posted
Nevertheless, those 2 studies and the thread (LINK) I pointed out to you are pretty informative about the subject of the peopling of Ancient Egypt before and after the Green Saharan period.
Ancient Egypt was populated by people coming from the south.
posted
Look, I'm sorry if I got annoyed with you, but I don't understand how you could even begin to think I'm acting as a spokesman for these people or making it up. I'm bringing to light what they think privately and how it informs their 'conclusions'. I don't want to name sources because the correspondence with them is on going and I don't want them alerted to the fact that I'm tapping them. When the communication is over, I'll then be in a better position to name names.
I've already read the studies you've posted, but I'm trying to find out whether the idea that the Sahara was a barrier to population migration to the Nile valley is a relic of outdated, racist-subtext scholarship.
I understand if it's difficult for people to accept that the views I'm relaying here are still held by academics, especially after all the hard work put in to driving awareness across the internet. You, amun-ra, and Zarahan aren't the first to be disappointed - as well as other ES posters, even supportive academics were initially in disbelief.
But I don't think it does any good to stick heads in the sand. It's necessary to have a realistic sense of the opposition that exists.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tropicals said: I'm bringing to light what they think privately and how it informs their 'conclusions'. I don't want to name sources because the correspondence with them is on going and I don't want them alerted to the fact that I'm tapping them. When the communication is over, I'll then be in a better position to name names.
Fair enough, why cut off the comm channel? Makes sense. But anyhow, sure there is still opposition, distortion, and the skewed racist or racialist assumptions and mindset. There is still ongoing conflict as Kamiguisha says. And Keita 2005 himself notes that inappropriate r ace concepts keep cropping up in studies of the Nile Valley. Its a problem noted in the scholarly literature. He criticizes Cavalli Sforza for example of playing a double game, speaking the language of race neutralism, while reintroducing or still using the same old race concepts. (Keita Kittles 1999). So the struggle is not over. Keita says as much in the Cambridge and Manchester videos posted here on ES.
But would you not say there has been improvement over the last decade or so? Compare now to say 15 years ago. Academia has come some distance- and it has some to go yet. And what about future convergences? In the late 1990s there was some movement. Yurco for example was engaging the prominent "Afrocentrics"- skeptically at times but respectfully. In the blurb below he even praises Molefi Asante. Maybe such things set the stage for the grudging but clear progress in many areas, and in more supportive academics speaking up, and more venues opening up such as Keita at Manchester etc, or Sally Ann Rushtn's venue, or the other academics now taking a broader, more balanced view of things.
Back in the 1990s collaboration, even some like Asa Hilliard praised Yurco and other organizers of Celenko's 'Egypt in Africa" Exhibit, along with other organizers for a display that was one of the first to include 'black' or African phenotypes to represent the Egyptians rather than the usual "white" imagery. In fact said Yurco back then:
"On the other hand, there are people like Molefi Kete Asante at Temple University, who is very solidly based academic. Asante I can respect as a scholar. At the same time, I think more academic Afrocentrists have been awakened to the fact that there isn't a monolithic viewpoint standing in opposition to them. In fact some people have been more open-minded." --Yurco in "TOWARDS A NEW EGYPTOLOGY"
There is still a ways to go and old games are still being played to be sure, despite the above though.
quote:Originally posted by TheAfricaTNSY: Bejas and Nubians are discriminated in Egypt, they live in the south, in their own villages, repeating the same "they stole our land".
They are discriminated, and we know why. Cairo is an Ottoman city, just like Ottoman is the architecture and a great part of the culture.
Egyptians know that, Bejas and Nubians know that.
There is another interesting thing about info in the link above. In it Roth or some Egyptologists claim that they would have been initially more supportive were it not for the opposition of MODERN EGYPTIANS to a more balanced picture. The Egyptians they held were a main stumbling block, and they had to be cautious because they were dependent on the Egyptians for access and so on. In short, they suggest the modern Egyptians are just as racialist/racist as anyone in the West and bitterly oppose the mention of anything "black" lest it "taint" their supposedly "pristine" past, where black people don;t appear unless dey be in Nubia someplace.
The link also tells of how the Egyptian regime banned the film 'Sadat" which had black American actor Lou Gossett portraying Anwar Sadat. Apparently it was "traumatic" for these Egyptians that a black American got the role. It was not merely a matter of wanting an Egyptian actor, the primary problem was that Lou Gossett is black. Can't have that... My own take is that any "trauma" re "negro blood" is irrelevant. We have the hard data on hand. We don't need them, nor do we need their stamp of validation or approval. Let they cry. It is too late in the day to erase out Egyptian its African context, like the pharaohs erased out old inscriptions to build their propaganda.
Are the Egyptologoists just attempting to shift blame- a cop put, or true? Anyone have any more on this?
^^A whita shade of pale...
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But would you not say there has been improvement over the last decade or so?
I only became aware of this debate three or four years ago, but I have been told that, yes, it's less controversial now to say that the Egyptians were black. Two Egyptologists, who both endorsed the Stuart Tyson Smith quote, went as far as saying that most Egyptologists would agree Smith's conclusions. Actually, when I suggested to one, a professor, that it might be heretical to say that the Egyptians were black, they replied:
quote: "No, I don't think so. I can't think of a single Egyptologist today who would even hesitate to call ancient Egyptians "black". I think what Tyson Smith was saying is that even among black folks there are differences in skin colour, from lighter North Africans to really dark skinned folks from further south in Africa."
I almost fell off my seat when I read that! It was good to read, but had I not already corresponded with a number of other Egyptologists prior to that, I might have gone away with a false impression. In addition, I'm in touch with a student of theirs, who disagreed that it was something generally acknowledged.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Roth or some Egyptologists claim that they would have been initially more supportive were it not for the opposition of MODERN EGYPTIANS to a more balanced picture. The Egyptians they held were a main stumbling block, and they had to be cautious because they were dependent on the Egyptians for access and so on.
quote: Are the Egyptologoists just attempting to shift blame- a cop put, or true? Anyone have any more on this?
Ann Macy Roth said that? Hmmmm.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
I've already read the studies you've posted, but I'm trying to find out whether the idea that the Sahara was a barrier to population migration to the Nile valley is a relic of outdated, racist-subtext scholarship.
1) The Sahara wasn't a desert thousands of years ago. It supported wildlife. 2) The Nile river cuts through the eastern part of the present day Sahara. The Nile river begins in Lake Victoria in present day Uganda and Kenya. You could simply follow the river north.
Why would you think the present day Sahara desert is a barrier for black people? Especially with a river cutting through it.
You wonder if that is a relic of outdated and racist scholarship?
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1)The Sahara wasn't a desert thousands of years ago. It supported wildlife. 2) The Nile river cuts through the eastern part of the present day Sahara. The Nile river begins in Lake Victoria in present day Uganda and Kenya. You could simply follow the river north.
Why would you think the present day Sahara desert is a barrier for black people? Especially with a river cutting through it.
You wonder if that is a relic of outdated and racist scholarship? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I instinctively registered those points, but want to see them detailed in a study. I want to read a named academic who has dismantled the argument.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Sahara barrier at any point in time of this the Holocene epoch is subterfuge.
During this entire age of 12k there has always been people living in that area, and well documented since historic eras.
The only thing is the volume which fluctuates according to environment and climatic harshness.
No, it's no stroll in the park but trade shows trans-Saharan traffic intermittenly throughout this latest 5000 year old period of desertification.
posted
Thanks. I take it the idea the cataracts served as a hindrance to northward population movement is also BS?
Along with the Niagara through a hose analogy?
I'm going to type up the lecture (I recorded it, but can't upload the sound file) and post it at some point over the next couple of months with the name of the lecturer.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Thanks. I take it the idea the cataracts served as a hindrance to northward population movement is also BS?
Along with the Niagara through a hose analogy?
So, I take it that black people can't get through rapids (cataracts) or go around a waterfall and meet the river down stream, but other people can.
Is that what you are trying to say?
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with zaharan's suggestion that modern Egyptians' reluctance to embrace a Black African origin for their country's pre-Islamic civilization is one of the major obstacles to our case that's still in place. Even in the case of more progressive Egyptologists, you still have to take into account that Arabs are still one of those "people of color" who suffer from discrimination in the Western world, especially after 9/11. Whichever position you take on the issue, someone is going to perceive you as stepping on a marginalized racial group's toes.
In addition to those pressures, along with the good ol' anti-black racism that I'm sure still influences certain Western Egyptologists' opinions, I sense that the discipline as a whole has grown defensive towards views that they perceive as unorthodox or outside mainstream consensus. And you can't completely fault them for that. We all know that the larger subject of ancient Egypt attracts all manner of quackery and pseudo-scholarship that makes our position seem mild by comparison (Ancient Aliens, anyone?). If your discipline gets bombarded by genuine woo on a constant basis, you'll probably build your wall so strong that it ends up blocking out even the most harmless outside-the-box perspectives.
And let's not pretend like our side of the debate doesn't have its own dirty laundry to clean up. If anything, the straight-out black supremacists, hyper-diffusionists like Clyde Winters, and pan-Africanists who exaggerate Black African people's cultural and physical homogeneity are our loudest and most aggressive bedfellows, at least if Internet experience is anything to go by. For all their extremist zealotry, they've done more harm than good to our cause by reinforcing its "fringe" appearance.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I take it you think I'm the person making and endorsing these comments?
You are the one that said:
quote:I instinctively registered those points, but want to see them detailed in a study. I want to read a named academic who has dismantled the argument. [/QB]
Translation: I want to keep believing black people aren't capable until I see it in writing by someone I want to believe.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Thanks. I take it the idea the cataracts served as a hindrance to northward population movement is also BS?
Along with the Niagara through a hose analogy?
So, I take it that black people can't get through rapids (cataracts) or go around a waterfall and meet the river down stream, but other people can.
Is that what you are trying to say?
It's a stupid argument anyway. Even if you discounted the whole "Saharan wet phase" thing in the early to middle Holocene, only a total ignoramus on ancient Egyptian history wouldn't be aware that people did pass by those cataracts (which are actually rapids rather than waterfalls as the word "cataract" originally implied). How else would the ancient Egyptians and Nubians have even known of each other's existence, much less traded, fought, and conquered each other? And since the main obstacle to traveling through any desert is the absence of fresh water, having a river right next to you, especially one with fertile floodplains and an abundance of fish and wildlife in it, would address that problem with or without cataracts.
And besides, it's not like the deserts wouldn't have also cut Egypt off from the Middle Eastern cultures of the Levant and Mesopotamia. The "Fertile Crescent" stops in southern Israel, giving way to the Negev and Sinai deserts. On the other side of the Nile, most of those so-called white Libyans would have probably preferred the scrubby Cyrenaican coast (and don't forget that the Siwa oasis, with all the darker-skinned people still living there. is actually located quite a ways north within Egypt).
In summary, the whole argument that the post-desertification Sahara would have always blocked intercourse between Egypt and Nubia or inner Africa while simultaneously pushing Egypt towards the Greco-Roman and Middle Eastern spheres of influence is stupid.
Though on the other hand, you do have to wonder why the North Sudanese, even after adopting the Arabic language and Islamic culture, still retain more indigenous African ancestry than Egyptians. What kept the Arabs, Greco-Romans, et cetera from colonizing Nubia to the extent they did Egypt?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believe it or not, a bio-archaeologist presented the Sahara and cataracts as barriers argument to a lecture hall of over 200 people. It was a lecture on the population affinities of the ancient Egyptians and there was no mention of limb lengths.
quote:It's a stupid argument anyway. Even if you discounted the whole "Saharan wet phase" thing in the early to middle Holocene, only a total ignoramus on ancient Egyptian history wouldn't be aware that people did pass by those cataracts (which are actually rapids rather than waterfalls as the word "cataract" originally implied). How else would the ancient Egyptians and Nubians have even known of each other's existence, much less traded, fought, and conquered each other? And since the main obstacle to traveling through any desert is the absence of fresh water, having a river right next to you, especially one with fertile floodplains and an abundance of fish and wildlife in it, would address that problem with or without cataracts.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Instead of focusing on old school reinvigorations bound to fail (again) why not devour all the articles reports and reviews fully backed with data that allows us to know AEs were black and AEs were African and the precursors of Dyn 0 through Dyn 6 results from a broad culture originating at and extending from the Upper Nile up to near where the Delta begins?
Who needs Simon Says we got raw data all else is worth no more than opinion which everybody's got one.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I agree with zaharan's suggestion that modern Egyptians' reluctance to embrace a Black African origin for their country's pre-Islamic civilization is one of the major obstacles to our case that's still in place. Even in the case of more progressive Egyptologists, you still have to take into account that Arabs are still one of those "people of color" who suffer from discrimination in the Western world, especially after 9/11. Whichever position you take on the issue, someone is going to perceive you as stepping on a marginalized racial group's toes.
In addition to those pressures, along with the good ol' anti-black racism that I'm sure still influences certain Western Egyptologists' opinions, I sense that the discipline as a whole has grown defensive towards views that they perceive as unorthodox or outside mainstream consensus. And you can't completely fault them for that. We all know that the larger subject of ancient Egypt attracts all manner of quackery and pseudo-scholarship that makes our position seem mild by comparison (Ancient Aliens, anyone?). If your discipline gets bombarded by genuine woo on a constant basis, you'll probably build your wall so strong that it ends up blocking out even the most harmless outside-the-box perspectives.
And let's not pretend like our side of the debate doesn't have its own dirty laundry to clean up. If anything, the straight-out black supremacists, hyper-diffusionists like Clyde Winters, and pan-Africanists who exaggerate Black African people's cultural and physical homogeneity are our loudest and most aggressive bedfellows, at least if Internet experience is anything to go by. For all their extremist zealotry, they've done more harm than good to our cause by reinforcing its "fringe" appearance.
what have I exaggerated?Nothing. There is nothing fringe about what I write. In fact much of my work appears in peer reviewed journals. Granted I don't publish in PLoS and etc., because you have to pay between $2-3000 per article, but my work is peer reviewed by other scientists.
Everything I write about I support with archaeological and or linguistic evidence. You're full of bs. If I was writing falsehood don't you think academics would publically attack me? They don't because I might find a way to comment on what ever they write.
Your problem is that you don't have the literature base to understand what I write about. Even though what I write about is easy to understand your white supremist mind you can't handle the truth.Yea I said it, you are a false flag liberal pretending you seriously want to know the truth, when in reality you want to maintain the status quo.
posted
Truthcentric says: who exaggerate Black African people's cultural and physical homogeneity are our loudest and most aggressive bedfellows, at least if Internet experience is anything to go by. For all their extremist zealotry, they've done more harm than good to our cause by reinforcing its "fringe" appearance.
I would agree. Part of the problem is misguided "Afro enthusiasts" who are not grounded in facts, or hew to dogma, regardless of the facts, or insist on outmoded and obsolete ideas and data. On one hand are the racist /racialist types. On the other are the fringe elements. And on top of that you have those academics distorting and skewing the picture. Thankfully we have some more balanced ideas now coming to the fore, but these problems are not going away soon.
Though on the other hand, you do have to wonder why the North Sudanese, even after adopting the Arabic language and Islamic culture, still retain more indigenous African ancestry than Egyptians. What kept the Arabs, Greco-Romans, et cetera from colonizing Nubia to the extent they did Egypt?
Anyone have any other ideas? My take is that the Egyptians expo/erienced more outside gene flow compared to say the less productive reasons of Sudan. In Greco/Roman times Egypt was the granary of the Medit. It had a good strategic location and fed the ROman empire. It was rich and productive. Hyskos, PErsians, Assyrians, Romans, Greeks and most of all Arabs (who havent left yet) swarmed in. The native population did not totally disappear but all these influences made significant changes- demographically, culturally, economically, etc etc
Nubia and Kush did not have the hugely productive Nile stretch and strategic Medit/Middle Eastern location, like Egypt. It is amazing that they did what they did, with only a fraction of the resources, land and population, from their own writing system, to good ironworks, to renowned warriors employed throughout the middle east. And they were not merely copies of Egypt- heck in fact they may have pioneered aspects of Egypt's kingship system. If I remember didnt they hold off or at least stalemate Rome, as well as fight off Persians and Arabs for centuries?
Tukler says: Who needs Simon Says we got raw data all else is worth no more than opinion which everybody's got one.
Exactly. One interesting thing about this discussion is how the Egyptolgists, who used to be the central gatekeepers, no longer are. They have been overshadowed some by more nimble modern sciences and approaches. DNA researchers or anthropologists using computer processing to analyze limb proportions, crania etc etc, climatologists and enviro scientists etc etc. all have opened up new vistas in studying the ancient Nile Valley. Egyptologists uses these tools too but people have moved ahead of the curve. Egyptologists influence, but no longer control the conservation. As for whining (if any) modern Egyptians, too bad, so sad. We don't need any of their validation. They can bluster all they want about the "taint" of "blackness" We don't need their approval. We have the hard data and scholarship on hand that blows away all of that whining.
^Yeah that's right. It was the black dude who pulled off "The Crossing" and the subsequent peace.
His father, Anwar Mohammed El Sadat was an Upper Egyptian, and his mother, Sit Al-Berain, was a Sudanese from her father. Thus, he faced insults by his opponents in Egypt for not looking "Egyptian enough" and "Nasser's black poodle." But who got the job done against the Israelis?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Truthcentric says: who exaggerate Black African people's cultural and physical homogeneity are our loudest and most aggressive bedfellows, at least if Internet experience is anything to go by. For all their extremist zealotry, they've done more harm than good to our cause by reinforcing its "fringe" appearance.
I would agree. Part of the problem is misguided "Afro enthusiasts" who are not grounded in facts, or hew to dogma, regardless of the facts, or insist on outmoded and obsolete ideas and data. On one hand are the racist /racialist types. On the other are the fringe elements. And on top of that you have those academics distorting and skewing the picture. Thankfully we have some more balanced ideas now coming to the fore, but these problems are not going away soon.
You have made this claim before. Its time you support this statement with facts.
Please answer these questions:
1)Who are these fringe "Afros"?
2)what fringe theories have they produced?
3) Why are their ideas fringe based on archaeology, history and linguistics?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Though on the other hand, you do have to wonder why the North Sudanese, even after adopting the Arabic language and Islamic culture, still retain more indigenous African ancestry than Egyptians. What kept the Arabs, Greco-Romans, et cetera from colonizing Nubia to the extent they did Egypt?
Anyone have any other ideas? My take is that the Egyptians expo/erienced more outside gene flow compared to say the less productive reasons of Sudan. In Greco/Roman times Egypt was the granary of the Medit. It had a good strategic location and fed the ROman empire. It was rich and productive. Hyskos, PErsians, Assyrians, Romans, Greeks and most of all Arabs (who havent left yet) swarmed in. The native population did not totally disappear but all these influences made significant changes- demographically, culturally, economically, etc etc
First of all, the Kushites were not Nubian speakers.Secondly, there has been more gene flow in Egypt, than Nubia, because most Egyptians migrated into Kush, during Roman rule. So there were less Egyptians living in Egypt than earlier times.
Beginning with the Assyrian defeat of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty large numbers of nomadic people from the Middle East began to migrate into Egypt. These foreign people began to take over many Egyptian settlements. In response, Egyptians fled to Nubia and Kush to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Other political and military conflicts erupted after the Assyrians defeated the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. These incidents led many Egyptians to migrate out of Egypt into Nubia and Kush. For example, Herodotus’ mentions the mutiny of Psamtik I’s frontier garrison at Elephantine—these deserters moved into Kush.
The archaizing trend in Kush among the post Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Kings testify to a possible large migration of Egyptians into Kush. In 343 BC Nectanebos II, fled to Upper Egypt. Later according to the Natasen period stela we have evidence of other Egyptians migrating into Kush from Egypt (Torok, 1997, p.391).
Between the 260’s-270’s BC Upper Egyptian Nationalists were fighting the Ptolemy (Greek) rulers of Egypt. The rebellion was put down by Ptolemy II. This military action led to Egyptians migrating out of Egypt into Kush (Torok, pp.395-396). Rebellions continued in Egypt into the 2nd Century BC (Torok, p.426).
Between Ptolomy II and Ptolemy V, the Greeks began to settle Egypt. This was especially true in the 150’sBC. These conflicts led to many Egyptians migrating into Nubia and the Sudan. By the time the Romans entered Egypt, many Egyptians had already left Egypt and settled in the Meroitic Sudan.
Roman politics also forced many Egyptians to migrate into Kush. This was compounded by the introduction of the Pax Agusta policy of the Romans which sought the establishment of Roman hegemony within territories under Roman rule . This led to the emigration of many Romans into Egypt, and the migration of Egyptians into Kush.
During most of Kushite history the elites used Egyptian for record keeping since it was recognized as a neutral language.As more and more Egyptians, fled to Kush as it came under foreign domination . Egyptians became a large minority in the Meroitic Empire. Because of Egyptian migrations to Kush, by the rule of the Meroitic Queen Shanakdakheto, we find the Egyptian language abandoned as a medium of exchange in official Kushite records, and the Meroitic script takes its place.
The textual and historical evidence is clear. There was a large migration of Egyptian speaking nationals into Kush, which left Egypt ripe for population change. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Really?
There's nothing more to say on the topic of the OP subject header?
Why do so many threads change topic left and right?
Wouldn't the offtopic stuff be intuitively accessable in a like named thread?
posted
I just want to say many of my posts were deleted by ardo/tukuler in regards to the fake email tropicals posted yet again in this thread and try to pass on as scholarship and my reply to them using actual scholarship with the sources cited.
I'll come back to it later on.
-------------------------------
ARDO INSERT I've personally benefitted from Tropicals Redacted emailings.
Please do not call Trops' emails fake. Not liking what they reveal doesn't make 'em fake. Develop the talent and skill to write the pros. It will open your eyes to a world unguessed (pro as well as con).
Who doesn't know by now the whole post with a flame in it gets deleted irregardless of other content.
Well mannered posters have nothing to fear.
Amazing! One who complained demanding action against a flamer now turns and expects a pass to spit flame without selfsame delete action applied to him.
SMH
It used to be, after 4-6 years at ES one would've accumulated learning enough to equal a bachelor's degree.
Certainly to attain to a master's requires the articulateness and finese to write the correspondant for a report, a book's author or editor or chapter writer, if such skill was not bred and honed while matriculating the bachelor's.
posted
I think the issue is that this information isn't being disseminated to the public by the institutions that engage and educate them - museums and the media. Museums and individuals in the media collaborate with academics from physical anthropology and genetics that support and endorse their own outdated dogma. I'm not sure this reality can be ignored if the aim is mainstream/global awareness that the ancient Egyptians were a black people.
I think assailing the credibility and making public the private utterances of these Egyptologists, geneticists, physical anthropologists, museum curators, producers and journalists might in some way contribute towards breaking the logjam.
quote: Instead of focusing on old school reinvigorations bound to fail (again) why not devour all the articles reports and reviews fully backed with data that allows us to know AEs were black and AEs were African and the precursors of Dyn 0 through Dyn 6 results from a broad culture originating at and extending from the Upper Nile up to near where the Delta begins?
Who needs Simon Says we got raw data all else is worth no more than opinion which everybody's got one.
-------------------------
ARDO INSERT I understand and agree with all that but did you alert any of them that you're an investigative reporter preparing a "leak" publicizing emails assumed private?
Private forums with responsible accountable members can do what they like internally.
But ES EGYPTOLOGY is a public forum and
I'm very against publishing professional's names with their private correspondence without their prior approval.
This only applies when trying to "expose".
Positive expansions or clarifications from them on their works is acceptable and OK to post w/o approval afaic.
If somebody says they have permission I will email the pro with what appears in the post in which they are named for verification.
Why?
E-mail, like snail mail, is only meant for the corresponding sender(s) and receiver(s). There could be legal repurcussions.
We in the habit of writing to academicians pretty much know who thinks in private, or among like minded colleagues, something different or unindicated in their works. So if anybody really wants to know for sure then they should do an e-mail themself.
RECAP: * anonymous quoting is OK * naming names in bad light is out of bounds.
[ 28. January 2015, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: ausar ]
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just want to say many of my posts were deleted by ardo/tukuler in regards to the fake email tropicals posted yet again in this thread and try to pass on as scholarship and my reply to them using actual scholarship with the sources cited.
I'll come back to it later on.
I just don't know what to do with this.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just want to say many of my posts were deleted by ardo/tukuler in regards to the fake email tropicals posted yet again in this thread and try to pass on as scholarship and my reply to them using actual scholarship with the sources cited.
I'll come back to it later on.
I just don't know what to do with this.
Let's keep this thread about the study "Cultural convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: a prehistoric perspective on Egypt's place in Africa"
I'm sure you can start your own threads to discuss your emails, opinions about egyptology in general, other subjects, etc. In fact, new threads would be a good thing for this forum.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ On the back of that study, someone suggested that the 'war' had been won, and I voiced doubts, producing supportive e-mail evidence as to why.
You then suggest that I'm lying, that I'm an agent of confusion, a dumbass, and that the e-mails are fake, even after the moderator tells you that I do indeed communicate with academics.
I've seen other posters here accuse you of being dogmatic, but, not being part of the discussion and not understanding what was being debated, I didn't really appreciate what they meant.
However, after exchanging with you directly, I see that they had a point.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Next, Quetzalcoatl debunked numerous claims re your "Black Olmecs" reputedly swarming up the beaches of the Yucatan (so to speak).. You did not refute any of his detailed arguments, but simply kept spamming the same debunked points.
Next, this "Uthman Dan fodio Institute" you keep tacking on to your credentials, turns out to be the address of a house someplace in Chicago. It may have been a small Afrocentric school but per various web article in the above Olmec thread it has been long defunct- a house with a few kids and one teacher. It has no affiliation with the University of Chicago.
Next, rather than refine and strengthen your arguments with credible data you keep embarrassing yourself going up against credible scholars, as you did against Oppenheimer. You write letters to these people and they debunk them, then you claim credit for "publishing" something in the particular journal where the letter appeared. Time and time again, people have advised you to use more credible interpretations and analyses so you can actually do credible combat. But no..
-------------------------------------------------- CLyde: There are many Pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers here at ES. They spend their time attacking each other. The pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers are of two schools. One group accepts anything written by a "European Authority" as valid and reliable and will fight to the death supporting this research witout, reservation e.g., the white Berbers are native to Africa.
The second group supports Europeans who write any piece supporting Black contributionism to ancient history i.e., Black Athena, and Black Genesis.
Most contributors here are not original thinkers. The science they practice is called: "Science by Authority". People who practice science by authority believe that any research done by a European--no matter who they are, or done by Black researchers found acceptable by Europeans in the academy, e.g., Gates, Mboli and Keita is recognized as correct while they ignore research from "alternative African scholarly sources." not recognized by "mainstream" i.e., "Europeans".
A coconut is brown on the outside and white on the inside.
One strange thing about you Clyde is that you yourself, alleged paragon of "consciousness", make most of your citations and arguments from white scholars. Your "Black Olmec" thing for example is based on the pre-Columbian diffusionism of white writers. The only difference is that you have slapped a blackface on it. Likewise you have no problem citing white scholars to support your other claims. Your standard excuse is that you are "interpreting" things differently, but often it is only a blackface version. If you are such a paragon of "blackness" why do you continue to cite and use the works of white "EUropean authorities?" If you was truly "down with da people" you should confine yourself to citing only black authorities.
As regards "alternative African sources" you have a penchant for using outdated stuff from the 1920s , 1950s or 1970s. The field has moved on. Chancellor Williams 1970, or Van Sertima 1976 are fair background, but that was over or almost 40 years ago. They made a fair contribution based on the data available at the time, and are good background but that was 4 decades ago. Furthermore "alternative African sources" also have to past the test of accuracy and consistency. They don't get a free pass simply because they are black.
And who says you are an "original thinker"? Nothing in your work (some of which is discredited) suggests that at all. On top of that your work is often sloppy. There are numerous holes in your "Black Olmec" notion for example, which you fail to satisfactorily cover- often merely using repetition as a substitute for substantial argument. And when you presume to tackle the work of serious scientists in the field you continually embarrass yourself and undermine your own argument. For example when you tackled Stephen Oppenheimer your argument was weak and filled with errors making it easy to dismiss. You continually misread cited sources, and continually use outdated work. Here is what Oppenheimer has to say about some of your work: -------------------------------------------------
Finally, there are is a string of misunderstandings mistakes and misquotes in Winters' letter listed below, which detract from, rather than supporting, his overall argument:
Para 1, sentence 2:
42 kya refers presumably to the earliest carbon dates in Timor, not those much earlier luminescence dates given, in my review [1], for Australia.
Para 2, sentence 1: 'Oppenheimer dates L3 (M,N) to 83 kya'
Comment: I did not do so in this review [1]. As explained in the text I chose throughout to cite lineage ages from the key mtDNA recalibration paper of Soares et al. (2009) [5]. This was both for consistency, and to use the latest, most comprehensive and, hopefully, least inaccurate method, rather than pick and choose results from older, phylogenetically less-resolved publications, which might perhaps have suited my own preference for a pre-Toba exit better.
Para 3 (whole para): Comment: No published evidence/reference given for these assertions.
Para 4, sentence 1: 'The most recent common ancestor (TMRC) of AMH carrying LOd according to Gonder et al. dates to 106kya.'.
Comment: 'LOd' is not 'TMRC of AMH' (nor is L0d).
Para 4, sentence 1: 'A haplotype of LOd is AF-24...'
Comment: No it is not - on the evidence given in the citation. Gonder et al. (2007) [6] do not even mention haplotype AF-24 as such. The claim, if it were true, would simply reinforce the impression of ambiguity. AF-24 is however mentioned by Winters' other cited reference (published in 2000 and not based on complete sequences): Chen et al. (2000) [7] shown as belonging to L3a; but those authors acknowledge this particular phylogenetic assignment to be poorly resolved:
'Haplotype AF24, which is aligned with Asian macrohaplogroup M, is indicated by a double section symbol...subclusters AF19-AF21/AF24 and AF80-AF84 were not resolved at bootstrap values >50%...' [7]
They further emphasize the ambiguity of its phylogenetic/geographic assignment:
'...it is also possible that this particular haplotype [AF-24] is present in Africa because of back-migration [of M] from Asia.'... and: 'Alternatively, AF24 may have been introduced from Asia into Africa more recently.' [7]
Para 4, sentence 3: Winters continues to mis-cite Chen et al. (2000) [7]:
'Chen et al. maintain that Haplotype AF-24 (DQ112852) is at the base of the M Haplogroup [4].', Comment: Where? - unless it is in their reference to back-migration (above).
Para 5 appears to be further argument based on phylogenetic ambiguity.
Para 6, sentence 1: 'Gonder et al. has dated L3 to 100kya (5).'
Comment: No, they do not, according to Gonder's Table 2 [6].
Para 6, sentence 3: 'The presence of L3 (M,N) in West Africa and haplotype AF- 24 suggest an ancient demic diffusion of L3 (M,N) to West Africa prior to 70kya, and support Soares et al.'s (2) and Gonder et al.'s (5) dating of L3 between 80-100kya.'
Comment: The above inference, based on a single poorly-resolved haplotype, is unsound and Soares et al. (2009) [5] are mis-cited as far as the date is concerned.
Paras 7 and 8: Varied, inadequately-cited references to the presence of the 'Sangoan tool kit' in West Africa are used by Winters to infer the movement and spread of 'L3 (M,N)' in West Africa.
Comment: This is an unwarranted inference using as it does, hypothetical links (for which no evidence is given) between an Early Stone Age cultural phase and an ambiguous single modern genetic haplotype (AF-24). While dated archaeological evidence of human presence can, occasionally, be used to infer first-ever human arrival in a previously uninhabited region e.g. Polynesia or the Canary Islands and this kind of evidence be used to cross -check calibration of the mtDNA clock on unique and specific local founding lineages in those places [5], the sort of "stones and genes" type of inferences Winters makes for the spread of 'L3 (M,N)' in West Africa are completely unwarranted.
^^In short, you keep flooding the zone with weak, sloppy work. Your reply to Oppenheimer is more of the same repetition, rather than a clear, concise, systematic rebuttal that strengthens your case and qualifies unwarranted claims. People on ES for years have advised you on how to avoid such mistakes, how to accurately read sources, how to tighten your arguments and qualify them to make them more defensible. But no, you keep charging ahead, repeating the same weak stuff, with the same outdated sources, giving the enemies of African bio-history easy pickings.
And finally, yes we all know what your predictable response will be. You will say you are a cool Afrocentric guy, and that others and not "down". You will refer to your many "publications", which Quetzcoatl has already shown are shaky, as is the alleged "research institute." You will say people are stooges of "white scholars" while you yourself quote the same "white scholars." You will then close with a predictable flood of spam from said "published" material, adding no new analysis, or credible synthesis. Go ahead, on cue..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS: others have complained that Clyde paraphrases too much in a misleading way- and the paraphrasing sometimes does not accurately reflect what the original authors are saying. That is why direct quotations are so important on ES. They represent quickly verifiable scholarship. Direct quotes have time and time again exposed Eurocentric or "biodiversity" distortion of the data.
The above being said, I think Clyde has done good work in several areas, particularly in confronting assorting Eurocentric assumptions, and stimulating people to take a different look at the info, and reexamine easy assumptions He has shown that on some counts and levels, Afrocentrism can be a valid frame of reference. Strength of data and argument is the key. And to his credit, he has been on the front lines a long time.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: . For example when you tackled Stephen Oppenheimer your argument was weak and filled with errors making it easy to dismiss. You continually misread cited sources, and continually use outdated work. Here is what Oppenheimer has to say about some of your work: -------------------------------------------------
Finally, there are is a string of misunderstandings mistakes and misquotes in Winters' letter listed below, which detract from, rather than supporting, his overall argument:
Para 1, sentence 2:
42 kya refers presumably to the earliest carbon dates in Timor, not those much earlier luminescence dates given, in my review [1], for Australia.
Para 2, sentence 1: 'Oppenheimer dates L3 (M,N) to 83 kya'
Comment: I did not do so in this review [1]. As explained in the text I chose throughout to cite lineage ages from the key mtDNA recalibration paper of Soares et al. (2009) [5]. This was both for consistency, and to use the latest, most comprehensive and, hopefully, least inaccurate method, rather than pick and choose results from older, phylogenetically less-resolved publications, which might perhaps have suited my own preference for a pre-Toba exit better.
Para 3 (whole para): Comment: No published evidence/reference given for these assertions.
Para 4, sentence 1: 'The most recent common ancestor (TMRC) of AMH carrying LOd according to Gonder et al. dates to 106kya.'.
Comment: 'LOd' is not 'TMRC of AMH' (nor is L0d).
Para 4, sentence 1: 'A haplotype of LOd is AF-24...'
Comment: No it is not - on the evidence given in the citation. Gonder et al. (2007) [6] do not even mention haplotype AF-24 as such. The claim, if it were true, would simply reinforce the impression of ambiguity. AF-24 is however mentioned by Winters' other cited reference (published in 2000 and not based on complete sequences): Chen et al. (2000) [7] shown as belonging to L3a; but those authors acknowledge this particular phylogenetic assignment to be poorly resolved:
'Haplotype AF24, which is aligned with Asian macrohaplogroup M, is indicated by a double section symbol...subclusters AF19-AF21/AF24 and AF80-AF84 were not resolved at bootstrap values >50%...' [7]
They further emphasize the ambiguity of its phylogenetic/geographic assignment:
'...it is also possible that this particular haplotype [AF-24] is present in Africa because of back-migration [of M] from Asia.'... and: 'Alternatively, AF24 may have been introduced from Asia into Africa more recently.' [7]
Para 4, sentence 3: Winters continues to mis-cite Chen et al. (2000) [7]:
'Chen et al. maintain that Haplotype AF-24 (DQ112852) is at the base of the M Haplogroup [4].', Comment: Where? - unless it is in their reference to back-migration (above).
Para 5 appears to be further argument based on phylogenetic ambiguity.
Para 6, sentence 1: 'Gonder et al. has dated L3 to 100kya (5).'
Comment: No, they do not, according to Gonder's Table 2 [6].
Para 6, sentence 3: 'The presence of L3 (M,N) in West Africa and haplotype AF- 24 suggest an ancient demic diffusion of L3 (M,N) to West Africa prior to 70kya, and support Soares et al.'s (2) and Gonder et al.'s (5) dating of L3 between 80-100kya.'
Comment: The above inference, based on a single poorly-resolved haplotype, is unsound and Soares et al. (2009) [5] are mis-cited as far as the date is concerned.
Paras 7 and 8: Varied, inadequately-cited references to the presence of the 'Sangoan tool kit' in West Africa are used by Winters to infer the movement and spread of 'L3 (M,N)' in West Africa.
Comment: This is an unwarranted inference using as it does, hypothetical links (for which no evidence is given) between an Early Stone Age cultural phase and an ambiguous single modern genetic haplotype (AF-24). While dated archaeological evidence of human presence can, occasionally, be used to infer first-ever human arrival in a previously uninhabited region e.g. Polynesia or the Canary Islands and this kind of evidence be used to cross -check calibration of the mtDNA clock on unique and specific local founding lineages in those places [5], the sort of "stones and genes" type of inferences Winters makes for the spread of 'L3 (M,N)' in West Africa are completely unwarranted.
--Openheimer 2012 Reply to Winters..
LOL. You're funny. My work is not easily dismissed. The Openheimer reply was published without allowing me the opportunity to reply to his arguments. The Openheimer reply lacked any foundation. Although, I was unable to reply to Openheimer below is the reply to his article I published on my blog.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Response by Oppenheimer to Winters'(2012) Haplogroup L3(M,N) probably spread across Africa before the Out of Africa Event
Dr. Oppenheimer (2012b) implies that L3(M,N) originated in Asia. This is false. We know that L3 originated long before the OoA event. He does not present any evidence falsifying my conclusion. His entire argument is that M1 is ‘rare’ in Asia.
Haplotypes with HVSI transitions defining 16129-16223-16249-16278-16311-16362; and 16129-16223-16234-16249-16211-16362 have been found in Thailand and among the Han Chinese (Fucharoen et al., 2001; Yao et al., 2002) and these were originally thought to be members of Haplogroup M1. However, on the basis of currently available FGS sequences, carriers of these markers have been found to be in the D4a branch of Haplogroup D, the most widespread branch of M 1 in East Asia (Fucharoen et al., 2001; Yao et al., 2002). The transitions 16129, 16189, 16249 and 16311 are known to be recurrent in various branches of Haplogroup M, especially M1 and D4.
Dr. Oppenheimer (2012b)claims that there are a string of mistakes and misquotes in my response to his article which are not substantiated by the literature. For example, Dr. Oppenheimer claims that LOd is not the TMRC for AMH. This is false. I claim that LOd is older than L3, this is not contradicted by Soares.
Atkinson et al (2009) makes it clear that L3 is the youngest African haplogroup and LO is the oldest. As a result, when Dr. Oppenheimer claims that LOd is not the TMRC of AMH, he is false. LO is the oldest haplogroup, since LOd is dated to 106kya and one of the LO clades it. Atkinson et al (2009) observed that “Haplogroups L0 and L1 (figure 2b,c, respectively) show slow constant growth over the last 100–200 kyr (TMRCAs: L0, 124–172 kyr ago; L1, 87–139 kyr ago; L0 and L1 combined, 156–213 kyr ago; 95% HPDs)”. This makes it clear that haplogroup LO is the oldest mtDNA haplogroup in Africa.
Dr. Oppenheimer also claims that haplotype AF-24 is “ poorly resolved”. This is false, Chen et al make it clear that” The samples included complete haplotypes of 62 Senegalese (AF01–AF24, AF26–AF36, AF45–AF59, AF64–AF65, and AF70–AF79)”. As a result, how can he make the claim AF-24 is poorly resolved when Chen et al (2002) make it clear that he used “complete haplotypes of 62 Senegalese” samples that include AF-24.
Chen et al makes it clear that AF-24 could be of either Asian or African origin”Similarly, L3a was found to have a close affinity to haplotype AF24, a mtDNA that has the DdeI np-10394 and AluI np-10397 site gains characteristic of Asian macrohaplogroup M (figs.(figs.22 andand3).3). Therefore, it is possible that subhaplogroup L3a was the progenitor of Asian mtDNAs belonging to M. Although the age of subhaplogroup L3a is somewhat less than our estimate for the age of Asian haplogroup M (Torroni et al. 1994b; Chen et al. 1995), the differences could be due to the limited number of L3a mtDNAs in our African sample. Alternatively, AF24 may have been introduced from Asia into Africa more recently.” The fact that Atkinson et al (2009) makes it clear that AF-24 is a haplotype of LO, make it unlikely that AF-24 originated in Asia, since it was already in existence prior to the OoA event.
Finally, Oppenheimer claims that you can not infer population movements relating to the expansion of the ancient tool kits. This is a false statement since the demic expansion of LO(d) and L3 from East Africa to West Africa is cross referenced with specific founding lineage which is assumed to have originated in the East. This assumption is just as valid as Oppenheimer’s view relating to the Tonga event’s impact on the OoA.
In summary, it is obvious that Dr. Oppenheimer has little knowledge of the expansion of haplogroups in Africa. I am surprised the he didn’t know that the GenBank Accession number for Haplotype AF-24 is DQ112852, this suggest that he is not keeping up with the literature. Moreover, the earliest examples of L3(N) come from Iberia, not East Asia. Since this area was first occupied by Neanderthals until the expansion of the Aurignacian culture which had to have crossed the Straits of Gibraltar from Africa (Winters,2012). No where in Dr. Oppenhiemer’s response dose he present textual evidence supporting his conclusions. He only provides his opinions—not evidence.
Chen Y-S., Olckers A., Schurr T.G., Kogelnik A.M., Huoponen K., Wallace D.C. 2000 mtDNA variation in the South African Kung and Khwe - and their genetic relationships to other African populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66, 1362-1383
Fucharoen, G., S. Fucharoen and S. Horai, 2001. Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism in Thailand. J.Hum. Genet., 46: 115-125.
Gonder M.K., Mortensen H.M., Reed F.A., de Sousa A., Tishkoff S.A. 2007 Whole mtDNA genome sequence analysis of ancient African lineages. Mol. Biol. Evol., 24, 757-768. (doi: 10.1093/molbev/msl209).
Oppenheimer S. 2012 Out-of-Africa, the peopling of continents and islands: tracing uniparental gene trees across the map. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 367, 770-784. (doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0306
Soares P., Ermini L., Thomson, N., Mormina M., Rito T., Rohl A., Salas A., Oppenheimer S., Macaulay V., Richards M.B. 2009 Correcting for purifying selection: an improved human mitochondrial molecular clock. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 84, 740-759. (doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.05.001)
Yao, Y.G., Q.P. Kong, H.J. Bandelt, T. Kivisild and Y.P.Zhang, 2002. Phylogeographic differentiation of mitochondrial DNA in Han chinese. Am. J. Hum.Genet., 70: 635-651.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: PS: others have complained that Clyde paraphrases too much in a misleading way- and the paraphrasing sometimes does not accurately reflect what the original authors are saying. That is why direct quotations are so important on ES. They represent quickly verifiable scholarship. Direct quotes have time and time again exposed Eurocentric or "biodiversity" distortion of the data.
The above being said, I think Clyde has done good work in several areas, particularly in confronting assorting Eurocentric assumptions, and stimulating people to take a different look at the info, and reexamine easy assumptions He has shown that on some counts and levels, Afrocentrism can be a valid frame of reference. Strength of data and argument is the key. And to his credit, he has been on the front lines a long time.
What you call paraphrases is just citing work using APA style. APA style is the way you cite references in linguistics and anthropology publications.
Next, Quetzalcoatl debunked numerous claims re your "Black Olmecs" reputedly swarming up the beaches of the Yucatan (so to speak).. You did not refute any of his detailed arguments, but simply kept spamming the same debunked points.
Next, this "Uthman Dan fodio Institute" you keep tacking on to your credentials, turns out to be the address of a house someplace in Chicago. It may have been a small Afrocentric school but per various web article in the above Olmec thread it has been long defunct- a house with a few kids and one teacher. It has no affiliation with the University of Chicago.
Next, rather than refine and strengthen your arguments with credible data you keep embarrassing yourself going up against credible scholars, as you did against Oppenheimer. You write letters to these people and they debunk them, then you claim credit for "publishing" something in the particular journal where the letter appeared. Time and time again, people have advised you to use more credible interpretations and analyses so you can actually do credible combat. But no..
-------------------------------------------------- CLyde: There are many Pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers here at ES. They spend their time attacking each other. The pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers are of two schools. One group accepts anything written by a "European Authority" as valid and reliable and will fight to the death supporting this research witout, reservation e.g., the white Berbers are native to Africa.
The second group supports Europeans who write any piece supporting Black contributionism to ancient history i.e., Black Athena, and Black Genesis.
Most contributors here are not original thinkers. The science they practice is called: "Science by Authority". People who practice science by authority believe that any research done by a European--no matter who they are, or done by Black researchers found acceptable by Europeans in the academy, e.g., Gates, Mboli and Keita is recognized as correct while they ignore research from "alternative African scholarly sources." not recognized by "mainstream" i.e., "Europeans".
A coconut is brown on the outside and white on the inside.
One strange thing about you Clyde is that you yourself, alleged paragon of "consciousness", make most of your citations and arguments from white scholars. Your "Black Olmec" thing for example is based on the pre-Columbian diffusionism of white writers. The only difference is that you have slapped a blackface on it. Likewise you have no problem citing white scholars to support your other claims. Your standard excuse is that you are "interpreting" things differently, but often it is only a blackface version. If you are such a paragon of "blackness" why do you continue to cite and use the works of white "EUropean authorities?" If you was truly "down with da people" you should confine yourself to citing only black authorities.
As regards "alternative African sources" you have a penchant for using outdated stuff from the 1920s , 1950s or 1970s. The field has moved on. Chancellor Williams 1970, or Van Sertima 1976 are fair background, but that was over or almost 40 years ago. They made a fair contribution based on the data available at the time, and are good background but that was 4 decades ago. Furthermore "alternative African sources" also have to past the test of accuracy and consistency. They don't get a free pass simply because they are black.
And who says you are an "original thinker"? Nothing in your work (some of which is discredited) suggests that at all. On top of that your work is often sloppy. There are numerous holes in your "Black Olmec" notion for example, which you fail to satisfactorily cover- often merely using repetition as a substitute for substantial argument. And when you presume to tackle the work of serious scientists in the field you continually embarrass yourself and undermine your own argument. For example when you tackled Stephen Oppenheimer your argument was weak and filled with errors making it easy to dismiss. You continually misread cited sources, and continually use outdated work. Here is what Oppenheimer has to say about some of your work: -------------------------------------------------
Finally, there are is a string of misunderstandings mistakes and misquotes in Winters' letter listed below, which detract from, rather than supporting, his overall argument:
Para 1, sentence 2:
42 kya refers presumably to the earliest carbon dates in Timor, not those much earlier luminescence dates given, in my review [1], for Australia.
Para 2, sentence 1: 'Oppenheimer dates L3 (M,N) to 83 kya'
Comment: I did not do so in this review [1]. As explained in the text I chose throughout to cite lineage ages from the key mtDNA recalibration paper of Soares et al. (2009) [5]. This was both for consistency, and to use the latest, most comprehensive and, hopefully, least inaccurate method, rather than pick and choose results from older, phylogenetically less-resolved publications, which might perhaps have suited my own preference for a pre-Toba exit better.
Para 3 (whole para): Comment: No published evidence/reference given for these assertions.
Para 4, sentence 1: 'The most recent common ancestor (TMRC) of AMH carrying LOd according to Gonder et al. dates to 106kya.'.
Comment: 'LOd' is not 'TMRC of AMH' (nor is L0d).
Para 4, sentence 1: 'A haplotype of LOd is AF-24...'
Comment: No it is not - on the evidence given in the citation. Gonder et al. (2007) [6] do not even mention haplotype AF-24 as such. The claim, if it were true, would simply reinforce the impression of ambiguity. AF-24 is however mentioned by Winters' other cited reference (published in 2000 and not based on complete sequences): Chen et al. (2000) [7] shown as belonging to L3a; but those authors acknowledge this particular phylogenetic assignment to be poorly resolved:
'Haplotype AF24, which is aligned with Asian macrohaplogroup M, is indicated by a double section symbol...subclusters AF19-AF21/AF24 and AF80-AF84 were not resolved at bootstrap values >50%...' [7]
They further emphasize the ambiguity of its phylogenetic/geographic assignment:
'...it is also possible that this particular haplotype [AF-24] is present in Africa because of back-migration [of M] from Asia.'... and: 'Alternatively, AF24 may have been introduced from Asia into Africa more recently.' [7]
Para 4, sentence 3: Winters continues to mis-cite Chen et al. (2000) [7]:
'Chen et al. maintain that Haplotype AF-24 (DQ112852) is at the base of the M Haplogroup [4].', Comment: Where? - unless it is in their reference to back-migration (above).
Para 5 appears to be further argument based on phylogenetic ambiguity.
Para 6, sentence 1: 'Gonder et al. has dated L3 to 100kya (5).'
Comment: No, they do not, according to Gonder's Table 2 [6].
Para 6, sentence 3: 'The presence of L3 (M,N) in West Africa and haplotype AF- 24 suggest an ancient demic diffusion of L3 (M,N) to West Africa prior to 70kya, and support Soares et al.'s (2) and Gonder et al.'s (5) dating of L3 between 80-100kya.'
Comment: The above inference, based on a single poorly-resolved haplotype, is unsound and Soares et al. (2009) [5] are mis-cited as far as the date is concerned.
Paras 7 and 8: Varied, inadequately-cited references to the presence of the 'Sangoan tool kit' in West Africa are used by Winters to infer the movement and spread of 'L3 (M,N)' in West Africa.
Comment: This is an unwarranted inference using as it does, hypothetical links (for which no evidence is given) between an Early Stone Age cultural phase and an ambiguous single modern genetic haplotype (AF-24). While dated archaeological evidence of human presence can, occasionally, be used to infer first-ever human arrival in a previously uninhabited region e.g. Polynesia or the Canary Islands and this kind of evidence be used to cross -check calibration of the mtDNA clock on unique and specific local founding lineages in those places [5], the sort of "stones and genes" type of inferences Winters makes for the spread of 'L3 (M,N)' in West Africa are completely unwarranted.
^^In short, you keep flooding the zone with weak, sloppy work. Your reply to Oppenheimer is more of the same repetition, rather than a clear, concise, systematic rebuttal that strengthens your case and qualifies unwarranted claims. People on ES for years have advised you on how to avoid such mistakes, how to accurately read sources, how to tighten your arguments and qualify them to make them more defensible. But no, you keep charging ahead, repeating the same weak stuff, with the same outdated sources, giving the enemies of African bio-history easy pickings.
And finally, yes we all know what your predictable response will be. You will say you are a cool Afrocentric guy, and that others and not "down". You will refer to your many "publications", which Quetzcoatl has already shown are shaky, as is the alleged "research institute." You will say people are stooges of "white scholars" while you yourself quote the same "white scholars." You will then close with a predictable flood of spam from said "published" material, adding no new analysis, or credible synthesis. Go ahead, on cue..
LOL. You are very jealous. No one has ever debunked my research into the Olmec being African. This is especially true Quetzalcoatl , I just recently showed how weak his arguments are on ES last month, See:
In 1997 I presented my research at the Central States Conference before many of the major researchers of Meso-American studies. They have had over 20 years to attack my work but none have. If my work was so weak I am sure an article would have been published by now showing its weaknesses. Below is my presentation:
You claim my references are old and outdated this is false. The only old work I constantly cite is Leo Wiener's Africa and the Discovery of America. I cite this work because it is the foundation of the evidence that the Olmec art (the Tuxtla statuette), writing and Calendar are of Mande origin. My research is just confirming his original research. My research has confirmed much of his research and extended the reach of his conclusions. See:
The size of a research center does not determine what the researcher distributes to the public.It is only small minded people who think every institution must be supported by a University, or European money.
Finally, just because someone disagrees with another researchers work does not mean it is trivial, it just means that they disagree. The measure of any piece of research literature is the references cited in the work. I stand behind everything I have published and will defend it with the most powerful literature available. Now having said this, why don't you publish some of your work. Oh yea..... I forgot, you're just a coward.
please honor ARtU's incentive and take it to a thread of its own OK
PS Dr Winters please accept criticism among praise. Even the kings of Old knew they needed a jester.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Also, I think that it will be necessary to put together polyvalent scientific teams, capable of doing in-depth studies, for sure, and that’s what’s important. It bothers me when someone takes me on my word without developing a means of verifying what I say ... We must form a scientific spirit capable of seeing even the weaknesses of our own proofs, of seeing the unfinished side of our work and committing ourselves to completing it. You understand? Therefore we should then have a work which could honestly stand criticism, because what we’ve done would have been placed on a scientific plane."
—Cheikh Anta Diop, Interview with Harun Kofi Wangara (Harold G. Lawrence), "Interview with Cheikh Anta Diop." Black World, XXIII, no. 4 (February 1974): 53-61.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Nun, Amon, Atum, Ra, Shu, Tephnet etc are just aspects of the Creator.
Without considering spiritual or syncretic consideration, I don't consider the different names of God in Ancient Egypt as different aspects of one person. There is many names for the unique creator god in Ancient Egypt. Each have their own story of creation mythologies (for example). Each names for god in Ancient Egypt represent the name of the unique creator god for different lineages, clans, ethnic groups scattered around AE along the Nile. One of them taking prominence when a different family/dynasty takes power in AE. Of course for Ancient Egyptians (beside Amenhotep IV), as well as non-Abrahamic religions like in modern Africa, Ancient Greece, modern Japan (Shinto), etc, there's no problem if there's many different names, ceremonies and traditions for the unique creator god. Nobody is considered pagans or infidels. Around the world there's probably thousands of different names for god. Thousand of different traditions and religious ceremonies. This human diversity of culture, religions, personalities (individuals) is what enrich the world. It's the basic practice of freedom at an individual or collective level. It should only be limited when it limit the liberty of others. In nature, the diversity (of genes, lifestyles, etc) is a basis survival strategy and a motor for evolution. Evolution, in every sense, is always done in continuity with the past.
Your interpretation is completely incorrect.
Let's agree to disagree on that one. Ultimately all those religious analysis must be backed by sources in Ancient Egyptian literature (or archaeology). The different "creation myths" we see in AE literature for example for each unique creator god have some similarities but they also have some differences. It's very interesting to analyse the differences and similarities between the various creation myths in Ancient Egypt. Around the world there's thousands of different unique creator god in traditional customs. Beside for spiritual consideration, they are not different aspect of the same god. Each religious tradition around the world have their own unique customs, creation myths, ceremonies and traditions which do have many similarities but are not exactly similar.
I love this dicussion by all of,please let introduce you to the expart of african religion,his name is John.s.Mbiti .His most famous book on african religion is called Concepts of God in Africa by John .s.Mbiti.i know you will love it.
Posts: 306 | From: Kenya | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Doug M None of that has ANYTHING to do with nature worship. Africans worship ONE God just as the so called "major" religious do. However, they recognize his "aspects". These 'masquerades' also have esoteric meanings that are meant to teach certain truths to their initiates. You should research Poro or Komo. There are plenty of old books on them.
This kenyan egyptologist seems to agree with you.his name is Dr Kipkoech Arap Sambu,his famous book is ; The Kalenjiin People's Egypt Origin Legend Revisited: Was Isis Asiis?: A Study In Comparative Religion by Kipkoeech araap Sambu .Kipkoeech araap Sambu holds a doctorate in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from the University of South Africa (D.Litt. et Phil, 2001); a professional membership of the Chattered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (MCIPS, UK, 1983); and a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of Nairobi (1979). He did practical work in Egyptology as a guest student at Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany (2002/03). He is a member of the International Association of Egyptologists and runs Kass FM and Kass TV – the Kalenjin language medium stations – from Washington, DC. one of his quotes that agrees with yours is. " Kalenjin Dieties Like, Old Egyptians, Kalenjin was a monotheistic society. They believe in one God who has so many names. Asis is the deity of the Kalenjin. This is Isis. Asis or Aset among the Barabaig of Tanzania was believed to be a woman. Other names we brought from Egypt include Illat-the God of Justice. Some other people later corrupted to Allah or Illay among the Somalis of Kenya and Ethiopia. Chebo-Amoni is another name of our deity which the Greeks corrupted to Amoni. The Kalenjin word osirun means to resurrect, to wake up from sleep or to cross a bridge. Apeso is also the name of our Deity, known as Apis.
The Kalenjin used to refer to themselves as children of Miot or Myoot, known in Ancient Egypt as Ma-at, another deity of Old Egyptians."
Posts: 306 | From: Kenya | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is funny how these clowns like to talk about African scholars are frauds because they claim black Africans live in Africa. Yet the 200 years of white European fraudulent racist anthropology all over the world is dismissed without a thought.
Seriously. These people are retarded.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Below we can an text extract talking about the common African origin of Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Kushites:
From Cultural entanglement at the dawn of the Egyptian history: a View from the Nile First Cataract Region (2014)
CONCLUSIONS
The distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity is something connected to the rise of the Naqada culture in the first half of the fourth millennium BCE. During the previous millennium such a distinction would have not made sense. As previously stated, the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt have strong ties with rhe Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition, as can be inferred, for instance, by the very similar pottery, economy and settlement pattern and by the latest findings in the deserts surrounding the Egyptian Nile valley (Gatto 2011b, 2012a, b, 2013).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Below we can an text extract talking about the common African origin of Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Kushites:
From Cultural entanglement at the dawn of the Egyptian history: a View from the Nile First Cataract Region (2014)
CONCLUSIONS
The distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity is something connected to the rise of the Naqada culture in the first half of the fourth millennium BCE. During the previous millennium such a distinction would have not made sense. As previously stated, the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt have strong ties with rhe Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition, as can be inferred, for instance, by the very similar pottery, economy and settlement pattern and by the latest findings in the deserts surrounding the Egyptian Nile valley (Gatto 2011b, 2012a, b, 2013).
Good point- this relates to the very early period. The same too could be said of some times in the New Kingdom. At certain times, Nubians and Egyptians become indistinguishable in the archaeological record (Bianchi 2004). They 2 peoples are distinctive but at the same time, closely related as even Yurco way back noted. They conquered one another and exchanged genes, technology, people and ideas. There were several pharaohs of Nubian origin BEFORE the 25th Dynasty, a point some people still find "surprising" or try to deny/downplay. And of course, BOTH are African peoples.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
the 4th dynasty queen Khentkaues was of Ta Seti and she birthed the first two kings of the 5th dynasty
the Uakha family established the 12th dynasty
Senwosret or Sesostris was a common Uakha name
the name Amenhotep or Amememhet shows the Uakha connection to Amun and Gebel Barkal
Amenemhet I was vizier for Mentuhotep IV of the preceding 11th dynasty, his ancestry of and marrige in the Uakha family legitimized his natural right to the throne
the 14th dyanastys second ruler was actually named Nehesi and honored his mother Peret incorporating her name in his cartouche
Piye and the succeeding 25th dynasty are too famous to detail
the 25th dynasty was ultra orthodox reviving tradition throughout T3 Akht
in truth pharoanic Kmt ended with the 25th dynasty from Napata/Gebel Barkal
The kings of Kush were known to have a certain claim on Kmt's throne. Zanakht of the 3rd dynasty has strong Nhsw facial features. His line apparently died out. The 9th and 10th dynasty Uahka family of Thebes were buried in tombs of type unknown in Kmt but of design in Kush. The Uahka family has been traced back to the 6th dynasty builders of the temples at Qua near Abydos. Senusret is a name from the Uahka family, one of whose members took on the name Amenemhet to honor Amen the major deity of Thebes. This family established the 12th dynasty. Comparison of skull measurements reveals an exceedingly close relationship between the Uahka family and the modern Shangalla (non-Abyssinian) type of Ethiopian bordering Sudan.
[....]
... kinship between the peoples of the lower and middle Nile Valleys must not be forgotten. Especially of note is the middle Nile Valley dwellers' attitude as to the status of the lower Nile Valley.
quote:[i]... the Egyptian pharaohs of Dynasty 18 had recognized Gebel Barkal as an ancient source of Egyptian kingship and had themselves crowned there to affirm their rule, ...
... the first to recognize the religious significance of Gebel Barkal had been the Pharoah Thutmose III (ca. 1479-1425 BC)[.]
. . . .
[....]
It all boils down to cultural spirituality and the "kingship" deity of the matured middle and lower Nile valley in the days of empire that had been perculating since before either kingdom emerged.
I think that Gebel Barka was known to the A Group originators of the royalty concept of dynasty 0 and possibly the first attempts of state unification (judging by the finds of Qustul). I imagine the reason that certain NHHSYW females endowed their husbands or sons with a natural and undisputed right to the throne of T3Wy was because they hailed from the right family from Gebel Barkal of old from before the times of dynastic Egypt, and here's why:
quote: ... long before the Egyptians had set eyes on Gebel Barkal, the Nubians, too, had held it sacred. Although no pre-Egyptian settlement or cultic remains have yet been found there, unstratified Nubian pottery has been recovered, dating from the Neolithic, Pre-Kerma, and Kerma periods. This indicates that the site must have been occupied at least since the fourth millennium BC. The discovery on the summit of Gebel Barkal of thousands of chipped stone wasters, made of types of stones that can only be found on the desert floor, suggests that people brought stones to the summit to work them, a practice that implies a religious motivation. Likewise, the similarity between the sanctuary at Barkal, as it appeared in the Egyptian and Kushite periods, and that of Kerma, as it appeared at the end of the Classic Kerma phase, may suggest that there was a pre- Egyptian cultic connection between Gebel Barkal and the "Western Deffufa" at Kerma. There exists at least the possibility that the latter, a rectangular, brick built, mountain-like platform 19 m high, may have been built at Kerma as a magical substitute or "double" of Gebel Barkal. After all, complexes of temples were built in front of each, and each was conceived as the dwelling place of a powerful god.
There is no doubt that the Egyptians, and probably, too, the earlier Nubians, attached sacred significance to Gebel Barkal because of its bizarre form. Not only was the hill isolated on a flat desert plain and possessed of a spectacular cliff, 90 m high and 200 m long, its southwestern corner was marked by an enormous free-standing pinnacle, nearly 75 m high (fig.5). This monolith had all the appearance of a statue, but without precise form, and it could be imagined in many ways simultaneously. On the one hand, it could be seen as the figure of a standing king or god, wearing the White Crown. It could be seen as an erect phallus. It could also be seen as a rearing cobra (uraeus), wearing the White Crown. Ancient documents, both written and pictorial, reveal that the rock was imagined as all these things at once and was thus venerated as the source of the divine power of all the various things it represented. As a crowned human figure, it would have represented the living king or the ultimate royal ancestor, or the god himself. As a phallus, it would have represented Amun as father and procreator. As uraeus, it would have represented each and every goddess and all female creative power. It was thus father, mother, and royal child combined as one - which was apparently the very meaning of "Kamutef." Gebel Barkal, by means of the phallic-shaped pinnacle, not only confirmed the presence of Amun, it also had precisely the form of the Primeval Hill of Egyptian tradition, on which the Creator was thought to have appeared at the beginning of time and generated the first gods through an act of masturbation.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Which Egyptian pharoahs before the 25th dyn were of Nubian origin?
Technically they are all of Kushite and Nubian origin since they all share a common neolithic origin (Nabta Playa, Tasians, Badarian, etc) in the region we now call Kush around Sudan and Southern Egypt.
But of course after the Naqada period they grew up to be distinct people with their own languages, customs, etc. Some of those shared between each others of course. The 12th Dynasty seem to be from a southern Kushite (Ta-Seti) origin (probably egyptianized Kushites) according to the Prophecy of Neferti.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 12th Dynasty seem to be from a southern Kushite (Ta-Seti) origin (probably egyptianized Kushites) according to the Prophecy of Neferti.
Yes, and even then we don't need the prophecy. Archaeological evidence makes the case, as Egyptologists like Yurco have long noted.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole culture of Egypt originated in the areas to the South of Egypt: Kingship, deities, architecture, art and the people themselves. This is reinforced by multiple lines of evidence. The only people creating a fake racial distinction between the AE and the rest of Africa are the Europeans of course.
As others have noted the key points are: 1) The oldest evidence of cultural development and social formation occurs in the Upper Nile between the 2nd and 5th cataracts along the Nile in the Mesolithic and beyond. 2) These cultures interacted with cultures who lived in the Sahara during the last wet phase who also introduced pottery styles, art and even mummification prior to the rise of Egypt. 3) As a result of the drying of the Sahara the populations moved towards the Nile and settled in a large wet area between the 1st and 2nd cataracts combining with earlier Nile Valley populations. 4)From this group came the kingdom of Ta Seti (land of the bow) and the royal cemetery at Qustul from which the earliest evidence of Egyptian royal iconography has been identified. 5) The first development of the Ancient Egyptian state occurred in Upper Egypt in and around the town called Naqada today but called Nubt by the Egyptians, meaning "city of gold" or Golden. 6) Ta Seti is the first Nome of Egypt indicating that it was the first "county" of the Egyptian state indicating its age and identity as the origin of ancient Egyptian culture. 7) Herodatus says that the Egyptians said the first king of Egypt was Min. Min is a deity shown as a mummified male with an erect penis and depicted with jet black skin. This iconagraphy undeniably has many meanings including black people as the seed and basis of ancient Egyptian culture, tied to the periodic renewal of the Nile both in terms of soil and population. 8) Archaeologists equate Min with Menes which is a corruption of the word Min. 9) Neithhotep is one of the earliest identified queens of Egypt whose serekh is of crossed arrows, again signifying descent from Ta Seti (land of the bows) and Nubt. She is buried in the royal cemetery of Nubt. Her association with Ta Seti is said to be the reason for her being treated as "foremost of women" and the "great consort" again reflecting Southern traditions associated with the celestial cow and great mother. (Note how the archaeologists will arbitrarily associate Neith with Libya and Lower Egypt when the earliest evidence for this occurs in Ta Seti Upper Egypt during the protodynastic which is the land of the bows.)
posted
Do you have any other reference to Neith-hotep besides Wikipedia Doug? Here is a detailed mainstream book on the subject: --------------------------------------
"The commonest form of female rule was that of regency, wherein a king's mother ruled on behalf of her son until he matured sufficiently. The earliest example, however, was not of a mother ruling in place of her son. Early in the First Dynasty, Neith-hotep, the (probably) wife of Aha, is considered to have served as regent for Djer, possibly her nephew. This queen, whose name is known from tomb objects in both Nagada and Abydos, was buried in her own enormous niched mud-brick tomb at the site of Nagada, one of Egypt's most ancient centers. The name of Aha, one of the first kings of Dynasty 1, occurs with hers; objects naming her also stem from the royal tomb complex of Djer, ruler in the mid-First Dynasty.
Although the titles of queen ship were not yet expressed by "King's Wife" or "King's Mother," Neith-hotep's importance may be assumed from a seal with her own name placed with a palace-facade hieroglyph (fig. 3). The emblem of her namesake goddess Neith was carved above the palace facade. This iconographic distinction was reserved, with only one other known exception, to the god whom the king embodied- in all but two instances Horus alone... Neith-hotep's use of the palace facade for her name signals her importance and sometimes has been interpreted as indication of a dynastic union between Lower Egypt's Neith and Upper Egypt 's (in Aha's) Horus." -- Anne K. Capel; Glenn E. Markoe. ed. 1997. Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Do you have any other reference to Neith-hotep besides Wikipedia Doug? Here is a detailed mainstream book on the subject: --------------------------------------
"The commonest form of female rule was that of regency, wherein a king's mother ruled on behalf of her son until he matured sufficiently. The earliest example, however, was not of a mother ruling in place of her son. Early in the First Dynasty, Neith-hotep, the (probably) wife of Aha, is considered to have served as regent for Djer, possibly her nephew. This queen, whose name is known from tomb objects in both Nagada and Abydos, was buried in her own enormous niched mud-brick tomb at the site of Nagada, one of Egypt's most ancient centers. The name of Aha, one of the first kings of Dynasty 1, occurs with hers; objects naming her also stem from the royal tomb complex of Djer, ruler in the mid-First Dynasty.
Although the titles of queen ship were not yet expressed by "King's Wife" or "King's Mother," Neith-hotep's importance may be assumed from a seal with her own name placed with a palace-facade hieroglyph (fig. 3). The emblem of her namesake goddess Neith was carved above the palace facade. This iconographic distinction was reserved, with only one other known exception, to the god whom the king embodied- in all but two instances Horus alone... Neith-hotep's use of the palace facade for her name signals her importance and sometimes has been interpreted as indication of a dynastic union between Lower Egypt's Neith and Upper Egypt 's (in Aha's) Horus." -- Anne K. Capel; Glenn E. Markoe. ed. 1997. Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt
There are plenty of books out there but my point is that most of them blatantly distort the historical context in order to make Neith and Neithhotep identified with the north when the iconography and other evidence originates first in the South. This is going back to the point that all of Egyptian culture ultimately has a southern origin.
That is similar to Egyptologists who used to make Set into a Northern deity even though the original home of Set worship was again in Nubt among the Upper Egyptians and the year 400 stela clearly associates Set with Medjay warriors from Ta Seti.
By changing the place names and taking them out of their original context this is easily done. But once you look at the original names and context it becomes obvious there is distortion. How on earth can you have the first dynasty which originates from the First Nome or first county which is named 'land of the bow' and claim that the association of Neith with bows is a "northern" concept? How silly is that as if Africans hadn't been using bows and arrows since the earliest hominids.
posted
Indeed. Nagada is in southern Egypt and is most strongly identified there. It was from the south that the dynasties sprung.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Ultimately all those religious analysis must be backed by sources in Ancient Egyptian literature (or archaeology). The different "creation myths" we see in AE literature for example for each unique creator god have some similarities but they also have some differences. It's very interesting to analyse the differences and similarities between the various creation myths in Ancient Egypt. Around the world there's thousands of different unique creator god in traditional customs. Beside for spiritual consideration, they are not different aspect of the same god. Each religious tradition around the world have their own unique customs, creation myths, ceremonies and traditions which do have many similarities but are not exactly similar. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic