Why should I do that. It is rather simple for anyone who has studied African history to see that AE is rich in arhitectural and artistic atifacts, we still haven't found 80% of it. I agree that the culture of AE is absolutely African and not much different than the rest of Africa but the technology used to produce the artifacts is an entirely different issue.
Whether or not Egypt and the Nile Valley as a whole had the most material wealth in terms of artifacts and architecture is irrelevant. Greece and the Mediterranean coasts also have the greatest examples of artifacts and architecture in Europe.
What's your point?
quote:Perhaps the synergy of cultural trade brought about the difference? The Eurocentric model has been profoundly dealt a blow since there's little evidence of IndoEuropean genetic flow into Egypt. However, we cannot deny the potential of the impact of trade.
As stated before, no genetic marker has been conclusively identified for Indo-Europeans. As such, there has been little evidence of Indo-European genetic flow in India, Central Asia, and even Europe for that matter!
Also, the Eurocentrics have other models besides that of the Indo-European one. There is still the pervasive model of non Indo-European Near-Eastern "kacazaoids", such as "caucasoid" Semites.
Speaking of which..
quote:Traveling Hebrews spreading ideas that when mixed with the indigenous African technologies produces something new and unique. Doesn't impact culture but would change the landscape of the technologies used to exhibit such culture in architecural and artistic ways. Egypt lies in the crossroads of trade between the Kushitic people and the Semitic. Trade routes have existed for thousand of years precisely through Egypt. The exchange of ideas have a way of building upon each other to produce ingenius solutions.
LOL So you are still professing your theory of a (Jewish)Hebrew-helping-hand in the development of Egyptian civilization. Can you give us any evidence of such a claim?
quote:All a bunch of armchair logic ;-)
And your little theory isnt?
Yes I am Hebrewcentric so to me I am still looking for evidence supporting the impact of migrant Hebrews. There's plenty of evidence supporting the impact of Hebrew people in Greece. The question is whether or not we can correlate J2 Haplogroup with Hebrews.
Also, I was referring to my logic as being armchair logic.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Very little if any. Also the Km.t did not use slave labour to build pyramids. Many peoples impressions of the social structure of Km.t is derived from the Hollywood movie - the Ten Commandments.
The social structure in that movie are really based on the plantation south of the confederate United States.
Unlike the America's or Ancient Greece, Km.t was never a slave society.
Correct. Slaves in Egyptian society were foreigners-- usually Asiatics, but during the pyramid age of the Old Kingdom, the slave population was so minimal (if there even was one) that such an immense labor task for them was impossible.
FACT is the pyramids were built by Egyptian citizens are part of both their civic and religious duty to honor their divine king.
Hebrews were not originally slaves in Egypt. If we are referring to Semitic people in general (which is what I meant by Hebrews), then there is a long history of trade between Egyptians and Semitic cultures of Canaan. Slaverly was probably introduced to Egyptians by the Hysoks. The Hysok story is echoed in Jewish scripture to some extent.
The Jews certainly did not build the Pyramids. The Bible is very clear on where the Jews were enslaved and what they worked on.
The impact Hebrews had was more of an economic one. The art of trade is where I focus my research on in terms of Hebrew impact. With Hebrews acting as the middleman between various cultures and merchandise. I have found that this probably resulted in the spread of African culture into Asia more so than the reverse. Egyptian, however, were very open to outside influences. Very absorbing of foreign ideas. Enthralled with things foreign especially women.
Ah....a society of diversity.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: In terms of architecture, AE seems to be worlds apart from the rest of Africa in Antiquity. The same is true in terms of naturalistic art, glassware and writting. However, these are superficial differences that can occur rapidly due to trade as well as local inventiveness. What is important is that there are significant cultural similarities between AE and the rest of Africa.
Still this thread seems to be silly. Point is that the rest of Africa, outside of the Nile Valley, does not have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE in antiquity. However, the absence of evidence is not proof of abscence.
let's not forget nubia was almost the same in terms of art,architecture,writing etc etc,but there was a difference a well and more of a difference during the late napatan and more so later periods.nubian art became more naturalistic than egypt's and i mean egypt before the greeks. nubia art became more like greek art and roman art in the meritioc and later periods.glass was used too and writting was almost the same except the meriotic writing and later ones.
axum was the not as close as egypt but had these things that almost reminds you of egypt but it's culture was more different than egypt or nubia.of course they had their own writing,art etc, etc.
so when you mean the rest of africa in ancient times, nubia and axum is apart of it.
i just want to make that clear.
egypt during the old kingdom was the most advanced culture as you know but that change when egypt conqured nubia and more so when nubia freed itself. napatan culture was as advance and more advanced later and later nubia more so. axum too.easten sudan as well and senner of course sennar is apart of nubia,and i think darfur was a civilization in late ancient times as well but i could be wrong and dafur only became a civilization in medieval times.
I thought you would know that by now with all the info posted here and books that are out.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
parts of libya, and the parts of the rest of north africa were not as advanced but they became as advanced as greece of the golden age and were became as advanced as later egypt,and maybe as advanced as roman egypt and rome since rome conqured some parts of north africa.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
parts of libya and parts of the rest of north africa were not as advanced as early egypt but they became as advanced as greece of the golden age and became as advanced as later egypt when rome conqured parts of north africa,and maybe as advanced as roman egypt and rome since rome conqured some parts of north africa.
carthage?libya,the berber kingdoms? yes these areas are in of africa too.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Yes I am Hebrewcentric so to me I am still looking for evidence supporting the impact of migrant Hebrews...
Impact on what? Egypt?! We all know about the impact Hebrews have made to the religion and philosophy of Western civlization, but what possible impact could they have made to Egypt?!
quote:..There's plenty of evidence supporting the impact of Hebrew people in Greece...
And what impact was this, other than the spread of Christianity?!!
quote:The question is whether or not we can correlate J2 Haplogroup with Hebrews.
Indeed, what is the basis of associating a haplotype to any specific ethnic group?? We know J originated in the Near-East but how can you call J2 'Hebrew' all of a sudden?
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Hebrews were not originally slaves in Egypt. If we are referring to Semitic people in general (which is what I meant by Hebrews), then there is a long history of trade between Egyptians and Semitic cultures of Canaan...
True, but Hebrews weren't the only Semitic group in the area.
quote:..Slaverly was probably introduced to Egyptians by the Hysoks...
What evidence is there to suggest that the Egyptian practice of slavery came from Hyksos or any Asiatics?? There are many societies in Africa that practice slavery also.
quote:..The Hysok story is echoed in Jewish scripture to some extent.
Perhaps.
quote:The Jews certainly did not build the Pyramids. The Bible is very clear on where the Jews were enslaved and what they worked on.
The Bible was clear on where they lived and worked, but how clear was it that they were really slaves?
quote:The impact Hebrews had was more of an economic one. The art of trade is where I focus my research on in terms of Hebrew impact. With Hebrews acting as the middleman between various cultures and merchandise...
Again, Hebrews were not the only group in the Near-East. In fact, judging by both archaeological evidence as well as the Bible, Hebrews were just a small minor group of people in the Levant.
quote:I have found that this probably resulted in the spread of African culture into Asia more so than the reverse.
I thought the spread of African culture into Western Asia was because of immigrating Africans.
quote:Egyptian, however, were very open to outside influences. Very absorbing of foreign ideas...
Last time I checked, Egyptians were xenophobic, especially to cultures nonAfrican. Egyptians viewed foreigners as Isofret (chaos) and look down on the namu-sho as barbarians.
quote:Enthralled with things foreign especially women.
LOL Again with your notions of ancient Egyptian "jungle fever" and that Egyptian men had a thing for Asiatic/'white' women??
quote:Ah....a society of diversity.
Maybe, but not as diverse as the Near-East itself!
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: In terms of architecture, AE seems to be worlds apart from the rest of Africa in Antiquity. The same is true in terms of naturalistic art, glassware and writting. However, these are superficial differences that can occur rapidly due to trade as well as local inventiveness. What is important is that there are significant cultural similarities between AE and the rest of Africa.
Still this thread seems to be silly. Point is that the rest of Africa, outside of the Nile Valley, does not have a great deal of artifacts showing advance architectural understanding that is remotely similar to AE in antiquity. However, the absence of evidence is not proof of abscence.
let's not forget nubia was almost the same in terms of art,architecture,writing etc etc,but there was a difference a well and more of a difference during the late napatan and more so later periods.nubian art became more naturalistic than egypt's and i mean egypt before the greeks. nubia art became more like greek art and roman art in the meritioc and later periods.glass was used too and writting was almost the same except the meriotic writing and later ones.
axum was the not as close as egypt but had these things that almost reminds you of egypt but it's culture was more different than egypt or nubia.of course they had their own writing,art etc, etc.
so when you mean the rest of africa in ancient times, nubia and axum is apart of it.
i just want to make that clear.
egypt during the old kingdom was the most advanced culture as you know but that change when egypt conqured nubia and more so when nubia freed itself. napatan culture was as advance and more advanced later and later nubia more so. axum too.easten sudan as well and senner of course sennar is apart of nubia,and i think darfur was a civilization in late ancient times as well but i could be wrong and dafur only became a civilization in medieval times.
I thought you would know that by now with all the info posted here and books that are out.
Whoa! Modesty my friend! whatever civilization you're talking about, their is no need for you to emphasize them so extremely, all nations have their own pride. These kind of posts only reveals inferiority complex. Their is no reason for you to prove yourself in such extreme way in a damn forum. Seriously you don't have to respond to BS.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Whoa! Modesty my friend! whatever civilization you're talking about, their is no need for you to emphasize them so extremely, all nations have their own pride. These kind of posts only reveals inferiority complex. Their is no reason for you to prove yourself in such extreme way in a damn forum. Seriously you don't have to respond to BS.
LOL Yeah. I think Kenndo got carried away with the Nubian thing! Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Reminds me of how mass produced European iron tools sold cheaply in west and central Africa that led to the loss of home grown technology.
Evergreen Writes: alTakruri, insightfull post. From your research, why do you believe the Europeans reached this level of economic production before West and Central Africans (ie, craftsmanship to mass production/exporting economic societies)? The Eurocentrics would attribute this development to "big brains" or MCPH1. I tend to believe development of African economic production systems were/are synchronistic with resource availability. Europe is and has allways been resource poor (except for perhaps the UP). Necessity being the mother of all invention, resource poor Europeans would naturally focus on technology and "gadgets" as a means of feeding itself. Africa was blessed/cursed by natural resource wealth. Then again, those big European brains may be an indicator of genetic differentiationin between the northern and southern cradle cultures. Northern cradle "big brains" could represent the evolution of more lateralized brain structures. The emphasis on linear, analog thinking could have a genetic basis. As Diop noted, the greatest structures in Europe were dedicated to individual men. The greatest structures in Africa were dedicated to metaphysics.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't know since economics and production as relating to industrialization of western Europe is something I've not studied.
My uneducated guess would be that supply and demand were fulfilled in West Africa without need for rapid mass production.
As for Central Africa production was encumbered by 'spiritual fetters' imposed on the manufacturers.
Again this is only my swag and not induced from studies.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Reminds me of how mass produced European iron tools sold cheaply in west and central Africa that led to the loss of home grown technology.
Evergreen Writes: alTakruri, insightfull post. From your research, why do you believe the Europeans reached this level of economic production before West and Central Africans (ie, craftsmanship to mass production/exporting economic societies)? The Eurocentrics would attribute this development to "big brains" or MCPH1. I tend to believe development of African economic production systems were/are synchronistic with resource availability. Europe is and has allways been resource poor (except for perhaps the UP). Necessity being the mother of all invention, resource poor Europeans would naturally focus on technology and "gadgets" as a means of feeding itself. Africa was blessed/cursed by natural resource wealth. Then again, those big European brains may be an indicator of genetic differentiationin between the northern and southern cradle cultures. Northern cradle "big brains" could represent the evolution of more lateralized brain structures. The emphasis on linear, analog thinking could have a genetic basis. As Diop noted, the greatest structures in Europe were dedicated to individual men. The greatest structures in Africa were dedicated to metaphysics.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Reminds me of how mass produced European iron tools sold cheaply in west and central Africa that led to the loss of home grown technology.
quote: My uneducated guess would be that supply and demand were fulfilled in West Africa without need for rapid mass production.
As for Central Africa production was encumbered by 'spiritual fetters' imposed on the manufacturers.
Folks notice how his eurocentric racism comes so effortlessly.
"west" and "central" Africa. Straight from the race mythologists playbook.
Notice people that whenever this "fake jew" alTakruri and Doug aka "sheMale" Jenkins speak of Africa in a negative light they always reduce the negativity to "west" and/or "central" Africa. Sometimes they will also mention a southern African country.
What about the economy of northern African countries?
What about the economies of countries in the horn of Africa? Are actually saying the economy of Somalia is better than anything in "west" or "central" Africa?
People, its the same pattern with this al "fake jew" fool.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evergreen wrote: --------------------------- From your research, why do you believe the Europeans reached this level of economic production before West and Central Africans (ie, craftsmanship to mass production/exporting economic societies)? ---------------------------
Why are you so freakishly hell bent on this African dichotomy.
From your many posts it is clear that you believe in caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid; Coon, Blumenbach, Howell, etc style racial taxonomies.
We've actually seen you go even further and say that "west", "central", and southern African countries are economic hell holes while "north" and horn of African countries are prosperous.
People alTakruri, Doug, and Evergreen are all beatdown negro Americans who have had their tiny minds sodomized by their white overlords. This is why they in this day and age post using racial mythology propaganda expoused by their captors.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, the imported from Europe advanced technology mass produced stuff was inexpensive compared to the traditional goods but it was cheaper (shoddy) yet pricing allowed easy replacement.
Insightful, i liked this explaination.
A lot of the times sources simply say they went bonkers over European trinkets for no reason.
In their perception, they were lower priced, massed produced and more advanced. They didn't *know* they were cheap.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So you are still professing your theory of a (Jewish)Hebrew-helping-hand in the development of Egyptian civilization. Can you give us any evidence of such a claim? 
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
And what impact was this, other than the spread of Christianity?!! 
Printer-friendly view of this topic