posted
I believe I have solved why the two large Giza pyramids, the Djedefre Pyramid and the two Dahshur pyramids were positioned as they are. It is a stellar depiction, but it's not the stars of Orion. It's actually some stars in the northern sky. I also believe I have solved how the pyramid azimuths were set, which allows precise dating of their construction. I wrote it up on a blog page. See what you think. Is this a great advancement in Egyptian chronology or just a simple coincidence? http://egyptmysteries.blogspot.com/Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL...I just brushed by your blog and saw that you think the Spinx was once a Lion...LOL...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah, I can see why you would find that humorous. The Sphinx looks nothing like a lion does it? It's actually a chiuaua.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see that nobody has challenged the validity of my theory. I'll take that as an indication that the theory is the most plausible ever proposed.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Actually, I doubt anyone even bothered to check your blog, and it would seem you're proposing an earlier date for the Sphinx, according to Leo etc.. etc... this is *NOT* a new theory, it is not accepted by mainstream Egyptology, and therefore has no point being discussed. You can keep it as a collected thought of wishful thinking...
Let me ask you a simple question, where did the Ancient Egyptians come from?
a) The West
b) The South
c) The East
d) The North
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I suppose you could say that I postulate an older Sphinx, if by older you mean by a few decades. It was made at the same time as the middle pyramid, around 2643 BC. Do you find that an implausible date and has somebody else postulated that date before me? Who would that be?
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: Well, I suppose you could say that I postulate an older Sphinx, if by older you mean by a few decades. It was made at the same time as the middle pyramid, around 2643 BC. Do you find that an implausible date and has somebody else postulated that date before me? Who would that be?
Answer the question...Where did the Egyptians originate... The East The South The North The West...
Its a simple question...plus If you want people to debate your opinion please post the facts to members of this board instead of just providing a link. Here is a thread about the Constuction of the Pyramids... http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003981Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I agree. There's nothing new about this hypothesis whatsoever as it was formulated by various other people.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, alright, alright. If you're so insistent then I will tell you that the AE came from the East. They were clearly Indians, as explained here http://www.hinduwisdom.info/India_and_Egypt.htm
Now here's a condensed version of my pyramids theory.
The Giza pyramids depict the stars Mizar and Dubhe, in the Big Dipper/Ox Thigh asterism at the time when Sirius rises. The Red and Bent Pyramids depict Mizar and Polaris at the time of Pollux setting, which is when they aligned their pyramids to Polaris.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: Alright, alright, alright. If you're so insistent then I will tell you that the AE came from the East. They were clearly Indians, as explained here http://www.hinduwisdom.info/India_and_Egypt.htm
Get out of here with this India nonsense please. You should be in cohorts with Clyde Winters.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^I guess if you are going to take his work from 15 years ago. When the Hamitic hypothesis was still floating around. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: Alright, alright, alright. If you're so insistent then I will tell you that the AE came from the East. They were clearly Indians, as explained here http://www.hinduwisdom.info/India_and_Egypt.htm
Now here's a condensed version of my pyramids theory.
The Giza pyramids depict the stars Mizar and Dubhe, in the Big Dipper/Ox Thigh asterism at the time when Sirius rises. The Red and Bent Pyramids depict Mizar and Polaris at the time of Pollux setting, which is when they aligned their pyramids to Polaris.
Umm, sorry the Egyptians were not Indians. The Egyptians were clearly Southern in origin..and their cultural and ethnic ancestry lies within the region of East Africa..the exact place where the Egyptians themselves traces their origins.
By S. O. Y. Keita, Senior Research Associate, National Human Genome Center, Howard University; Research Associate, Anthropology, Smithsonian Institute
Based on fossil and DNA evidence, modern humans may have existed in Africa as many as 140,000 years before they successfully colonized other parts of the world. Considering this from an evolutionary perspective, we should expect great diversity among indigenous Africans, and this is what has been found, even when northern African populations have been excluded from the research. All human populations exhibit biological variation in one way or another, and there is no single way to be biologically African—not by DNA, skin color, hair form, blood type, or variation of face and nose.
Fossil remains of modern humans have been found in the Nile Valley, including those of a child from Taramsa, in Egypt, believed to date to 60,000 to 50,000 years ago, though perhaps to as much as 80,000 years ago. The Nazlet Khater skeleton, also from Egypt, dates to around 33,000 years ago. Excavations in Egypt have also produced skeletal remains that date back to the cultures immediately preceding and following the first kings of a united Egypt, around 3100 B.C. By carefully using various scientific techniques, one can determine changes over time in the skeletal pattern of a particular place. The pattern of the craniofacial region and long bones is believed by most investigators to be helpful in understanding the forces of evolution on a population and, in some cases, when the pattern can be combined with other information, the population's region of origin. A similar pattern among different groups may indicate either a common ancestral origin, population interactions via intermarriage, and/or a common adaptive pattern related to the environment. Other information may help in assessing the meaning of similarity.
There has been scholarly interest in the biological variation and genealogical relationship of the ancient Egyptians to other populations outside of the Egyptian Nile Valley. There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa. Skeletal analyses have figured prominently in research. When comparisons to non-Egyptians are made, depending on which samples and methods are used, the craniofacial patterns of ancient Egyptian show a range of similarities to other African populations, Near Easterners, and Europeans. Overall, these studies can be interpreted as suggesting that the Egyptian Nile Valley's indigenous population had a craniofacial pattern that evolved and emerged in northeastern Africa, whose geography in relationship to climate largely explains the variation. Dental affinity studies generally agree with the craniofacial results, though they differ in the details. The body proportions of ancient Egyptians generally are similar to those of tropical (more southern) Africans.
Very little DNA has been retrieved from ancient Egyptian remains, and there are not many studies on the modern population. However, the results of analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the Y chromosome in the living Egyptian population show the existence of very old African lineages that are consistent with the fossil remains and of younger lineages of more recent evolution, along with evidence of the assimilation of later migrants from the Near East and Europe; mtDNA is passed only through the female line, from mother to offspring, and the relevant part of the Y chromosome, the nonrecombining section, passes only from father to son. The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences.
Bibliography Brauer, G., and K. Rimbach. "Late Archaic and Modern Homo sapiens From Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric Comparisons and Phylogenetic Implications." Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 19 (1990), 789-807.
Cruciani, F., and others. "Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues From Y-chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12." Molecular Biology and Evolution. Vol. 24 (2007), 1300-11.
Howells, W. W. "Cranial Variation in Man." Papers of the Peabody Museum. Harvard, 1973.
Irish, J. D. "Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples." American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Vol. 129 (2006), 529-43.
Mukherjee, R., and others. The Ancient Inhabitants of Jebel Moya. Cambridge University, 1955.
The Egyptians also spoke and African derived tounge of the Afro Asiatic language family...which contains Semetic, Arabic, Kushitic, and the Berber tounge.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asiatic_languages "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Afro-Asiatic.png"
The first activity of Egyptian civilization began in the south...with the cultivation of crops, hunting and mining of the Badarians... 4500 B.C. Badari. It was in 1923 that Egypt's indigenous Badarian culture was discovered by archaeologists Brunton, and Caton-Thompson. About 600 tombs are excavated and recorded. The Badarian culture (named after al-Badari); is the earliest known "civilized Egyptian civilization" based on farming, hunting and mining. They lived at about 4500 B.C. and may have even been as far back as 5500 B.C. These farmers grew barley, wheat, flax and wove linen fabrics in addition to tending flocks. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of two charcoal samples from a Badarian site suggest that it was the first farming culture in Upper Egypt. We do not know what kind of house or shelter the Badarian made for himself. Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (1999).
National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution Male Badarian crania were analyzed using the generalized distance of Mahalanobis in a comparative analysis with other African and European series from the Howells's database. The study was carried out to examine the affinities of the Badarians to evaluate, in preliminary fashion, a demic diffusion hypothesis that postulates that horticulture and the Afro-Asiatic language family were brought ultimately from southern Europe. (The assumption was made that the southern Europeans would be more similar to the central and northern Europeans than to any indigenous African populations.) The Badarians show a greater affinity to indigenous Africans while not being identical. This suggests that the Badarians were more affiliated with local and an indigenous African population than with Europeans. It is more likely that Near Eastern/southern European domesticated animals and plants were adopted by indigenous Nile Valley people without a major immigration of non-Africans. There was more of cultural transfer.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive: ^What does this question
"Where do the Egyptians originate?"
have to do with dude's hypothesis?
"From whence do the pyramid builders originate" might be a better/relevant question though.
Before I can take him serious I want to know his stance on Egypt...as far as its cultural roots and the origin of Egyptian civilization.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^I guess if you are going to take his work from 15 years ago. When the Hamitic hypothesis was still floating around.
Are you saying (admitting) then that History and Geography and previous works are in fact racist bunk?
And Genes Peoples don't have North Africans (esp. Berbers) as Caucasiods? That is, not gentically Africans? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
As far as your theory is concerned I could have swore I saw something that was of the same premise on History channel...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^I guess if you are going to take his work from 15 years ago. When the Hamitic hypothesis was still floating around.
Are you saying (admitting) then that History and Geography and previous works are in fact racist bunk?
And Genes Peoples don't have North Africans (esp. Berbers) as Caucasiods? That is, not gentically Africans?
Come on dude...Lets not get into this...Lets not ruin this thread...
Back to the Egyptians...
Oknaw, the origins of the Egyptians lie within Africa, and go back to the dawn of Homosapien. The Egyptians were not Indians but indigenous Aficans....this is generally accepted in mainstream anthropology, not just "Afrocentric" circles. What is of debate is whether or not the Egyptians retained the African lineage throwout the dynastic era or whether the the Egyptians mixed with others...and if so who did they mix with. " "The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: Okay, fine, you convinced me. They're Africans. Now how did they align their pyramids to North?
Well its my opinion that the Egyptians lined their Pyramids to match the annual rise and set of the sun, and also toward the Heavens to provide their rulers at the time a gateway to the stars.
I have only read the very begining of your blog..so please excuse me...
More questions... How is your theory different from other Star allignment theroies...
How do you think the Pyramids were constructed.
Have you studied any other Egyptian Architectural structures...I.E...The Mortuarty Temple of Hetshepsut, The Hypostyle Hall at Karnack, The Temples of Thebes(Luxor)...The Temples of Amun in Nubia...the Pyramids of Nubia..ect. If so what is your opinion on those structures and their signifigance to the stars...and their influence on Greco-Roman and other styles...
By the way have you heard of Nabta Playa?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oknaw10, exactly what do the position of the pyramids in correlation to astronomical points have anything to do with the origin of the Egyptians?? Also, what actual evidence points to the Egyptians having an Indian origin?? Egyptology in the past five decades have shown indigenous origins in the African Nile Valley and so far there is no evidence of mass migration from the East during predynastic times, let alone all the way from India. I mean, do you have any evidence at all for the contrary? What cultural connections do you see between pharaonic Egypt and the contemporary Indus civilization of India??
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^I guess if you are going to take his work from 15 years ago. When the Hamitic hypothesis was still floating around.
Of course, the openass can't directly refute the man's recent work so instead he dumps out strawmen in the form of older outdated works. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As you offered, lion or chiuaua (sic), I chose Chehuahua (sic 'em).
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: It's actually a chiuaua.
At least what I present has humor value contrasting against the vapid absurdity of your notions of AE origins which no one sane takes seriously nor is it funny in the least.
Chairman Meow is way kewl kid!
Anyway, my investigations of pyramid positions goes back decades with the likes of Count Volney, Massey, Higgins, and Churchward. Nothing new, nothing original, something boring.
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: Yeah, why ya hypocriting with the chiuaua pictures?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: Okay, fine, you convinced me. They're Africans. Now how did they align their pyramids to North?
AS the other poster asked, have you heard of Nabta Playa? Do you think there is any significance of Nabta Playa as it relates to the Pyramids? Why are most of their temples and even pyramids further south?
Perhaps this might make you rethink their Northern Hemisphere dispostion.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing to do with Nabta Playa, which I hadn't heard of until now but which appears to be a simple stone circle. No way to derive any information from it, that I can see.
Why are most pyramids and temples farther South? I don't know, just better territory I guess. More central location for better access from other areas.
My theory may be similar to others in that it involves a depiction of stars on the ground, but aside from that it is completely unique. There is certainly nothing implausible about some pyramids having been positioned to match stars in the sky. It's an extremely obvious thing to have been done. It's just that nobody before me has actually identified the correct stars being depicted. There can only be one correct solution to which stars were depicted, so I maintain that mine is the one true solution and that all others are mistaken ones.
This image right here is the first and only accurate matching of stars to the Giza pyramids at a point in time which would plausibly have been of great significance to the AE, the rising of Sirius. It would be hard to find a more significant point in time than that for the AE. The pyramid positions perfectly match when looking directly at the Big Dipper asterism, as I have it right in the center of the program screen in the image. Any other view would produce distortion.
The pyramids were positioned based on a very accurate drawing of the Big Dipper (known as a "bull or ox thigh" in those days) as it appeared at the time of the rising of Sirius. They could have worked on the drawing for several consecutive nights until they got it just right, having only a moment to record the exact position of one of the stars at a time, the moment when Sirius appeared on the horizon. Eventually, they would have produced a very good drawing and would then have been able to work from that and scale it up on the ground. The Third Pyramid was later positioned based solely on geometric factors.
posted
^ Apparently you still don't understand the significance of Nabta Playa. It is NOT some "simple" stone circle but is rather a megalithic monuments similar to those of Stone Henge in England, but predating Stone Henge. The stones themselves were aligned to astronomical observations, and it is also the site of the earliest complex burial and ritual areas in Egypt which of course predates the Giza Pyramids.
I suggest you look here and here.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: Nothing to do with Nabta Playa, which I hadn't heard of until now but which appears to be a simple stone circle. No way to derive any information from it, that I can see.
Why are most pyramids and temples farther South? I don't know, just better territory I guess. More central location for better access from other areas.
My theory may be similar to others in that it involves a depiction of stars on the ground, but aside from that it is completely unique. There is certainly nothing implausible about some pyramids having been positioned to match stars in the sky. It's an extremely obvious thing to have been done. It's just that nobody before me has actually identified the correct stars being depicted. There can only be one correct solution to which stars were depicted, so I maintain that mine is the one true solution and that all others are mistaken ones.
This image right here is the first and only accurate matching of stars to the Giza pyramids at a point in time which would plausibly have been of great significance to the AE, the rising of Sirius. It would be hard to find a more significant point in time than that for the AE. The pyramid positions perfectly match when looking directly at the Big Dipper asterism, as I have it right in the center of the program screen in the image. Any other view would produce distortion.
The pyramids were positioned based on a very accurate drawing of the Big Dipper (known as a "bull or ox thigh" in those days) as it appeared at the time of the rising of Sirius. They could have worked on the drawing for several consecutive nights until they got it just right, having only a moment to record the exact position of one of the stars at a time, the moment when Sirius appeared on the horizon. Eventually, they would have produced a very good drawing and would then have been able to work from that and scale it up on the ground. The Third Pyramid was later positioned based solely on geometric factors.
How can you as a scholar specializing in Egyptian Astro-Engineering and Astonomy claim that Nabta playa was a simple stone circle?Basic facts state Nabta Playa was not only important to Egypt both religiously seeing as some key Egyptian gods in there were found depicted at the Nabta Playa area, but was also an Astonomically linked to the stars. Why does'nt any one care to do any reasearch anymore...all talk but no walk
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't see a connection between a stone circle and Giza. Unless the stone circle has something to do with the Big Dipper, which I doubt, how could it relate to Giza? It's just one of those stone circles used for determining solstices and things like that. At least that's what it looks like to me. I don't know what you can get from that?
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The second link worked, and it said that the Nabta Playa people saw Sirius as important, like the Egyptians, so I guess there could be a connection there. I don't deny that the Egyptians came from further South in Africa. When I first heard about the idea, because Robert Bauval recently published a book about that idea, I thought it was doubtful, simply because the Egyptians weren't negroid in appearance. Since then, the other things I've read on the subject seem to indicate that it is plausible. I still don't believe they were negros. They probably had negro genetics in their bloodline, but then so does every person on Earth, assuming they all descended from African cavemen. Just as the Russians, for example, descended from Africans millions of years ago and yet are clearly not Negros, the Egyptians descended from Africans but were also not Negros at the time of the formation of Egypt. By that time they were more white than black, judging from their artistic depictions. I don't know how they got white, but apparently they did. There must have been some Asian genetics mixed in at some point, unless the white "race" actually started in Africa, due to mutations, and spread from there out to Asia. Read this from Wikipedia;
"The term Caucasian (or Caucasoid) race has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the indigenous populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and South Asia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
Caucasians come from North Africa and the Horn of Africa. That's where the AE came from and they were Caucasians. People can say that the AE were Negros if they want but all anyone has to do is look at an Egyptian tomb or temple wall painting and they see that the AE were Caucasians.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: They probably had negro genetics in their bloodline, but then so does every person on Earth, assuming they all descended from African cavemen.
There is no such thing as "negro" genetics, but there is indigenous African genetics, Egyptians carried indigenous African genetics totally, which made them biologically African.
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: Just as the Russians, for example, descended from Africans millions of years ago and yet are clearly not Negros, the Egyptians descended from Africans but were also not Negros at the time of the formation of Egypt.
Russians descend from humans who reached Europe 40-45 thousand years ago, not millions of years ago. Millions of years ago there were no anatomically modern humans at all. Modern humans arose 200 thousand years ago in East Africa.
Tell me, does this man look Negroid?
This man above is a Tutsi of Rwanda, he is totally biologically African, yet has been previously described as Caucasoid(since he has a thin nose and lips etc..), by the same people telling you that all Africans look the same, and that a thin nose and lips is not African, but rather is "Caucasoid". When genetics and anthropology prove otherwise and these are indigenous Africans who have a diverse set of biological features found all over Africa.
The following comes from one of the early Caucasians in North and East Africa promoters, Carleton Coon, who with this quote below will have you believe the above man posted is a "Caucasian", and therefore not African, but when one analyzes his DNA one will see, that he is indigenous and a biologically tropical African, just like the Ancient Egyptians were..
quote: The Story of Man
Carleton Coon
p 196-197
Borzoi Books, 1965
Few skeletons have been found in the Sahara, and these are hard to date because of soil erosion. In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man. In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: People can say that the AE were Negros if they want but all anyone has to do is look at an Egyptian tomb or temple wall painting and they see that the AE were Caucasians.
Do tell what's "Caucasian about these people?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
They probably had negro genetics in their bloodline, but then so does every person on Earth, assuming they all descended from African cavemen.
These "cavemen" apparently did something right, seeing that you owe your very existence to them, which is why you are here in the first place talking about them "cavemen". And they surely must have gotten help from "cave women"; they should get credit too. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
They probably had negro genetics in their bloodline, but then so does every person on Earth, assuming they all descended from African cavemen.
These "cavemen" apparently did something right, seeing that you owe your very existence to them, which is why you are here in the first place talking about them "cavemen". And they surely must have gotten help from "cave women"; they should get credit too.
Did I say I had something against cavemen? I'm not saying that the AE weren't black because blacks weren't capable of such advanced civilization. I'm sure they were capable of it but for whatever reason didn't actually do it. Then once the white factor got into the genetics they started getting more and more civilized. Could be coincidence, but seems unlikely. Maybe it's a genetic trait for a race to want to build cities and things. All I know is there aren't any ancient cities in Africa, South of Egypt. Why did all other races have cities except the black Africans, who stayed pretty much the same right up until modern times?
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. Where did you 'learn' this? I'd really like your bibliography for the below or the university/college that imparted this great knowledge to you.
quote:Originally posted by Oknaw10: I'm not saying that the AE weren't black because blacks weren't capable of such advanced civilization. I'm sure they were capable of it but for whatever reason didn't actually do it.
Then once the white factor got into the genetics they started getting more and more civilized.
All I know is there aren't any ancient cities in Africa, South of Egypt.
Why did all other races have cities except the black Africans, who stayed pretty much the same right up until modern times?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who needs a university to know that there are no ancient cities in Africa. I'm pretty sure I would have heard about it some time in my life if there were. You'd personally be posting images of them right here, and I don't see any. From Egypt eastward, you find all kinds of ancient cities. Then in Mexico and South America you find other later ones but still quite old. Why is Africa the odd man out? Did they not have stone in Africa? Or was it because in order to support a city population you need agriculture and Africa just never developed such agriculture? It's kind of a mystery.
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess there is some other stuff in South Africa too. Perhaps I should have done a search before I said there were no black African cities, or stone ruins at least. http://www.makomati.com/Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
Ehret: There are at least seven or eight maybe eleven to thirteen world regions which independently invented agriculture. None in Europe, by the way. One, of course, is in the Middle East, and many people still believe that this was the first, from which all the others developed. The idea of diffusion from the Middle East still lingers.
That idea really can't be sustained.
You have, for instance, one independent invention of agriculture in East Asia, maybe two. You have it more widely accepted now that there's an independent invention of agriculture in the interior of New Guinea. People argue about what to make of the Indian materials, but certainly India saw one of the three separate domestications of cattle; there are enough uniquely Indian crops that we might end up with India as another center of independent agricultural innovation. There are different ideas about the Americas, but I think we have two for sure: Mesoamerica and the Andes. There may also be a separate lowland tropical South American development. It also seems that there might be a few things domesticated in the southeastern United States even before there was Mesoamerican stimulus or diffusion. So that makes four.
Here's the point: agriculture was invented in Africa in at least three centers, and maybe even four. In Africa, you find the earliest domestication of cattle. The location, the pottery and other materials we've found makes it likely that happened among the Nilo-Saharan peoples, the sites are in southern Egypt. There is an exceptionally strong correlation between archaeology and language on this issue.
A separate or distinct agriculture arose in West Africa around yams.
A third takes place in southeastern or southern Ethiopia. I've got a student working this year in Ethiopia to see whether we can pin this down more precisely. The Ethiopians domesticated a plant called enset. It's very unique: Ethiopians use the lower stem and the bulb; not the tuber, the fruit, or the greens. Enset grows in a climatic zone distinct from that where cattle were first domesticated; that was further north.
The possible fourth area of agricultural invention would involve people who cultivated grain in Ethiopia. They seem to have begun cultivation of grain independently, but adopted cattle from the Nilo-Saharans of the middle Nile region. To pin this down, we need archaeology from a whole big area, but so far it's missing.
There's another really interesting innovation in Africa: pottery. There are two places in the world which develop pottery really early. One is Japan, where you find pottery before 10,000 BCE, going back to at least 11,000 or 12,000 BCE. And then you've got pottery by 10,500 BCE in the eastern Sahara, and it spreads widely in the southern Sahara. Unlike the Middle Eastern ceramics, where you can see the development of pottery at every stage, the stuff we find in the southern Sahara is already great pottery. So there's probably 500 years we're missing from the archaeological record. So let's say that pottery develops in the southern Sahara 2,500 years before Middle Eastern pottery. The Middle Eastern stuff does look like it was developed independently of the African, but hey, this is really interesting! Africa is not too far away; there may have been some diffusion.
So, in a world history class, I would be talking about the development of agriculture in all the different parts of the world. I'd look at how people developed different kinds of agriculture in response to their particular environmental or demographic challenges. Then I'd look at the independent invention of pottery. In the Japanese case, it's not even connected with agriculture. One could argue that it turns up with cattle-keeping in the Sahara, but it also turns up with people who don't keep cattle, for fishing. So you can open up people's minds to technology:
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.
The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.
A new religion came with them as well. Its central tenet explains the often localized origins of later Egyptian gods: the earliest Afrasians were, properly speaking, neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. Instead, each local community, comprising a clan or a group of related clans, had its own distinct deity and centered its religious observances on that deity. This belief system persists today among several Afrasian peoples of far southwest Ethiopia. And as Biblical scholars have shown, Yahweh, god of the ancient Hebrews, an Afrasian people of the Semitic group, was originally also such a deity. The connection of many of Egypt's predynastic gods to particular localities is surely a modified version of this early Afrasian belief. Political unification in the late fourth millennium brought the Egyptian deities together in a new polytheistic system. But their local origins remain amply apparent in the records that have come down to us.
During the long era between about 10,000 and 6000 B.C., new kinds of southern influences diffused into Egypt. During these millennia, the Sahara had a wetter climate than it has today, with grassland or steppes in many areas that are now almost absolute desert. New wild animals, most notably the cow, spread widely in the eastern Sahara in this period.
One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.
One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.
Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East. Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era.
But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)
Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.
From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.
One key feature of classical Egyptian political culture, usually assumed to have begun in Egypt, also shows strong links to the southern influences of this period. We refer here to a particular kind of sacral chiefship that entailed, in its earliest versions, the sending of servants into the afterlife along with the deceased chief. The deep roots and wide occurrence of this custom among peoples who spoke Eastern Sahelian languages strongly imply that sacral chiefship began not as a specifically Egyptian invention, but instead as a widely shared development of the Middle Nile Culture Area.
After about 3500 B.C., however, Egypt would have started to take on a new role vis-a-vis the Middle Nile region, simply because of its greater concentration of population. Growing pressures on land and resources soon enhanced and transformed the political powers of sacral chiefs. Unification followed, and the local deities of predynastic times became gods in a new polytheism, while sacral chiefs gave way to a divine king. At the same time, Egypt passed from the wings to center stage in the unfolding human drama of northeastern Africa.
A Note on the Use of Linguistic Evidence for History
Languages provide a powerful set of tools for probing the cultural history of the peoples who spoke them. Determining the relationships between particular languages, such as the languages of the Afrasian or the Nilo-Saharan family, gives us an outline history of the societies that spoke those languages in the past. And because each word in a language has its own individual history, the vocabulary of every language forms a huge archive of documents. If we can trace a particular word back to the common ancestor language of a language family, then we know that the item of culture connoted by the word was known to the people who spoke the ancestral tongue. If the word underwent a meaning change between then and now, a corresponding change must have taken place in the cultural idea or practice referred to by the word. In contrast, if a word was borrowed from another language, it attests to a thing or development that passed from the one culture to the other. The English borrowing, for example, of castle, duke, parliament, and many other political and legal terms from Old Norman French are evidence of a Norman period of rule in England, a fact confirmed by documents.
References Cited:
Ehret, Christopher, Nilo-Saharans and the Saharo-Sahelian Neolithic. In African Archaeology: Food, Metals and Towns. T. Shaw, P Sinclair, B. Andah, and A. Okpoko, eds. pp. 104-125. London: Routledge. 1993
Ehret, Christopher, Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone Consonants, and Vocabulary. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Berkeley. 1995
Wendorf, F., et al., Saharan Exploitation of Plants 8000 Years B.P. Nature 359:721-724. 1982
Wendorf, F., R. Schild, and A. Close, eds. Cattle-Keepers of the Eastern Sahara. Dallas: Southern Methodist University, Department of Anthropology. 1984
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Not a bad question: Indeed, why do you think you said something against cavemen?
The rest of your rambling, which I cut out, was just random disorganized self-talk.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Cranial features: The human phenotypic trait that holds the greatest diversity is cranial morphology. Because of this fact, cranial features can at times be misleading if not taken into proper context. For example, for a long time features like long narrow faces and narrow noses have been associated with “caucasian” or “caucasoid” people even though such features are present in populations throughout the globe from Africa to the Americas. The same can be said about so-called “negroid” features such as broad faces and noses which are also not just confined to Africans but various peoples in Asia, the Pacific etc.
Which is why we have studies like this:
J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al. ...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," yet it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups. We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations.
And...
Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation -April 2005, Current Anthropology:
It is well known that human biological variation is principally clinal (i.e., structured as gradients) and not racial (i.e., structured as a small number of fairly discrete groups). We have shown that for a temporally and geographically homogeneous East African population, the most widely used “racial” program fails to identify the skeletal material accurately. The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series) 1975 The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.
claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong, - JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa
Fulani (West African)
Somali (East African)
Tutsi (Central African)
Egyptian (North African)
Ironically, another trait all of these people above share in common besides facial features is skeletal structure of their bodies. Their body structure has been called “super-negroid” indicating their extra-tropical adapted bodies compared to stereotypical blacks of West Africa who only have plain “negroid” builds. This is another indication that these people definitely have NO non-African ancestry!
Also, just because someone happens to have the same features as those you consider ‘true blacks (negroes)’ does not mean they are even African. As seen by this Andamanese person below
Southeast Asian
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range:
only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
So any and all talk of "caucasoid", "negroid", or even "mongoloid" features is total and utter NONSENSE!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Also of relevance--- the famous African (Somali) Supermodel, Iman:
She was one of the first generation of high-profile black supermodels and although attitudes have changed since 1975, she insists that the fashion industry is inherently racist. Then, she was treated as some kind of exotic alien. 'Oh, you're so beautiful,' was one comment, 'you must be half-white.' Her reply? 'I don't have a drop of white blood in me. I'm beautiful because I am black and I am Somali.'
Note the similarities between Iman and the reconstruction of the mummy alleged to be Nefertiti:
Ironically enough, Iman even portrayed Nefertiti:
Unfortunately, blatant ignorance still persists today, as can be seen by folks like Okaw who continue to speak of African 'caucasoids'.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for sub-saharan Africans never independently creating cities or urbanized cultures of their own, that is another old racist fantasy. And just like 'racial' definitions and features, it is a topic that has been discussed all too many times in this forum.
Here is just ONE of many cities documented by European explorers alone:
Oknaw, I suggest you read this book:
African Civilizations: Precolonial Cities and States in Tropical Africa--An Archaeological Perspective
Review: "The text is intelligible to laymen, the illustrations excellent, and the case studies intriguing." "Africa Today" Graham Connah states in the introduction of this work that his purpose is to overcome the widespread stereotype that Africa represents a continent 'of scattered groups of people living in small villages of grass or mud "huts,"' but 'is about the material evidence of cities and states,' that is 'civilization.' The author succeeds admirably in this goal. The organization of the study is unique. The writing is integrated, lucid and eminently readable." The International Journal of African Historical Studies.
Or maybe you should start off small like this childrens' book:
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not a bad question: Indeed, why do you think you said something against cavemen?
The rest of your rambling, which I cut out, was just random disorganized self-talk.
I don't think I said something against cavemen, YOU think I said something against cavemen. Witness this quote from you;
"These "cavemen" apparently did something right, seeing that you owe your very existence to them, which is why you are here in the first place talking about them "cavemen". And they surely must have gotten help from "cave women"; they should get credit too."
There you implied that I had denigrated cavemankind. Of course, I did no such thing. I have great respect for cavemen. I enjoy their artwork and admire their flint tool making.
Djehuti, yes I am Professor Hore. I come from a long and distinguished line of Hore's. I am proud to call myself a son of a Hore (no, not really).
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, to get this thread back on track. I have made the greatest discoveries in the history of Egyptology, the method used to set the pyramid azimuths, which provides us with a very precise chronology of the reigns of the various Pharaohs who built pyramids, and the reason for the oddly staggered positions of the two Giza super-pyramids. Those were both mysteries which had stumped all Egyptologists of the world. No other person has ever discovered a method by which the precise year of start of construction of a pyramid could be ascertained. This dwarfs the discovery that the AE originally came from South of Egypt, which is a rather obvious conclusion anyway. You are arguing a moot point. Doesn't particularly matter where they came from. What matters is what they did after they got there, which was building pyramids. Now why don't you spend a little time actually solving a mystery of Egypt instead of repeatedly pointing out the obvious?
Posts: 59 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Did you read any of my posts above concerning ridiculous notions of racial classifications as well as the lie that other Africans besides Egyptians never built cities??
These are just several of the ideas out there, but neither one has been 100% verified. Unless we recover actual engineering plans from the pyramid builders we may never know. So far Egyptian religious texts from various pharaonic tombs containing star charts give us certain ideas, such as the significance of Sirius and/or other stars pertaining to the spirit of the pharaohs. But again, the exact purpose of the pyramid positions are uncertain.
It is interesting to note that in many African cultures, the stars were associated with the spirits of dead kings, and no doubt this was the spiritual reasoning behind the astronomical correlations with the positions of the pyramids which were themselves built for the deceased kings. Again, the pyramid positions have nothing to do with exact areas of where the Egyptian people originated which was AFRICAN anyway!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic