posted
DougM, you too suffer from directional prejudice. Crayons should never be put in a pencil sharpener.
If either you or Sundiata were a little more honest with your own inner-psyche you could fight the demons of racism in your own heads.
Read up on the paper that links the Mande Cattle Culture and Dravidian Cattle Culture- and then reread what I've written here.
You are so busy hunting lions that you forget something integral about yourselves. I'll let you discover what that is for yourselves.
Now- getting back to writers who are actually engaged in learning - we are all students in life are we not?
My family originally came from Somerkot valley between Dahklha and Khargha. About four thousand years ago, a good percentage of our peoples migrated to Upper Egypt proper. We are a matrilinear tribal clan. Land and water are passed down through women only. During the 13th century B.C. our ethnic minority was pushed by military force out of Upper Egypt for a time. Half of us returned to Dahkla and the others migrated south to the strong holds of the Inyotef Ta-Seti who in reaction to Hyksos/ Kushite collusion in the 13th Dynasty-17 dynasty- had taken up permanent residence in a kingdom somewhere in the highlands of Ethiopia probably somewhere near present day Eritrea. The populations that migrated to Dahklha were chased after by the invading peoples who desired to take our territories. They grew anap ( Ziziphus) trees and ben ben trees ( moringa) for tinctures and oils. Their descendants became the founders of the Coptic orders of the Bahiriya region many tens of centuries later. Naturally, the Abysinnian branch of our family remained in fairly close contact with the Western Desert branch from dynastic days through to the Christian era.
One branch of our tribal clan migrated to Siwa. These were largely men only and of the Ma'ahes caste. Anyone familar with Hadendoa tribal clan is looking at the easternmost branch of our people. The Hadendoa/Ma'ahes origins are within the Western Desert and we are clearly African indigenous. Copticism grew during Christian days but we must be clear abotu something, the Ma'ahes were responsible for the protection of the Amen temples originally and especially the properties of matrilinear Amenist heiresses. The patrilinear Ramesides did not honour the old ways of the sepat nomarchs. They were self-styled pharaohs and defined our peoples as Libyan enemies that needed to be stomped upon. The Ma'ahes/Hadendoa of East Africa were remnants of both predynastic animism which survived Egyptian civilization- we are also the last remaining Amenists that survived in outposts in the remote oases lands protected by the Ma'ahes caste tribals. Early Copticism was a reflection of Amenism. The relationship of the Hadendoa to modern religious culture is quite different than their western and southern ( Ethiopian) cousins because where the Ma'ahes chiefs would evolve into Copts in time- the Hadendoa resisted both Amenism and much later Christianity. They remained ardent Animists. The introduction of Islam converted the Hadendoa and the Mahdist Rebels are a well known terminal branch of this expression.
The problem with describing our ethnic minority today is that we are such an old people that our family tree has branched and merged in some instances with other ethnicities - for example the Beja of North Africa are remnants of our people that have mixed with other African ethnics caught up in regional strife, famine or what have you. The populations of our peoples living in isolated places in Eritrea and the Western Desert Oases had different founders than the Hadendoa who are by the way take their tribal clan name from a specific point in time that should help illustrate the simple complexity of their identity. The Hadendoa were the warriors who drove off the Hattie (Hittites). Their founders included ethnics from many Nilotic cultures that made up the archers of the Egyptian army. The Hadendoa branch of our tribal peoples, thusly have slightly different ethnic make up than the Western Desert and Eritrean branches because in those societies, the marriage laws and matrilinear tribal customs remained in whole. They did not amongst the Hadendoa who took wives from the Yam and the Irthet.
Getting back to the question- my imm family are Copts. But many of our near relatives living elsewhere in Egypt are Sufi. The Hadendoa are largely Sunni Moslems. Some tribal peoples are still Animists.
Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mystery Solver wrote: "Undoubtedly cattle domestication was important development in enhancing survivability on the African landscape, but they [Africans] owe this accomplishment to no one else but themselves. Some of us need to break away from the shackles of the mentality that Africans are and have always been on the receiving end of the mastering of any type of complex human behavior, rather than the complex mutually inclusive reality of being pioneers and givers, along with being followers and receivers, as any other humanity on this planet. In other words, we need to get beyond this "non-Africans are inherently *the* saviors of Africans", and the thereof "Africans are inherently incapable of anything further than the need to be saved" mentality, and let it RIP. "
This is a presupposition on your part. I know full well that the founders of "dravidian" cattle culture were East Africans. I posted a link to an important peer-review paper on the subject that goes into some detail and focuses on the Mande people of West Africa as they relate to the Dravidians of West South Asia.
The Cattle Culture came from the Horn and was imported into India. I made this point a few times. I am fully aware of the prejudice that has Africans depending upon other cultures to help them up and over and it is lame. But this is not my view or my worldview. I don't disagree with everything Afrocentrics go on about, just the details and nomenclature. East Africans introduced Cattle Culture to West India/Pakistan region and these peoples would come to domesticate their own wild cattle Bos indicus. Hybrids between African semi-domestic cattle and Indian semi-domestic cattle would form the foundation of ancient East African breeds. But dont over simplify and get an idea that the only cattle in India were Bos indicus. The East Africans brought their own cattle with them - remember? The dominant cattle of Western India were thusly of African origination - their female ancestors were mostly African. Male Zebu contributed to the gene pool and anyone that has select bred cattle knows that the f1 hybrids exhibit marked vigour - they are larger than their parental species. Backcrossing refines the type. I'm giving credit where none has been given to Africans but because so many people on this board and when Im writing Ill often digress to speak to other parties than the first mentioned- are urbanites. Not only are you not African continentals you are not of a rural livestock oriented people and as such you may have a difficulty comprhending the significance of bananas, jackal-like wolves that would become dogs and cattle domestication. How do you suppose the origins of Saharan culture came to be without livestock and harvest of plant cultivars? How do you suppose the vast majority of people came to carry these integral materials? They didnt write or read not the majority of humans on the planet could- but they could count their cattle and distinguish one animal from the next- they could paint them on a rock- they could select breed them for ceremonial purposes-
Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: DougM, you too suffer from directional prejudice. Crayons should never be put in a pencil sharpener.
If either you or Sundiata were a little more honest with your own inner-psyche you could fight the demons of racism in your own heads.
Read up on the paper that links the Mande Cattle Culture and Dravidian Cattle Culture- and then reread what I've written here.
You are so busy hunting lions that you forget something integral about yourselves. I'll let you discover what that is for yourselves.
Why do you insist on prolonging this with endless rebuttals and ad hominem statements. My psyche is fine and not damaged by anything. The point is that YOU refuse to post one clear scientific document or piece of evidence to back up what you are saying, while I can post tons to back up what I have said. Just because you are from the Western Desert doesn't mean you can claim anything you want about the biological history of populations in that part of the world going back 10,000 years ago. You are no authority on the subject of the ancient biodiversity of populations that existed long before anyone in your clan can remember. I respect your identity based on clan and such, but that does not mean I respect claims that have no scientific validity, especially those without any scientific facts to back them up. You have proven nothing but the fact that you cling to your temporal clan identity as some basis for authority on people and cultures that existed long before any such clan you identify with even existed in such a form. This is the reason why you equate physical appearance with clan identity as a way of using clan identity to supersede notions of historic physical diversity which are beyond the scope of any population alive within the last thousand years.
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: Now- getting back to writers who are actually engaged in learning - we are all students in life are we not?
My family originally came from Somerkot valley between Dahklha and Khargha. About four thousand years ago, a good percentage of our peoples migrated to Upper Egypt proper. We are a matrilinear tribal clan. Land and water are passed down through women only. During the 13th century B.C. our ethnic minority was pushed by military force out of Upper Egypt for a time. Half of us returned to Dahkla and the others migrated south to the strong holds of the Inyotef Ta-Seti who in reaction to Hyksos/ Kushite collusion in the 13th Dynasty-17 dynasty- had taken up permanent residence in a kingdom somewhere in the highlands of Ethiopia probably somewhere near present day Eritrea. The populations that migrated to Dahklha were chased after by the invading peoples who desired to take our territories. They grew anap ( Ziziphus) trees and ben ben trees ( moringa) for tinctures and oils. Their descendants became the founders of the Coptic orders of the region many tens of centuries later. Naturally, the Abysinnian branch of our family remained in fairly close contact with the Western Desert branch from dynastic days through to the Christian era.
And what facts do you have to back this up outside what you have written. Most populations on earth cannot trace their history and identity back 4,000 years except those in isolated areas and even then it is difficult. How on earth can you sit here and make claims that "your clan" married into the house of such and such figure from ancient Egypt. Again, just because you and your clan exist in the western sahara and have an identity does not mean that anything you say has to be accepted as fact. Again what facts and or evidence do you have to support the claims you are putting forward going back 3 to 4 thousand years? This is purely fundamental facts and not something you should not have expected.
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: One branch of our tribal clan migrated to Siwa. These were largely men only and of the Ma'ahes caste. Anyone familar with Hadendoa tribal clan is looking at the easternmost branch of our people. The Hadendoa/Ma'ahes origins are within the Western Desert and we are clearly African indigenous. Copticism grew during Christian days but we must be clear abotu something, the Ma'ahes were responsible for the protection of the Amen temples originally and especially the properties of matrilinear Amenist heiresses. The patrilinear Ramesides did not honour the old ways of the sepat nomarchs. They were self-styled pharaohs and defined our peoples as Libyan enemies that needed to be stomped upon. The Ma'ahes/Hadendoa of East Africa were remnants of both predynastic animism which survived Egyptian civilization- we are also the last remaining Amenists that survived in outposts in the remote oases lands protected by the Ma'ahes caste tribals. Early Copticism was a reflection of Amenism. The relationship of the Hadendoa to modern religious culture is quite different than their western and southern ( Ethiopian) cousins because where the Ma'ahes chiefs would evolve into Copts in time- the Hadendoa resisted both Amenism and much later Christianity. They remained ardent Animists. The introduction of Islam converted the Hadendoa and the Mahdist Rebels are a well known terminal branch of this expression.
The problem with describing our ethnic minority today is that we are such an old people that our family tree has branched and merged in some instances with other ethnicities - for example the Beja of North Africa are remnants of our people that have mixed with other African ethnics caught up in regional strife, famine or what have you. The populations of our peoples living in isolated places in Eritrea and the Western Desert Oases had different founders than the Hadendoa who are by the way take their tribal clan name from a specific point in time that should help illustrate the simple complexity of their identity. The Hadendoa were the warriors who drove off the Hattie (Hittites). Their founders included ethnics from many Nilotic cultures that made up the archers of the Egyptian army. The Hadendoa branch of our tribal peoples, thusly have slightly different ethnic make up than the Western Desert and Eritrean branches because in those societies, the marriage laws and matrilinear tribal customs remained in whole. They did not amongst the Hadendoa who took wives from the Yam and the Irthet.
Getting back to the question- my imm family are Copts. But many of our near relatives living elsewhere in Egypt are Sufi. The Hadendoa are largely Sunni Moslems. Some tribal peoples are still Animists.
Maahes Hadendoa is another name for Beja groups along the Nile Valley. Beja, Bisharin, Hadendoa are all names for the same peoples. And almost all of these people are indeed black. The Beja are acknowledged as being descended from the ancient Medjay who were affiliated with various ancient Egyptian dynasties. However, nobody has come up with any sort of ties that go as far as you claim and I have never heard of a Maahes clan of the Hadendoa. Of course it is perfectly possible, but I have never heard of it. Either way, you are part of a larger group that is undeniably black, the Beja, so I don't understand what on earth you are complaining about.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: DougM, you too suffer from directional prejudice. Crayons should never be put in a pencil sharpener.
If either you or Sundiata were a little more honest with your own inner-psyche you could fight the demons of racism in your own heads.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claims is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
^With that said, would you like to address the issues and problems presented several posts above? Namely ancient Egyptian conceptions of their southern neighbors per direct citations, their biological relatedness to them, the relevance of "black rock, red rock" in this context, and why you'd make the statements that you made which were challenged initially.
^This is all that I've been concerned about and there's no need for me to chase your persistent red herrings.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Su We Di sent some great links to You Tube where everyone can take a chill pill and learn about the great human genome. Thanks SuWeDi. Learned a great deal and really enjoyed it to too.
-------------------- The seed cannot sprout upwards without simultaneously sending roots into the ground. Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Just because you are from the Western Desert doesn't mean you can claim anything you want about the biological history of populations in that part of the world going back 10,000 years ago. You are no authority on the subject of the ancient biodiversity of populations that existed long before anyone in your clan can remember. I respect your identity based on clan and such, but that does not mean I respect claims that have no scientific validity, especially those without any scientific facts to back them up.
This, imo sums up the focal point of his problem. Well put..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why does this conversation keep getting railroaded back to me? Why can't we discuss Egypt's 18th Dynasty? I know it is difficult for Americans to comprehend that most indigenous people have identities forged over countless centuries- we do. We've been isolated on tiny oases surrounded by the great sand sea. Oral traditions together with recent import from archeologists like Brugsch and lingual archeologists + molecular scientists has helped ethnic groups like the Falasha Jews of Ethiopia and the Dogon of West Africa, the Siwan Tamazight clean the perspective of alof historical dust.
We have notions of who we are where we came from because the legends are repeated by our tribal elders over and over again. But being Afrocentrics don't you already know that? Don't you place emphasis on self-identification of indigenous Africans? Or only the "black" ones? Go check out the neat Su Di We links to YouTube and learn about your people. Then return to this thread reread some of your assertions and the tone and hue of your teeth baring manifestos. Get with the program. This is the planet earth space ship yall.
Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- The seed cannot sprout upwards without simultaneously sending roots into the ground. Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: Why does this conversation keep getting railroaded back to me?
Because you still haven't been so courageous as to address your constant contradictions and inconsistencies. You keep repeating the same things ad nauseum with out showing the courtesy to answer questions, and instead rely on tireless ad hominem attacks and appeals to modern ethnic identity, which is completely irrelevant since ethnic groups and identity have never been static (something you can't seem to comprehend).
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: Sundiata, I don't know what to say. 20.000 years ago - you know what-I'm sorry _ I can't continue having this one sided dialogue with you you. Your ignoring what I've written and are still attempting to force a crayon into a pencil sharpener.
Your misplaced idioms and double talk still doesn't address my questions proposed. If these questions are too difficult for you to confront directly, that's one thing but I have definitely not ignored you, it is only that I'm still waiting on direct answers per citation. You've still offered us nothing but your own seemingly misguided views, which I'm not concerned about.
quote:You are I'm afraid that from your posts that, your emotions verge on the irrational.
And your posts/rants, especially this one, verges on the incoherent. Instead of commenting on me as well, which is easy enough of a cop-out, why not address what I've asked you or comment on the citations presented? Is that hard or are YOU too used to dealing with "emotion"? Your generalized comments can't be entertained at the moment.
quote:The women in my family call this sort of conundrum the objective of an ant lion(ess). You are always correct and gain strength from consuming stupid ants like me.
I'm sure that you enjoy hearing yourself talk as much as they do as well, though this still has not addressed one question of mine.
quote:It matters not that you are not reading what I'm writing.You are in my opinion intellectually a bit lazy and as such, the scholarship you present here is misleading and dishonest.
And you are still making evasive and overgeneralized comments with no substantiation, notwithstanding that everything you've been refuted on (linguistics, migration patterns, geography, biodiversity) has been under emphasized by you, and once rebutted, you merely contradict whatever you say, set up some sorry ad hominem or straw man to knock over, or completely blabber about irrelevancies, like Jackals, Bananas, and whatever it is women in your family say. Your antics are pretty much observable for all to see, which is why I'm not fooled and am steadfast in my persistence to extract at least some bit of useful information out of you.
So much emotionalism over a trivial matter of semantics. Unless Maahes truly has been through the oppression that Black people have been subjugated to in a similar way that the Jews have been, it is difficult for him to understand why a designation is so important to you.
It is like someone saying the holocaust did not happen or that Israel was never the Jewish homeland. It is also like saying that I am not Jewish because I am mixed with Europeans or that I don't know Hebrew.
Sociopolitical Identities that have little to do with the actual point of what we are trying to say.
Posts: 154 | From: Seattle Washington | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osiriun: So much emotionalism over a trivial matter of semantics.
I understand your point Osiriun, and would have to agree, if only slightly, but please don't confuse a steadfast adherence to fact finding and a zero tolerance for pseudo-science and double talk as any indication of emotional expression. It is a distraction. I don't believe anyone here has called Maahes out of his name or even accused him of any particular bias (the same can't be said for him), but only request that he contribute useful and reliable information while indeed making some type of effort to support his claims and how they relate to his concepts.
The strontium isotope data of the individuals in Nubian-style burials (all with values below 0.7078) provide an additional indication that individuals with ratios above 0.7078 may be non-local. Other individuals not buried Nubian-style whose ratios fall within the local range could be Egyptianized native Nubian locals or the children of Egyptian immigrants born locally. It is not surprising that individuals who likely spent their childhood elsewhere are included in the group of people buried at Tombos e the archaeological indications of ethnic identity as seen through architecture (pyramid structure), artefacts (funerary cones), and burial ritual suggest a strong Egyptian presence in addition to the widespread Egyptianization of Nubians during this time. Smith (2003) has suggested that this pyramid tomb was built as a reflection of Siamun’s power and authority in the Egyptian hierarchy. It may have been a way to promote in-group solidarity with other Egyptians in the face of real or perceived Nubian threat.
quote:7.4. Variation by biological affinity
These data on the strontium isotope ratios of predicted groups are difficult to interpret, as the differences between Egyptian and Nubian cranial morphology are far from straightforward. Although Egyptian samples examined by Buzon (2006) appeared to form a more morphologically homogenous group than the Nubians, it is clear that these ancient Egyptians and Nubians share many similar features. Several individuals with Egyptian cranial morphology are within the local range. This finding that some individuals who appear local in their strontium isotope ratios would have Egyptian cranial morphology is expected. Considering the time span of the cemetery (1400e1050 AD), it is probable that Egyptian immigrants would have had children at Tombos, who would then have the local strontium isotopic signature in their dental enamel as well as Egyptian cranial morphology. This corresponds well with the presence of individuals who were buried in Egyptian style and have 87Sr/86Sr values in the local range. Individuals with Nubian morphology outside the local range may be natives from another region of Nubia. It is also possible that cranial morphology cannot accurately predict to which ethnic group an individual belongs. A previous examination of Egyptian and Nubian cranial features suggests that Nubians are a morphologically more variable group than Egyptians (some individuals buried as ethnic Nubians with more Egyptian cranial features) (Buzon, 2006). This obscures the connection between cranial morphology and ethnic indicators, highlighting the disparity between different types of identity. This study calls attention to an additional kind of identity, geographic origin, which also may not correspond with ideas of ethnic and biological affinities. The combination of these multiple lines of evidence certainly complicates the reconstruction of the past, but it also serves to provide a more rich and meaningful picture of people we are investigating.
- Buzon (2007)
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What's wrong with Sambo? Euros make up a story Black Americans buy into it denigrating their former heritage.
Sambo is a proud name. Nothing dumb or slavish about the name Sambo.
I forgot to mention this!
quote:Originally posted by Nadeed: Willing Thinker {What Box}:
quote: Doug. Yonis, Maahes, Ausar, and others ARE North and East Africans, therefore I would trust Yonis when he says that what you are saying is nonsense.
Specifically, that Sambo bull-ish.
Do not project an African American problem onto other Africans.
agreed. doug you should listen to your fellow black american negro. he's making alot more sense than you.
Correction: I'mma black american BlacK, with negro powers, best not to test this black attack!~
Word.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually neither of you are making sense. The term was not invented by African Americans.
A young American Negro writes:
"Neither"?
Neither who?
Maybe you.. but I know when I said
quote:Sambo bull-ish.
[...][do] not project [...] American problem
what I said.
alTakruris correct, we need not have qualms with Sambo.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Undoubtedly cattle domestication was important development in enhancing survivability on the African landscape, but they [Africans] owe this accomplishment to no one else but themselves. Some of us need to break away from the shackles of the mentality that Africans are and have always been on the receiving end of the mastering of any type of complex human behavior, rather than the complex mutually inclusive reality of being pioneers and givers, along with being followers and receivers, as any other humanity on this planet. In other words, we need to get beyond this "non-Africans are inherently *the* saviors of Africans", and the thereof "Africans are inherently incapable of anything further than the need to be saved" mentality, and let it RIP. "
This is a presupposition on your part.
Which statement of mine is a "presupposition", and according to what objective citation to the contrary?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
I know full well that the founders of "dravidian" cattle culture were East Africans. I posted a link to an important peer-review paper on the subject that goes into some detail and focuses on the Mande people of West Africa as they relate to the Dravidians of West South Asia.
That link is from Clyde Winters, whose "Dravidians from the Sahara or Kush/Meroe" thesis has been discredited more than once, including by myself. You can do better, I hope.
quote: Originally posted by Maahes:
The Cattle Culture came from the Horn and was imported into India. I made this point a few times.
What relevance does this have, considering the fact that your claim, pertaining to Africans deriving cattle domestication and domesticates from outside, had been swiftly discredited by genetic and anthropological evidence?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
I am fully aware of the prejudice that has Africans depending upon other cultures to help them up and over and it is lame. But this is not my view or my worldview.
Then why do make claims that parrot such mentality, by making false claims that African domestic cattle derives from a non-African source, even though evidence to the contrary had been shown to you more than once?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
I don't disagree with everything Afrocentrics go on about, just the details and nomenclature. East Africans introduced Cattle Culture to West India/Pakistan region and these peoples would come to domesticate their own wild cattle Bos indicus.
This is according to what scientific source?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
Hybrids between African semi-domestic cattle and Indian semi-domestic cattle would form the foundation of ancient East African breeds.
What do you mean by "semi-domestic cattle"? The cattles are either domesticated or not; it is that simple.
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
Not only are you not African continentals you are not of a rural livestock oriented people and as such you may have a difficulty comprhending the significance of bananas, jackal-like wolves that would become dogs and cattle domestication.
This clearly cannot be a reference to me, or is it? Have you ever met me? If not, then how do you *presuppose* where I do or don't come from?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
How do you suppose the origins of Saharan culture came to be without livestock and harvest of plant cultivars?
You've already been informed about cattle domestication; if you choose to continue to make that a mystery, then knock yourself out. As for plants, you've been urged to produce the relevancy, given the well known bidirectional import of crops in and out of Africa; your response was and has been to produce none.
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
How do you suppose the vast majority of people came to carry these integral materials? They didnt write or read not the majority of humans on the planet could- but they could count their cattle and distinguish one animal from the next- they could paint them on a rock- they could select breed them for ceremonial purposes-
Immaterial questions. Please read the above, and observe what you need to do. Thanks.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get the impression that Rasol has no interest in this thread.
His lack of participation leaves one to wonder if he only has the motivation to debate those discussants of African descent (African Americans) like a Wally, Mark and Dr. Winters or so-called trolls instead of Maahes??
I expected his presence, as I did Mystery Solver (he did not disappoint), but to no avail.
Maybe he simply has no interest in the discussion taking place?
Posts: 391 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I don't mind you posting about your people and their mythology. It's interesting and we all could have learned something. But, you came here with the wrong attitude.
The African Americans and all the New World Africans from Mexico to Argentina and Canada to the north have spread an African heritage into the New World which was to the benefit of East Africa if you could see that.
The old pecking order which placed West Africans (Negroes/Bantus, etc) on the botttom was made useless probably when the large Sudanic Empires came on the seen. The transfer of Africans to the New World and the progress millions of Africans have made in the New World has placed West Africans over East Africans in the new modern pecking order.
I don't think the Cushites can deal with this modern reality.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
" In other words, we need to get beyond this "non-Africans are inherently *the* saviors of Africans", and the thereof "Africans are inherently incapable of anything further than the need to be saved" mentality, and let it RIP. "
This presupposition is what I'm on about here. The Afrocentric reductionism of many pseudo-scholars here is looking for something inherently anti-Negro or anti-African in my posts. Papers are constantly being challenged. This is the nature of science. The papers I have posted are intended to give anyone of objective mind slightly enlargened parameters with which to seek out the veracity of Afrocentric claims.
A great majority of the dialogue -here most of which attempts to put me on the defensive- is not progressive nor is it objective. The worldview of people poisoned by prejudice is too narrow and the limitations of these parameters result in a degree of willful ignorance. I came here to discuss the dynamics of 18th Dynasty Egypt as it relates to historical fiction- namely that which is covered in the film trilogy "i". African Americans are starring in these films as ancient Egyptians. I do not need to defend myself or my objectives to anyone on this forum. However, and due to the intellectual laziness and misleading diatribes of a few obviously biased posters, I am now firmly of the opinion that Afrocentrics are Eurocentrics in Black face.
I'm going to stick to discussing the topic of the thread: Goddess of the Sun.
My self identity and knowledge of my own culture are not open to debate. I am not prejudice against any peoples. This is not open to debate. Projecting self-loathing, presuppositional bias against Africans and all that sambo crap is pure nonsense. If anyone here is interested in the Goddess of the Sun project I will respond. I will not continue to waste time arguing with racialists about their own psychological baggage. Anyone interested in understanding my vantage point on the cultural and ethnic origins of Egypt need only scroll back and actually read carefully what I've already written.
If any of you feel the need to continue whittling away at my credibility or distracting the topic with more of your black washing, please know that you are wasting everyone's time. I did not come here to debate a position. I came to discuss 18th Dynasty Egypt as it relates to a major motion picture project.
-------------------- The seed cannot sprout upwards without simultaneously sending roots into the ground. Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
so what is it now? africans vs african Americans vs africans who claim they are not black but are still native african?
I love this website but im getting tired of reading ignorant things from intelligent people.
Posts: 229 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maahes many of the people here are africans not african americans,(That includes me) you are not the only one so please do not group us all together.there are also Asian and European people here as well.
I dont believe that it is Afrocentric to say that ancient egyptians were a,well, an african people you yourself believe this. so to say that it is afrocentric to think this way would be contradicting dont you think? But how you choose to define what african is and what an african looks like is completely up to you. just know that there people ,wheather they are african,african american, or non-african, and studies that may not agree with you.If you want to see some of them theres a sticky on the top that says "the race of the egyptians".
ANYWAYS your right we need to get back to the topic I am interested in what you know about the 18th dynasty you seem like a very intelligent person.
Posts: 229 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and Btw speaking about the diversity of africa I enjoy looking at these PicturesPosts: 229 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously Egyptians are African. You are from Luxor correct? If so, you know damned well we are most definately African. The objective is to finally present a snapshot in time so to speak of a point in Egyptian history -18th Dynasty Egypt- is on the brink of collapse. The different powers competing for the throne are from regions surrounding Egypt and also from within Egypt. The ethnicity of the Egyptians themselves in not an issue in this historical fiction.
It will muddy the complicated story by bowing down to Eurocentric ideoms about race. Different clans and tribes up and down the Nile not to mention in the Levant are vying for power. Each and every one of them is cast accordingly. Each African ethnic group from the Inyotef-Ta-Seti to the Wawat and Mazoi will have respective costume and regalia. Each and every ethnic group will be depicted as a unique group that cannot be confused with the another.
In this story,
It is clear that Queen Tiye should be respected as co-regent and acting sovereign as her husband Amenhotep lies on his deathbed. The fact that Tiye is of Nilotic descent is never a topic in the story- and why should it? Her marriage to Amenhotep was necessary because her matrilinear heiress status legitimized her husband's ascendency some forty years earlier. Amenhotep's mother is from the Levant, a Mittanian. Amenhotep is the product of a diplomatic marriage between an Egyptian hereditary chief and a royal princess of Mittani. Amenhotep was but one of several royal sons vying for the throne at the untimely death of King Thutmose IN THIS HISTORICAL FICTION. Amenhotep's ascendency was in question because his mother is not Egyptian. The clan mothers and high priestess caste would aruge vehemently against Amenhotep's ascendency on grounds that Thutmose's scepter should be inherited by a prince with better breeding- one whose mother's blood is from the soil of the Nile Valley.
I'm discussing the backstory of Amenhotep and Tiye which is significant to the Goddess story only in that it comes to light through the deterioration of Amenhotep towards the end of his life that he suffers from an inferiority complex. He is suffering from night terrors and his scribe Hapu explains to the viewer through narration during flashbacks that Amenhotep's projected illegitimacy- and his father's assasination weighed heavily on his shoulders before and after his ascendency- he became easily corruptible after the death of chosen son and heir apparent Prince Thutmose'. Amenhotep's corrupt remainders in the House of Amen have deified this mortal man as the King of the Gods on Earth. To have a god die is no good at all. The King makers are obsessed with keeping their status and power. They intend to act as intermediaries between the king of the Gods Amen and the populace and as such the inevitable death of their personal deity can be kept hidden. The Prophets of Amen are thusly hreatened by the impossibly serene and formideable Queen Tiye- especially after she pulls the supposedly dead prince Amenhotep IV ( AKA Akhenaten) out of the shadows to bolster her influence within the Great House. Akhenaten suffers from certain physical infirmities. An Egyptian king should be the personficiation of perfection an ideal which the prince cannot attain. Thusly, the sallow, wall-eyed science nerd for lack of a better term, is largely disesteemed. His father detests the very sight of him. In order to ascend to his father's throne, Akhenaten will need a matrilinear heiress of unequaled pedigree- from a lineage older than any Thutmose clan-to legitimize his ascendency. A creepy nefarious cult of masked lector priests are knocking off the royal princesses left and right to insure that he cannot ascend. The king makers do not want Akhenaten to be named hereditary chief of the two lands.
Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Afrocentric reductionism of many pseudo-scholars here is looking for something inherently anti-Negro or anti-African in my posts. Papers are constantly being challenged. This is the nature of science. The papers I have posted are intended to give anyone of objective mind slightly enlargened parameters with which to seek out the veracity of Afrocentric claims.
^^This has been the general theme of this thread which has inevitably degenerated into a spiraling failure due to Mahees' inability to engage cooperatively and his incessant attacks on African diasporans; ad hominems being veered towards his disdain for "afrocentrism". Yet while doing this, still skillfully avoiding a direct response to his shenanigans or answers to difficult questions.
You have come here in bad faith and then start to retreat with your tail between his legs when people call you out on your ridiculous pseudo-science (namely all of your nonsense migrations theories and bunk concepts) and you're only creative enough to reverse the accusation or accuse members here of New World bias when practically very few even remotely understand half of the mumbojumbo you're trying to convey (not just New World blacks)?
quote:My self identity and knowledge of my own culture are not open to debate.
^^This clears up a lot of the ambiguity concerning his stubborness to heed any piece of objective information other than his own crudely constructed pseudo-history. Of course you can't debate someone who already has their mind made up before they even pick up a book or any piece of literature pertaining to whatever issue they find themselves in.
quote: However, and due to the intellectual laziness and misleading diatribes of a few obviously biased posters,
You want to see a good example of intellectual laziness? Look above.
quote:I am now firmly of the opinion that Afrocentrics are Eurocentrics in Black face.
I am now firmly of the belief that one should never try and have any kind of dialogue with an admittedly biased camera man who doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.
Good look with your project. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: " In other words, we need to get beyond this "non-Africans are inherently *the* saviors of Africans", and the thereof "Africans are inherently incapable of anything further than the need to be saved" mentality, and let it RIP. "
This presupposition is what I'm on about here.
What is presupposed about it, when it in fact describes a situation whereby you are confronted with several scientific documents descrediting your claim about African cattle domestication and yet, you continue to propagate discredited info? As you latch onto this claim, you go onto say:
Key to my position, is the fact that trade between Southern Eastern Asia and Eastern Africa -taking place in Punt- the Horn of Africa is ancient and that without it most of what we describe as Saharan or East African would simply not exist.
The problem with this, is that you cherry pick two issues, that is - ‘cattle domestication’ and ‘bananas’, to supposedly make the point that you proclaim to be making above, all the while saying that they were introduced to Africans. This implicated a ‘one-sided’ affair no doubt, as opposed to *trade*, notwithstanding that your claim about cattle domestication was wrong to begin with. Take that *one-sided* invocation along with the highlighted, and you’ll see why the post you cited was necessary.
quote: Originally posted by Maahes:
The Afrocentric reductionism of many pseudo-scholars here is looking for something inherently anti-Negro or anti-African in my posts.
Nitpicking by saying that unless a person appears to be “pitch black” as your “black rock” folks, they shouldn’t be referred to as ‘black’; so, a person with dark brown skin, or what else hue of brown skin have you, should be only referred to as brown, because they don’t appear to be literally black. That type of thinking certainly comes across as anti-black to observers who see the “pitch black” as but a part of a continuum of what entails “black”, a metonymy for considerably melaninated [eumelanin] skin.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the first I've heard of it, and I'm NOBODY'S expert, but I'd never head that Amenhotep was half-Mittanni. Or that ANY members of the 18th Dynasty, the "Nubian" Dynasty had any Asiatic blood.
Where are you getting this from? Anybody more studied on the18th dynasty lineage care to weigh in? I get so confused with all the different names I have no idea who is whom, but I'm pretty sure an Asiatic mother would not legitimize any Egyptian king, espcially since the Mittani were at odds with Egypt and political adversaries.
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
Moving on, AMenhotep's mother was Queen Mutemwiya who was a royal princess from Mittani.
The consultants on this project which began in 2001 include a real crew of respected Egyptologists and Art Historians whose area of scholarship is 18th Dynasty Egypt.
The reason it has taken so long to get everything this far is because of the schedules of our consultants, many are professors of Egyptology and others are art curators. Each of our consultants reside in Egypt for the dig/restoration season.
As I said in my synopsis, Amenhotep's ascension in this historical fiction epic was in question because of his mother's country of origin. Amenhotep's child bried Tiye, on the other hand and a character written espressly for the divine Cicely Tyson ( Stacey Dash will portray Young Queen Tiye) is of Nilotic origin and as her iconography attests is an heiress whose matrilinear pedigree is highly desireable. From this perspective in our story, Amenhotep's ascension is legitmized by his marriage with the Nilotic heiress. Again, this is a backstory of Amenhotep and Tiye and one that will be revisited time and again in all three pictures.
The protagonist Nefertiti is in this historical fiction, the matrilinear descendant of an ancient Ta-Seti heiress who was the founding clan mother of the Inyotef - 12th dynasty - Nefertiti's pedigree is thusly used to legitimize the disesteemed prince Akhenaten's ascension.
Unfortunately, Nefertiti, again in this historical fiction, knows nothing of her birthright. She is the foster daughter of a pair of nobles, Aye and Dey (Omar Shariff and Tantoo Cardinal) the handmaiden and surrogate sister of a princess dowager - the erstwhile child-bride of Prince Thutmose'- the dowager's name is Mutnodjemet but her pet name Pakhet i.e., " she scratches" is appropriate as this character is sharp of tooth and claw- The princess dowager's appearance is shrouded in linen veils for most of the picture. The character will be portrayed by Stacey Dash.
Nefertiti is deeply in love with a soldier in Aye's guard. His name is Horemheb and he is of humble origins. The character of Horemheb was written for Denzel Washington.
So we have star-crossed lovers and layers of mystery in the Goddess of the Sun which is the prequel to the second installation " Prophets of Amen" which unfolds with the building of the temple city of Akhetaten.
-------------------- The seed cannot sprout upwards without simultaneously sending roots into the ground. Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
- as for cattle domestication, and bananas, Pariah dogs and spices- there was without any doubt more trade and more cultural transference between Southern Asia and East Africa and for many more tens thousands of years than there was between Europe and North Africa. The point I was making is that cattle domestication began in Africa and was imported into Western India by Horn Africans. Those Horn Africans then went to the task of domesticating a wild Asiatic cattle species Bos indicus. Transference of Asiatic cattle genes occured in Western India and Pakistan and moved into Western Asia with the spread of the Indo-Aryan culture. THe Horn Africans continued to move materials between Western India and the Horn and this trade route's most important points were the epicenter of Punt. I read some of your missive as to suggest that I believe that non Africans are responsible for African culture. That is not what I believe nor is it what I wrote. If you are biased against my position, anything I write is going to read {anti-black} negatively to you. You have not discounted the theory I have presented to you. All you have done is presented a refutation. I'm still patiently waiting for an objective voice to arise from this board that is going read what these papers cover - the ideas that are put forth and what I have written. My objective is to open up the worldview of those of you suffering from the limited parameters of the Eurocentric/Afrocentric obsession with white and black.
Reread what I wrote about banana cultivation and check out the You Tube material and then please reread what you have written to refute what I've stated.
-------------------- The seed cannot sprout upwards without simultaneously sending roots into the ground. Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: I'm done with the whole "black" topic.
Moving on, AMenhotep's mother was Queen Mutemwiya who was a royal princess from Mittani.
I have to disagree. Not every scholar agrees that Mutemwiya was Mittani. In fact, current research tends to go against this opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: The consultants on this project which began in 2001 include a real crew of respected Egyptologists and Art Historians whose area of scholarship is 18th Dynasty Egypt.
The reason it has taken so long to get everything this far is because of the schedules of our consultants, many are professors of Egyptology and others are art curators. Each of our consultants reside in Egypt for the dig/restoration season.
As I said in my synopsis, Amenhotep's ascension in this historical fiction epic was in question because of his mother's country of origin. Amenhotep's child bried Tiye, on the other hand and a character written espressly for the divine Cicely Tyson ( Stacey Dash will portray Young Queen Tiye) is of Nilotic origin and as her iconography attests is an heiress whose matrilinear pedigree is highly desireable. From this perspective in our story, Amenhotep's ascension is legitmized by his marriage with the Nilotic heiress. Again, this is a backstory of Amenhotep and Tiye and one that will be revisited time and again in all three pictures.
The protagonist Nefertiti is in this historical fiction, the matrilinear descendant of an ancient Ta-Seti heiress who was the founding clan mother of the Inyotef - 12th dynasty - Nefertiti's pedigree is thusly used to legitimize the disesteemed prince Akhenaten's ascension.
Unfortunately, Nefertiti, again in this historical fiction, knows nothing of her birthright. She is the foster daughter of a pair of nobles, Aye and Dey (Omar Shariff and Tantoo Cardinal) the handmaiden and surrogate sister of a princess dowager - the erstwhile child-bride of Prince Thutmose'- the dowager's name is Mutnodjemet but her pet name Pakhet i.e., " she scratches" is appropriate as this character is sharp of tooth and claw- The princess dowager's appearance is shrouded in linen veils for most of the picture. The character will be portrayed by Stacey Dash.
Nefertiti is deeply in love with a soldier in Aye's guard. His name is Horemheb and he is of humble origins. The character of Horemheb was written for Denzel Washington.
So we have star-crossed lovers and layers of mystery in the Goddess of the Sun which is the prequel to the second installation " Prophets of Amen" which unfolds with the building of the temple city of Akhetaten.
And just remember, it is only a movie. I do admire the research going into this, but no historical movie has ever been 100% accurate in terms of every detail, because going back 3500 years we don't always have every detail. So it isn't that I am against you or what you are trying to do from any perspective. In fact you can find similar such disagreements about historical movies like Alexander and so on.
But given that this is a historical fiction, I don't understand the need for such rigorous research.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: Yes, Coptic. He has a very interesting family, from what he's told me. Some of his views might make more sense (they did to me), although I still don't understand the red/black rock concept, or who/what the oryx are/is.
The colored rock concepts as he explained comes from the old story among his people of God (or a creator god) molding humans from rock or clay. This is like the Egyptian myth of the god Khnum making man from different colors of clay and this is also similar to Hebrew and Abrahamic myths of creation which seem to all stem from a common (proto-Afrasian?) myth of mankind made from earth by a creator god. Oryx are a kind of large antelope, and from what I gather they seem to be the totem of a people he speaks of. Hopefully he can clarify this further.
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: DougM, you too suffer from directional prejudice. Crayons should never be put in a pencil sharpener.
If either you or Sundiata were a little more honest with your own inner-psyche you could fight the demons of racism in your own heads.
I don't know what you mean by this. All Doug and Sundiata are saying is that you and your people are black or of black ancestry. There is nothing prejudice about it.
quote:Read up on the paper that links the Mande Cattle Culture and Dravidian Cattle Culture- and then reread what I've written here.
Mystery Solver already addressed the inaccuracies of that paper. Cattle domestication in Africa and that of India are two independent events with Africa's domestication being much older.
quote:You are so busy hunting lions that you forget something integral about yourselves. I'll let you discover what that is for yourselves.
If you mean Doug and Sundiata's hostility, you are correct that it is not justified.
quote:Now- getting back to writers who are actually engaged in learning - we are all students in life are we not?
I don't know about everyone else but I know I am!
quote:My family originally came from Somerkot valley between Dahklha and Khargha. About four thousand years ago, a good percentage of our peoples migrated to Upper Egypt proper. We are a matrilinear tribal clan. Land and water are passed down through women only. During the 13th century B.C. our ethnic minority was pushed by military force out of Upper Egypt for a time. Half of us returned to Dahkla and the others migrated south to the strong holds of the Inyotef Ta-Seti who in reaction to Hyksos/ Kushite collusion in the 13th Dynasty-17 dynasty- had taken up permanent residence in a kingdom somewhere in the highlands of Ethiopia probably somewhere near present day Eritrea. The populations that migrated to Dahklha were chased after by the invading peoples who desired to take our territories. They grew anap ( Ziziphus) trees and ben ben trees ( moringa) for tinctures and oils. Their descendants became the founders of the Coptic orders of the Bahiriya region many tens of centuries later. Naturally, the Abysinnian branch of our family remained in fairly close contact with the Western Desert branch from dynastic days through to the Christian era.
One branch of our tribal clan migrated to Siwa. These were largely men only and of the Ma'ahes caste. Anyone familar with Hadendoa tribal clan is looking at the easternmost branch of our people. The Hadendoa/Ma'ahes origins are within the Western Desert and we are clearly African indigenous. Copticism grew during Christian days but we must be clear abotu something, the Ma'ahes were responsible for the protection of the Amen temples originally and especially the properties of matrilinear Amenist heiresses. The patrilinear Ramesides did not honour the old ways of the sepat nomarchs. They were self-styled pharaohs and defined our peoples as Libyan enemies that needed to be stomped upon. The Ma'ahes/Hadendoa of East Africa were remnants of both predynastic animism which survived Egyptian civilization- we are also the last remaining Amenists that survived in outposts in the remote oases lands protected by the Ma'ahes caste tribals. Early Copticism was a reflection of Amenism. The relationship of the Hadendoa to modern religious culture is quite different than their western and southern ( Ethiopian) cousins because where the Ma'ahes chiefs would evolve into Copts in time- the Hadendoa resisted both Amenism and much later Christianity. They remained ardent Animists. The introduction of Islam converted the Hadendoa and the Mahdist Rebels are a well known terminal branch of this expression.
The problem with describing our ethnic minority today is that we are such an old people that our family tree has branched and merged in some instances with other ethnicities - for example the Beja of North Africa are remnants of our people that have mixed with other African ethnics caught up in regional strife, famine or what have you. The populations of our peoples living in isolated places in Eritrea and the Western Desert Oases had different founders than the Hadendoa who are by the way take their tribal clan name from a specific point in time that should help illustrate the simple complexity of their identity. The Hadendoa were the warriors who drove off the Hattie (Hittites). Their founders included ethnics from many Nilotic cultures that made up the archers of the Egyptian army. The Hadendoa branch of our tribal peoples, thusly have slightly different ethnic make up than the Western Desert and Eritrean branches because in those societies, the marriage laws and matrilinear tribal customs remained in whole. They did not amongst the Hadendoa who took wives from the Yam and the Irthet.
Getting back to the question- my imm family are Copts. But many of our near relatives living elsewhere in Egypt are Sufi. The Hadendoa are largely Sunni Moslems. Some tribal peoples are still Animists.
Very interesting! So let me get this straight. You are Hadendoa, and therefore Beja?? Although I do not discount the more recent history of your family and clan, the ancient accounts you give I find more questionable. What are these ancient accounts based on?? Oral tradition, historical records, or archaeology?? Judging by what you say, I take it that you agree with the suggestion that the Medjay mercenaries employed by the Egyptians were the ancestors of modern day Beja (your people). Alot of the ancient accounts you give contain alot of elements I've read in your movie script, particularly the matrilineage and such. What does this have to do with the 18th dynasty? And what of the "oryx"?? Also, I find the account you give of the origins of your clan somewhat confusing. Do you say that your people originally came from the Western desert or Nile Valley?? Whatever the case it seems to corroborate with genetic findings about the close relation between Beja and Tuareg peoples.
And what of the plot of the movie itself? So many questions I have for you. Maybe it would be better if I private messaged you! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I read some of your missive as to suggest that I believe that non Africans are responsible for African culture. That is not what I believe nor is it what I wrote.
So, on the record that you *never* said that African cattle comes from southeast Asia?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
If you are biased against my position, anything I write is going to read {anti-black} negatively to you. You have not discounted the theory I have presented to you.
Your cattle theorey has been discredited. As for bananas, like all the rest of what you propagated on about, including the cattle thing, I have yet to see where you're going with all this, and what the bottom line is supposed to be.
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
All you have done is presented a refutation.
Isn't that substantial enough, and the least that could be done?...particularly given the seemingly directionless that characterizes your posts, imo.
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
I'm still patiently waiting for an objective voice to arise from this board that is going read what these papers cover - the ideas that are put forth and what I have written. My objective is to open up the worldview of those of you suffering from the limited parameters of the Eurocentric/Afrocentric obsession with white and black.
What post of mine in my exchanges with you, are characterized by this charge? In fact, was it not you instigated this whole thing with your "black rock", "oryx" and "red rock" people, "no black pharaohs in Egypt" talk, and so forth?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
Reread what I wrote about banana cultivation and check out the You Tube material and then please reread what you have written to refute what I've stated.
Why? Don't you think that its about time that you realize, that redundancy on your part and asking me to revisit what's been addressed by myself, is a futile business? This sort of distraction, along with evading questions, regresses the discourse, not progress it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh boy. I don't mean to be flippant here. I assumed that smart people like yourselves would be able to put these issues together for yourselves.
Horn Africans were the root of two important, cattle cultures. One of which is none other than that of the Proto-Egyptians- the second of which is that of the Proto-Indians.
Austronesians and Pygmoids already present in both regions prior to the cattle cultures already had established trade and cultivation between their respective populations in Southern Western Asia and Africa- Pleistocene era trade routes. Because they already had a banana utilized primarily for fiber and had cultivated it towards that end before leaving the African continent, subsequent populations of Austronesians and Pygmoids that were to reach South Western Asia, recognized the wild banana plants growing in their new homelands. THey would quickly exploit the new wild bananas - this one was edible and grew much like their familair African species that was used only for fiber- stone age cultures need fiber and they also need food- fiber used to tie things together and food to feed oneselfe obviously-and through cultivation select breed the new wild bananas into fruit bearing cultivars that would be brought back to the continent of Africa and grown there-major food staples I might add not jsut sweet banans-. Cocurrently, the Jackal-Wolves (Canis simensis)that the Austronesians and Pygmnoids had domesticated during the Pleistocene. i.e., Basenji dogs were introduced to South Western Asia and New Guinea where they would become the progenitors of the Indian Pariah dog, the New Guinea Singing Dog and the Australian Dingo Dog. Trade between these Pleistocene populations of our human family would insure that the genetic affinity between curly tailed barkless dogs descended of Canis simensis would remain for all intensive purposes, contiguous. In other words, these dogs are one anothers closest relatives. Following the genetic trail of domesticated plants and animals helps us learn a great deal about human biodiversity and their routes of migration.
These Austronesian/Pygmoid cultures were dominated or assimilated by subsequent populations of Neolithic Horn Africans that migrated along similar trajectories and became the founders of a new population diaspora- one based on cattle.
The point being once again for the rhinoceri amongst you- the history of ethnicity and culture of Saharan Africa precedes that which concerns the Eurocentric/Afrocentric.
The paper you have problems with on Cattle Domestication is nonetheless a peer reviewed paper which is largely on point and substantive. It could be argued and actually a number of you here have made it clear through your marginalization of said topics, (" its either domesticated or not period...") that your comprhension of animal and plant domestication is not your focus of interest. It is absolutely integral to the comprehension of said topic. MArginalizing it or selective reading of objective anaylsis of said topic to directionally bolster your refutation of my position- knowing full well the majority of readers on this forum are not going to actually bother to read the papers Ive posted links to- they will accept your refutation on grounds of your dedication to your own intractable position-regardless- marginalizing the significance of the history of animal and plant cultivation by ancient cultures- from the Pleistocene onwards is evidence in my book that you are a directional thinker. If it takes place in Asia it is not African and thus not in your field of interest. I brought up these points to help some of you recognize hwo flawed the mentality is- the mentality that is based on learning from books and coloured maps- that is based on the significance of history as it relates to the Old Testament- whatever the expert is most educated in becomes their imprint. They will not accept evidence that points to anything that does not agree with their view point - In this case, the argument I am making could be perceived as Afrocentric. I'm making the case that Horn Africans and before them the progenitors of the Austronesian/Pygmoid/Negrito population- were responsible for the southern western Asian cultural wellsprings- but because you are of the opinion that I am biased against black Africa -some of you here read that to mean that I beleive that Asiatics are responsible for the accomplishments of African civilizations. But then the point of discussing bananas, dogs and cattle is to elucidate the different strata of time and space here- another point that appears to be lost.
If you really have decided to embrace Egyptian culture into your own, perhaps you had better begin to open your minds a bit?
A more objective mindset might have brought up the similarities of food staples and plant cultivars that the Horn of Africa and Western Southern Asia share. They might have discussed the methods of breadmaking and the uses of specific medicinal herbs and spices that are Asian in origin but that came to be used in Eastern Africa. Are you familar with the moringa- the clove, cinnamon, turmeric, pepper, chrysanthenums- of course you are but perhaps you are taking for granted how important these materials were in ancient dynastic Egypt? How did they come to be in Egypt when they were produced in Southern Western Asia? Why is important to me or my position? What is my position? Again, the historical diffusion between Southern Western Asia and Eastern Africa predates any contact between Europe and North Africa. This constant trade between respective cultures is more significant than that which transpired between the Greeks or Romans and Egypt. Compare and contrast the length of time and the great antiquity of the connections in direct comparison.
Each and every paper that I have posted a link to here are on the required reading lists of anthropology professors from Columbia and Harvard who I have known for decades as mentors and friends. No one pretends to know all. It is important however to have an open mind and one that can recognize that bias blinds one to evidence that refutes popular theory.
My position is that Africa is the womb from which all human kind progressed. The first and earliest branches that would migrate into the nursery of Southern Western Asia blazed trails for subsequent migrations of different ethnic/racial stock.
Civilization grew from the expansion of the human psyche and from exploitation of new learned skills including cultivation of novel species and from trade between isolated populations. This is a humanist view and one that places emphasis on humanity above racial definition.
Egypt was not a land of white and blacks. Egypt was a land of Nilotic peoples. Different phases in development within Egyptian history might be categorized by ecological challenges and by the presence and or absence of specific ethnic groups.
Near Eastern/Western Asian civilization was another sibling of the Horn African diaspora.
Oversimplification of the history or culture of any peoples within the region is disrespectful and a digression from the topic.
Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Very interesting! So let me get this straight. You are Hadendoa, and therefore Beja?? Although I do not discount the more recent history of your family and clan, the ancient accounts you give I find more questionable. What are these ancient accounts based on?? Oral tradition, historical records, or archaeology?? Judging by what you say, I take it that you agree with the suggestion that the Medjay mercenaries employed by the Egyptians were the ancestors of modern day Beja (your people). Alot of the ancient accounts you give contain alot of elements I've read in your movie script, particularly the matrilineage and such. What does this have to do with the 18th dynasty? And what of the "oryx"?? Also, I find the account you give of the origins of your clan somewhat confusing. Do you say that your people originally came from the Western desert or Nile Valley?? Whatever the case it seems to corroborate with genetic findings about the close relation between Beja and Tuareg peoples. "
I'm sorry to say that negotiation meetings are going on and todays posts are hurried and I am distracted. I want to really cover these topics thoroughly and objectively with careful attention to detail. But every ten minutes someone interrupts me and I have to go into another mindset.
We are not Beja. The Beja are descendants of our tribal clan we are cousins. The Beja are members of our tribal clan. It is an oversimplification to say that we are one and the same people because the Beja do not follow matrilinear progression of water and land rights.
Medjay were a caste of warriors. Ma'ahes were a caste of guards/stewards of the Oracle. Both have descendants. Each lineage is effected by the presence or absence of hereditary property laws of specific tribes. We are related and share ancestry and or history.
Our origins are in the Western Desert others origins are along the Nile valley near present day Aswan or furhter upriver to the south-
Those of us with hereditary land ownership in the Western Desert have different mothers than our cousins the Beja. Hadendoa is a modern term that helps define a group of peoples including ours. It is not entirely helpful or accurate. Our history is mostly oral but anthropologists, lingual archeologists and Egyptologists including Goneim have been helfpul. I must make it clear that the film story has nothing whatsoever to do with my family or peoples. We make no claims of relationship to any 18th dynasty rulers.
If you are interested in clan mother designations please research sepats ( nomes) and search for the sepat of the oryx- the sepat of the hare - the sepat of the southern scepter etc. These are ancient markers of hereditary land owners whose tribal affiliations are integral to comprhending the socio-policial issues of ancient Egypt- have to go bell is rigning
Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: Oh boy. I don't mean to be flippant here. I assumed that smart people like yourselves would be able to put these issues together for yourselves.
Horn Africans were the root of two important, cattle cultures. One of which is none other than that of the Proto-Egyptians- the second of which is that of the Proto-Indians.
Austronesians and Pygmoids already present in both regions prior to the cattle cultures already had established trade and cultivation between their respective populations in Southern Western Asia and Africa- Pleistocene era trade routes. Because they already had a banana utilized primarily for fiber and had cultivated it towards that end before leaving the African continent, subsequent populations of Austronesians and Pygmoids that were to reach South Western Asia, recognized the wild banana plants growing in their new homelands. THey would quickly exploit the new wild bananas - this one was edible and grew much like their familair African species that was used only for fiber- stone age cultures need fiber and they also need food- fiber used to tie things together and food to feed oneselfe obviously-and through cultivation select breed the new wild bananas into fruit bearing cultivars that would be brought back to the continent of Africa and grown there-major food staples I might add not jsut sweet banans-. Cocurrently, the Jackal-Wolves (Canis simensis)that the Austronesians and Pygmnoids had domesticated during the Pleistocene. i.e., Basenji dogs were introduced to South Western Asia and New Guinea where they would become the progenitors of the Indian Pariah dog, the New Guinea Singing Dog and the Australian Dingo Dog. Trade between these Pleistocene populations of our human family would insure that the genetic affinity between curly tailed barkless dogs descended of Canis simensis would remain for all intensive purposes, contiguous. In other words, these dogs are one anothers closest relatives. Following the genetic trail of domesticated plants and animals helps us learn a great deal about human biodiversity and their routes of migration.
These Austronesian/Pygmoid cultures were dominated or assimilated by subsequent populations of Neolithic Horn Africans that migrated along similar trajectories and became the founders of a new population diaspora- one based on cattle.
The point being once again for the rhinoceri amongst you- the history of ethnicity and culture of Saharan Africa precedes that which concerns the Eurocentric/Afrocentric.
The paper you have problems with on Cattle Domestication is nonetheless a peer reviewed paper which is largely on point and substantive. It could be argued and actually a number of you here have made it clear through your marginalization of said topics, (" its either domesticated or not period...") that your comprhension of animal and plant domestication is not your focus of interest. It is absolutely integral to the comprehension of said topic. MArginalizing it or selective reading of objective anaylsis of said topic to directionally bolster your refutation of my position- knowing full well the majority of readers on this forum are not going to actually bother to read the papers Ive posted links to- they will accept your refutation on grounds of your dedication to your own intractable position-regardless- marginalizing the significance of the history of animal and plant cultivation by ancient cultures- from the Pleistocene onwards is evidence in my book that you are a directional thinker. If it takes place in Asia it is not African and thus not in your field of interest. I brought up these points to help some of you recognize hwo flawed the mentality is- the mentality that is based on learning from books and coloured maps- that is based on the significance of history as it relates to the Old Testament- whatever the expert is most educated in becomes their imprint. They will not accept evidence that points to anything that does not agree with their view point - In this case, the argument I am making could be perceived as Afrocentric. I'm making the case that Horn Africans and before them the progenitors of the Austronesian/Pygmoid/Negrito population- were responsible for the southern western Asian cultural wellsprings- but because you are of the opinion that I am biased against black Africa -some of you here read that to mean that I beleive that Asiatics are responsible for the accomplishments of African civilizations. But then the point of discussing bananas, dogs and cattle is to elucidate the different strata of time and space here- another point that appears to be lost.
If you really have decided to embrace Egyptian culture into your own, perhaps you had better begin to open your minds a bit?
A more objective mindset might have brought up the similarities of food staples and plant cultivars that the Horn of Africa and Western Southern Asia share. They might have discussed the methods of breadmaking and the uses of specific medicinal herbs and spices that are Asian in origin but that came to be used in Eastern Africa. Are you familar with the moringa- the clove, cinnamon, turmeric, pepper, chrysanthenums- of course you are but perhaps you are taking for granted how important these materials were in ancient dynastic Egypt? How did they come to be in Egypt when they were produced in Southern Western Asia? Why is important to me or my position? What is my position? Again, the historical diffusion between Southern Western Asia and Eastern Africa predates any contact between Europe and North Africa. This constant trade between respective cultures is more significant than that which transpired between the Greeks or Romans and Egypt. Compare and contrast the length of time and the great antiquity of the connections in direct comparison.
Each and every paper that I have posted a link to here are on the required reading lists of anthropology professors from Columbia and Harvard who I have known for decades as mentors and friends. No one pretends to know all. It is important however to have an open mind and one that can recognize that bias blinds one to evidence that refutes popular theory.
My position is that Africa is the womb from which all human kind progressed. The first and earliest branches that would migrate into the nursery of Southern Western Asia blazed trails for subsequent migrations of different ethnic/racial stock.
Civilization grew from the expansion of the human psyche and from exploitation of new learned skills including cultivation of novel species and from trade between isolated populations. This is a humanist view and one that places emphasis on humanity above racial definition.
Egypt was not a land of white and blacks. Egypt was a land of Nilotic peoples. Different phases in development within Egyptian history might be categorized by ecological challenges and by the presence and or absence of specific ethnic groups.
Near Eastern/Western Asian civilization was another sibling of the Horn African diaspora.
Oversimplification of the history or culture of any peoples within the region is disrespectful and a digression from the topic.
Maahes, you are downright funny. Why is it you keep on insisting that this is a black/white or Eurocentric/Afrocentric issue? Surely you are the only one who seems to feel that black and white are not accurate descriptions for the appearance of a great many populations on this planet. Is there any evidence that the original Nilotic people from 5 to 6,000 years ago were anything but black? Are not the majority of Nilotic people in the Nile Valley today called black? And are the Egyptians called Nilotic people today? Why not? Calling ancient Nilotic populations black is no more limiting or close minded than calling ancient Celtic or Germanic tribes white. It is an accurate description of the appearance of the people of the time and not a description of culture, language or anything else.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am African American and the people of my ancestral state and the people who live where my relatives live in that state have also been studies and analyzed by DNA researchers. i know for a fact and without a doubt and was told by professional researchers that my ancestry lies with the people of the far western coast of Africa. The tribal names include Mande, Fulani, Wolof etc. The African Americans were descended from the Morrish tribes of West Africa and also Bantu Speakers from Angola and Congo. We are mixed with Songhay Nilo-Saharan speakers and AfroAsiatic Hausa and Tuaregs.
I used to post under the handle My Red Cow and also Shango. So, Cattle is also my thing.
Group Origin: The widely accepted theory for the origin of present day zebu cattle in West Africa states that they came from the westward spread of the early zebu populations in East Africa through the Sudan. As for other zebu types, the cattle breeds of this group are found mainly in the drier regions. Their body conformation resembles the zebu cattle of eastern Africa (Epstein, 1971; Payne and Wilson, 1999). The zebu did not appear in West Africa until about 1800 BP. The increasing aridity of the climate and the deterioration of the environment in the Sahel appear to have favoured the introduction and spread of the zebu, as they are superior to longhorn and shorthorn (Bos taurus) cattle in withstanding drought conditions. Another theory based on archaeological findings in the Sahara (Muzzolini, 2000) argues that there was a separate domestication of cervico-thoracic humped zebu cattle in the region and become the ancestors of the Fulani. However, a recent molecular genetic evidence (Hanotte et al., 2002) supported an earlier suggestion that the major process of Bos indicus influence centred in East Africa, and that its genetic introgression spread to the west of the continent. In any case, gradual interbreeding the earlier zebu populations with the prevailing Bos taurus type of cattle is believed to have resulted in the present-day local breeds that exhibit West African Shorthorn characteristics, e.g., the Shuwa. Similarly, the lyre-horned zebu breeds of the Fulani pastoralists, such as Red Bororo, appear to be the result of early upgrading of longhorn-type cattle by the introduced zebu cattle (Payne and Wilson, 1999). Overall, the Fulani differ from the typical zebu of western and eastern Africa by the presence of long horns and from the cerico-thoracic-humped Sanga by the presence of a thoracic and sometimes intermediate hump. The West African Zebu cattle consist of two main groups: the Gudali group (Adamawa, Sokoto) and the Fulani group. The Fulani have been classified further into two groups: the lyre-horned subgroup consisting of Senegalese Fulani (or the Gobra), the Sudanese Fulani, and the White Fulani (or Bunaji); and long-horned subgroup represented by the Red Fulani (or Rahaji). Diali (or Djeli) is a strain of Fulani found on the flood plains of Niger river in Niger and south-west Nigeria (Rege 1999; Rege and Tawah, 1999).
Breed Origin : The origins and classification of the Fulani remains controversial; one school of thought is of the opinion that the Fulani cattle are truly long-horned zebus that first arrived in Africa from Asia on the east coast; these are believed to have been introduced into West Africa by the Arab invaders during the seventh century, AD, roughly about the same time that the short-horned zebus arrived into East Africa. This theory is supported by the appearance of the skull as well as the thoracic hump of the Fulani cattle. Another school of thought contends that these cattle originated from the Horn of Africa, present-day Ethiopia and Somalia, and that interbreeding between the short-horned zebu (which arrived in the Horn around the first millennium BC) and the ancient Hamitic Longhorn and/or Brachyceros shorthorn (which had arrived much earlier) occurred in the Horn about 2000-1500 BC. The subsequent successive introductions of the short-horned zebu cattle are believed to have displaced most of these sanga cattle into southern Africa. During this period of constant movements of people and animals within Africa, some of these sanga cattle probably intermixed with the short-horned, thoracic-humped cattle to produce the so-called thoracic-humped sanga. The latter may have migrated, most probably along with the spread of Islam, westerly to constitute what are today the lyre-horned cattle of West and Central Africa, including the Fulani cattle. Originally the White Fulani were indigenous to north Nigeria, south-east Niger and north-east Cameroon, owned by both Fulani and Hausa people. They then spread to southern Chad and western Sudan.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
I am African American and the people of my ancestral state and the people who live where my relatives live in that state have also been studies and analyzed by DNA researchers. i know for a fact and without a doubt and was told by professional researchers that my ancestry lies with the people of the far western coast of Africa. The tribal names include Mande, Fulani, Wolof etc. The African Americans were descended from the Morrish tribes of West Africa and also Bantu Speakers from Angola and Congo. We are mixed with Songhay Nilo-Saharan speakers and AfroAsiatic Hausa and Tuaregs.
I used to post under the handle My Red Cow and also Shango. So, Cattle is also my thing.
Group Origin: The widely accepted theory for the origin of present day zebu cattle in West Africa states that they came from the westward spread of the early zebu populations in East Africa through the Sudan. As for other zebu types, the cattle breeds of this group are found mainly in the drier regions. Their body conformation resembles the zebu cattle of eastern Africa (Epstein, 1971; Payne and Wilson, 1999). The zebu did not appear in West Africa until about 1800 BP. The increasing aridity of the climate and the deterioration of the environment in the Sahel appear to have favoured the introduction and spread of the zebu, as they are superior to longhorn and shorthorn (Bos taurus) cattle in withstanding drought conditions. Another theory based on archaeological findings in the Sahara (Muzzolini, 2000) argues that there was a separate domestication of cervico-thoracic humped zebu cattle in the region and become the ancestors of the Fulani. However, a recent molecular genetic evidence (Hanotte et al., 2002) supported an earlier suggestion that the major process of Bos indicus influence centred in East Africa, and that its genetic introgression spread to the west of the continent. In any case, gradual interbreeding the earlier zebu populations with the prevailing Bos taurus type of cattle is believed to have resulted in the present-day local breeds that exhibit West African Shorthorn characteristics, e.g., the Shuwa. Similarly, the lyre-horned zebu breeds of the Fulani pastoralists, such as Red Bororo, appear to be the result of early upgrading of longhorn-type cattle by the introduced zebu cattle (Payne and Wilson, 1999). Overall, the Fulani differ from the typical zebu of western and eastern Africa by the presence of long horns and from the cerico-thoracic-humped Sanga by the presence of a thoracic and sometimes intermediate hump. The West African Zebu cattle consist of two main groups: the Gudali group (Adamawa, Sokoto) and the Fulani group. The Fulani have been classified further into two groups: the lyre-horned subgroup consisting of Senegalese Fulani (or the Gobra), the Sudanese Fulani, and the White Fulani (or Bunaji); and long-horned subgroup represented by the Red Fulani (or Rahaji). Diali (or Djeli) is a strain of Fulani found on the flood plains of Niger river in Niger and south-west Nigeria (Rege 1999; Rege and Tawah, 1999).
Breed Origin : The origins and classification of the Fulani remains controversial; one school of thought is of the opinion that the Fulani cattle are truly long-horned zebus that first arrived in Africa from Asia on the east coast; these are believed to have been introduced into West Africa by the Arab invaders during the seventh century, AD, roughly about the same time that the short-horned zebus arrived into East Africa. This theory is supported by the appearance of the skull as well as the thoracic hump of the Fulani cattle. Another school of thought contends that these cattle originated from the Horn of Africa, present-day Ethiopia and Somalia, and that interbreeding between the short-horned zebu (which arrived in the Horn around the first millennium BC) and the ancient Hamitic Longhorn and/or Brachyceros shorthorn (which had arrived much earlier) occurred in the Horn about 2000-1500 BC. The subsequent successive introductions of the short-horned zebu cattle are believed to have displaced most of these sanga cattle into southern Africa. During this period of constant movements of people and animals within Africa, some of these sanga cattle probably intermixed with the short-horned, thoracic-humped cattle to produce the so-called thoracic-humped sanga. The latter may have migrated, most probably along with the spread of Islam, westerly to constitute what are today the lyre-horned cattle of West and Central Africa, including the Fulani cattle. Originally the White Fulani were indigenous to north Nigeria, south-east Niger and north-east Cameroon, owned by both Fulani and Hausa people. They then spread to southern Chad and western Sudan.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: Oh boy. I don't mean to be flippant here. I assumed that smart people like yourselves would be able to put these issues together for yourselves.
^^Which is why he's been hard to have any kind of dialogue with because every time someone disputes his assertions, he begins to throw tantrums and respond with a bunch of off-topic rants and condescending replies. When someone is being clear and concise, as proper etiquette requires, one should need not figure anything out for themselves when the point and implication can easily be conveyed.
Horn Africans were the root of two important, cattle cultures. One of which is none other than that of the Proto-Egyptians- the second of which is that of the Proto-Indians.
It should be easy enough for you to provide a citation for this claim, no? Cattle was actually domesticated in the Sahara before it was in Ethiopia, where it apparently moved northward into Sudan and then Egypt. This is apparent given the sequence that it first appeared in the central Sahara, then Sudan, and then Egypt. Both Wilkinson and Wendorf found evidence of an existing cattle cult suggestive of a relationship with Egypt's old Kingdom cattle culture based on subtle continuity. No mention whatsoever of India though, which is your own far fetched theory, based absolutely on assertion alone.
quote:Austronesians and Pygmoids already present in both regions prior to the cattle cultures already had established trade and cultivation between their respective populations in Southern Western Asia and Africa- Pleistocene era trade routes. Because they already had a banana utilized primarily for fiber and had cultivated it towards that end before leaving the African continent, subsequent populations of Austronesians and Pygmoids that were to reach South Western Asia, recognized the wild banana plants growing in their new homelands.
What is a Pygmoid? Short Africans? Why is the 'oid' suffix necessary? Any relation to Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids?
quote:THey would quickly exploit the new wild bananas - this one was edible and grew much like their familair African species that was used only for fiber- stone age cultures need fiber and they also need food- fiber used to tie things together and food to feed oneselfe obviously-and through cultivation select breed the new wild bananas into fruit bearing cultivars that would be brought back to the continent of Africa and grown there-major food staples I might add not jsut sweet banans-. Cocurrently, the Jackal-Wolves (Canis simensis)that the Austronesians and Pygmnoids had domesticated during the Pleistocene. i.e., Basenji dogs were introduced to South Western Asia and New Guinea where they would become the progenitors of the Indian Pariah dog, the New Guinea Singing Dog and the Australian Dingo Dog. Trade between these Pleistocene populations of our human family would insure that the genetic affinity between curly tailed barkless dogs descended of Canis simensis would remain for all intensive purposes, contiguous. In other words, these dogs are one anothers closest relatives. Following the genetic trail of domesticated plants and animals helps us learn a great deal about human biodiversity and their routes of migration.
Plants and animals practically tell us nothing about human biodiversity. Please cite a correlation, while also verifying your unusual claim that people were domesticating plants and animals during the Pleistocene (before the Neolithic revolution).
quote:These Austronesian/Pygmoid cultures were dominated or assimilated by subsequent populations of Neolithic Horn Africans that migrated along similar trajectories and became the founders of a new population diaspora- one based on cattle.
I'm interested in why you keep making such claims from an authority perspective, without citing so much as one source, yet expect people to take this seriously. You also speaking of indigenous African pygmy (short person) cultures and Austric cultures as not being mutually exclusive, even given the long period of isolation from each other, strikes me as particularly odd. Certainly even Clyde Winters makes more sense.
quote:The point being once again for the rhinoceri amongst you- the history of ethnicity and culture of Saharan Africa precedes that which concerns the Eurocentric/Afrocentric.
Pretty redundant since this goes without saying. Point?
quote:The paper you have problems with on Cattle Domestication is nonetheless a peer reviewed paper which is largely on point and substantive. It could be argued and actually a number of you here have made it clear through your marginalization of said topics, (" its either domesticated or not period...") that your comprhension of animal and plant domestication is not your focus of interest. It is absolutely integral to the comprehension of said topic. MArginalizing it or selective reading of objective anaylsis of said topic to directionally bolster your refutation of my position- knowing full well the majority of readers on this forum are not going to actually bother to read the papers Ive posted links to- they will accept your refutation on grounds of your dedication to your own intractable position-regardless- marginalizing the significance of the history of animal and plant cultivation by ancient cultures- from the Pleistocene onwards is evidence in my book that you are a directional thinker. If it takes place in Asia it is not African and thus not in your field of interest. I brought up these points to help some of you recognize hwo flawed the mentality is- the mentality that is based on learning from books and coloured maps- that is based on the significance of history as it relates to the Old Testament- whatever the expert is most educated in becomes their imprint.
The problem here is that your cattle theories have already been refuted per direct citation by mystery solver and others, which makes your comments on selective reading very ironic. Not to mention you've not provided any peer reviewed papers, but rather a link to a website that doesn't even work. Not to mention that plants and animals alone can tell us very little about human biodiversity and this said diversity has already been addressed via direct assessment of human populations of the early Nile valley. You chose to ignore all of those citations in favor of some argument over bananas and wolfs.
quote:They will not accept evidence that points to anything that does not agree with their view point - In this case, the argument I am making could be perceived as Afrocentric. I'm making the case that Horn Africans and before them the progenitors of the Austronesian/Pygmoid/Negrito population- were responsible for the southern western Asian cultural wellsprings- but because you are of the opinion that I am biased against black Africa -some of you here read that to mean that I beleive that Asiatics are responsible for the accomplishments of African civilizations.
I can't speak for Mystery Solver, but your constant attacks of fellow site members is getting rather annoying and shows that you can't hold a decent discussion without copping out with some type of logical fallacy. The fact is that you ignore the refutation of your cattle theories, in tandem with the biological, linguistic, and cultural evidence already cited which adds up to a predominant theory. Your emphasis on plants and animals is but one line of evidence which has already been isolated and put under scrutiny. Even with that said, I've clearly shown you a paper suggesting that even with the aquisition of foreign plants and animals, this transaction did little to affect the biological make-up of the Nile valley populations in question as it simply signified trade. Maybe you should click here one more time, as it is extremely hard to ignore for the truly objective.
quote: But then the point of discussing bananas, dogs and cattle is to elucidate the different strata of time and space here- another point that appears to be lost.
A point meaning that if you aren't able to manipulate chronology and make your own loose, far fetched implications based on the inane, then you have no point obviously.
quote:If you really have decided to embrace Egyptian culture into your own, perhaps you had better begin to open your minds a bit?
Egyptian culture within its self is merely an extension of Saharan and Nile valley culture, more refined and elaborate, with a few pan-African elements. There is nothing to embrace since the culture by and large has been destroyed by time, conversion, language shift, and a predominance of another culture. People here merely embrace Egypt as an African civilization and admire its accomplishments but I'm sure that many don't actually entertain that they are the direct culture descendants of that civilization. Only as an African civilization with uniquely African cultural characteristics that other Africans can identify with.
quote:A more objective mindset might have brought up the similarities of food staples and plant cultivars that the Horn of Africa and Western Southern Asia share. They might have discussed the methods of breadmaking and the uses of specific medicinal herbs and spices that are Asian in origin but that came to be used in Eastern Africa. Are you familar with the moringa- the clove, cinnamon, turmeric, pepper, chrysanthenums- of course you are but perhaps you are taking for granted how important these materials were in ancient dynastic Egypt? How did they come to be in Egypt when they were produced in Southern Western Asia?
How did wheat and Barley end up in Egypt when it was initially cultivated in southwest Asia? In fact, how did Chinese merchandise end up in Great Zimbabwe during the Mid-ages? Does it mean that the Chinese built Great Zimbabwe or significantly contributed to the population there? Does it even mean that they came into contact? No. It simply means that there was an established network of trade. Please refer back to the abstract above (or click here again) that you keep ignoring..
quote:Again, the historical diffusion between Southern Western Asia and Eastern Africa predates any contact between Europe and North Africa. This constant trade between respective cultures is more significant than that which transpired between the Greeks or Romans and Egypt. Compare and contrast the length of time and the great antiquity of the connections in direct comparison.
Again, not withstanding these random assertions devoid of substantiation, but why no emphasis on biological relationships assessed through anatomical remains during these periods (of trade) in question, which can shed light on whether or not this hypothetical ancient system of trade affected biologically any of the populations involved?
quote: Keita outlined four ways in which one can formulate an answer to the question of whether Egypt was an African culture, through evidence from geography, language, archaeology and biology. Geographical evidence suggests that ‘Nilotic flora and fauna are well integrated into the culture of the early Egyptians; this suggests that the people were indigenous, or at least that the culture developed locally and was not an import’. Ancient Egyptian is universally accepted as part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, the origins of which are in the Horn of Africa. The archaeological record shows that ‘the sequence of cultures which clearly leads to dynastic Egypt is found in southern Egypt’ and that pre-dynastic Egypt ‘arose most directly from a Saharo-Nilotic base’. Besides rehearsing his earlier arguments about biological relations, Keita adds two important points. In further exploding the paradigm of racialised thinking, Keita declares it ‘conceptually wrong to say that “Africans” split from “Caucasians”, “Mongoloids”, “Australoids” etc. ad nauseam, as has sometimes been done, or even the reverse, because these terms carry certain stereotyped physical trait associations’. An understanding of this concept shows us clearly that ‘there is no evidence that the region was empty and primarily colonised by non-African outsiders, who had differentiated outside and then returned to Africa’ (emphasis in original). Keita’s summary position is that ‘It is not a question of “African” “influence”; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not “Afrocentric,” but simply correct’
quote:Each and every paper that I have posted a link to here are on the required reading lists of anthropology professors from Columbia and Harvard who I have known for decades as mentors and friends.
Ok, but firstly, the link concerning Cattle doesn't work. You've been informed of this several times. Secondly, if these anthropologists, etc, haven't expounded the same diffusionist theories as you have, then why are you citing them? Your theories are obviously not mainstream, as demonstrated by the refutations.
quote:No one pretends to know all.
Yes, you only pretend to know more.
quote:My position is that Africa is the womb from which all human kind progressed.
redundant. This is a FACT, not a point of contention unless you're arguing the multi-regional theory.
quote:The first and earliest branches that would migrate into the nursery of Southern Western Asia blazed trails for subsequent migrations of different ethnic/racial stock.
Please present evidence of any 'racial" divergence and the said migrations that went along with it.
quote:Civilization grew from the expansion of the human psyche and from exploitation of new learned skills including cultivation of novel species and from trade between isolated populations. This is a humanist view and one that places emphasis on humanity above racial definition.
Redundant, filler..
quote:Egypt was not a land of white and blacks.
Of course Egypt wasn't a predominantly multi-ethnic society at the expense of those native tropically adapted Africans who have been resident in the region for millenia.
quote:Egypt was a land of Nilotic peoples.
Who were blacks, completely indigenous and biologically affiliated with other African blacks, as opposed to European whites.
quote:Different phases in development within Egyptian history might be categorized by ecological challenges and by the presence and or absence of specific ethnic groups.
Umm, okay..
quote:Near Eastern/Western Asian civilization was another sibling of the Horn African diaspora.
Evidence please?
quote:Oversimplification of the history or culture of any peoples within the region is disrespectful and a digression from the topic.
True, which is why attributing southwest Asian civilizations to hypothetical, migrating Horn Africans, or Egypt to hypothetical migrating Indians is so absurd. The social complexity and differentiation that occurred in the Nile valley and east Africa over thousands of years should not and cannot be simplified by some cooky migration theory with no basis in the current scientific literature, but merely expounded by some assistant film maker who seems to be very sure of himself.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
In Egyptian mythology, Maahes (also spelled Mihos, Miysis, Maihes, and Mahes) was a lion-god. The first mentions of Maahes occur in the New Kingdom, and some European archeologists have purported that Maahes was of foreign origin; indeed there is some evidence that he may have been analogous with the lion-god Apedemak worshipped in Nubia and Egypt's Western Desert.
His name was the start of the hieroglyphs for the male lion, although in isolation it also means (one who can) see in front. However, the first glyph also is part of the glyph for Ma'at, meaning truth and order and so it came to be that Maahes was considered to be the devourer of the guilty and protector of the innocent. Maahes was rarely referred to by name and came to be referred to as "The Lord of the Massacre." This is unfortunate because it is misleading. The Lord of the Massacre terminology was adopted during the Persian and later Roman periods when foreign conquerors met with fierce resistance from Maahes chiefs and their supporters.
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: ..and as such purely African- northern eastern Africans- different from other northern eastern Africans that are equally African.
But why is it necessary to state the obvious? All African ethnic groups are distinct and equally African.
I find this very gullible, to embrace those that steal your heritage as African, while they play a different tune entirely. Reminds me of a white women I know who's white ancestors intermarried with what were left of the few thousand remaining native americans. She's 1/16th native american but looks like Nancy Reagan, while her husband is 100% anglo-saxon. She and her children receive native american reparations, but fills out "white american" on her job applications.
It will not at all surprise me when in year 2200, 80% of all Africa is populated by white arabs who call themselves, African. So gullible.
In fact, while we "claim" Halle Berry, I have never heard her claim being black. The closest she'll admit to is, bi-racial which leaves her options open. Now that she's made the choice of a daddy for her children, what will they be? Will we claim them also? To dismiss colorization at this point is akin to turning the other cheek as your attacker continues to do otherwise.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure you are aware that the Fulani have moved into Sudan, in the province of Darfur. I am Christian and do not share their religion or customs. We just share DNA.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am African American and the people of my ancestral state and the people who live where my relatives live in that state have also been studies and analyzed by DNA researchers. i know for a fact and without a doubt and was told by professional researchers that my ancestry lies with the people of the far western coast of Africa. The tribal names include Mande, Fulani, Wolof etc. The African Americans were descended from the Morrish tribes of West Africa and also Bantu Speakers from Angola and Congo. We are mixed with Songhay Nilo-Saharan speakers and AfroAsiatic Hausa and Tuaregs.
Which nation are you a part of then? your lineages have no intermarring with indigenous americans. What cultural traits do you possess ,being a southerner, would constitute africaness? have you you been accepted in any of the ethnic groups on the west coast and south west? Can your family traditions trace continental lineages or only american?
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: Oh boy. I don't mean to be flippant here. I assumed that smart people like yourselves would be able to put these issues together for yourselves.
Whom are you specifically referring to, and what "issues" are you talking about, that has a direction, and what direction is that?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
Horn Africans were the root of two important, cattle cultures. One of which is none other than that of the Proto-Egyptians- the second of which is that of the Proto-Indians.
Are you suggesting that cattle domestication originates in the African Horn?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
Austronesians and Pygmoids already present in both regions prior to the cattle cultures already had established trade and cultivation between their respective populations in Southern Western Asia and Africa- Pleistocene era trade routes.
What documentation attests to *Pleistocene* trade between Africans and Southwestern Asians?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
Because they already had a banana utilized primarily for fiber and had cultivated it towards that end before leaving the African continent, subsequent populations of Austronesians and Pygmoids that were to reach South Western Asia, recognized the wild banana plants growing in their new homelands. THey would quickly exploit the new wild bananas - this one was edible and grew much like their familair African species that was used only for fiber- stone age cultures need fiber and they also need food- fiber used to tie things together and food to feed oneselfe obviously-and through cultivation select breed the new wild bananas into fruit bearing cultivars that would be brought back to the continent of Africa and grown there-major food staples I might add not jsut sweet banans-.
Relevance, with regards to your introduction of concepts like "Black Rock", "Oryx" and "Red Rock People, as well as "no black pharaoh in AE"?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
that the Austronesians and Pygmnoids had domesticated during the Pleistocene. i.e., Basenji dogs were introduced to South Western Asia and New Guinea where they would become the progenitors of the Indian Pariah dog, the New Guinea Singing Dog and the Australian Dingo Dog. Trade between these Pleistocene populations of our human family would insure that the genetic affinity between curly tailed barkless dogs descended of Canis simensis would remain for all intensive purposes, contiguous. In other words, these dogs are one anothers closest relatives. Following the genetic trail of domesticated plants and animals helps us learn a great deal about human biodiversity and their routes of migration.
How does domesticated fauna and flora help us learn about human biodiversity? And again, what point does this lend in your concepts noted above?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
These Austronesian/Pygmoid cultures were dominated or assimilated by subsequent populations of Neolithic Horn Africans that migrated along similar trajectories and became the founders of a new population diaspora- one based on cattle.
What genetic indicators point to this, with regards to the "Austronesian/Pygmoids" and "Neolithic Horn Africans"?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
The point being once again for the rhinoceri amongst you- the history of ethnicity and culture of Saharan Africa precedes that which concerns the Eurocentric/Afrocentric.
???
What specifically is "that" which concerns the Eurocentric/Afrocentric, and why is it relevant here?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
The paper you have problems with on Cattle Domestication is nonetheless a peer reviewed paper which is largely on point and substantive.
There is no problem [on my end] to speak of; your post had been *falsified* by up-to-date scientific studies - plain and simple. Your posts have been falsified with regards to African cattle domestication. Your contempt for truth, is a pristine example of dogma - latching onto subjective ideology in disregard for truth or objectivity.
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
It could be argued and actually a number of you here have made it clear through your marginalization of said topics, (" its either domesticated or not period...") that your comprhension of animal and plant domestication is not your focus of interest. It is absolutely integral to the comprehension of said topic.
This is a misguided statement. The onus is on you to establish the relevancy of every issue you introduce. You have yet to formulate a coherent case of how "bananas", "dogs" and "cattle" fit into your concepts of "Black Rock", "Red Rock" and "oryx" peoples, as well as "no black pharaohs in Ancient Egypt" and why certain people cannot be viewed as black unless they *literally* seem like it. If you can't put your case together, how do you expect anyone else to know any better?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
MArginalizing it or selective reading of objective anaylsis of said topic to directionally bolster your refutation of my position- knowing full well the majority of readers on this forum are not going to actually bother to read the papers Ive posted links to- they will accept your refutation on grounds of your dedication to your own intractable position-regardless- marginalizing the significance of the history of animal and plant cultivation by ancient cultures- from the Pleistocene onwards is evidence in my book that you are a directional thinker.
What specifically has been marginalized by myself?...and how is this material- that is supposedly "marginalized" - relevant to those concepts of yours, noted time and again above?
quote: Originally posted by Maahes:
If it takes place in Asia it is not African and thus not in your field of interest.
Relevancy?! What takes place in Asia has what relevancy to either the opening topic of this thread OR your concepts described above? Goes without saying: If not relevant, why should it be of anyone's interest?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
I brought up these points to help some of you recognize hwo flawed the mentality is- the mentality that is based on learning from books and coloured maps- that is based on the significance of history as it relates to the Old Testament- whatever the expert is most educated in becomes their imprint.
I must say, I've been quite patient with you. I refute your post on one issue or the other and I question you with others, only to have you come back with nothing substantial but ad homina. If I were to return this attitude, you'd be complaining again about how your person is being attacked, instead of what's being said. How about practicing what you preach, and come up with answers on questions being asked?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
They will not accept evidence that points to anything that does not agree with their view point - In this case, the argument I am making could be perceived as Afrocentric. I'm making the case that Horn Africans and before them the progenitors of the Austronesian/Pygmoid/Negrito population- were responsible for the southern western Asian cultural wellsprings- but because you are of the opinion that I am biased against black Africa -some of you here read that to mean that I beleive that Asiatics are responsible for the accomplishments of African civilizations.
Smokescreen. Plain and simple - you're being asked to validate your claims, and clarify the point that you're trying to make, if there's any. There is no indication at this point, that you have an actual point to make, other than taking issue with the appellative of "black".
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
But then the point of discussing bananas, dogs and cattle is to elucidate the different strata of time and space here- another point that appears to be lost.
Relevancy to your aforementioned concepts above!
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
What is my position?
Good question, and one many of us have been asking you for some time now, while you've busy spewing out ad homina and other futile distracters. What was the point of the concepts you brought forth, along with that of select domesticated fauna and flora you brought up?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
Each and every paper that I have posted a link to here are on the required reading lists of anthropology professors from Columbia and Harvard who I have known for decades as mentors and friends. No one pretends to know all. It is important however to have an open mind and one that can recognize that bias blinds one to evidence that refutes popular theory.
What evidence have you provided, that refutes what, and that warrants the open mind of the audience?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
My position is that Africa is the womb from which all human kind progressed. The first and earliest branches that would migrate into the nursery of Southern Western Asia blazed trails for subsequent migrations of different ethnic/racial stock.
Working from a questionable premise: How do you define human "races"?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
Civilization grew from the expansion of the human psyche and from exploitation of new learned skills including cultivation of novel species and from trade between isolated populations. This is a humanist view and one that places emphasis on humanity above racial definition.
Relevancy? I mean, who are you responding to here, that advocates "human races" to begin with?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
Egypt was not a land of white and blacks. Egypt was a land of Nilotic peoples. Different phases in development within Egyptian history might be categorized by ecological challenges and by the presence and or absence of specific ethnic groups.
Are Nilotic peoples not "blacks"? If not, why not? How do you define "Nilotic peoples", and what ethnicities constitute this? You've dodged this question the last time I asked; perhaps, this won't be another missed opportunity for you to clarify yourself, and redeem yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
Oversimplification of the history or culture of any peoples within the region is disrespectful and a digression from the topic.
Who's guilty of that, and according to what specific post(s)?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: I'm sorry to say that negotiation meetings are going on and todays posts are hurried and I am distracted. I want to really cover these topics thoroughly and objectively with careful attention to detail. But every ten minutes someone interrupts me and I have to go into another mindset.
We are not Beja. The Beja are descendants of our tribal clan we are cousins. The Beja are members of our tribal clan. It is an oversimplification to say that we are one and the same people because the Beja do not follow matrilinear progression of water and land rights.
Medjay were a caste of warriors. Ma'ahes were a caste of guards/stewards of the Oracle. Both have descendants. Each lineage is effected by the presence or absence of hereditary property laws of specific tribes. We are related and share ancestry and or history.
Our origins are in the Western Desert others origins are along the Nile valley near present day Aswan or furhter upriver to the south-
Those of us with hereditary land ownership in the Western Desert have different mothers than our cousins the Beja. Hadendoa is a modern term that helps define a group of peoples including ours. It is not entirely helpful or accurate. Our history is mostly oral but anthropologists, lingual archeologists and Egyptologists including Goneim have been helfpul. I must make it clear that the film story has nothing whatsoever to do with my family or peoples. We make no claims of relationship to any 18th dynasty rulers.
If you are interested in clan mother designations please research sepats ( nomes) and search for the sepat of the oryx- the sepat of the hare - the sepat of the southern scepter etc. These are ancient markers of hereditary land owners whose tribal affiliations are integral to comprhending the socio-policial issues of ancient Egypt- have to go bell is rigning
Very fascinating stuff. I will try to look into these things, but I too am very busy with work and school!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DougM wrote:"And just remember, it is only a movie. I do admire the research going into this, but no historical movie has ever been 100% accurate in terms of every detail, because going back 3500 years we don't always have every detail. So it isn't that I am against you or what you are trying to do from any perspective. In fact you can find similar such disagreements about historical movies like Alexander and so on.
But given that this is a historical fiction, I don't understand the need for such rigorous research."
When I was approached to write the project I wanted to make damned certain that, it would be appreciated by the entire present day community. This is much more than a vehicle for criminally underutilized talent in Hollywood. As I may have mentioned before, I believe that a solution to the omission of substantive work for peoples of colour and for actresses above a certain age, is to write work specifically for them. Force the film industry to appreciate what natural resources/great talents they are underutilizing. History is a wellspring after all. A sweeping epic with an ensemble cast, centered on actual historical figures presenting snapshots in the evolution of civilization that may well move a generation to think differently. Subsequent generations after this film franchise might ostensibly realize that there is intrinsic value in the human story seen from as many perspectives as humanly possible-rather than the current status quo of ‘blonde sells best’ mentality in production and marketing. Another regrettable trend is the ‘Urban theme is a sure bet’ mentality. Viewers are not often challenged to think –just sit back and be entertained. The film Crash changed that template. It broke all the rules and maintained its integrity throughout. I think that Letters from Iwajima and Flags of Our Fathers also pushed the envelope. 300 may have pushed a production value into the stratosphere but did so at the expense of historical fiction. That film was breathtaking to behold but did seem like a right wing conspiracy to wage psychological war against the Iranians. The beautiful truth of history is denied all those adolescent and teenaged boys the picture was marketed to. I left the theatre feeling like I wanted to join the Special Commando Forces or maybe the Ku Klux Klan. It was a mind phuque.
So- getting to your question: I brought on board highly respected, and much published authorities on 18th dynasty Egyptian, anthropology, ethnozoology, history and art to both help guide the trajectory of the story – in order that it meet the critical discernment of the scientific community- and also to help educate me – the author. It’s really integral to a project like this to be as assertive confident in the decisions one must make throughout the long process of writing and rewriting certain plot elements and so on. For example, the first treatment ended up being split into two films and then there was the nebulous beginnings and endings of both – as the two stories are more or less contiguous- and seen from opposing perspectives. There is an objective here that is slightly outside the box of entertainment. This is a hybrid film in that it is an epic, it is historical fiction- it is also a psychological thriller and a murder mystery. There are no supernatural stunts or visitations from deities. I am attempting to get at the phenomenon of the religious extremism and attempting to present it as a story with an indelible human heart. I am linking together, in this historical fiction, the birth of religious extremism and the usurpation of divine birthright of women as intermediaries between creation and humanity, e.g. between god and man. In my other reality where I wear different hats and participate in conflict resolution as it relates to sustainable development initiatives, I often hear the voice of some inner cognition – one that is doubtlessly shared by all- that begs the question- how did that person or group come to be experts on God’s Will? And how could these self-styled experts come to perceive women in such a diminished capacity?
To write about the human story of this century focusing on the same topics and issues is to politicize that which is too raw- too fragile to be taken to task. The dialogue would become politicized and directionalists (sic) Of one mind set or another would take to reacting to the film without ever seeing it or examining the intrinsic truth of these stories in the development of human understanding. A great deal of people would be robbed from the opportunity to experience the film(s). So instead we go back in time and delve into neglected chapters utilizing enormous talents whose real depth as performers and actors has only barely been experienced by film audiences.
The descendants of the Mittanians should be moved by the story- the descendants of the Kush and the Yam- they should be moved- moved to change or at least be inspired to open their hearts to progress-to forge a lasting peace in honour of our great collective past. The Americans and other colonial powers should be inspired to acknowledge that preparing for peace is not a declaration of war.
It is my greatest hope that this story-the legend of Nefertiti will serve as a reaffirmation to the region(s) about the miraculous birthright of women- irregardless of artificial designations of class, caste, race or religion. Women had much more say in the days of our ancestors. Authors argue about the significance or relevance of matrilinear accession of throne in ancient Egypt- pointing out that this was hardly a rule. Researchers like Brugsch and Goneim traced whole lineages of ruling families through the subtle iconography of specific women- not just the ruling elite mind you but also the female descendants of sepat nomarchs and religious priests. Some of their contemporaries tended to subliminally marginalize the significance of the presence of positions held only by literate females. Regardless, Women held enormous influence over the Great House more so in some periods than other naturally-. From one perspective women were literally the king makers and the throne was most certainly the chief wife- the personification of the Egyptian empire- the embodiment of Astet/Isis. I chose to approach this subject through the perspectives of women and rather than perpetuate more of vapid banality of over ornamentation of previous efforts- I chose to give the women very strong Nilotic, Cushitic, Mittanian Ta-Seti or Western Desert Indigene identities. Each woman in the king’s harem has some undeniable entitlement and each woman believes that her son or daughter for that matter is the rightful inheritor of throne.
I needed permission from the academic community to bring these noble ladies from the shadows and into the forefront. We desire to do so convincingly – with the degree of accuracy that the most educated in the viewing audience will appreciate rather than the boorish affectations and parasitism of Egyptian culture presented by Hollywood blockbusters like Cleopatra, Stargate, The Mummy and the Prince of Egypt. Perhaps these are very romantic idealistic notions but then I am admittedly firmly immersed in a different time- when powerful women of noble birth like Gilukhepha of Mittani, Tiye of the Nilotic Sepat of the Scepter, Sitamun heiress of the Ta-Seti, Mutnodjemet, heiress of the Sepat of Mut, Sobek Ka Re, heiress of the House of Sobek in Itjay and Nefertiti heiress and hereditary princess of both lands- They had enormous influence over the governmental body that is the Per Aa A.K.A. Pharaoh{the Great House. This project provides the viewing audience with the opportunity to duck into these hallowed chambers and witness one of the more memorable and one might argue, regrettable periods of Egyptian history.
This story takes place at a moment in time when the birthright of women rulers were subject to usurpation by a new race of humankind- the demigogues of Amen- patriarchs that would introduce fear of the unknown into the psyche of the denizens of the Egyptian empire... Demagogues that introduce fear while usurping the divine status of mothers...marginalizing the birthright of womankind- while using soldiers and mercenaries as blood sacrifice to their god of war...
As you can see, race is only an issue as it relates to those that would destroy life in search of god in the name of god-they are the race of the unconscionable the soulless. Because of their deep-seated enmity for womankind, because they are envious of the vehicle that is the miracle of life- because women are the actual intermediaries between god and new life within the womb- they are unconscious- and without women, they have no future. They must destroy life before light consumes their insatiable lust for nothingness.
Nefertiti represents in this story- this fiction epic- the unalienable rights of womankind sovereign over the land of the gods. Moreover, in this fiction Queen Tiye, Sitamun and Nefertiti form a triad of sorts- a matriarchate from which they will attempt to wrest the ill-begotten powers of the Amen cult architects- and the Sobek warlords- from positions where their corrupted self-interests endanger humanity and the soul of the Egyptian civilization. They are in disagreement about the nature of God and who possesses the gift of divinity at birth…
Like any epic movie, the hero has a foil. In this instance the foil will prove to be the male gender. Horemheb is Nefertiti's foil for he cannot control his inner rage at being a slave of the royal family- their distortions of truth- they have robbed him of the one thing he loves - Nefertiti and because he is the descendants of slaves he is not in line to marry the heiress. Tiye's foil is Akhenaten who is detached and disinterested in the court politic and Nefertiti- at first- and later in the second film, the Prophets of Amen, Akhenaten and Nefertiti become closest of allies and Nefertiti refuses to be subjugated by Tiye's influence upon her husband-
-------------------- The seed cannot sprout upwards without simultaneously sending roots into the ground. Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Maahes: ..Those of us with hereditary land ownership in the Western Desert have different mothers than our cousins the Beja. Hadendoa is a modern term that helps define a group of peoples including ours. It is not entirely helpful or accurate. Our history is mostly oral but anthropologists, lingual archeologists and Egyptologists including Goneim have been helfpul. I must make it clear that the film story has nothing whatsoever to do with my family or peoples. We make no claims of relationship to any 18th dynasty rulers.
If you are interested in clan mother designations please research sepats ( nomes) and search for the sepat of the oryx- the sepat of the hare - the sepat of the southern scepter etc. These are ancient markers of hereditary land owners whose tribal affiliations are integral to comprhending the socio-policial issues of ancient Egypt- have to go bell is rigning
Because I am currently busy with school (including research for 2 projects) I really don't have time to do research as extensive as I would like into sepats. But I just remembered a thread discussion we had on the topic from Ausar's Nile Valley forum where a poster linked to a webpage from touregypt on the matter.
Though I haven't found anything yet on women's hereditary land ownership in regards to these sepats. I will say that I have heard of the theory before, particularly from Africanist scholars like Cheik Anta Diop.
Such a system may well be the basis for the 'royal heiress' theory in regards to a pharoah's legitmacy and inheritance of the throne through marriage with a royal woman.
Speaking of which.
quote:When I was approached to write the project I wanted to make damned certain that, it would be appreciated by the entire present day community. This is much more than a vehicle for criminally underutilized talent in Hollywood. As I may have mentioned before, I believe that a solution to the omission of substantive work for peoples of colour and for actresses above a certain age, is to write work specifically for them. Force the film industry to appreciate what natural resources/great talents they are underutilizing. History is a wellspring after all. A sweeping epic with an ensemble cast, centered on actual historical figures presenting snapshots in the evolution of civilization that may well move a generation to think differently. Subsequent generations after this film franchise might ostensibly realize that there is intrinsic value in the human story seen from as many perspectives as humanly possible-rather than the current status quo of ‘blonde sells best’ mentality in production and marketing. Another regrettable trend is the ‘Urban theme is a sure bet’ mentality. Viewers are not often challenged to think –just sit back and be entertained. The film Crash changed that template. It broke all the rules and maintained its integrity throughout. I think that Letters from Iwajima and Flags of Our Fathers also pushed the envelope. 300 may have pushed a production value into the stratosphere but did so at the expense of historical fiction. That film was breathtaking to behold but did seem like a right wing conspiracy to wage psychological war against the Iranians. The beautiful truth of history is denied all those adolescent and teenaged boys the picture was marketed to. I left the theatre feeling like I wanted to join the Special Commando Forces or maybe the Ku Klux Klan. It was a mind phuque.
So- getting to your question: I brought on board highly respected, and much published authorities on 18th dynasty Egyptian, anthropology, ethnozoology, history and art to both help guide the trajectory of the story – in order that it meet the critical discernment of the scientific community- and also to help educate me – the author. It’s really integral to a project like this to be as assertive confident in the decisions one must make throughout the long process of writing and rewriting certain plot elements and so on. For example, the first treatment ended up being split into two films and then there was the nebulous beginnings and endings of both – as the two stories are more or less contiguous- and seen from opposing perspectives. There is an objective here that is slightly outside the box of entertainment. This is a hybrid film in that it is an epic, it is historical fiction- it is also a psychological thriller and a murder mystery. There are no supernatural stunts or visitations from deities. I am attempting to get at the phenomenon of the religious extremism and attempting to present it as a story with an indelible human heart. I am linking together, in this historical fiction, the birth of religious extremism and the usurpation of divine birthright of women as intermediaries between creation and humanity, e.g. between god and man. In my other reality where I wear different hats and participate in conflict resolution as it relates to sustainable development initiatives, I often hear the voice of some inner cognition – one that is doubtlessly shared by all- that begs the question- how did that person or group come to be experts on God’s Will? And how could these self-styled experts come to perceive women in such a diminished capacity?
To write about the human story of this century focusing on the same topics and issues is to politicize that which is too raw- too fragile to be taken to task. The dialogue would become politicized and directionalists (sic) Of one mind set or another would take to reacting to the film without ever seeing it or examining the intrinsic truth of these stories in the development of human understanding. A great deal of people would be robbed from the opportunity to experience the film(s). So instead we go back in time and delve into neglected chapters utilizing enormous talents whose real depth as performers and actors has only barely been experienced by film audiences.
The descendants of the Mittanians should be moved by the story- the descendants of the Kush and the Yam- they should be moved- moved to change or at least be inspired to open their hearts to progress-to forge a lasting peace in honour of our great collective past. The Americans and other colonial powers should be inspired to acknowledge that preparing for peace is not a declaration of war.
It is my greatest hope that this story-the legend of Nefertiti will serve as a reaffirmation to the region(s) about the miraculous birthright of women- irregardless of artificial designations of class, caste, race or religion. Women had much more say in the days of our ancestors. Authors argue about the significance or relevance of matrilinear accession of throne in ancient Egypt- pointing out that this was hardly a rule. Researchers like Brugsch and Goneim traced whole lineages of ruling families through the subtle iconography of specific women- not just the ruling elite mind you but also the female descendants of sepat nomarchs and religious priests. Some of their contemporaries tended to subliminally marginalize the significance of the presence of positions held only by literate females. Regardless, Women held enormous influence over the Great House more so in some periods than other naturally-. From one perspective women were literally the king makers and the throne was most certainly the chief wife- the personification of the Egyptian empire- the embodiment of Astet/Isis. I chose to approach this subject through the perspectives of women and rather than perpetuate more of vapid banality of over ornamentation of previous efforts- I chose to give the women very strong Nilotic, Cushitic, Mittanian Ta-Seti or Western Desert Indigene identities. Each woman in the king’s harem has some undeniable entitlement and each woman believes that her son or daughter for that matter is the rightful inheritor of throne.
I needed permission from the academic community to bring these noble ladies from the shadows and into the forefront. We desire to do so convincingly – with the degree of accuracy that the most educated in the viewing audience will appreciate rather than the boorish affectations and parasitism of Egyptian culture presented by Hollywood blockbusters like Cleopatra, Stargate, The Mummy and the Prince of Egypt. Perhaps these are very romantic idealistic notions but then I am admittedly firmly immersed in a different time- when powerful women of noble birth like Gilukhepha of Mittani, Tiye of the Nilotic Sepat of the Scepter, Sitamun heiress of the Ta-Seti, Mutnodjemet, heiress of the Sepat of Mut, Sobek Ka Re, heiress of the House of Sobek in Itjay and Nefertiti heiress and hereditary princess of both lands- They had enormous influence over the governmental body that is the Per Aa A.K.A. Pharaoh{the Great House. This project provides the viewing audience with the opportunity to duck into these hallowed chambers and witness one of the more memorable and one might argue, regrettable periods of Egyptian history.
This story takes place at a moment in time when the birthright of women rulers were subject to usurpation by a new race of humankind- the demigogues of Amen- patriarchs that would introduce fear of the unknown into the psyche of the denizens of the Egyptian empire... Demagogues that introduce fear while usurping the divine status of mothers...marginalizing the birthright of womankind- while using soldiers and mercenaries as blood sacrifice to their god of war...
As you can see, race is only an issue as it relates to those that would destroy life in search of god in the name of god-they are the race of the unconscionable the soulless. Because of their deep-seated enmity for womankind, because they are envious of the vehicle that is the miracle of life- because women are the actual intermediaries between god and new life within the womb- they are unconscious- and without women, they have no future. They must destroy life before light consumes their insatiable lust for nothingness.
Nefertiti represents in this story- this fiction epic- the unalienable rights of womankind sovereign over the land of the gods. Moreover, in this fiction Queen Tiye, Sitamun and Nefertiti form a triad of sorts- a matriarchate from which they will attempt to wrest the ill-begotten powers of the Amen cult architects- and the Sobek warlords- from positions where their corrupted self-interests endanger humanity and the soul of the Egyptian civilization. They are in disagreement about the nature of God and who possesses the gift of divinity at birth…
Like any epic movie, the hero has a foil. In this instance the foil will prove to be the male gender. Horemheb is Nefertiti's foil for he cannot control his inner rage at being a slave of the royal family- their distortions of truth- they have robbed him of the one thing he loves - Nefertiti and because he is the descendants of slaves he is not in line to marry the heiress. Tiye's foil is Akhenaten who is detached and disinterested in the court politic and Nefertiti- at first- and later in the second film, the Prophets of Amen, Akhenaten and Nefertiti become closest of allies and Nefertiti refuses to be subjugated by Tiye's influence upon her husband-
It seems alot of thought went into the production of this work, as I feel it should. I especially love how you make the theme of this movie relevant to our modern times like with the religous extremism and associated sexism that goes on in alot of societies today. I must say I am impressed, and I cannot wait for it to hit theaters!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Relevance, with regards to your introduction of concepts like "Black Rock", "Oryx" and "Red Rock People, as well as "no black pharaoh in AE"?
The ancient creation myths of Egypt have origins that predate Egyptian civilization as Djehuti has mentioned a few posts above. I'll be covering the Oryx Totem in a subsequent posting.
Nomadic Peoples of the Black Rock were simply not interested in political machinations of the Egyptians. This doesn't mean there weren't any dark skinned African hereditary chiefs mind you- just no Fur, or Nyala kings in Egypt. The term Pharaoh is a misnomer and is used incorrectly in most instances. The Governmental Body is the Per Aa. There may have been any number of individuals, be they viziers, hereditary princes, royal wives, priestesses or administrators whose ethnic origins would have been referred to as stemming from the black rock- and let me make this point clear. For those of you that have actually visited the Nile valley- one can observe that each of these colours is present along the Nile- some regions have more of one or three of the clays or more silt and less bedrock- but the idea that Khnum made man from clay is a just a myth. It does however provide evidence that ancient Egyptians considered themselves in all ways equal with other human beings and that each and every one of the different peoples of Khnum's generation were known from predynastic times onwards.
[/QUOTE]How does domesticated fauna and flora help us learn about human biodiversity? And again, what point does this lend in your concepts noted above?
quote:
Animals and plants are not domesticated over night. They require millions of generations. Each generation of human kind is thus a steward of that technology for lack of a better term. When human beings carry one animal or plant to another continent with them it generally helps if those animals or plants are at least semi-domesticated. Agriculture is one of the hallmarks of civilization. The Austronesians of New Guinea carried with them the curly tailed barkless dogs of their most ancient ancestors in Pleistocene Africa. They also carried with them fiber bearing banana plants which they hybridized with wild Asiatic bananas. The genetic distances between different dogs and bananas unearthed by archeologists from dogs and banans from say Malaysia or Indonesia, help elucidate the chronology of human migration and naturally human biodiversity. .
What genetic indicators point to this, with regards to the "Austronesian/Pygmoids" and "Neolithic Horn Africans"?
quote:
Please revisit the genetic origins of Austronesians as they relate to their dispersal into Southern Western Asia and Oceania. This would be part one -Pleistocene
"What specifically is "that" which concerns the Eurocentric/Afrocentric, and why is it relevant here?" That which concerns the Eurocentric/Afrocentric is the notion of superiority and or ingrained inferiority of one peoples or another. Everyone wants to claim Egypt as if they were the material of the great nothingness from which the great mound arose. The reductionists discount our ancient creation myths as nonsense. They discount every single culture's creation myths as nonsense and they replace it with more factual versions based upon science. It should be acknowldged that directional and social evolutionists of the Victorian era put a great deal of energy into rewriting our creation myths so that our history as Egyptians quantified the self-identity of the Anglo-Christian colonialists. Negroes couldn't have built the Egyptian civilization so we were classified as Caucasoids. It didn't matter that no one asked an Egyptian what she or he was! The superior intellect of the Western European defined us because we were too primitive to do so for ourselves. As an ecosystematist at heart I like to revisit the stages in ecological stasis or flux that distinguish our corner of Africa. I know that all life forms are obliged to adapt to ecological challenge and that this is the basis of evolution and differentation between populations. Horn Africans migrated out of Africa into the Near East - along the coasts of Yemen/Oman and into India. They made this migration not once but countless times. The question is, how often did those Horn Africans migrate back? The Centrics tend to in my opinion, marginalize the great antiquity and length of the cultural exchange along these routes because it excludes the contributions of the ancestors of the Victorian reductionists who started this lame worldview to begin with.
"There is no problem [on my end] to speak of; your post had been *falsified* by up-to-date scientific studies - plain and simple. Your posts have been falsified with regards to African cattle domestication. Your contempt for truth, is a pristine example of dogma - latching onto subjective ideology in disregard for truth or objectivity."
Really? I beg to differ. Cattle were domesticated in Africa and brought to Southwestern Asia e.g. India by Horn Africans. This is evidence that cultural exchange between the Horn of Africa and the Indian Subcontinent were integral to the development of the respective cultures. There is no evidence of anything contrary to that fact. I'm afraid that you are barking at the wrong cow in this instance.
"This is a misguided statement. The onus is on you to establish the relevancy of every issue you introduce. You have yet to formulate a coherent case of how "bananas", "dogs" and "cattle" fit into your concepts of "Black Rock", "Red Rock" and "oryx" peoples, as well as "no black pharaohs in Ancient Egypt" and why certain people cannot be viewed as black unless they *literally* seem like it. If you can't put your case together, how do you expect anyone else to know any better?"
I don't know that it is up to me to make what seems like common sense in my mind coherent to someone that reads everything I write as incoherent. You keep belittling the Khnum myth of human creation and refuse to acknowledge that some people in Northern Eastern Africa own the term BLACK. This is your issue. It does not belong to me. "What specifically has been marginalized by myself?...and how is this material- that is supposedly "marginalized" - relevant to those concepts of yours, noted time and again above?"
Except in this narrow instant, I rarely write to one author here. I'm writing to a number of writers/thinkers simultaneously. I do think that modern Westerners tend to subliminally marginalize agriculture - domestic animals- livestock - plant cultivars- in their discourse. Perhaps I should have just written that Egyptians, Eritreans and Western Indians smell like cumin? Maybe I should have made fun of their sesame addictions? I could really bag every detractor and say How Could You fail to notice the birth of the Lotus? But then you would'nt know what I was on about because you probably don't think about water lilies very much. I don't know what to tell you. Designate some blame at the Tigrinya or the Sumerians. If they had just kept to themselves we wouldn't be in this mess.
"Smokescreen. Plain and simple - you're being asked to validate your claims, and clarify the point that you're trying to make, if there's any. There is no indication at this point, that you have an actual point to make, other than taking issue with the appellative of "black"." You got me there. I have no point. I'm a pointless penci.
"Working from a questionable premise: How do you define human "races"?"
The contributors and the consumers.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Maahes:
Civilization grew from the expansion of the human psyche and from exploitation of new learned skills including cultivation of novel species and from trade between isolated populations. This is a humanist view and one that places emphasis on humanity above racial definition.
Relevancy? I mean, who are you responding to here, that advocates "human races" to begin with?
I don't think I'm the only one reading the missives about the black "race"?
quote:Originally posted by Maahes:
Egypt was not a land of white and blacks. Egypt was a land of Nilotic peoples. Different phases in development within Egyptian history might be categorized by ecological challenges and by the presence and or absence of specific ethnic groups.
Are Nilotic peoples not "blacks"? If not, why not? How do you define "Nilotic peoples", and what ethnicities constitute this? You've dodged this question the last time I asked; perhaps, this won't be another missed opportunity for you to clarify yourself, and redeem yourself."
Nilotic peoples :
"The Nilotic language family is a member of the larger Nilo-Saharan phylum. The Nilo-Saharan phylum is one of at least four major language phyla found on the African continent. The relationship between Nilo-Saharan and Nilotic might be roughly comparable to the relationship between Indo-European and West Germanic (the latter being comprised of English, Frisian, Flemish, Dutch and Afrikaans).
Presently, there are two competing theories about the internal structure of the Nilo-Saharan language family (Ehret 2001, Bender 1997), but both place the Nilotic family within the Eastern Sudanic branch of Nilo-Saharan."
That's alot of diversity to paint with one brush.
The problem with only defining the Nilo-Saharan peoples as a language group is that it excludes the Dahlik and Gurage- all the Ethiopian and Horn language speaking ethnics who also belong in the purest sense as Nilotics- When I think of Ancient Egypt I think as much of Ethiopia as I do Libya or Sudan.
I don't refer to Koreans or Japanese as a colour and I don't refer to Swedes or Irish as a colour. Why should I refer to Africans in such demeaning terms? What is it about being an African enables this entitlement that outsiders suffer? Why must you define me? Why must you define us? Why must racialist definitions exist at all? The peoples of the Black Rock are the true blacks. They own the term. Everyone else should just be happy that they have permanent tans if they have them that is. We can't all be as beautiful as the Black Rock. Khnum made them better than the rest of us. I've gotten over it. Maybe you should too? I'm stuck being whatever my ancestors called themselves. In America i can be Black but i know its like speaking two languages. It can mean one thing in one language and something entirely different in another. I could never be Black in the definition of the peoples who share the same ancestral wadis and sebkhets and have forever. They don't hate me for it. They have their own incredible history and culture. I can't claim it for my own. No one in my genetic history can claim to have walked back and forth between Chad and Libya since the Holocene. The Peoples of the Black Rock can trace their ancestors footsteps for millenia.
Its an issue of geography. It is an oversimplification for me to define any of the East Africans in your American terminology. If you want to perceive them as Black so be it. No one is trying to stop you. I'm just inviting you to try and think more about what they eat and what sort of things they create with their hands rather than what they look like.
Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Red,White, and Blue + Christian: Wikipedia has an article for Maahes,
In Egyptian mythology, Maahes (also spelled Mihos, Miysis, Maihes, and Mahes) was a lion-god. The first mentions of Maahes occur in the New Kingdom, and some European archeologists have purported that Maahes was of foreign origin; indeed there is some evidence that he may have been analogous with the lion-god Apedemak worshipped in Nubia and Egypt's Western Desert.
His name was the start of the hieroglyphs for the male lion, although in isolation it also means (one who can) see in front. However, the first glyph also is part of the glyph for Ma'at, meaning truth and order and so it came to be that Maahes was considered to be the devourer of the guilty and protector of the innocent. Maahes was rarely referred to by name and came to be referred to as "The Lord of the Massacre." This is unfortunate because it is misleading. The Lord of the Massacre terminology was adopted during the Persian and later Roman periods when foreign conquerors met with fierce resistance from Maahes chiefs and their supporters.
Ma'ahes has come to mean hereditary chief. Its origins are so old I don't know that it's all that important to differentiate between Nil-Saharan and Tamazight.
It was originally described to me by my grandmother as a term that means 'he who is true beside her'. This is because the ma'ahes were the guardians of holy places that belonged to clan mothers. There would be ma'ahes caste guardians or stewards in the Western Desert of Egypt but also in Eritrea and Sudan. The Kel Tamasheq are descendants of Taharqa and his forces-Taharqa was ma'ahes and his families origin was in Khargha though they lived along time in Sudan like English people living in America for a few centuries.
The Hadendoa are descendants of ma'ahes too but they are of the Nile Valley not the Western Desert. Cousins- kel Tamaseq, and Hadendoa all descended of the sepat of the cave lion.
Its interesting here that they say that ma'ahes is of foreign origin suggesting that Sudan is somehow separate from Egypt and Ethiopia.
Coptics say Mihos
Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But how you choose to define what african is and what an african looks like is completely up to you. just know that there people ,wheather they are african,african american, or non-african, and studies that may not agree with you.If you want to see some of them theres a sticky on the top that says "the race of the egyptians".![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
your right we need to get back to the topic I am interested in what you know about the 18th dynasty you seem like a very intelligent person.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic