quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Well, there was a discover in the early 1900s of the supposed grave of Osar (Osiris). But we have to understand something. The word Neter does not mean god, never has and never well. People should read Wallace Budge's books on the subject. It is very probably that Osiris, Ausit and many of the other ones were probably real people who had myths created around them
I hear people claim this but I question this concept. Some of these dieties come out of local African traditions. Are we to assume that in African Traditional religion that dieties or spirits were not supernatural beings originally, they were based on real people? I don't see this. I would assume generally worldwide, many Gods were developed to try to explain natural events like storms or droughts in hopes that the thing that was causing these events was intelligent and could be reasoned with, diasters could be reduced by prayer, reverence and sacrifice.
Do you have some page references in Budge where he says the Gods were probably real people who had myths created around them?
I have read that Pharoahs were only deified since Tutankhamun and deified but not of the same status as the Gods
In 1945, the Egyptian archaeologist Abdel Moneim Abu Bakr came across a water-filled shaft inside a small tunnel that runs north-south under the causeway of Khafre at Giza. He explored it sufficiently to learn that it incorporated a number of chambers, but he never excavated or published it. For many years, the shaft had served as a swimming hole and as a source of drinking water for local workmen - it was filled with groundwater to such a high level that no archaeologist was able to excavate it.
Three of the side-chambers contained stone sarcophagi in the style of the 26th Dynasty, and two of the sarcophagi contained human bones. We also found shabtis and fragments of Late Period pottery in this level. In addition to the side-chambers, there is a recess in the southeastern corner of the main chamber, from which a third vertical shaft descends. After about 8 meters, this last shaft ends in a chamber about 9 meters square.
The final chamber is the most interesting of all. Much of it is taken up by a rectangular emplacement in the center, carved from the living rock with the remains of a square pillar at each corner. The space left between the walls of the chamber and the emplacement in the center forms a kind of channel. The channel is broken at the entrance to the chamber, where the floor has been left at a higher level to connect it with the emplacement. This gives the channel the shape of the hieroglyphic sign pr, meaning “house.” In the center of the emplacement, there is a large sarcophagus made of black basalt. The sarcophagus contained the remains of a skeleton, along with several amulets dating to the Late Period. We were surprised to find that there was also some red polished pottery with traces of white paint, which probably dates to the 6th Dynasty.
There is no evidence that the shaft was ever used for a royal burial. It is my belief that it was intended as a symbolic tomb for Osiris, the god of the underworld. The channel surrounding the emplacement in the lowest level seems to have been deliberately designed so that groundwater would fill it, making the emplacement in the center into a sort of island. This configuration could represent the primeval waters of Nun, which covered the world at the time of creation, with the island in the center representing the first mound of earth to emerge. The water further symbolizes the connection of Osiris to fertility and rebirth. The emplacement with a large sarcophagus in the center and a pillar at each corner (perhaps representing the four sacred legs of the god as described in later texts) is very similar to the configuration of the Osireion of Seti I at Abydos, another symbolic tomb for Osiris. The burials dating to the Late Period probably reflect the desire of the Egyptians to be close to the god of the underworld in death.
I believe that the Osiris Shaft is what the Greek author Herodotus, the “father of history,” was talking about when he said that Khufu was buried on an island in an underground chamber, located in the shadow of the Great Pyramid and fed by a canal from the Nile. Herodotus must have been describing the Osiris Shaft, although he was incorrect about its date and function. The Osiris Shaft seems to be a good deal later than the reign of Khufu, as the earliest artifacts found inside date to Dynasty 6, with most of the finds of a much later date. As I have noted, through my excavations I was able to determine that it probably represents a symbolic tomb for the god Osiris, not a royal tomb as Herodotus maintained.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Well, there was a discover in the early 1900s of the supposed grave of Osar (Osiris). But we have to understand something. The word Neter does not mean god, never has and never well. People should read Wallace Budge's books on the subject. It is very probably that Osiris, Ausit and many of the other ones were probably real people who had myths created around them
I hear people claim this but I question this concept. Some of these dieties come out of local African traditions. Are we to assume that in African Traditional religion that dieties or spirits were not supernatural beings originally, they were based on real people? I don't see this. I would assume generally worldwide, many Gods were developed to try to explain natural events like storms or droughts in hopes that the thing that was causing these events was intelligent and could be reasoned with, diasters could be reduced by prayer, reverence and sacrifice.
Do you have some page references in Budge where he says the Gods were probably real people who had myths created around them?
I have read that Pharoahs were only deified since Tutankhamun and deified but not of the same status as the Gods
In 1945, the Egyptian archaeologist Abdel Moneim Abu Bakr came across a water-filled shaft inside a small tunnel that runs north-south under the causeway of Khafre at Giza. He explored it sufficiently to learn that it incorporated a number of chambers, but he never excavated or published it. For many years, the shaft had served as a swimming hole and as a source of drinking water for local workmen - it was filled with groundwater to such a high level that no archaeologist was able to excavate it.
Three of the side-chambers contained stone sarcophagi in the style of the 26th Dynasty, and two of the sarcophagi contained human bones. We also found shabtis and fragments of Late Period pottery in this level. In addition to the side-chambers, there is a recess in the southeastern corner of the main chamber, from which a third vertical shaft descends. After about 8 meters, this last shaft ends in a chamber about 9 meters square.
The final chamber is the most interesting of all. Much of it is taken up by a rectangular emplacement in the center, carved from the living rock with the remains of a square pillar at each corner. The space left between the walls of the chamber and the emplacement in the center forms a kind of channel. The channel is broken at the entrance to the chamber, where the floor has been left at a higher level to connect it with the emplacement. This gives the channel the shape of the hieroglyphic sign pr, meaning “house.” In the center of the emplacement, there is a large sarcophagus made of black basalt. The sarcophagus contained the remains of a skeleton, along with several amulets dating to the Late Period. We were surprised to find that there was also some red polished pottery with traces of white paint, which probably dates to the 6th Dynasty.
There is no evidence that the shaft was ever used for a royal burial. It is my belief that it was intended as a symbolic tomb for Osiris, the god of the underworld. The channel surrounding the emplacement in the lowest level seems to have been deliberately designed so that groundwater would fill it, making the emplacement in the center into a sort of island. This configuration could represent the primeval waters of Nun, which covered the world at the time of creation, with the island in the center representing the first mound of earth to emerge. The water further symbolizes the connection of Osiris to fertility and rebirth. The emplacement with a large sarcophagus in the center and a pillar at each corner (perhaps representing the four sacred legs of the god as described in later texts) is very similar to the configuration of the Osireion of Seti I at Abydos, another symbolic tomb for Osiris. The burials dating to the Late Period probably reflect the desire of the Egyptians to be close to the god of the underworld in death.
I believe that the Osiris Shaft is what the Greek author Herodotus, the “father of history,” was talking about when he said that Khufu was buried on an island in an underground chamber, located in the shadow of the Great Pyramid and fed by a canal from the Nile. Herodotus must have been describing the Osiris Shaft, although he was incorrect about its date and function. The Osiris Shaft seems to be a good deal later than the reign of Khufu, as the earliest artifacts found inside date to Dynasty 6, with most of the finds of a much later date. As I have noted, through my excavations I was able to determine that it probably represents a symbolic tomb for the god Osiris, not a royal tomb as Herodotus maintained.
Hey Lioness every culture is different
Some cultures like the unsophisticated Egyptians worshiped ANIMALS the same with the ancient greeks they worshiped BULLS
here is some proof that the unsophisticated ancient Egyptians worshiped creatures
Hebrew Culture Compared To Egyptian Culture: Egyptian Worship Of Animals by Tacitus
"They (The Hebrews) slay the ram, seemingly in derision of Hammon, and they sacrifice the ox, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis."-----Tacitus History Book 5
" The Egyptians worship many animals and images of monstrous form; the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence. "-----Tacitus History Book 5
"They (Hebrews) call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials."------Tacitus History Book 5
Now in the Middle East the anicent babylonian gods were based of of Great Men of the past for example Baal and his wife are simply Nimrod
Now I now that some primitive cultures developed gods to answer weather issues because of ignorance
but to be real the Hebrews had the BEST most impressive understanding of spiritual matters than anyone on earth.
1. They are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion,
2. They regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies.
3. They abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful
4. Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men.
5. The Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence.
6. They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials.
7. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into them.
A. To despise all gods
B. To disown their country
C. They hold that the souls of all who perish in battle or by the hands of the executioner are immortal. Hence a passion for propagating their race and a contempt for death.
See the rest of mankind was IGNORANT as hell concerning GOD
Posts: 111 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ This is somewhat off topic, I'll have to start a new thread in Ancient Egypt
The Egyptians worshipped a wide variety of Gods many in human form. some with animal heads on human bodies and some in animal form, and often the same diety expressed in these different ways
The thread topic is not about the animal elements. It's about the human form Gods if they were originally based on real people or not
new thread in AE
TRUTH HITMAN on why Hebrews are deeper spiritually than the Egyptians
posted
Apparently you guys fail to understand the concept of TOTEM. The totem was the symbol of the deity and NOT the deity himself though the deity could take the form of his/her totem.
Some Egyptians deities could very well have bases on actual personages. For example both Ausar and his wife Aset are viewed founding figures of Egyptian culture. So was the figure of Seshat and Djehuti etc.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Apparently you guys fail to understand the concept of TOTEM. The totem was the symbol of the deity and NOT the deity himself though the deity could take the form of his/her totem.
Some Egyptians deities could very well have bases on actual personages. For example both Ausar and his wife Aset are viewed founding figures of Egyptian culture. So was the figure of Seshat and Djehuti etc.
Cosigned!
This African concept is similar to the Avatar.
There is a well known concept called vudu (voodoo) where the spirit takes over the body and the body comes a host of such spirit.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Actually the avatar (Sanskrit: avatara) is different from the concept of possession of a shaman or medium which is also found in various cultures around the world. In Hindu belief an avatar is an incarnation of a deity in human flesh. Perhaps a closer analogy to the avatar concept in Africa would be divine kings and queens who were the incarnate of the gods. Though I think in the case of the divine monarchs they may not be exact reincarnations but rather share in the gods emanation or ka.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes but the concept of 'avatar' is a spirit incarnated in flesh or more accurately mortal form.
The Egyptian gods are spirits though they are said to have flesh forms as well.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Well, there was a discover in the early 1900s of the supposed grave of Osar (Osiris). But we have to understand something. The word Neter does not mean god, never has and never well. People should read Wallace Budge's books on the subject. It is very probably that Osiris, Ausit and many of the other ones were probably real people who had myths created around them
I hear people claim this but I question this concept. Some of these dieties come out of local African traditions. Are we to assume that in African Traditional religion that dieties or spirits were not supernatural beings originally, they were based on real people? I don't see this. I would assume generally worldwide, many Gods were developed to try to explain natural events like storms or droughts in hopes that the thing that was causing these events was intelligent and could be reasoned with, diasters could be reduced by prayer, reverence and sacrifice.
Do you have some page references in Budge where he says the Gods were probably real people who had myths created around them?
I have read that Pharoahs were only deified since Tutankhamun and deified but not of the same status as the Gods
In 1945, the Egyptian archaeologist Abdel Moneim Abu Bakr came across a water-filled shaft inside a small tunnel that runs north-south under the causeway of Khafre at Giza. He explored it sufficiently to learn that it incorporated a number of chambers, but he never excavated or published it. For many years, the shaft had served as a swimming hole and as a source of drinking water for local workmen - it was filled with groundwater to such a high level that no archaeologist was able to excavate it.
Three of the side-chambers contained stone sarcophagi in the style of the 26th Dynasty, and two of the sarcophagi contained human bones. We also found shabtis and fragments of Late Period pottery in this level. In addition to the side-chambers, there is a recess in the southeastern corner of the main chamber, from which a third vertical shaft descends. After about 8 meters, this last shaft ends in a chamber about 9 meters square.
The final chamber is the most interesting of all. Much of it is taken up by a rectangular emplacement in the center, carved from the living rock with the remains of a square pillar at each corner. The space left between the walls of the chamber and the emplacement in the center forms a kind of channel. The channel is broken at the entrance to the chamber, where the floor has been left at a higher level to connect it with the emplacement. This gives the channel the shape of the hieroglyphic sign pr, meaning “house.” In the center of the emplacement, there is a large sarcophagus made of black basalt. The sarcophagus contained the remains of a skeleton, along with several amulets dating to the Late Period. We were surprised to find that there was also some red polished pottery with traces of white paint, which probably dates to the 6th Dynasty.
There is no evidence that the shaft was ever used for a royal burial. It is my belief that it was intended as a symbolic tomb for Osiris, the god of the underworld. The channel surrounding the emplacement in the lowest level seems to have been deliberately designed so that groundwater would fill it, making the emplacement in the center into a sort of island. This configuration could represent the primeval waters of Nun, which covered the world at the time of creation, with the island in the center representing the first mound of earth to emerge. The water further symbolizes the connection of Osiris to fertility and rebirth. The emplacement with a large sarcophagus in the center and a pillar at each corner (perhaps representing the four sacred legs of the god as described in later texts) is very similar to the configuration of the Osireion of Seti I at Abydos, another symbolic tomb for Osiris. The burials dating to the Late Period probably reflect the desire of the Egyptians to be close to the god of the underworld in death.
I believe that the Osiris Shaft is what the Greek author Herodotus, the “father of history,” was talking about when he said that Khufu was buried on an island in an underground chamber, located in the shadow of the Great Pyramid and fed by a canal from the Nile. Herodotus must have been describing the Osiris Shaft, although he was incorrect about its date and function. The Osiris Shaft seems to be a good deal later than the reign of Khufu, as the earliest artifacts found inside date to Dynasty 6, with most of the finds of a much later date. As I have noted, through my excavations I was able to determine that it probably represents a symbolic tomb for the god Osiris, not a royal tomb as Herodotus maintained.
The first mistake is saying Neter means deity. It doesn't. You should read Wallace Budges books, he goes in depth as to the meaning interpretations of the word Neter. Now as to comparing it to other African religions. Lets look at Orisha, also a word that doesn't mean deity has people who are considered in Yoruba Land to have lived at one time.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
]The first mistake is saying Neter means deity. It doesn't. You should read Wallace Budges books, he goes in depth as to the meaning interpretations of the word Neter. Now as to comparing it to other African religions. Lets look at Orisha, also a word that doesn't mean deity has people who are considered in Yoruba Land to have lived at one time.
Yes, exactly if anyone bothers to read the link, you will see the problem with defining that word and heavy weights such as Maspero also didn't consider it to mean "god". The problem I believe is, many Egyptologist have tried to explain Egyptian concepts from a European point of view, being that these people were africans, you would need to understand African spirituality and then define words based on the African context.
You can also find this discussion Budge's book "The Gods of the Egyptians" which is where I first read it.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Yes, exactly if anyone bothers to read the link, you will see the problem with defining that word and heavy weights such as Maspero also didn't consider it to mean "god". The problem I believe is, many Egyptologist have tried to explain Egyptian concepts from a European point of view, being that these people were africans, you would need to understand African spirituality and then define words based on the African context.
You can also find this discussion Budge's book "The Gods of the Egyptians" which is where I first read it.
A deity or god is an intelligent being that is not human and has more power and abilities than a human. They may appear looking human but they have more power and abilities than a human and they sometimes do things which affect the world humans live in. Creator beings are only one example
Do you believe Africans traditionally believe in these things
or do you belive Africans only believe in remembering respectfully human ancestors but myths are just allegorical teachings, not real events that happened, that there are no real intelligent spirits out there with above human powers? No real intelligent creator being above human?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Yes, exactly if anyone bothers to read the link, you will see the problem with defining that word and heavy weights such as Maspero also didn't consider it to mean "god". The problem I believe is, many Egyptologist have tried to explain Egyptian concepts from a European point of view, being that these people were africans, you would need to understand African spirituality and then define words based on the African context.
You can also find this discussion Budge's book "The Gods of the Egyptians" which is where I first read it.
A deity or god is an intelligent being that is not human and has more power and abilities than a human. They may appear looking human but they have more power and abilities than a human and they sometimes do things which affect the world humans live in. Creator beings are only one example
Do you believe Africans traditionally believe in these things
or do you belive Africans only believe in remembering respectfully human ancestors but myths are just allegorical teachings, not real events that happened, that there are no real intelligent spirits out there with above human powers? No real intelligent creator being above human?
I have no idea what you are on about.
1. Budge, Maspero and MANY other egyptologist said Neter does NOT mean god.
Your uneducated opinion on the matter means absolutely nothing.
As to what Africans traditionally believe, lets see what a educated person has to say about it.
This is a interview with Christopher Ehret:
quote:Ehret: There's something else here too. One of the things I found most valuable for dividing up these distinct civilizations is religion. One of the most fascinating things is that a couple of these African civilizations were probably monotheistic before any other people, at least in the Middle East or European world, so far as we know.
The way we look at these religious beliefs is that we have two categories I find useful. One is, how do people categorize the realm of spirit. The second is how they deal with the problem of evil: why bad things happen to good people—or good things happen to bad people.
Let's look at the realm of spirit for Niger-Congo people. It seems that anciently linguistically we can demonstrate this back 6,000 or 7,000 years anciently there was a Creator God, a single god that created the world. On this level, it looks like God the Creator was much like the Deist god of the 18th century. Got his world going, or got her world going, and then sat back to look at it.
Interesting thing about Niger-Congo thinking, by the way: they have a single pronoun for he, she, and it. They don't make gender distinctions in the third person. So you don't know whether they're talking about the Creator God as a female or male. They've got subordinate names for Godattribute namesthat may be female. And they've got other subordinate names that may be male. They don't see God as inherently gendered. For them, God is male in this context and female in that context.
But the earliest term we have isn't only non-gendered, it's not even human. They're not thinking of the Creator God as analogous to human beings.
Most African's I know of. At least Mande people, and others in West Africa believe that there is one God that created all things and then there are his attributes/emanations that are the underlying forces that govern this world. You see this is Ife, you see this in traditional Mande religion and the like. And these beliefs seem to have come with people out of the Sahara and that includes the Kushites who are the forerunners of the Egyptians.
I try to keep my opinions to interpreting data provided by well founded academic research. You on the other hand seem to make things up based on poorly conducted research which leads to fantasy, not reality.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Egyptian Neteru were not Gods but spirits. The Egyptian Neteru were forces of nature and human nature. The Egyptian Neteru were the quality of God in nature. The Egyptian believe in one invisible God call Neberdjer or Pa Neter that they never depicted. Many Bantu believe in one God Zambi/Njambi/Nyame and his different spirits in nature. Yoruba believe in one creator God Oludumare and his forces in nature.
Your uneducated opinion on the matter means absolutely nothing.
I'm an educated person. If you think my opinon means aboslutley nothing you should not be posting in my thread, replying to me directly you dumb piece of shit. You should have made your own thread hypocritical fool
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
As to what Africans traditionally believe, lets see what a educated person has to say about it.
This is a interview with Christopher Ehret:
I have read John Mbiti, Asante, Chidi Denis Isizoh. Your first resource was the outdated Budge and then another European Ehret who doesn't know the difference between Monotheism and Henotheism. You are an arrogant asshole you just parrot and are too dumb to comprehend what I said
Dumb piece of shit, I wrote this thread because there are many AAs who are into Kemet, Dr. Ben and so on who say the Egyptians didn't believe in supernatural spirits that the whole thing to them was metaphor.
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
I try to keep my opinions to interpreting data provided by well founded academic research. You on the other hand seem to make things up based on poorly conducted research which leads to fantasy, not reality.
Dumb piece of shit you are an arrogant condescending asshole.
Other people in the forum have noticed it
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: The Egyptian Neteru were not Gods but spirits. The Egyptian Neteru were forces of nature and human nature. The Egyptian Neteru were the quality of God in nature. The Egyptian believe in one invisible God call Neberdjer or Pa Neter that they never depicted. Many Bantu believe in one God Zambi/Njambi/Nyame and his different spirits in nature. Yoruba believe in one creator God Oludumare and his forces in nature.
This is exactly it. Among mande people in W. Africa you have N'gala (among other names). You see this type of believe anywhere you see African peoples. The expression of these beliefs may vary but they are the same. Hindus also only believe in one God but the other things are just his emanations. You also see this in Islam with the 99 names of God etc.
The problem with Ancient Egypt is, Europeans have tried to tell the Egyptian story outside of it's African context, and it just doesn't work. It leads to confusion, at least for them and those that follow them.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Your uneducated opinion on the matter means absolutely nothing.
I'm an educated person. If you think my opinon means aboslutley nothing you should not be posting in my thread, replying to me directly you dumb piece of shit. You should have made your own thread hypocritical fool
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
As to what Africans traditionally believe, lets see what a educated person has to say about it.
This is a interview with Christopher Ehret:
I have read John Mbiti, Asante, Chidi Denis Isizoh. Your first resource was the outdated Budge and then another European Ehret who doesn't know the difference between Monotheism and Henotheism. You are an arrogant asshole you just parrot and are too dumb to comprehend what I said
Dumb piece of shit, I wrote this thread because there are many AAs who are into Kemet, Dr. Ben and so on who say the Egyptians didn't believe in supernatural spirits that the whole thing to them was metphor.
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
I try to keep my opinions to interpreting data provided by well founded academic research. You on the other hand seem to make things up based on poorly conducted research which leads to fantasy, not reality.
Dumb piece of shit you are an arrogant condescending asshole.
Other people in the forum have noticed it
Arrogant? I think you misunderstood my original response. But either way, I show you that you are wrong time and again, with proof. You come to me empty handed with no proof, and conjecture and illogical conclusions. I show you that what you are saying is illogical and you lash out. That is your ego talking, nothing more and nothing less. You don't know what you're talking about, thats fine, admit it. There are two types of people in this world: Those who know, they are teachers, those who do not know, they are students. We are all or should I say, we all should be teachers and students at any given time, depending on the situation. When we do not know something we should place ourselves in the position of students, so that we can learn. If we know something of value, we should teach those that do not know. The rest of the people who are neither teachers nor learners, well they are useless. Are you a useless person, who would rather repeat their fantasy based opinions, as opposed to learning about things which you clearly do not know? Do not get upset, just stop lying, stop talking about things you have no knowledge of and learn, its that simple.
As for Ehret, your statement is laughable. You, a person with little to no education about Africa, seeks to question what he says, its funny. ANY African who knows the various religions on the continent can tell you with 100% confidence that NO African religion is anything BUT monotheistic. To say that African religions are anything but monotheistic would mean that christianity is also not monotheistic, with its father, son and holy ghost, and if we are talking about the early cults of christianity, namely catholics and the coptic variant, then we are also talking about "idol" worship. Europeans always seek to try and distort what Africans are doing, while trying to make themselves seem so noble, and I for one will show the falsehood of this whenever I see it taking place.
The accusation of arrogance is little more than your Ego speaking. Instead of being humble enough to admit when you don't know what your talking about, you just putting out foolish thoughts and ideas.
I also think you must not be a native english speaker. You seem to have misunderstood what i was trying to get across. I wasn't saying you're a over all uneducated person. I don't know you personally to say that. But your opinions about Egypt are uneducated because you clearly know little about Egypt and Africa, outside of the myriad of pictures you post to try and prove your ill formed opinions.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
African Traditional Religion is not monotheist
Some African religions might worship one god but they believe in other gods. Monotheists don't believe that other gods exist
The thing that made the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Chistianity and Islam unique is that they said worship only one God, this is the first commandment of the bible and second pillar of Islam
The reason they said that is obvious people were worshiping a wide variety of Gods. The Muslims say there are 99 names of God. These are names of one God and not separate entities.
The vast majority of Africans today are Christians and Muslims.
What some Christians and Muslims do is try to pretend that Africans never believed in multiple Gods, that these other dieties were just names or manifestations of one God. This might be true in some African religions but it is not true for many African religions and not true for Ancient Egyptians.
It's BS that some modern Christian writers came up with to try to pretend that Africans were always montheist and the other spirits are just "manifestations" names or "incarnations" of one God. In African Traditional religion there are good, bad and natural spirits and a creator God. People who were born into Abrahamic relgions try pretend that these are all just "manifestations" of one God. It's intellectual BS. There is a historical reason that the Abrahamic religions came in and said believe only one God.
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:I also think you must not be a native english speaker.
fvck you and your mother
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: African Traditional Religion is not monotheist
Some African religions might worship one god but they believe in other gods. Monotheists don't believe that other gods exist
The thing that made the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Chistianity and Islam unique is that they said worship only one God, this is the first commandment of the bible and second pillar of Islam
The reason they said that is obvious people were worshiping a wide variety of Gods. The Muslims say there are 99 names of God. These are names of one God and not separate entities.
The vast majority of Africans today are Christians and Muslims.
What some Christians and Muslims do is try to pretend that Africans never believed in multiple Gods, that these other dieties were just names or manifestations of one God. This might be true in some African religions but it is not true for many African religions and not true for Ancient Egyptians.
It's BS that some modern Christian writers came up with to try to pretend that Africans were always montheist and the other spirits are just "manifestations" names or "incarnations" of one God. In African Traditional religion there are good, bad and natural spirits and a creator God. People who were born into Abrahamic relgions try pretend that these are all just "manifestations" of one God. It's intellectual BS. There is a historical reason that the Abrahamic religions came in and said believe only one God.
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:I also think you must not be a native english speaker.
fvck you and your mother
Again, you don't know what your talking about. your uneducated opinions, mean nothing.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Out of curiosity, how do you define West African terms like orisha or loa??
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ Out of curiosity, how do you define West African terms like orisha or loa??
I am not Yoruba, I am not sure what the translation is. I have a very close friend of mine who is a Babaaláwo. It is this Babaaláwo who told me those are just emanations of Olodumare. He said if you ask a ignorant Yoruba practitioner what the orisha are, they may say they are deities. He said, however there is no Babaaláwo that would make such a claim, there is only One God for them, Olodumare who created everything.I should add, even Muslim Yoruba, when speaking about God in Yoruba language, will sometimes say Olodumare instead of using the Arabic word Allah. But it is the same for a english speaking person who is Muslim. They will say God in place of Allah at times.
But back to your question about Orisha. I don't know what the literal translation of that word is. As I said before, I try not to muddle my opinions with non-facts. My attempt is to gather facts as best I can, from as many sound sources as I can and then form a opinion based on that. So with that said, Orisha has a definitive etymological meaning, I just don't know it. On a theological level though, I have spoken with Babaaláwo and they have told me those things are not deities in and of themselves, they are just aspects of the creator. This is the same with the 99 names of Allah in Islam or the 72 names of God in judeo-christian belief. The difference is, in Ife they seem to have been engendered. Now in traditional Mande belief, like among Bambara, Mende, Mandinka etc. you don't see this engendered status for the aspects of the deity. You see that N'gala created the universe, then created the human ancestors and they in turn bring about human existence through procreation etc. The way the human ancestors are created in Mande belief seems to mimic EXACTLY the creation myth of the ancient egyptians. There is a ennead, there is something that closely relates to the ba, ka and the shadow etc. In fact one french researcher claimed Mande people are the inheritors of the Egyptian religion because the beliefs are that close. I don't believe that Mandes inherited anything though. I think Mande people had these beliefs when they were in the Sahara along with the forefathers of the Kushites and kemu. When the various groups left the Sahara, those beliefs started to diverge and develop based on new cultural evolutions etc.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Your uneducated opinion on the matter means absolutely nothing.
I'm an educated person. If you think my opinon means aboslutley nothing you should not be posting in my thread, replying to me directly you dumb piece of shit. You should have made your own thread hypocritical fool
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
As to what Africans traditionally believe, lets see what a educated person has to say about it.
This is a interview with Christopher Ehret:
I have read John Mbiti, Asante, Chidi Denis Isizoh. Your first resource was the outdated Budge and then another European Ehret who doesn't know the difference between Monotheism and Henotheism. You are an arrogant asshole you just parrot and are too dumb to comprehend what I said
Dumb piece of shit, I wrote this thread because there are many AAs who are into Kemet, Dr. Ben and so on who say the Egyptians didn't believe in supernatural spirits that the whole thing to them was metphor.
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
I try to keep my opinions to interpreting data provided by well founded academic research. You on the other hand seem to make things up based on poorly conducted research which leads to fantasy, not reality.
Dumb piece of shit you are an arrogant condescending asshole.
Other people in the forum have noticed it
Arrogant? I think you misunderstood my original response. But either way, I show you that you are wrong time and again, with proof. You come to me empty handed with no proof, and conjecture and illogical conclusions. I show you that what you are saying is illogical and you lash out. That is your ego talking, nothing more and nothing less. You don't know what you're talking about, thats fine, admit it. There are two types of people in this world: Those who know, they are teachers, those who do not know, they are students. We are all or should I say, we all should be teachers and students at any given time, depending on the situation. When we do not know something we should place ourselves in the position of students, so that we can learn. If we know something of value, we should teach those that do not know. The rest of the people who are neither teachers nor learners, well they are useless. Are you a useless person, who would rather repeat their fantasy based opinions, as opposed to learning about things which you clearly do not know? Do not get upset, just stop lying, stop talking about things you have no knowledge of and learn, its that simple.
As for Ehret, your statement is laughable. You, a person with little to no education about Africa, seeks to question what he says, its funny. ANY African who knows the various religions on the continent can tell you with 100% confidence that NO African religion is anything BUT monotheistic. To say that African religions are anything but monotheistic would mean that christianity is also not monotheistic, with its father, son and holy ghost, and if we are talking about the early cults of christianity, namely catholics and the coptic variant, then we are also talking about "idol" worship. Europeans always seek to try and distort what Africans are doing, while trying to make themselves seem so noble, and I for one will show the falsehood of this whenever I see it taking place.
The accusation of arrogance is little more than your Ego speaking. Instead of being humble enough to admit when you don't know what your talking about, you just putting out foolish thoughts and ideas.
I also think you must not be a native english speaker. You seem to have misunderstood what i was trying to get across. I wasn't saying you're a over all uneducated person. I don't know you personally to say that. But your opinions about Egypt are uneducated because you clearly know little about Egypt and Africa, outside of the myriad of pictures you post to try and prove your ill formed opinions.
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: The whole "God" or "god" argument is already complex, as God / god is already a deity and part of a phaeton.
The word God stems from the Germanic word Gott.
If I am following your line of reasoning here correctly, I agree. I think what you are saying is, because of the difficulty of understanding what and who God/god is, especially when you add to the mix the European conception of a Supreme Being, and then trying to apply that to Africans who are the polar opposite of the Europeans in this regard, it really makes the "water" muddy so to speak.
Dr. Mario Beatty gave a great lecture about Egypt and spoke about the need for people to understand Egypt in its African context. Europeans have tried for centuries to explain Egypt in European and Semitic terms and it NEVER works, because these people were not Semites or Europeans nor were they a mixed lot. They were wholly Africans with African thinking.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ this is coming from a muslim trying to convince us that the ancient Egyptians were "monotheist " and Islam is an African religion
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: The whole "God" or "god" argument is already complex, as God / god is already a deity and part of a phaeton.
The word God stems from the Germanic word Gott.
If I am following your line of reasoning here correctly, I agree. I think what you are saying is, because of the difficulty of understanding what and who God/god is, especially when you add to the mix the European conception of a Supreme Being, and then trying to apply that to Africans who are the polar opposite of the Europeans in this regard, it really makes the "water" muddy so to speak.
Dr. Mario Beatty gave a great lecture about Egypt and spoke about the need for people to understand Egypt in its African context. Europeans have tried for centuries to explain Egypt in European and Semitic terms and it NEVER works, because these people were not Semites or Europeans nor were they a mixed lot. They were wholly Africans with African thinking.
What I am saying is the god or God, gott or Gott is a deity by itself belonging to the ancient German pantheon of their "higher beings".
So, in references to the Most High Being it would be incorrect.
Same complexity is in Greek reference to theology.
"Theo and Logy."
All-in-All it would be like referring to the Most High Being as Thor or Wodan, for example.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^^ this is coming from a muslim trying to convince us that the ancient Egyptians were "monotheist " and Islam is an African religion
Not saying it is or isn't, but this book is seen is critically important in the field of theology. It was mandatory for knowing at the Catholic University, over here.
quote: It is argued that just as there is a common Afroasiatic language family, so too there is a common Afroasiatic family of religions. There is an inner logic to be found in myths, folk-tales, rituals, customs and beliefs as far apart as Yemen and Nigeria which go back to an ancient past shared by the Bible and the pharaohs.
Using the method of comparative mythology, the author sifts through the work of scholars - including anthropologists, religious historians, archaeologists and classical Greek writers and contemporary comments on them by professional Egyptologists - to build his picture of the Afroasiatic heritage, and how much of it is still with us in modern Western thought.
Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Religions
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
THE GODS OF ANCIENT EGYPT by Brian Brown - published in 1923 Chapter II
THE GODS OF ANCIENT EGYPT Before dealing with the special varieties of the Egyptians' belief in gods, it is best to try to avoid a misunderstanding of their whole conception of the supernatural. The term god has come to tacitly imply to our minds such a highly specialized group of attributes that we can hardly throw our ideas back into the more remote conceptions to which we also attach the same name. It is unfortunate that every other word for supernatural intelligences has become debased, so that we cannot well speak of demons, devils, ghosts, or fairies without implying a noxious or a trifling meaning, quite unsuited to the ancient deities that were so beneficent and powerful. If then we use the word god for such conceptions, it must always be with the reservation that the word has now a very different meaning from what it had to ancient minds.
To the Egyptian the gods might be mortal; even Ra, the sun-god, is said to have grown old and feeble, Osiris was slain, and Orion, the great hunter of the heavens, killed and ate the gods. The mortality of gods has been dwelt on by Dr. Frazer in the "Golden Bough," and the many instances of tombs of gods, and of the slaying of the deified man who was worshipped, all show that immortality was not a divine attribute. Nor was there any doubt that they might suffer while alive; one myth tells how Ra, as he walked on earth, was bitten by a magic serpent and suffered torments. The gods were also supposed to share in a life like that of man, not only in Egypt but in most ancient lands. Offerings of food and drink were constantly supplied to them, in Egypt laid upon the altars, in other lands burnt for a sweet savour. At Thebes the divine wife of the god, or high priestess, was the head of the harem of concubines of the god; and similarly in Babylonia the chamber of the god with the golden couch could only be visited by the priestess who slept there for oracular responses. The Egyptian gods could not be cognisant of what passed on earth without being informed, nor could they reveal their will at a distant place except by sending a messenger; they were as limited as the Greek gods who required the aid of Iris to communicate one with another or with mankind. The gods, therefore, have no divine superiority to man in conditions or limitations; they can only be described as pre-existent, acting intelligences, with scarcely greater powers than man might hope to gain by magic or witchcraft of his own. This conception explains how easily the divine merged into the human in Greek theology, and how frequently divine ancestors occurred in family histories. (By the word "theology" is designated the knowledge about gods.)
There are in ancient theologies very different classes of gods. Some races, as the modern Hindu, revel in a profusion of gods and godlings, which are continually being increased. Others, as the Turanians, whether Sumerian Babylonians, modern Siberians, or Chinese, do not adopt the worship of great gods, but deal with a host of animistic spirits, ghosts, devils, or whatever we may call them; and Shamanism or witchcraft is their system for conciliating such adversaries. But all our knowledge of the early positions and nature of great gods shows them to have stood on an entirely different footing to these varied spirits. Were the conception of a god only an evolution from such spirit worship of one god, polytheism would precede monotheism in each tribe or race. What we actually find is the contrary of this, monotheism is the first stage traceable in theology. Hence we must rather look on the theologic conception of the Aryan and Semitic races as quite apart from the demon-worship of the Turanians. Indeed the Chinese seem to have a mental aversion to the conception of a personal god, and to think either of the host of earth spirits and other demons, or else of the pantheistic abstraction of heaven.
Wherever we can trace back polytheism to its earliest stages we find that it results from combinations of monotheism. In Egypt even Osiris, Isis, and Horus--so familiar as a triad--are found at first as separate units in different places, Isis as a virgin goddess, and Horus as a self-existent god. Each city appears to have but one god belonging to it, to whom others were added. Similarly in Babylonia each great city had its supreme god; and the combinations of these, and their transformations in order to form them in groups when their homes were politically united, show how essentially they were solitary deities at first.
Not only must we widely distinguish the demonology of races worshipping numerous earth spirits and demons from the theology of races devoted to solitary great gods; but we must further distinguish the varying ideas of the latter class. Most of the theologic races have no objection to tolerating the worship of other gods side by side with that of their own local deity. It is in this way that the compound theologies built up the polytheism of Egypt and of Greece. But others of the theologic races have the conception of "a jealous god," who would not tolerate the presence of a rival. We cannot date this conception earlier than Mosaism, and this idea struggled hard against polytheistic toleration. This view acknowledges the reality of other gods, but ignores their claims. The still later view was that other gods were non-existent, a position started by the Hebrew prophets in contempt of idolatry, scarcely grasped by early Christianity, but triumphantly held by Islam.
We therefore have to deal with the following conceptions, which fall into two main groups, that probably belong to different divisions of mankind:
Animism
Demonology
Tribal Monotheism
Combinations forming tolerant Polytheism
Jealous Monotheism
Sole Monotheism
All of these require mention here as more or less of each principle, both of animism and monotheism, can be traced in the innumerable combinations found during the six thousand years of Egyptian religion: these combinations of beliefs being due to combinations of the races to which they belonged.
Before we can understand what were the relations between man and the gods we must first notice the conceptions of the nature of man. In the prehistoric days of Egypt the position and direction of the body was always the same in every burial; offerings of food and drink were placed by it, figures of servants, furniture, even games, were included in the grave. It must be concluded therefore that it was a belief in immortality which gave rise to such a detailed ritual of the dead, though we have no written evidence upon this.
So soon as we reach the age of documents we find on tombstones that the person is denoted by the khu between the arms of the ka. From later writings it is seen that the khu is applied to a spirit of man; while the ka is not the body but the activities of sense and perception. Thus, in the earliest age of documents, two entities were believed to vitalize the body.
The KA is more frequently named than any other part, as all funeral offerings were made for the KA. It is said that if opportunities of satisfaction in life were missed it is grievous to the ka, and that the ka must not be annoyed needlessly; hence it was more than perception, and it included all that we might call consciousness. Perhaps we may grasp it best as the "self," with the same variety of meaning that we have in our own word. The ka was represented as a human being following after the man; it was born at the same time as the man, but persisted after death and lived in and about the tomb. It could act and visit other kas after death, but it could not resist the least touch of physical force. It was always represented by two upraised arms, the acting parts of the person. Beside the ka of man, all objects likewise had their kas, which were comparable to the human ka, and among these the ka lived. This view leads closely to the world of ideas permeating the material world in later philosophy.
The KHU is figured as a crested bird, which has the meaning of "glorious" or "shining" in ordinary use. It refers to a less material conception than the ka, and may be called the intelligence or spirit.
The KHAT is the material body of man which was the vehicle of the KA, and inhabited by the KHU.
The BA belongs to, a different pneumatology to that just noticed. It is the soul apart from the body, figured as a human-headed bird. The conception probably arose from the white owls, with round beads and every human expressions, which frequent the tombs, flying noiselessly to and fro. The ba required food and drink, which were provided for it by the goddess of the cemetery. It thus overlaps the scope of the ka, and probably belongs to a different race to that which define the man.
The sahu or mummy is associated particularly with the ba; and the ba bird is often shown as resting on the mummy or seeking to re-enter it.
The khaybet was the shadow of a man; the importance of the shadow in early ideas is well known.
The sekhem was the force or ruling power of man, but is rarely mentioned.
The ab is the will and intentions, symbolised by the heart; often used in phrases such as a man being "in the heart of his lord," "wideness of heart" for satisfaction, "washing of the heart" for giving vent to temper.
The HATI is the physical heart, the "chief" organ of the body, also wed metaphorically.
The ran is the name which was essential to man, as also to inanimate things. Without a name nothing really existed. The knowledge. of the name gave power over its owner; a great myth turns on Isis obtaining the name of Ra by stratagem, and thus getting the two eyes of Ra--the sun and moon--for her son Horus. Both in ancient and modern races the knowledge of the real name of a man is carefully guarded, and often secondary names are used for secular purposes. It was usual for Egyptians to have a "great name" and a "little name"; the great name is often compounded with that of a god or a king, and was very probably reserved for religious purposes, as it is only found on religious and funerary monuments.
We must not suppose by any means that all of these parts of the person were equally important, or were believed in simultaneously. The ka, khu, and khat seem to form one group; the ba and sehu belong to another; the ab, hati, and sekhem are hardly more than metaphors, such as we commonly use; the khaybet is a later idea which probably belongs to the system of animism and witchcraft, where the shadow gave a hold upon the man. The ran, name, belongs partly to the same system, but also is the germ of the later philosophy of idea.
The purpose of religion to the Egyptian was to secure the favor of the god. There is but little trace of negative prayer to avert evils or deprecate evil influences, but rather of positive prayer for concrete favors. On the part of kings this is usually of the Jacob type, offering to provide temples and services to the god in return for material prosperity. The Egyptian was essentially self-satisfied, he had no confession to make of sin or wrong, and had no thought of pardon. In the judgment he boldly averred that he was free of the forty-two sins that might prevent his entry into the kingdom of Osiris. If he failed to establish his innocence in the weighing of his heart, there was no other plea, but he was consumed by fire and by a hippopotamus, and no hope remained for him.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness the Egyptian/African elite/priests and the masses have a different view of religion. For the masses the Gods are historical being. For the elite and priesthood the Gods are spirits/forces, astrological symbols and symbol of your soul.
There was a three steps initiation in ancient religion. 1) The priest taught the people the Gods were historical person, 2) The Priest taught the people the Gods were spirits/forces of the universe or the one God. 3)The Priest taught the people about astrology and soul.
Typezeist I think the Mande people were one of the tribe of Ancient Egypt, Kush, Mesoamerica etc. I didn't know Ngala was the supreme God of the Mande. Clyde Winters mention Komo and Pemba as one of the Mande Spirits/Gods.
Lioness nice posting of the 7 parts of the A Egyptian body.
Troll Patrol I am going to check the review of the book Black God online
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Lioness the Egyptian/African elite/priests and the masses have a different view of religion. For the masses the Gods are historical being. For the elite and priesthood the Gods are spirits/forces, astrological symbols and symbol of your soul.
There was a three steps initiation in ancient religion. 1) The priest taught the people the Gods were historical person, 2) The Priest taught the people the Gods were spirits/forces of the universe or the one God. 3)The Priest taught the people about astrology and soul.
Typezeist I think the Mande people were one of the tribe of Ancient Egypt, Kush, Mesoamerica etc. I didn't know Ngala was the supreme God of the Mande. Clyde Winters mention Komo and Pemba as one of the Mande Spirits/Gods.
Lioness nice posting of the 7 parts of the A Egyptian body.
Troll Patrol I am going to check the review of the book Black God online
Komo isn't a deity or a spirit, komo is a initiation society for Bambara people in Mali, there 7 or 8 in total (I forget the exact number). These societies are found throughout Mande dominated areas. You see it in Sierra Leone as Porro. As for Komo, there is a specific mask associated with that society that white researchers have called the "spirit of Komo" but that is nonsense. It is the totem of that society, that is all. You mentioned Pemba, he wasn't a deity, he was one of the human ancestors in the Mande creation story. He was a human, one of our (human beings) forefathers, which God created and sent down. N'gala is God in Bambara.
As for Mande being from Egypt. I don't think this is correct. Mande were in the Sahara around 4,000 BC when it was still inhabitable in the western part. Then as it dries out they move into what is today Mauritania. Those ancient cities and villages you see there with stone masonry that Europeans don't even get until the medieval period, Mande people built that in 3,000+ BCE. It is mande people who founded ancient Wagadou. Mandes also founded a ancient city caleld Kukiya also in West Africa, which was contemporary with Egypt. When I say mande, you are talking about something like 22 different groups. Mende (they are truly Malinke people), Bambara, Malinke, Soninke etc. etc.
The culture and religion is so similar between Egypt and mande, I believe because these beliefs date to a VERY early period, from the time many of these groups were in the Sahara. The eastern half of the Sahara went hyper arid before the western half did. So you see a dispersal happen into Nile Valley a bit earlier than you see it in the west. The founding of Wagadou and many other W. African polities are actually earlier than those found in Mesopotamia. For example Sumeria doesn't become a kingdom until 2500 BCE but you already had kingship in wagadou by 3,000 BCE. You also have one in Kukiya (they have not found this kingdom yet, but they know about it from traditions)
That isn't to say that all W. Africans were from the Sahara directly, doesn't even mean all Mande are from the Sahara, as i am sure other people came and mixed in over time. I do believe some of them did come from Nile Valley. I have heard that many Fula groups claim to have come from there. You see this with Yoruba too. Yoruba are not one monolithic group. They had a huge empire and other groups were absorbed into that group, and took on the name Yoruba, even though historically they were not Yoruba. There are Yoruba in Western Nigeria who are historically Mande actually. This is also why you see a few origin stories for different groups of Yoruba. some of them claiming to have come from the Sudan originally, others claiming to have come from the middle east etc.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
TypeZeist that's the second time I am learning that that the city of Wagadu, Tichit Walatta and the Mande/Soninke Wagadu/Ghana Empire were created in 3000 BC. The first time I learned it from the Youtube video African historical ruins you never see on TV http://youtu.be/pspFolOHrfI. It is a shame that Western Academia date the creation of the Ghana empire to 400CE.
The Mande people of Africa were great builders of civilizations. I read that The Garamante people were one of the builders of Crete and Greek civilizations. The Mande were the creators of the Olmec civilization and probably the creator of Aztec civilization. Some of The Native North American tribes were descendant of Mande people. The Phoenician people that created the Etruscan/Utruscan civilization were probably Mande. Some people states the tribe of Dan that migrated to Europe( DANmark, sweDan, lonDAN, Danube,DANaan) were Mande. some scholar states the Mande people were one of the Chinese tribes.
The Bantous Hebreux states the congo word Sonika meaning writing come from Soninka the Egyptian words for papyrus who was name after the Egyptian Soninke Priests and scribes who manufactured and used the papyrus.
Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: That isn't to say that all W. Africans were from the Sahara directly
Most of the ancestry of modern West Africans do come from the Sahara. Prior to their arrival, West Africa was probably mostly inhabited by small groups of hunters gatherers. While migrating from the north, Niger-Congo speakers probably absorbed other populations along the way. Almost no traces of previous population in West Africa exist beside maybe remnant in the the Jalaa and Laal language. We can also note (personal but straightforward analysis) the A00 haplogroup found recently among African-American and West African people. The first group to split from the rest of the human populations (and vice versa, that is the other humans are the first group to split from them).
It is noted in the book Archaeology, Language, and the African Past By R. Blench this way:
quote:For whatever reason, West Africa was only populated extremely sparsely until the end of the Pleistocene, some 12,000 years ago (Muzzolini 1993).
Adding:
quote:One feature of the Niger-Congo region is the virtual absence of residual languages. What languages the MSA hunter-gatherers spoke must remain unknown. Only in Southern Africa, where the expanding Bantu-speakers encountered the Khoesan, does a real mosaic of farmers and hunter-gatherers still exist. But within much of the core Niger-Congo area, only Jalaa in Nigeria and Laal in Chad (see Table 8.1 and Map 8.1) seem to be true remnants of an earlier diversity that must have characterised the continent. These fragments both hint at a more ancient stratum of hunting-gathering populations in West Africa, present at the time of the Niger-Congo expansion but almost completely absorbed by them. Niger-Congo must have expanded and assimilated all the resident groups and must therefore have had highly convincing technological or societal tools to bring this about.
The people in West Africa prior to the current population arriving were pygmy groups. You see remnants of their cities in the hlls where the Dogan live. They were called Thellam in that area. You also have folks tails about them in Sierra Leone. You can also see in the Mende population some very short statured people, with limb ratios generally seen in so called pygmy groups. But this is because they were "absorbed" as you stated.
Also according to the legend of the city of Kukiya which dates back to the Egyptian Empire, it was ruled by a "tall" man, which he would be tall by pygmy standards who conquered and ruled them. If I remember right you can read about Kukiya in Tarikh Al Sudan and I believe Dr. Diop wrote about that kingdom in one of his books as well.
Mena7
I forget the name of the peer reviewed article that I read stating that the tichett complex dates back to 3,000 BC. So western researches know this. What they try and do is to in one breath say Wagadou, which was ruled by soninke included tichett but then in the next breath, they try and separate the history of the two until more recent times. We can't listen to these people for any reason, they are fabricators. You want to know what was going on way back when? Read history written by africans, there are tons. Start with the Tarikhs, there are TONS of info in them. Europeans try to dismiss it as "tall tales", but who would know history of the area better? Some know-nothing who comes along thousands of years after the facts, who likes to fabricate things because of their Eurocentric preconceptions or would the Sons of the soil know the history better, based on the historical facts passed down through generations? My money is on the sons of the soil.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Also according to the legend of the city of Kukiya which dates back to the Egyptian Empire, it was ruled by a "tall" man, which he would be tall by pygmy standards who conquered and ruled them. If I remember right you can read about Kukiya in Tarikh Al Sudan and I believe Dr. Diop wrote about that kingdom in one of his books as well.
I don't know about this legend but the dating would match the desertification of the Sahara which, ultimately, led to the migration of Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo) speakers into that West African region.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
African historians need to translate the Tarikhs history books in easy English or French and publish them. I am very sad the secret Eurocentric power and the muslim fanatic army of Libya destroyed the new library of Timbuctu in North Mali who was going to make thousand of medieval history books available to the world. They didn't want the world to know about the black civilizations of North Africa, Europe and west Asia.
Some of them are in English already. I believe you can get Tarikh Al Sudan in English and maybe Tarikh al Fattash as well. If not a exact translation, one with commentary with it. Just be careful if it is from a Euro. They try and add their little non sense to it. Like calling berbers "white" at times, when the actual text doesn't say that the berbers/amazighs in question were white.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic