posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Energy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
The conquest theory of civilization is patently absurd
and was abandoned even before the turn of this millenium.

---

According to you, 'the conquest theory of civilization is patently absurd.' Sorry but you are grossly misinformed. All the great civilizations on this planet were formed based on this pattern of conquest and subjugation by one monolingual and monolithic culture. Examples are the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonish Empire, ancient Greece, the Roman Empire and quite recently the British Empire. The pattern is alway the same. The Kingdom that mushrooms into Empire is started by a monolingual and monolithic culture. That is how things have always been everywhere on this planet. Ancient Egypt being the mother of all these civilizations would have followed this pattern hence the other civilizations that followed it would have simply copied their example.

quote:

---

Although I didn't post it current scholarship attests
to a variety of African peoples descending on the Lower
Nile Valley to in time birth pre-dynastic Egypt.

---

In other words what you have is speculation by some academic on how ancient Egypt started as a Kingdom even though the evidence of life among the African people says that is not the case.

Even if I wish to be magnanimous and allow room for your speculations, the problem is, such speculation changes with new evidence and so it is not reliable. For example, it was not long ago that humans had various theories about the shape of the earth and the fact that if one journeyed too far into the horizon, one would actually fall off the earth.

No I don't deal with speculation. If you say ancient Egypt was not started by a monolingual and monolithic culture, the way kingdoms have always been started from the time of Adam, then you have to show the evidence to the contrary and not base your theory on speculation or conjecture.

quote:

---

Now I'll not spoonfeed you or anyone. I expect each capable of conducting the necessary homework on their own after I drop my hints.

---

LOL! Yet another admission that you simply have no evidence to back up your theory huh? Give it up bro. Just give it up. Why don't you just admit defeat?

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Egypt didn't begin with Narmer

If folk had not cooperated to build civilization
there wouldn't've been any states for Narmer to
force under his submission.

---

Now...folks here...what does this incoherent statement have to do with my statement:

quote:

---

If you study Narmer's tablet, it is clear that the unification of Ancient Egypt was not brought about through different African ethnic groups coming together peacefully - there was no Kumbaya moment;
No, Ancient Egypt was united through armed struggle - military force - a protracted military struggle predating Narmer but culminating with his victory over the heterogeneous African nations dwelling within the Nile Valley and Delta
regions...

---

I mean, what do we need here, a 'Dick & Jane' approach?:

--Once upon a time, in the ancient Nile valley, there dwelt many small and diverse African nations; each a fiefdom with its own gods and identities. Over time, there began a movement in the south to bring these various nations together into a single unified unit...this wasn't easy as each unit wanted to keep its independence...it could only be done through force; and so many battles took place in this long, long war of political unification until political unity was finally achieved under the king(s) Narmer and dynasty Egypt began...

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

1. the indigenees
2. migrants from upriver
3. migrants from the once Green Sahara.

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

alTakruri wrote:
...While a conquerer very well can establish a new state
by exploiting an existing society, I just can't figure
how the arts of war create civilization.

I don't think I need to show that peaceful cooperation
allows for the security, economy, and time to meld
cultural advancements into civilization. I think that's
a given.

Can you patiently explain to a dim wit like me how
warfare makes for civilization to follow in its wake?

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
I don't know about utopias but I no know of no
civilization that grew out of the death dealing
chaos of war.......

---

Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

1. food surpluses that allow specialization in non-food producing endeavors
2. heavily populated settlements.

quote:

---

Originally posted 14 August, 2009 03:26 PM by alTakruri:

The civilization and polities of the Middle and Lower Nile
Valleys arose from cooperation between at least three factors:

1. the indigenees
2. migrants from upriver
3. migrants from the once Green Sahara.

Try falsifying that and good luck with such misguided an effort.

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
To the contrary I've given Lower Nile Valley Civilization
as engendered by indigenees and migrants from the drying
Green Sahara and migrants from the Middle Nile Valley (and
maybe even from further south). That you refuse to recognize
my initial offering tendered days ago or the follow
ups of Tchitt and the Igbo is not my problem.

You were asked to refute that fact and dismally failed to
do so.

Civilizations generally speaking spring from a
combination of two prime factors:

1. food surpluses that allow specialization in non-food producing endeavors
2. heavily populated settlements.

Now I ask you yet again for examples of how warfare
makes for civilization and I don't expect you to deflect
from answering by regurgitating already answered
questions.

Since you seem to have forgotten, let me repost
what I asked you

quote:

---

Originally posted 14 August, 2009 03:26 PM by alTakruri:

The civilization and polities of the Middle and Lower Nile
Valleys arose from cooperation between at least three factors:

1. the indigenees
2. migrants from upriver
3. migrants from the once Green Sahara.

Try falsifying that and good luck with such misguided an effort.

---

---

Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

1. the indigenees
2. migrants from upriver
3. migrants from the once Green Sahara.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
...come, let us not play, "I thought you meant..."

What I mean by Great States and/or Civilizations:

Arabian
Ashanti
Aztec
Benin
Britain
Chinese
Egyptian
Ethiopian
Etruscan
Ghanaian
Greek
Incas
Indian
Japanese
Kongo
KwaZulu
Mali
Mayas
Mongol
Persian
Scandinavian
Slavic
Songhay
USSR
United States
....

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Energy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
To the contrary I've given Lower Nile Valley Civilization
as engendered by indigenees and migrants from the drying
Green Sahara and migrants from the Middle Nile Valley (and
maybe even from further south). That you refuse to recognize
my initial offering tendered days ago or the follow
ups of Tchitt and the Igbo is not my problem.

You were asked to refute that fact and dismally failed to
do so.

Civilizations generally speaking spring from a
combination of two prime factors:

1. food surpluses that allow specialization in non-food producing endeavors
2. heavily populated settlements.

Now I ask you yet again for examples of how warfare
makes for civilization and I don't expect you to deflect
from answering by regurgitating already answered
questions.

Since you seem to have forgotten, let me repost
what I asked you

quote:

---

Originally posted 14 August, 2009 03:26 PM by alTakruri:

The civilization and polities of the Middle and Lower Nile
Valleys arose from cooperation between at least three factors:

1. the indigenees
2. migrants from upriver
3. migrants from the once Green Sahara.

Try falsifying that and good luck with such misguided an effort.

---

---

You are being very disingenuous, in fact, downright dishonest alTakruri.

Common sense should tell you every civilization is built up with the co-operation of various ethnic groups working together AFTER the kingdom has been formed and started flourishing. Not before. Repeat, NOT BEFORE. After ancient Egypt as a kingdom was started by one ethnic group and become succesful, their success would act as a magnet that draws in other people that trade or migrate into the new kingdom and help it grow. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!

What you are saying is, and if I understand you correctly, you are saying, before the foundation was laid, from scratch, there was an African union of various ethnic groups that came together and said, 'lets built this kingdom,' and out of their united effort ancient Egypt was built. What utter bull. PROVE IT!

What you are doing is smoke and mirror stuff to confuse the less intelligent. The question all along is how is a kingdom or civilization started? Key statement is; "HOW IS THE CIVILZATION OR KINGDOM STARTED? Is it started by multi-ethnic groups or by one monolithic culture and people? And as has been pointed out to you, there is nowhere on this planet that the theory of yours that multi-ethnic cultures came together to start a kingdom or empire applies let alone in Africa with its thousands of extremely hostile ethnic groups, yet here you are playing with words to get people less intelligent to accept what is basically a huge NONSENSE.

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

1. the indigenees
2. migrants from upriver
3. migrants from the once Green Sahara.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
...Jeez man, cut the crap. Could you identify one of the great states listed above which did not come into being without an armed struggle; which one was the result of a 'peaceful gathering of the tribes'....

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Didn't we have a discussion in another thread on the ethnies that made up predynastic Egypt shortly before my hiatus?? In that thread I specifically pointed out the names of people like Anu and Mesenitu...

---

quote:

---

The Anu People

The most significant fact of the founding of Pharaonic Civilization by the Anu people is rarely, if ever, mentioned in texts on Ancient Egypt. Not to mention the Anu is actually worse than, say, writing a history of the United States of America and not mentioning the Pilgrims (aka "Founders"/"Forefathers"). One has to look at earlier texts for this vital information:

The French Egyptologist Abbe Émile Amélineau is credited with the discovery of the Anu and their contribution to Egyptian civilization. It was Amélineau who designated the first black race to occupy Egypt as the Anu. He showed how they came slowly down the Nile and founded the cities of Esneh, Erment, Qouch and Heliopolis...

From Amélineau:

quote:
These Anu were agricultural people, raising cattle on a large scale along the Nile, shutting themselves up in walled cities for defensive purposes. To this people we can attribute, without fear of error, the most ancient Egyptian books, The Book of the Dead and the Texts of the Pyramids, consequently, all the myths or religious teachings. I would add almost all the philosophical systems then known and still called Egyptian. They evidently knew the crafts necessary for any civilization and were familiar with the tools those trades required. They knew how to use metals, at least elementary metals. They made the earliest attempts at writing, for the whole Egyptian tradition attributes this art to Thoth, the great Hermes an Anu like Osiris, who is called Onian in Chapter XV of The Book of the Dead and in the Texts of the Pyramids. Certainly the people already knew the principal arts; it left proof of this in the architecture of the tombs at Abydos, especially the tomb of Osiris and in those sepulchers objects have been found bearing unmistakable stamp of their origin, such as carved ivory, or a little head of a Nubian girl found in a tomb near that of Osiris, or the small wooden or ivory receptacles in the form of a feline head--all documents published in the first volumn of my Fouilles d'Abydos.

From the Kememu

Anu the city of Heliopolis (Coptic; On)
Anu Meh Anu of the north (Heliopolis)
Anu Shemo Anu of the south (Hermonthis/Ermant)
Anu Monti Anu of Hermonthis
Anu Tem the Anu of Tem (Hermonthis)
Anu Re the Anu of Re
Afdu Ikhu the Four Ancestors (of the Anu)
Ugrit Goddess of the Duat of Anu
Djandjané Anu the Anu Court of Judges: Tem; Shu; Tefnut; Osiris; Thoth
Anu n Ptoh the Anu of Ptah (Denderah)
Anu n Nut the Anu of Nut (Denderah)

Denderah
Judging by the sheer number of given titles, the most venerated city of Kemet was not Thebes, but Denderah. After all, this was the city where the Parents of the Kemetian nation (Isis and Osiris) were born. (It is also in the same neighborhood as Naqada). Here are some of the titles of this city:
"The birthplace of Isis"
"The Throne of the Queen"
"The perfect throne in the Holy of Holies"
"The place of joy"
"The thrones of Horus"
"The holy temple of Horus"
"The throne of eternity"
"The throne of the drink"
"The birthplace of Nut"
"The Golden House"
"The Sanctuary of Osiris"
"The Sanctuary of Re"
"The city of the knowing of Isis"
"The temple of life"
"The temple of Hathor"
"The eternal house"
"The exalted temple"
"The holy temple of Horus of the Two-Lands"
"The house of knowledge" (per Rekhit)

The Sudanese Country of Bukem (Buqem)
This country was where the worship of the gods Hathor, Shu, Tefnut, etc., originated and spread down the Nile Valley. (An Anu country?)

Kas (Kos) - Capital of the 14th *state of southern Kemet
The word Kas, symbolized by a man astride two mythological creatures with their necks entwined and bound together, and the largest word on Narmer's palette of unification, means "Political Union." This particular state was situated roughly half the distance between the north-south borders of southern Kemet. It would be interesting to find the significance of its being named Kas (the south being unified first?)...

*Kemet consisted of 42 states and governors; 22 located in the south and 20 in the north.

---

quote:

---

and then there's the Mesnitu...
Here is some more relevant information which contemporary books on Ancient Egypt never mention...

quote:
According to the Ancient Egyptians, the second Egyptian ruling ethnic/class's ancestral homeland was Punt (Somalia). They referred to this land as "Ta Nteru" ('Land of the gods'). To emphasize their Puntite origins, the Egyptians portrayed the Puntites in the exact same manner in which they portrayed themselves.

This new ruling ethnic/class called themselves "Mesnitu" ('Metalworkers/blacksmiths'), and was also referred to as "Shemsu Hor" ('Followers of Horus').

These Mesnitu had overthrown the original ruling ethnic/class, the Anu (those belonging to Osiris's ethnic group; and yes, Osiris was a real life personage), who had previously established its domination over all of Egypt through military conquest and political unification. Their place of origin was "Ta Seti" ('Land of the Bow') in the Sudan. Gradually tradition would identify both Somalia and the Sudan as "Ta Khent" ('Land of the Beginning' or 'Ancestral land').


Note:
a) Ta Nteru would actually mean "Land of the Ancestors" ('shining ones')
b) I also suspect a major component of the Mesnitu was comprised of Beja people as well...

---

Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I agree with most of what you wrote above but not everything. For example, we know from Egyptology that the earliest identified ethnic group in Egypt were the Anu who are associated with the proto-hieroglyphs and associated with major predynastic sites of southern upper Egypt. As for the Mesenitu, there is evidence of there presence in eastern Egypt along the Red Sea coasts who've left their mark in rock art as cited by Egyptologists like Toby Wilkinson. However where is the evidence that the Mesenitu usurped or replaced the Anu or that there was ever conflict between them??

---

quote:

---

THE ARCANA OF FREEMASONRY 63

,,,Many of our signs and secrets exist amongst
these African people at the present day, and have
been handed down from generation to generation
by the old Turanians. It was these " blacksmith
men " who knew how to smelt iron ore and forge
the metal into weapons of offence and defence, that
formed themselves into the " big clan of black-
smiths," having Horus as their Astronomical
Chief. They came up from the South to the North
in predynastic times, and, having conquered the
Masaba Negroes and lower types of Nilotic
Negroes, who were then the inhabitants of the
land of Egypt, established themselves (*ie, took over) in Egypt,
making Edfu their chief city and centre.

The Egyptians called these " followers of

Horus " Mesnitu, or Mesniti, which, I believe, was

the original name for all their tribes, and which

may now be applied to the Masai Group. As we

know, Horus was their deified God, and as Edfu

became their centre, he was styled " Lord of the

Forge City," " The Great Master Blacksmith." It

was here that they first built a sanctuary or temple,

which was called Mesnet. One hieroglyphic which

they used proves that these

people were those belonging to the

Masai ancestors. Priests were appointed

to attend to the Temple. One might say...

---

Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
...Jeez man, cut the crap. Could you identify one of the great states listed above which did not come into being without an armed struggle; which one was the result of a 'peaceful gathering of the tribes'....

---

Posts: 124 | From: Zurich | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Energy:
Amazing! After running round in circles and alTakruri starting this new thread to divert attention to what I originally said that a monolingual and monolithic culture built ancient Egypt, I even mentioned the Anu, we are finally back to what I started in the original thread; "IS EGYPTIAN BOOK OF THE DEAD SAYING AKANS ARE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS?

So now that we are back on track, can you guys help to try and unravel if the Anu is the ancient name for modern day Akans. In other words, given the huge list of Akan words and names in the Egyptian book of the dead, are the Akans and the Anu one and the same people who created ancient Egypt?

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by yql718:
I don't think it has to boil down to an "either/or" dichotomy. Warfare builds on existing cultural elements. We know that. At the same time, it could be said that warfare can definitely create a framework for greater expansion of and elaboration of civilization. So it is not either/or. The Aztecs, Inca, Romans etc attacked or built on existing cultures and civs already in place. But the larger framework they created via warfare- their empires, foster the expanded dispersion of trade, technology, political institutions and ideas. So yeah, conquest can create these larger frameworks, but conquest does not operate in a vacuum.

As for the threefold grouping of peoples that made up the foundations of AE civ (indigenes, upriver dwellers, Saharan migrants) that is fairly uncontroversial. The formation of later developments could have been a mix of peaceful trade, marriage and settlement interspersed with the usual violent clashes. This is Human Culture 101. The final consolidation of the Dynasties as you say involved some conquest, but various authorities (Bard 2000 for example) hold that peaceful absorption may also have been in the mix, such as strategic marriages or mutual trade agreements. The picture is a mixed one.

. . .

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged |