quote:An immediate curiosity is that the DNA tests showed Ramesses III and Unknown Man E to have shared the same 'E1b1a' haplotype of the Y-chromosome. Curious, because this type appears to originate in either the south-eastern African region around Zimbabwe, or in the Nigeria/Senegal region of western Africa. This must count as an unexpected finding in the royal family of the 20th dynasty, who were always keen to emphasise their relationship with the pharaohs of the preceding 19th dynasty, with origins in the eastern Nile Delta hinting at an Asiatic or Semitic lineage.
'I'M NOT PENTEWERE', SCREAMS UNKNOWN MAN E
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ All we know about the Ramesside family's patrilineage is that they descend from one of Horemheb's advisors-- a man named Paramessu of the Eastern Delta specifically the city of Avarice which was the old Hyksos capital. Many people presume that he was Asiatic because of his local origins though all the archaeological evidence shows that he and his son Seti I were ethnically non other than Egyptians.
That their Y haplotype is found to be E1b1a instead of the more common E1b1b is unexpected though shouldn't be surprising since E1b1a though a minority in Egypt today still exists in significant frequencies especially in the western desert oases.
So too is the Benin form of Sickle Cell
This suggests that ancient Egypt does have indirect ties to West Africans via the prehistoric Central Saharans.
That said, DNA evidence is still piecing together clues as to who is related to whom in what dynasty. The KV 35 Younger Lady is found to be not Nefertiti but King Tut's biological mother who also happened to be the full sister of his father. However there is still question as to whether the KV 55 mummy is in fact Akhenaten.
By the way, I can't help but notice the low fanfare and media attention on the Rammeside haplotype but the opposite phenomenon as it pertains to the autosomal profile of the Late Period Abusir el-Malek mummies.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is just more proof that KMT was a pan African culture no different than Kerma as discussed on another thread. Head binding in the 18th dynasty is strongly reminiscent of similar traditions from more modern Congo. This cannot be just a mere coincidence.
Also the Abusir El Melek DNA did get a lot of fanfare as it is part of the ongoing effort by Egyptology to associate ancient KMT with the "Near East". Even though that requires selective sampling of ancient remains and misleading and fraudulent claims about what lineages should and could have been where in prehistory.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
People just don't know the heterogeneous nature of 13-17th dynasties eastern Delta population which included Kerma Nubians. Heck, one Delta ruler was outright named Nehesi. Whuddaboudat?
So we get Hyksos were in the delta the delta was all Aamu simplistic okey doke.
BTW 13th Dyn has a ruler Khendjer thought to be Aamu.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This is just more proof that KMT was a pan African culture no different than Kerma as discussed on another thread. Head binding in the 18th dynasty is strongly reminiscent of similar traditions from more modern Congo. This cannot be just a mere coincidence.
Also the Abusir El Melek DNA did get a lot of fanfare as it is part of the ongoing effort by Egyptology to associate ancient KMT with the "Near East". Even though that requires selective sampling of ancient remains and misleading and fraudulent claims about what lineages should and could have been where in prehistory.
I disagree with the term "pan-African" as neither Egypt nor Kerma involved all Africans. These were regional powers that involved the peoples within the region of northeast Africa.
The same way Greece is never identified as "Pan-European" civilization, simply a civilization of the locality of southeastern Europe-- the Balkans.
Ironically the very origins of Greek civilization and its people make it clear that Greece not Egypt is a much better candidate to be labeled "Near Eastern".
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: People just don't know the heterogeneous nature of 13-17th dynasties eastern Delta population which included Kerma Nubians. Heck, one Delta ruler was outright named Nehesi. Whuddaboudat?
So we get Hyksos were in the delta the delta was all Aamu simplistic okey doke.
BTW 13th Dyn has a ruler Khendjer thought to be Aamu.
That could be a possibility. Before DNA we had craniometric analyses. Recall P. K. Manansala's assessment of Harris & Wente's X-ray work: In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians. According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
The difference between late XVII and XVIII dynasty royal mummies and contemporary Nubians is slight. During the XVIV and XX dynasties we see possibly some mixing between a Nubian element that is more similar to Mesolithic Nubians (low vaults, sloping frontal bone, etc.), with an orthognathous population. Since the Ramessides were of northern extraction, this could represent miscegenation with modern Mediterraneans of Levantine type. The projecting zygomatic arches of Seti I suggest remnants of the old Natufian/Tasian types of the Holocene period.
If the heads of Queens Nodjme and Esemkhebe are any indication, there may have been a new influx of southern blood during the XXI Dynasty. In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity, while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This is just more proof that KMT was a pan African culture no different than Kerma as discussed on another thread. Head binding in the 18th dynasty is strongly reminiscent of similar traditions from more modern Congo. This cannot be just a mere coincidence.
Also the Abusir El Melek DNA did get a lot of fanfare as it is part of the ongoing effort by Egyptology to associate ancient KMT with the "Near East". Even though that requires selective sampling of ancient remains and misleading and fraudulent claims about what lineages should and could have been where in prehistory.
I disagree with the term "pan-African" as neither Egypt nor Kerma involved all Africans. These were regional powers that involved the peoples within the region of northeast Africa.
The same way Greece is never identified as "Pan-European" civilization, simply a civilization of the locality of southeastern Europe-- the Balkans.
Ironically the very origins of Greek civilization and its people make it clear that Greece not Egypt is a much better candidate to be labeled "Near Eastern".
If you consider Kerma had connections to Central Africa along with East Africa(Ethiopia, Somalia) plus trade networks along the Sahel belt, that is pretty Pan African in the sense of far flung networks of trade that extended far from the Nile Valley itself. Keep in mind that the Mega Lakes of Chad and Sudan (Darfur) that dried up 10,000 years ag were a huge factor in the waves of migration throughout Africa in all directions. And as those populations migrated they still maintained some degree of contact. And this is most important culturally as you can see common elements of African culture found in the Nile Valley all over Africa: side locks, palm leaf headdress and costume, animist principles, scepters, maces, animal worship/adoration, jewelry, etc, etc. So culturally the Nile Valley is a pinnacle of African cultural evolution which is indeed pan African in nature.
But no, when I say "Pan African" I am not using it in the context of modern political struggles for African independence. I am just saying that the Nile Valley was part of a wide ranging network of trade which has existed in Africa for thousands of years even before "civilization" proper. The journeys to the Land of Punt are simply one famous example of how far flung those networks were.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ We are only beginning to see the implications of Kerma's vast empire which I have been postulating for a long while now. Their influence stretched from the Horn to Central Africa and yes across the Sahara. I'm just hesitant to use the phrase "Pan-African" as that term tends to get overused or abused. Even Egypt is called as "Pan-African" by some. I myself don't want to jump the gun but there is no denying that Kerma was indeed an African power though funny these findings on Kerma is little discussed in academia.
posted
My point is that ALL of the Nile Valley was connected to far flung regions of Africa through the Sahara and Sahel and into central Africa as a result of the drying Sahara and long standing trade routes and communications routes across these areas. Kerma wasn't "unique" in that respect. Of course the only reason Kerma and Kush gets looked down on is because of the lack of writing in the earlier eras. But both cultures sprang from the same source.
The only reason I keep repeating this is because to this day, Egyptology maintains that Egypt was separate from the rest of Africa and had a unique culture. Writing is one of the justifications for this. And all the other nonsense they promote goes along with that.
posted
^ I understand your point, but China also had extensive relations throughout Asia yet nobody calls Chinese civilization "Pan-Asian" and the same was true with Rome in Europe but nobody calls Rome a "Pan-European" civilization.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I understand your point, but China also had extensive relations throughout Asia yet nobody calls Chinese civilization "Pan-Asian" and the same was true with Rome in Europe but nobody calls Rome a "Pan-European" civilization.
I would call Chinese civilization pan asian because it has many elements of culture that are common to Asia and its roots are in Asia. And China is a melting pot of various Asian traditions, ethnic groups and cultures. "Pan Asian" does not imply a political or ethnic identity as opposed to a common cultural framework. Again, this has nothing to do with writing as culture has been evolving among humans since long before writing. Saying that Chinese culture has no connection to the rest of Asia is ridiculous. Nobody is claiming some foreign non Asian group invaded China and gave them their civilization. However KMT is somehow supposedly an import from somewhere else and therefore distinct and isolated from the rest of Africa which is a bold faced lie. I know you aren't saying that so I don't want to belabor the point and derail the thread.
Kerma is simply the tip of the iceberg though and most African history still has yet to be uncovered outside the Nile Valley.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I understand your point, but China also had extensive relations throughout Asia yet nobody calls Chinese civilization "Pan-Asian" and the same was true with Rome in Europe but nobody calls Rome a "Pan-European" civilization.
That is such an irrelevant, shallow, rhetorical comparison to Africa. Rome was the by product of Greece. The foundational population of Aegean were black Africans by way of the Natufians, and this population's "Super Saharan African" biological affinities were heavily diluted with the intrusion of nomadic "Indo-European" populations during the 2nd millennium BC. (Ricaut 2008). The population of Greece, and the surrounding areas (which had the same demographic shift) became mullatocized on a mass scale. The "Indo Europeans" who came into the already established Aegean civilization were a completely different branch of Indo - Europeans whose wholesale migration predates that of the contemporary Western Indo-European Europeans by thousands of years. For that reason of course Western Europeans have nothing to do with the earliest European civilizations which had an African foundation.
The Northeast quadrant of Africa however was clearly an early meeting place for many if not most of the ancestors of contemporary groups of Super Saharan Africans. The works of several contemporary African linguist (some of this board) has made it clear that Bantu was foundational to the ancient Kemetic language. I don't buy into the whole Afro-Asiatic nonsense, because it has not been reconstructed to a common ancestor. When that Western impedance to logic is taken out of the equation, and the data simply speaks for itself (linguistically) we see that there is are direct relationships that links Bantu's to ancient Kemet. That fact coupled with this DNA evidence (that many people for some reason the HEAVY implications of) is all that should needed to sounded say that the Western narrative for how Africa was peopled is a crock of shit.
The only place that many of these cultural traits were practiced was in Kemet-Nubia, so when people say that the common "Saharan" origin of these people, and customs there is no evidence of this being practiced in the Saharan.
Rulers Depicted as Giants
Notice how both the Kemetic pharaoh and Dahomey king are depicted as giant rulers, and have one hand sticking out while being served by smaller humans. More proof of this diffusion of people and culture from the Hapi Valley into interior regions of Africa is shown in the appearance of the ancient Kemetic spiritual system being shown in these other African cultures. The Osirian crock and flail were sported by the kings of inner Africa. Notice that the Dahomey king holds the traditional Osirion Crock while the ancient Kemetic figure holds the Flail. It's also note worthy...that the color scheme of the Dahomey (Nigeria) are not depicting "black skinned" people despite us knowing that these people were/are still melaninated "black" Africans. It's also worth noting how these little Damomey citizens are shaped very similarly (even pointy noses) to how the ancient Mesopotamians depicted themselves.
Dahomey Kingdom (Nigeria)
Anybody who wants to sit here and say that this ^^^^^^ is not the result of wholesale diffusion of people from Kemet into Nigeria is full of it!!!!
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Here we go, I was afraid this was going to happen.
First off, Rome is not a "byproduct of Greece". Yes, while they obviously received significant influence from Greece, the foundations of Roman culture actually came from the Etruscans of Italy but you ignored my point about their civilization or that of the Chinese.
Second, yes northeast Africa especially during the Kerman Empire was a meeting ground of many peoples through trading networks at great distances, though I fail to see what this has to do with the Bantu peoples whose ancestors originated in the Benue-Congo region. Even if there was trade contact with them, that's different from saying there were Bantus present in Kush without actual evidence let alone calling Kush a Bantu civilization.
Lastly, I know all about Egypt's African features. It's something I've been studying for years now and have made several threads about it like here. Again, nobody is denying that there is a shared cultural commonality between Africans including the Egyptians but what you don't realize is that you are selling the other cultures short with the theory of diffusion from Egypt. You do realize that is the same theory that white supremacist espouse-- where any similarity is the result of diffusion from the superior (Caucasoid) Egyptians! You fail to realize that African peoples have mixed and mingled or at least had trade relations with one another since time immemorial so of course there are going to be fundamental similarities that don't need to be attributed to diffusion from a single source alone. By the way the reason for many similarities between the Nile Valley and West Africa is due to the Central Saharan culture of the Neolithic which was the central hub of migration and exchange between both regions.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lastly, I know all about Egypt's African features. It's something I've been studying for years now and have made several threads about it like here. Again, nobody is denying that there is a shared cultural commonality between Africans including the Egyptians but what you don't realize is that you are selling the other cultures short with the theory of diffusion from Egypt. You do realize that is the same theory that white supremacist espouse-- where any similarity is the result of diffusion from the superior (Caucasoid) Egyptians! You fail to realize that African peoples have mixed and mingled or at least had trade relations with one another since time immemorial so of course there are going to be fundamental similarities that don't need to be attributed to diffusion from a single source alone. By the way the reason for many similarities between the Nile Valley and West Africa is due to the Central Saharan culture of the Neolithic which was the central hub of migration and exchange between both regions.
I totally agree with this mindset. We have to be very careful trying to create origin myths out of the Nile Valley, civilizations. Like it was the be-all and end-all of Africa culture or society, instead of just being a part of a much larger branch of it. A great branch for sure...but just another branch. Hence, the reason why, there is so much cross pollution that can be obviously seen and traced to so many non-Nile Valley peoples (or maybe they lived near the region at certain points in time. But never the less).
Things that were traded, or heritage similarities that survived from long ago. There will always be a connection between African ethnic groups, despite their individual unique qualities. Before and after the Green Saharan dried up, it helped spawned a lot of amazing human creations, standards of living, belief, political systems, science, medicine and other vast pillars of knowledge.
Intra-relations and trade/exchange was the lifeblood of African life. None of these groups were as cut off from each other as many would like to delude themselves into believing. Even before the arrival of eurasians or any other groups. And that ability to fuel society needs to happen once again, if today's Africa wants to move forward. The Saharan wasn't as big of an obstacle once Africans adapted and prepared themselves for the new challenge. Just like the Ancient Egyptians did as they created water stations and how many nomadic groups survive to this day.
-------------------- "Nothing hurts a racist more than the absolute truth and a punch to the face" Posts: 101 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2020
| IP: Logged |
No, one can deny the fact that African's understood who they were and practiced their culture and heritage down logical pathways, that were passed down through the generations.
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
-------------------- "Nothing hurts a racist more than the absolute truth and a punch to the face" Posts: 101 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ All we know about the Ramesside family's patrilineage is that they descend from one of Horemheb's advisors-- a man named Paramessu of the Eastern Delta specifically the city of Avarice which was the old Hyksos capital. Many people presume that he was Asiatic because of his local origins though all the archaeological evidence shows that he and his son Seti I were ethnically non other than Egyptians.
That their Y haplotype is found to be E1b1a instead of the more common E1b1b is unexpected though shouldn't be surprising since E1b1a though a minority in Egypt today still exists in significant frequencies especially in the western desert oases.
So too is the Benin form of Sickle Cell
This suggests that ancient Egypt does have indirect ties to West Africans via the prehistoric Central Saharans.
That said, DNA evidence is still piecing together clues as to who is related to whom in what dynasty. The KV 35 Younger Lady is found to be not Nefertiti but King Tut's biological mother who also happened to be the full sister of his father. However there is still question as to whether the KV 55 mummy is in fact Akhenaten.
By the way, I can't help but notice the low fanfare and media attention on the Rammeside haplotype but the opposite phenomenon as it pertains to the autosomal profile of the Late Period Abusir el-Malek mummies.
The video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOMFk_pi6tc Shows how People were going back and forth from Chad to Egypt and Chad to West Africa for thousands of years before the 1st dynasty.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] First off, Rome is not a "byproduct of Greece". Yes, while they obviously received significant influence from Greece, the foundations of Roman culture actually came from the Etruscans of Italy
The biological origins of the original Italians may lay with the Etruscan, but as with the Greeks the Etruscan origins also stretch back to that "Neolithic" Natufian migration of populations "Carry Sub Saharan African biological affinities" with the Niger-Congo being the SSA reference (Ricaut 2008). MTdna has brought this to light.
Among ancient populations based on mtDNA, ancient Etruscans were found to be closest to LBK Neolithic farmers from Central Europe.
The culture of the Greeks was also foundational in what would become Rome;
"Life in Greece continued under the Roman Empire much the same as it had previously. Roman culture was highly influenced by the Greeks; as Horace said, Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit ("Captive Greece captured her rude conqueror").[3] The epics of Homer inspired the Aeneid of Virgil, and authors such as Seneca the Younger wrote using Greek styles. Some Roman nobles regarded the Greeks as backwards and petty, but many others embraced Greek literature and philosophy. The Greek language became a favorite of the educated and elite in Rome, such as Scipio Africanus, who tended to study philosophy and regarded Greek culture and science as an example to be followed."
But that's neither here nor there. Don't want to get off topic with this.
quote: but you ignored my point about their civilization or that of the Chinese.
I didn't ignore it. I just saw it as an irrelevant comparison, as some others have pointed out.
quote: Second, yes northeast Africa especially during the Kerman Empire was a meeting ground of many peoples through trading networks at great distances, though I fail to see what this has to do with the Bantu peoples whose ancestors originated in the Benue-Congo region.
One of the first genetic studies this decade (2020's) that report on ancient Africans DNA confirms what C.A. Diop stated in "The African Origins of Civilization", and particularly on the page cited above! The first inhabitants of the West & Central regions of Africa were not "Niger-Congo" speaking populations, but instead were the Twa (so called "Pygmies"). Ancient West African foragers in the context of African population history Mark Lipson, Isabelle Ribot, […]David Reich
Nature (2020)
Our knowledge of ancient human population structure in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly prior to the advent of food production, remains limited. Here we report genome-wide DNA data from four children—two of whom were buried approximately 8,000 years ago and two 3,000 years ago—from Shum Laka (Cameroon), one of the earliest known archaeological sites....However, the genome-wide ancestry profiles of all four individuals are most similar to those of present-day hunter-gatherers from western Central Africa, which implies that populations in western Cameroon today—as well as speakers of Bantu languages from across the continent—are not descended substantially from the population represented by these four people
or
Ancient genomes reveal complex patterns of population movement, interaction, and replacement in sub-Saharan Africa
Ke Wang1*, Johannes Krause1,
Africa hosts the greatest human genetic diversity globally, but legacies of ancient population interactions and dispersals across the continent remain understudied. Here, we report genome-wide data from 20 ancient sub-Saharan African individuals, including the first reported ancient DNA from the DRC, Uganda, and Botswana. These data demonstrate the contraction of diverse, once contiguous hunter-gatherer populations, and suggest the resistance to interaction with incoming pastoralists of delayed-return foragers in aquatic environments. We refine models for the spread of food producers into eastern and southern Africa, demonstrating more complex trajectories of admixture than previously suggested. In Botswana, we show that Bantu ancestry post-dates admixture between pastoralists and foragers, suggesting an earlier spread of pastoralism than farming to southern Africa. Our findings demonstrate how processes of migration and admixture have markedly reshaped the genetic map of sub-Saharan Africa in the past few millennia and highlight the utility of combined archaeological and archaeogenetic approaches."
There were no Bantu's in neither West nor Southern African until relatively recently. There was no Bantu migration from Cameroon. There is NOT ONE Bantu who confirms such a migration nor origin. STOP the foolery!
quote: Even if there was trade contact with them, that's different from saying there were Bantus present in Kush without actual evidence let alone calling Kush a Bantu civilization.
BATU, THE BANTU (General Niger-Congo Speakers)
By Ferg Somo
For the first time ever the set of hieroglyphics above leaves an indelible print which traces back the existence of the Bantu people during ancient times in the Sudan and Kemet. The following variations in pronunciation of the word 'Bantu' give an insight on how the word may have been pronounced in different Bantu languages. The list of the various pronunciations was provided by Israel Ntangazwa. Some of the variations in pronunciation are new to me.
SOME VARIATIONS IN PRONUNCIATION OF THE WORD 'BANTU' THE PEOPLE BANTU, BATU, ATHO, WATU, ATU, ACHO, BOT, BANU, BANHU, ADU
The hieroglyphics shown above spells out the word 'BATU' in keeping with the current original word 'BANTU'. The maps shown below trace the possible migrations of the Bantu people. The origin of the Bantu people is a controversial issue and has been deeply debated.
Below is an account which questions present day ideas about the origins of the Bantu people. In his book on the 'Restatement Of Bantu Origin and Meru History' the Kenyan scholar Alfred M M'Imanyara provides the evidence for a southerly migration from Kemet of the Bantu people.
THE NIGER- CONGO HYPOTHESIS
The Niger-Congo hypothesis developed by Joseph Greenberg on Bantu languages state that the Bantu originated in West Africa, the Cameroon, and migrated across the Congo basin into Southern and East Africa. Guthrie on the other hand did not commit himself but said that the Bantu dispersal lies within an elliptical area towards the centre, in the woodland region of Katanga.
The Niger-Congo hypothesis needs to be re-examined further as one has to take into account oral traditions from groups of present day Kenyan Bantu elders who recall a southerly migration from Kemet. The following sources of accounts of migrations of some of the Bantu speakers in Kenya are taken from:
i) Kenya an official handbook ii) Story of Africa from earliest times, Book one, A.J Willis iii) Longman GHC, E.S Atieno Odhimbo, John N. B. N. I Were
Almost all the Bantu people living in Kenya speak of a migration from up North. The people of Marachi location are known to have come from Elgon although other clans of the same group came from Kemet. They came in canoes on the River Hapi as far as Juja, Uganda and later moved eastward into lake Victoria. They changed course until Asembo and separated with the Luo who walked along the lake shore but the rest crossed into South Nyanza. They then turned northwards and reached Butere and then moved on to Luanda and to Ekhomo. The Luo people were behind them right from Kemet.
The people of Samia location came from Kemet on foot. The Abakhekhe clan too originated from Kemet on foot. The Abachoni clan originally came from Kemet on foot. The people of Bukusu originally came from Kemet in canoes.
Possible migration routes of Bantu from Central Sudan
The Luhya oral literature of origin, suggest a migration into their present-day locations from the north. Virtually all sub-ethnic groups claim to have migrated first south from Misri, or Kemet. In one of the Luhya dialect the word 'Abaluhya' means 'the people of the North', or 'Northerns' Other sources report that the following Bantu people, the Luhya, Baganda, Nyarwanda, Rundi of Burindi, Kikuyu, and the Zulu all claim a southerly migration from Kemet. Moreover there are many groups of Bantu speakers from Tanzania, Mozambique, Congo, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, who testify a southerly migration from Kemet. There are even groups of people from West Africa who migrated from Kemet into their present day location.
Apart from the oral traditions provided by Bantu elders, the evidence is also based on linguistic, historical, scientific and cultural studies done by Cheikh Anta Diop.
The following maps are taken from Alfred M M'Imanyara 'The Restatement of Bantu Origin and Meru History' published by Longman Kenya,
According to Alfred M M'Imanyra the following maps show the homeland of the original Bantu people in Kemet. This careful information has been derived from traditional sources provided by Bantu elders in the course of his research. I would like to support Alfred M M'Imanyara's work by sharing with him the important discovery of the of hieroglyphics above which mentions a Sudanic town of unknown situation. Clearly the town would have to be named after the people inhabiting the town, the 'BANTU' or the 'BATU', the people.
Original homeland of the Bantu up to 1500 A.D Dark shading: Possible ultimate origin of the Bantu Cross shading: Area of Bantu expansion into Kemet
posted
Bantu Migration Routes from Cush and the Island of Meroe
Note: The settlements of the Bantu in West Africa may have been a result of two streams of Bantu emigrants: one from the Congo basin and the other directly from the Hapi valley."
quote: Lastly, I know all about Egypt's African features. It's something I've been studying for years now and have made several threads about it like here.
Are you "Bantoid"/"Niger-Congo" ancestry? I wouldn't have a problem with different opinions among our group, but it is completely disrespectful for someone who is not of our genetically defined population creating doubt on the truth of our people's origin.
quote:Again, nobody is denying that there is a shared cultural commonality between Africans including the Egyptians but what you don't realize is that you are selling the other cultures short with the theory of diffusion from Egypt.
You're saying that the true context of the origins of our people is selling our people short? No absolutely not. That is completely asinine! To deny that the Ausarian worship clearly being practiced among the "Niger-Congo" Bantoid population on the Atlantic coast of Africa comes from some phantom civilization predating Nubia-Kemet is complete BS. The practice that is integral in the West African societies obviously came from the place where the practice is known to have originated, which would be in the East. Why is that truth such blasphemy to some?
quote: You do realize that is the same theory that white supremacist espouse
Let me stop you here. I don't want to hear any of the crap. The evidence speaks for itself. Stop trying to create doubt on obvious truth!
quote: You fail to realize that African peoples have mixed and mingled or at least had trade relations with one another since time immemorial so of course there are going to be fundamental similarities
Migrations across the continent of course, but your inference thereafter is completely assumptive.
quote: that don't need to be attributed to diffusion from a single source alone.
BUT YOU CAN'T NAME ANOTHER SOURCE....So you're gaslighting! A favorite of the white supremacist btw. Denying people a heritage, with make you just as much a enemy as a klansman. fyi.
quote:By the way the reason for many similarities between the Nile Valley and West Africa is due to the Central Saharan culture of the Neolithic
So then you must have evidence of the Djed being practiced in the ancient Sahara rather than ancient Nubia-Kemet?
quote:which was the central hub of migration and exchange between both regions.
That's cap.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HeartofAfrica: I totally agree with this mindset. We have to be very careful trying to create origin myths out of the Nile Valley, civilizations.
The only origin myth is that made up by European scholars the Bantu originated in Western Africa. Did the Yoruba simply make this origin myth up?
quote: Like it was the be-all and end-all of Africa culture or society,
One of the reasons why Kemet was great, was because it was a conglomeration of the various distinct types of Africans (i.e. Bantu the main, Nilotes, and Cushitic speaking Africans i.e. Oromo). When this black civilization was destroyed by pale invading populations the original populace had scattered throughout Africa into their contemporary locations. The Ashanti for example verify this in their oral traditions;
"Oral traditions of the ruling Abrade (Aduana) Clan state that Akans originated from ancient Ghana. The Akan people migrated from the north through Egypt and settled in Nubia (Sudan). Around 500 AD (5th century), due to the pressure exerted on Nubia by the Axumite kingdom of Ethiopia, Nubia was scattered and the Akan people moved west and established small trading kingdoms. These kingdoms grew and around 750 AD the Ghana Empire was formed. The Empire lasted from 750 AD to 1200 AD and collapsed as a result of the introduction of Islam in Western Sudan, due to the zeal of the Muslims to impose their religion, their ancestors eventually left for Kong (i.e. present-day Ivory Coast). From Kong, they moved to Wam and then to Dormaa (both located in present-day Brong-Ahafo region). The movement from Kong was necessitated by the desire of the people to find suitable savannah conditions since they were not used to forest life. Around the 14th century, they moved from Dormaa South Eastwards to Twifo-Heman North West Cape Coast. This move was commercially motivated."
Here are more sources supporting what has been written about the Akan's Northeast African origin.
quote: instead of just being a part of a much larger branch of it. A great branch for sure...but just another branch.
That is vague a sentiment. It's white liberal fueled dribble essentially.
quote:Things that were traded, or heritage similarities that survived from long ago. There will always be a connection between African ethnic groups, despite their individual unique qualities.
Ok....so what do you think is the strongest cultural connection between the Khoi and the Oromo?
quote: Before and after the Green Saharan dried up, it helped spawned a lot of amazing human creations, standards of living, belief, political systems, science, medicine and other vast pillars of knowledge.
Great! Interesting. So what was this earlier splendid Saharan civilization called?
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
You've gots to bounce with that BS!
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This is just more proof that KMT was a pan African culture no different than Kerma as discussed on another thread. Head binding in the 18th dynasty is strongly reminiscent of similar traditions from more modern Congo. This cannot be just a mere coincidence.
Also the Abusir El Melek DNA did get a lot of fanfare as it is part of the ongoing effort by Egyptology to associate ancient KMT with the "Near East". Even though that requires selective sampling of ancient remains and misleading and fraudulent claims about what lineages should and could have been where in prehistory.
I disagree with the term "pan-African" as neither Egypt nor Kerma involved all Africans. These were regional powers that involved the peoples within the region of northeast Africa.
The same way Greece is never identified as "Pan-European" civilization, simply a civilization of the locality of southeastern Europe-- the Balkans.
Ironically the very origins of Greek civilization and its people make it clear that Greece not Egypt is a much better candidate to be labeled "Near Eastern".
Break that down more. In what way are the Greeks a better candidate to be labeled "Near Eastern"?
-------------------- 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: instead of just being a part of a much larger branch of it. A great branch for sure...but just another branch.
That is vague a sentiment. It's white liberal fueled dribble essentially.
Vague sentiment? white liberal dribble?
I'm going to stick to being cautious without making sweeping statements about the origins of Africans ethnic diversity, because you'll start seeing. The Euronuts using what you are saying, as a way to start pushing "Eurasian" DNA crap, which gives tries to make the case that it was that supposed interaction that created civilization and brought agriculture...etc. Instead of it logically being the result of native African groups. So i rather not attribute everything great in Africa coming from the Nile Region that's slippery slope territory. IMO it's best to break it down into regional gradation/migration points. That track with migration models that make sense. Meaning, multiple waves out Central/South Africa into the Central Green Saharan then into the Nile Valley, onto Sahel pollution and in between that Horn convergence creation lots of diffusion and expansion.
-------------------- "Nothing hurts a racist more than the absolute truth and a punch to the face" Posts: 101 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2020
| IP: Logged |
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
You've gots to bounce with that BS!
Mummification did not come from the Nile Valley. The oldest mummification was found first in the Sahara. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West. So the point is that those root cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. That is simply a fact. The biggest problem is that most of these cultures going back into prehistory did not have writing that we know of and that Archaeologists havent done enough digging. All of Africa has always been populated by Africans and that did not start with Bantus a few thousand years ago.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Before and after the Green Saharan dried up, it helped spawned a lot of amazing human creations, standards of living, belief, political systems, science, medicine and other vast pillars of knowledge.
Great! Interesting. So what was this earlier splendid Saharan civilization called? [/QB]
By the way I never said or talked about any Saharan civilization.
Obviously, there were particular African ethnic groups that resided in Central Sahara before desertification. That cultivated some key elements of their neolithic cultural pillars within the Green Sahara. That would bring forth those that built the Nabta Playa, in the "Nubian" Desert, in the eastern region of the Sahara.
Regardless this could also be one element of a larger multi wave event of diffusion and expansion from key parts of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Rain King:
quote:Originally posted by HeartofAfrica: [QUOTE]
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
You've gots to bounce with that BS!
Are you talking to yourself? lol
Why do you keep bringing up white people? And their ideologues? Are you doing a bad impression of an internet Hotep?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That is simply a fact.The biggest problem is that most of these cultures going back into prehistory did not have writing that we know of and that Archaeologists havent done enough digging. All of Africa has always been populated by Africans and that did not start with Bantus a few thousand years ago. [/QB]
Now isn't that an understatement.
-------------------- "Nothing hurts a racist more than the absolute truth and a punch to the face" Posts: 101 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I understand your point, but China also had extensive relations throughout Asia yet nobody calls Chinese civilization "Pan-Asian" and the same was true with Rome in Europe but nobody calls Rome a "Pan-European" civilization.
I would call Chinese civilization pan asian because it has many elements of culture that are common to Asia and its roots are in Asia. And China is a melting pot of various Asian traditions, ethnic groups and cultures. "Pan Asian" does not imply a political or ethnic identity as opposed to a common cultural framework.
Agreed, and both China and Rome had that pan-continental reach. Kemet by contrast did not, and did not have the geographical advantages of Rome or CHina to make it a reality in the same way. If the Nile were fully navigable up to Ethiopia or East Africa it might have been possible. But as in much of Africa, sandbars, cataracts and waterfalls block extensive river navigation inland and to the ocean. By contrast Rome had not only the broad belt of the Mediterranean to work with in spreading its hegemony, but numerous European rivers extensively navigable to move men, material and technology. The Chinese had similar favorable transport routes inland, along with the relatively easy transmission belt of the SOuth CHina Sea and then the Pacific.
The ancient green Sahara was just that, ancient, and had long dried up when Kemet and Kerma began their historical rise. Egypt the record shows was heavily limited by its geographic situation, in terms of empire building in Africa- a narrow strip of land surrounded by desert with the main waterway chopped up and blocked in multiple places. Such geog factors are not the only thing in the mix, but they are one key reason Egypt could hardly become the "central headquarters" of civilization in Africa hoped for by many, nor could there be a "Pan Egyptian" or "Pax Egypticana" on a near continental scale as with Rome or some of the major Chinese dynasties.. Van Sertima had a book called EGYPT CHILD OF AFRICA. Kemet was one child among many, an important one, but nevertheless a child.
-------------------- 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: Like it was the be-all and end-all of Africa culture or society,
One of the reasons why Kemet was great, was because it was a conglomeration of the various distinct types of Africans (i.e. Bantu the main, Nilotes, and Cushitic speaking Africans i.e. Oromo). When this black civilization was destroyed by pale invading populations the original populace had scattered throughout Africa into their contemporary locations. The Ashanti for example verify this in their oral traditions;
"Oral traditions of the ruling Abrade (Aduana) Clan state that Akans originated from ancient Ghana. The Akan people migrated from the north through Egypt and settled in Nubia (Sudan). Around 500 AD (5th century), due to the pressure exerted on Nubia by the Axumite kingdom of Ethiopia, Nubia was scattered and the Akan people moved west and established small trading kingdoms. These kingdoms grew and around 750 AD the Ghana Empire was formed. The Empire lasted from 750 AD to 1200 AD and collapsed as a result of the introduction of Islam in Western Sudan, due to the zeal of the Muslims to impose their religion, their ancestors eventually left for Kong (i.e. present-day Ivory Coast). From Kong, they moved to Wam and then to Dormaa (both located in present-day Brong-Ahafo region). The movement from Kong was necessitated by the desire of the people to find suitable savannah conditions since they were not used to forest life. Around the 14th century, they moved from Dormaa South Eastwards to Twifo-Heman North West Cape Coast. This move was commercially motivated."
Here are more sources supporting what has been written about the Akan's Northeast African origin.
In regard to the Senegalese peoples, the Wolof language and it's connection to Sudan, an other groups like the Dinka, Nuer, and obviously with the Wolof being a part of the Niger-Congo branch.
The connections should be obivous.
"Speakers are widely dispersed, existing in both Western African and as far East as Sudan. The language is thought to be so widely dispersed due to the nomadic lifestyles of historical cattle herders who spoke the language."
Meaning lots of traveling...
-------------------- "Nothing hurts a racist more than the absolute truth and a punch to the face" Posts: 101 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I understand your point, but China also had extensive relations throughout Asia yet nobody calls Chinese civilization "Pan-Asian" and the same was true with Rome in Europe but nobody calls Rome a "Pan-European" civilization.
I would call Chinese civilization pan asian because it has many elements of culture that are common to Asia and its roots are in Asia. And China is a melting pot of various Asian traditions, ethnic groups and cultures. "Pan Asian" does not imply a political or ethnic identity as opposed to a common cultural framework.
Agreed, and both China and Rome had that pan-continental reach. Kemet by contrast did not, and did not have the geographical advantages of Rome or CHina to make it a reality in the same way. If the Nile were fully navigable up to Ethiopia or East Africa it might have been possible. But as in much of Africa, sandbars, cataracts and waterfalls block extensive river navigation inland and to the ocean. By contrast Rome had not only the broad belt of the Mediterranean to work with in spreading its hegemony, but numerous European rivers extensively navigable to move men, material and technology. The Chinese had similar favorable transport routes inland, along with the relatively easy transmission belt of the SOuth CHina Sea and then the Pacific.
The ancient green Sahara was just that, ancient, and had long dried up when Kemet and Kerma began their historical rise. Egypt the record shows was heavily limited by its geographic situation, in terms of empire building in Africa- a narrow strip of land surrounded by desert with the main waterway chopped up and blocked in multiple places. Such geog factors are not the only thing in the mix, but they are one key reason Egypt could hardly become the "central headquarters" of civilization in Africa hoped for by many, nor could there be a "Pan Egyptian" or "Pax Egypticana" on a near continental scale as with Rome or some of the major Chinese dynasties.. Van Sertima had a book called EGYPT CHILD OF AFRICA. Kemet was one child among many, an important one, but nevertheless a child.
I mean at least we know that the Egyptians tried regardless of the obstacles.
But I agree, the Egyptians didn't get to do what Kerma and Kush was able to do. Or Rome for that matter.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Rain King:
quote:Originally posted by HeartofAfrica: [QUOTE]
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
You've gots to bounce with that BS!
Mummification did not come from the Nile Valley. The oldest mummification was found first in the Sahara. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West. So the point is that those root cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. That is simply a fact. The biggest problem is that most of these cultures going back into prehistory did not have writing that we know of and that Archaeologists havent done enough digging. All of Africa has always been populated by Africans and that did not start with Bantus a few thousand years ago.
Doug is specifically talking about the Uan Muhuggiag "Black" mummy, that was found in the Central Sahara. Which predates Egyptian mummification.
-------------------- "Nothing hurts a racist more than the absolute truth and a punch to the face" Posts: 101 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2020
| IP: Logged |
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
You've gots to bounce with that BS!
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
I wasn't dismissing Joseph Greenberg. Just not your premise using his and Diop hypothesis.
lol
I see the Bantu as a Central Sahara peoples or one of many branches of Bantu speakers that came from the area. Before it dry up. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they connect to the Nile Region.
-------------------- "Nothing hurts a racist more than the absolute truth and a punch to the face" Posts: 101 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I disagree with the term "pan-African" as neither Egypt nor Kerma involved all Africans. These were regional powers that involved the peoples within the region of northeast Africa.
The same way Greece is never identified as "Pan-European" civilization, simply a civilization of the locality of southeastern Europe-- the Balkans.
Ironically the very origins of Greek civilization and its people make it clear that Greece not Egypt is a much better candidate to be labeled "Near Eastern".
Break that down more. In what way are the Greeks a better candidate to be labeled "Near Eastern"?
I think it's best I break it down in Doug's thread that deals with that very issue here.
The actual topic of this thread by Elijah the Tishbite is Unknown Man E and Ramses III Y haplogroup and unfortunately his topic is being derailed. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Elijah, I didn't read the entire article you cited. What exactly is Dylan Bickerstaffe's argument that Man E is not Pentawere?? Even if he wasn't Pentawere he still had to be a son of Ramses III.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Before and after the Green Saharan dried up, it helped spawned a lot of amazing human creations, standards of living, belief, political systems, science, medicine and other vast pillars of knowledge.
Great! Interesting. So what was this earlier splendid Saharan civilization called?
Those are genetic studies that barely touch on the regions specific cultures for the sake of context. What exactly were we supposed to get from that in regards to this discussion about cultural diffusion?
What evidence have you seen that shows that those particular customs that were from Nile Valley civilization depicted in the numerous examples above throughout Super Saharan Africa came from the ancient Sahara during the fertile period? We all know that there were many cultures and peoples throughout the vast Saharan region, and many of which contributed to establishment of Nile Valley civilization. We have seen the 1980's Basil Davidson clips from Myra's old site that break that fact down from a Western white liberal lens, and even the Oxford encyclopedia that gets a little more detailed about the ancient Saharan cultural diffusion into Kemet. None of those sources however addresses the specific Kemetic practices that are being practiced in many Bantu societies to this date.
quote: Obviously, there were particular African ethnic groups that resided in Central Sahara before desertification. That cultivated some key elements of their neolithic cultural pillars within the Green Sahara. That would bring forth those that built the Nabta Playa, in the "Nubian" Desert, in the eastern region of the Sahara.
Can you get into the "particulars" of these ancient Saharan cultures. If you cannot pinpoint this then you have no scientific basis for the claim of these decidedly Nile Valley cultural traits having an earlier origin in the ancient Sahara. Further you don't have any evidence of a diffusion of NC speakers from the ancient fertile Sahara into the Benue-Congo region of West Africa. Do you know why that particular migration is virtually impossible?
quote:Regardless this could also be one element of a larger multi wave event of diffusion and expansion from key parts of Africa.
Do tell about these points of diffusion and their dates!
quote:Originally posted by Rain King:
quote:Originally posted by HeartofAfrica: [QUOTE]
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
You've gots to bounce with that BS!
quote: Are you talking to yourself? lol
Why do you keep bringing up white people? And their ideologues? Are you doing a bad impression of an internet Hotep?
Just out of curiosity if you're not a "Hotep" (peace), who is a black African - Diaspora who acknowledges and takes heed to his/her ancient heritage then why would you even be that interested in studying this?
As far as white people.....
This web of lies is all the proof needed to expose their wickedness. you listen to them at discretion! Even Martin Bernal, Robert Buval, etc everyone of them have to be watched when they speak on ANYTHING, and especially this subject. The truth being exposed is a day of reckoning for them.
You have to be careful when allowing them (non blacks) into our discussions or anything really. In every instance their main objective is to takeover what is not theirs, and make it how they like it to the dismay of the people who created. Even for the most well intentions whites this is simply what they do. Some black people disregard history for temporary societal convenience, and think that this guard being held up is excessive militancy. Understand that those blacks who think like that are the dumbest people (they can be smart dummies too) in the race, and are the reason why we have crumbled in face of our enemies. I can go on and on, but you get the point.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
You've gots to bounce with that BS!
Mummification did not come from the Nile Valley. The oldest mummification was found first in the Sahara. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West. So the point is that those root cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. That is simply a fact. The biggest problem is that most of these cultures going back into prehistory did not have writing that we know of and that Archaeologists havent done enough digging. All of Africa has always been populated by Africans and that did not start with Bantus a few thousand years ago.
I never claimed that mummification originated in Kemet, and long aware of the black mummy of Libya. We know from actual evidence that this is one of those practices that I mentioned in my last post that diffused onto the Nile Valley from the Sahara via desertification. That's why I did not use mummification in parts of contemporary West Africa as evidence for my argument. There have been given much more specific examples that go directly to Kemet. The only response from some posters to the undeniable comparisons is a baseless assumptive phantom civilization in the green Sahara that they must have came from. They give no evidence of these traits being in the ancient Sahara, but they say that a phantom Saharan civilization is more probable than a diffusion from Kemet as the oral taditions of many Bantu's (and other types of Africans) attest to.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I see why Hawass was very guarded about the DNA test results of certain ancient Egyptian mummies, that good ole E1ba-M2 lineage which links them to that Africa south of Egypt, though the same case can be me haplogroup B in modern Copts.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
You've gots to bounce with that BS!
Mummification did not come from the Nile Valley. The oldest mummification was found first in the Sahara. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West. So the point is that those root cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. That is simply a fact. The biggest problem is that most of these cultures going back into prehistory did not have writing that we know of and that Archaeologists havent done enough digging. All of Africa has always been populated by Africans and that did not start with Bantus a few thousand years ago.
I never claimed that mummification originated in Kemet, and long aware of the black mummy of Libya. We know from actual evidence that this is one of those practices that I mentioned in my last post that diffused onto the Nile Valley from the Sahara via desertification. That's why I did not use mummification in parts of contemporary West Africa as evidence for my argument. There have been given much more specific examples that go directly to Kemet. The only response from some posters to the undeniable comparisons is a baseless assumptive phantom civilization in the green Sahara that they must have came from. They give no evidence of these traits being in the ancient Sahara, but they say that a phantom Saharan civilization is more probable than a diffusion from Kemet as the oral taditions of many Bantu's (and other types of Africans) attest to.
Most of the common "African" elements you identified are far older than Kemet is my point. The main thing that Kemet had that those other cultures did not was writing, math and architecture. Most of those other customs outside of that were already in place in some shape or form even before Kemet came into existence. That is why all the gods of the Nile came from the South because they are simply continuations of older traditions. Just as West Africans have Sacred crocodile lakes and even festivals for the most beautiful goats.... https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2012/oct/14/best-sheep-in-senegal-competition-in-picturesPosts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: instead of just being a part of a much larger branch of it. A great branch for sure...but just another branch.
That is vague a sentiment. It's white liberal fueled dribble essentially.
Vague sentiment? white liberal dribble?
I'm going to stick to being cautious without making sweeping statements
"Cautious" is one thing. Alot of you all however seem to have a problem with acknowledging that the Bantu was even apart of these ancient Northeast African civilizations.
quote:The Euronuts using what you are saying, as a way to start pushing "Eurasian" DNA crap,
Who is so slow at this point that they allow "Euronuts" to define things based on these skewed genetic studies?
quote:which gives tries to make the case that it was that supposed interaction that created civilization and brought agriculture
What in the Hell do "Euronuts" have in their arsenal to suggest any of that? You keep trying to tell us no you can't claim the Bantu was in Kemet, because the boogie man white boys are going to have this or that. They can only run that game on ignorant Negroes. White people only try shit like that with people whom they see are ignorant of the truth. I've seen at my job, white boys deliberately accost ignorant black coons about political alignment, but would not utter a word to me about anything of that sort. They are intellectual cowards, who run game on the people who allow them to run game. I'm not one of them.
quote: ...etc. Instead of it logically being the result of native African groups.
Dude.....These people (white Western Europeans) did not even know how to properly wipe their asses until the Moors came and educated them on everything. That being said, I don't give a damn what lies THEY have to say about me and people. I'm one who will remind them on their origin, and they hate that. They'll always run away.
quote: So i rather not attribute everything great in Africa coming from the Nile Region that's slippery slope territory.
If that's how YOU want to characterize what is clearly a fact then that is on YOU. No one is saying that everything learned about everything came from Kemet. In fact the ancient Sahara also birthed civilization almost simultaneously in the Western Sahara, as seen in Dhar Tichitt. I fully understand that the ancient Sahara is a big "mystery", but regardless there was a "big party" in that region of distinct types of Africans. The fact is however that the diffusion model that you all insinuate about the migrations from the ancient Sahara directly into the Benue-Congo region are pretty baseless.
quote: IMO it's best to break it down into regional gradation/migration points.
That relies completely on the ASSumption that the people any said region have always lived in that region. Hence why even on this forum NC speakers in West Africa are assumed to have originated in West Africa. The only time that any of you all attribute West African culture to an ancient Saharan origin, it is ALWAYS in a rebuttal form to deny a direct connection to ancient Kemet. Never do I see any of you all connecting West African cultures to the ancient Saharan origin in any other setting. There is so much apparent gaslighting.
quote: That track with migration models that make sense. Meaning, multiple waves out Central/South Africa into the Central Green Saharan then into the Nile Valley, onto Sahel pollution and in between that Horn convergence creation lots of diffusion and expansion.
That's a "nice", but it's still baseless BS.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is about Ramses III and Unknown Man E! If you're going to argue about ancient pan-Africanism could you do so in the ample other threads in this forum?? Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
You've gots to bounce with that BS!
Mummification did not come from the Nile Valley. The oldest mummification was found first in the Sahara. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West. So the point is that those root cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. That is simply a fact. The biggest problem is that most of these cultures going back into prehistory did not have writing that we know of and that Archaeologists havent done enough digging. All of Africa has always been populated by Africans and that did not start with Bantus a few thousand years ago.
I never claimed that mummification originated in Kemet, and long aware of the black mummy of Libya. We know from actual evidence that this is one of those practices that I mentioned in my last post that diffused onto the Nile Valley from the Sahara via desertification. That's why I did not use mummification in parts of contemporary West Africa as evidence for my argument. There have been given much more specific examples that go directly to Kemet. The only response from some posters to the undeniable comparisons is a baseless assumptive phantom civilization in the green Sahara that they must have came from. They give no evidence of these traits being in the ancient Sahara, but they say that a phantom Saharan civilization is more probable than a diffusion from Kemet as the oral taditions of many Bantu's (and other types of Africans) attest to.
Most of the common "African" elements you identified are far older than Kemet is my point.
Aside from Kemet's parent Nubia, what evidence indicates that these practices were in the ancient Sahara (where the Nubians came from)?
quote: Most of those other customs outside of that were already in place in some shape or form even before Kemet came into existence.
Based on your logic there is evidence for the prototype of any of these cultural practices in the ancient Sahara?
posted
^^^ From my own research I think the Sankoka is an Ibis, Bird in Nigeria & Zimbabwe are Falcon's for the Falcon clan..
However, I do believe there is a connection between Benue & Bennu Bird..
Coincidence? Never.. Nasa is full of Free Masons
They will be landing on the asteroid Bennu two months and one day before the great conjunction of Jupiter & Saturn in Aquarius ( Nile God Hapi)
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
You've gots to bounce with that BS!
Mummification did not come from the Nile Valley. The oldest mummification was found first in the Sahara. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West. So the point is that those root cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. That is simply a fact. The biggest problem is that most of these cultures going back into prehistory did not have writing that we know of and that Archaeologists havent done enough digging. All of Africa has always been populated by Africans and that did not start with Bantus a few thousand years ago.
I never claimed that mummification originated in Kemet, and long aware of the black mummy of Libya. We know from actual evidence that this is one of those practices that I mentioned in my last post that diffused onto the Nile Valley from the Sahara via desertification. That's why I did not use mummification in parts of contemporary West Africa as evidence for my argument. There have been given much more specific examples that go directly to Kemet. The only response from some posters to the undeniable comparisons is a baseless assumptive phantom civilization in the green Sahara that they must have came from. They give no evidence of these traits being in the ancient Sahara, but they say that a phantom Saharan civilization is more probable than a diffusion from Kemet as the oral taditions of many Bantu's (and other types of Africans) attest to.
Most of the common "African" elements you identified are far older than Kemet is my point.
Aside from Kemet's parent Nubia, what evidence indicates that these practices were in the ancient Sahara (where the Nubians came from)?
quote: Most of those other customs outside of that were already in place in some shape or form even before Kemet came into existence.
Based on your logic there is evidence for the prototype of any of these cultural practices in the ancient Sahara?
I didn't say that common African cultural elements started in the Sahara. These are traditions that are tens of thousands of years old. Humans did not start evolving culture in Africa when the Sahara was set. These things have been evolving since humans were born in Africa.
quote: he Ishango bone is a bone tool and possible mathematical object, dated to the Upper Paleolithic era. It is a dark brown length of bone, the fibula of a baboon, with a sharp piece of quartz affixed to one end, perhaps for engraving. It is thought by some to be a tally stick, as it has a series of what has been interpreted as tally marks carved in three columns running the length of the tool, though it has also been suggested that the scratches might have been to create a better grip on the handle or for some other non-mathematical reason. It has also been argued that the marks on the object are non-random and that it was likely a kind of counting tool and used to perform simple mathematical procedures.
Just like Africans all over Africa have been wearing leopard skins since forever. This isnt something that came from the Sahara either.
And Africans have been worshiping nature since forever also.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Really! ppl seem to forget or have cognitive dissonance in understanding the non-Gafsian Saharans of AHP tropical north Africa came from as far south as Great Lake Tanganyika.
LGM had no detrimental effect on Africa below 11° north. See grassland (yellow) and savanna (violet) move north with the game animals Inner Africans were eating. These are the people who introduced the Neolithic non-Gafsian innovations to AHP Sahara and north of the Sahara. In other words S U D A N E S E moved into Sahra and gave it Neolithics. Why is ES calling these people Saharans thus hiding the fact they were 'Black Africans' with 'Black African' culture, industry, economy, language, physical features, and 'Black African' genomes?
Places like Blombos and Panga Ya Saidi have been lived in like forever. Because we have no interlinked scholar network of our own we rely on yte ppl for all of our transdisciplinary peer reviewed letters, articles, and reports with all ethnocentricism of yte Euros built in.
This is why ppl on ES still don't get it that the Sahara isn't Africa's end all and be all it's just another place 'Black Africans' lived when its climate flora and fauna was the same as the bulk of Inner Africa ever remains, fertile.
By consensus yte Euros and those in agreement with them place over emphasis on a 'Green Sahara', calling it a pump when all it is is a sponge. That's only because it's closer to their home Europe. They near completely gloss over the fact that 'Black Africans' introduced Neolithic culture to the ppl north of the Sahara.
Whenever you hear Sahara you don't think about 'Black Africans'. You think of paler ppl today who only inhabit the Mediterranean coast.
This is why they laugh in agreement that AE was African. but what kind of agreement? They mean 'white African'. It's important to know AE was Black African in its culture and creation. That doesn't make it ambiguously 'Pan African.' The so-called Bantu and others didn't migrate from AE to all over the continent excepting its Mediterranean shore. Nor did all of them migrate north into the AHP Sahara. Bantu speakers from East Africa have a different autosomal profile than Bantu speakers from southern Africa. Bantu is language not ethnicity. https://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/post/20253/thread
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You're right to scold ES neglect of this year's genomics. Good n Plenty raw data's there. New samples for elMaestro to play with.
The problem with those two, and Vicente this year, is they push 8200 BP Malawi Mt Hora baby girl out the window so they can play with what Zarahan calls a stacked deck, the House assures itself a win!
Mt Hora STRUCTURE-like graphs show
20% 'Nilo-Saharan' speaker ancestry
7% 'Atlantic NCK' speaker ancestry
6% eastern Bantu 'NCK' speaker ancestry
33% AHP Sahra-like ancestry in total which by the field's dogma inherited from these past two centuries of anthropology just ain't sposed ta be there!?!
Ancient West African foragers in the context of African population history Mark Lipson, Isabelle Ribot, […]David Reich Nature (2020)
or
Ancient genomes reveal complex patterns of population movement, interaction, and replacement in sub-Saharan Africa
Ke Wang, Johannes Krause
There were no Bantu's in neither West nor Southern African until relatively recently. There was no Bantu migration from Cameroon. There is NOT ONE Bantu who confirms such a migration nor origin. STOP the foolery!
.
Note here the 8200yr old Tanzania Pemba detected Bantu speaker ancestry and the modern Kenyan detected Bantu speaker ancestry. Pre Euro dated Bantu Drift existing 'Bantu' genomes falsify baNtu all derive from a demic exode from south Nigeria central Cameroon. At 8200 BP there's no earliest dated 6940 BP 'Bantoid' MSY E-U209 nor 3880 BP E-U174. At 8200 BP per yte Euro academic mainstream all Bantu related strains were parented in the Sahra.
posted
Doug said: Mummification did not come from the Nile Valley. The oldest mummification was found first in the Sahara. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West. So the point is that those root cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. That is simply a fact. The biggest problem is that most of these cultures going back into prehistory did not have writing that we know of and that Archaeologists havent done enough digging. All of Africa has always been populated by Africans and that did not start with Bantus a few thousand years ago.
Indeed. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West, and cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. KMT derives from this foundation and is one branch of a tree as someone says above, not the source.
"Following the indigenous development of pastoralism in the Sahara, settlers of the [Nile] Valley undertook a series of actions that culminated in the rise of dynastic Egyptian Civilization. The developments in Egypt were also enriched by a continuation of cultural interactions between the Nile Valley and its neighbors. Many similarities between Egypt and other African societies are related to this common past, a common heritage of which Egypt is an integral part. The cultural continuity with an African substratum and the strong historical cultural interactions between Egypt and other African societies clearly demonstrates that Africa was the cradle of Egyptian civilization." --F. Hassan, 1996, noted in Celenko 1996 Egypt in Africa. Pp 31-32
Doug says: I didn't say that common African cultural elements started in the Sahara. These are traditions that are tens of thousands of years old. Humans did not start evolving culture in Africa when the Sahara was set. These things have been evolving since humans were born in Africa.
People should keep in mind that the Sahara was once a lush greenbelt that cut across 1/3 of Africa giving plenty of time, space and scope for people to migrate to the Nile Valley and elsewhere. As for the Saharan starter-kit, the Sahara is one main factor, but it mixes with and cuts across many others.
The Sahara for example extends into the Sudan. Going west it cuts across Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and even parts of Senegal. And some schlars show that this great belt while not uniform, and hugely diverse, did on some counts, have a common material and cultural foundation, so much so that some scholars speak of a trans-Saharan pastoral complex of lithic, artifictual and tool technology, and asscoiated systems of pastoralism and food priduction. QUOTE:
"The regional systems under review are traceable to what archaeologists call the Trans-Saharan Pastoral Technocomplex. From the fourth through the first millennia BCE, it stretched from the central Nile valley in the east to the Atlantic Sahara in the west and can be described as a sociocultural repository, a structural substratum, and an abstract and practical fund from which regional formations in the Sahara, the middle Nile valley, and the middle Niger basin could draw their content. Over the long duration it was a system of transformations. Its defining elements include distinctive lithic technologies and ceramic traditions, social hierarchy as a form of organization, megalithic funerary architecture with associated formalities, ceremonial complexes tied to astronomical rituals, rock art imagery, local and trans-local exchanges of luxury and utilitarian goods and exotica.." --RAY A. KEA. 2014. A Companion to Mediterranean History. p 426
The above was never a monolith but a loose pattern of interchange and common elements, incorporating diverse peoples.
Also to take into account is that the Sahara overlaps to many areas that to disentangle what is "Saharan" from "non-Saharan" is a wasted exercise, particularly given the shifts of the Sahara banck and forth with a new southern tendency. So is the Sudan part of the "Sahara" or is it "non-Sahran"?
In any event the Sahara is not needed to demnstrate numerous of the foundational cultural elements of KMT. The northeastern cultures further south are a kep source of Egyptian religion for example.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I understand your point, but China also had extensive relations throughout Asia yet nobody calls Chinese civilization "Pan-Asian" and the same was true with Rome in Europe but nobody calls Rome a "Pan-European" civilization.
I would call Chinese civilization pan asian because it has many elements of culture that are common to Asia and its roots are in Asia. And China is a melting pot of various Asian traditions, ethnic groups and cultures. "Pan Asian" does not imply a political or ethnic identity as opposed to a common cultural framework.
Agreed [with Doug] , and both China and Rome had that pan-continental reach. Kemet by contrast did not, and did not have the geographical advantages of Rome or China to make it a reality in the same way. If the Nile were fully navigable up to Ethiopia or East Africa it might have been possible, or if the East African coastline was full of natural harbors and bays facilitating transport, as the European coastline is. But as in much of Africa, sandbars, cataracts and waterfalls block extensive river navigation inland and to the ocean. By contrast Rome had not only the broad belt of the Mediterranean to work with in spreading its hegemony, but numerous European rivers extensively navigable to move men, material and technology. The Chinese had similar favorable transport routes inland, along with the relatively easy transmission belt of the SOuth CHina Sea and then the Pacific.
The ancient green Sahara was just that, ancient, and had long dried up when Kemet and Kerma began their historical rise. Egypt the record shows was heavily limited by its geographic situation, in terms of empire building in Africa- a narrow strip of land surrounded by desert with the main waterway chopped up and blocked in multiple places. Such geog factors are not the only thing in the mix, but they are one key reason Egypt could hardly become the "central headquarters" of civilization in Africa hoped for by many, nor could there be a "Pan Egyptian" or "Pax Egypticana" on a near continental scale as with Rome or some of the major Chinese dynasties.. Van Sertima had a book called EGYPT CHILD OF AFRICA. Kemet was one child among many, an important one, but nevertheless a child.
-------------------- 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 |
But this is going a little too far and does not line up with migration within Africa. You don't need to do all this to confirm that Africans were well aware of other Africans and shared a lot of vast similarities that come with being truly native in Africa but there were some unique differences.
This is a person who clearly worships white western ideological scholarship. The blasphemy of saying that Joseph Greenberg didn't know what in the Hell he was talking about as it pertains to African languages has flabbergasted this individual.
The blasphemy of a diffusion model. My goodness! We (white liberals) have humanized the African cultures that we previously dehumanized by taking completely out of context, and now you want to reject our "humanization" of your cultures because it will expose our bigger lie.
You've gots to bounce with that BS!
Mummification did not come from the Nile Valley. The oldest mummification was found first in the Sahara. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West. So the point is that those root cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. That is simply a fact. The biggest problem is that most of these cultures going back into prehistory did not have writing that we know of and that Archaeologists havent done enough digging. All of Africa has always been populated by Africans and that did not start with Bantus a few thousand years ago.
I never claimed that mummification originated in Kemet, and long aware of the black mummy of Libya. We know from actual evidence that this is one of those practices that I mentioned in my last post that diffused onto the Nile Valley from the Sahara via desertification. That's why I did not use mummification in parts of contemporary West Africa as evidence for my argument. There have been given much more specific examples that go directly to Kemet. The only response from some posters to the undeniable comparisons is a baseless assumptive phantom civilization in the green Sahara that they must have came from. They give no evidence of these traits being in the ancient Sahara, but they say that a phantom Saharan civilization is more probable than a diffusion from Kemet as the oral taditions of many Bantu's (and other types of Africans) attest to.
Most of the common "African" elements you identified are far older than Kemet is my point.
Aside from Kemet's parent Nubia, what evidence indicates that these practices were in the ancient Sahara (where the Nubians came from)?
quote: Most of those other customs outside of that were already in place in some shape or form even before Kemet came into existence.
Based on your logic there is evidence for the prototype of any of these cultural practices in the ancient Sahara?
I didn't say that common African cultural elements started in the Sahara. These are traditions that are tens of thousands of years old.
That's rather vague, especially when specific Kemetic practices are being compared to those of contemporary West, Southern and Central African societies. This empty vagueness of African unity is not compelling for any argument. We know that the ancient Saharan populations came from the river Nile from various directions (central Africa from the Upper Nile region specifically for Nilotes). We know that these Africans came together to form something great, but for the most part unknown. We know that civilizations not just in Africa, but in adjacent regions began to lay their foundations coinciding with the various phases of desertification. At this moment however....there is no evidence of any great civilization in the ancient Sahara let alone any detailed knowledge of the individual cultures. We know that the river Nile was a bastion of settlement for retreating Saharans, and Nubia is where they initially settled. West Africa outside of the Western Sahara in the Benue Congo specifically was NOT a major or even noted destination of retreating Saharans. IN FACT Christopher Ehret proposed that the NC speakers migrated into the Benue Congo region around 12,000 BC (which we know is false) coinciding with the northward migration of Hamitic "Afro-Asiatic" speakers from the Horn into Kemet (a revamped Hamitic hypothesis...when will black people ever learn not to trust to people). Given his lack of context behind this fallacy there would theoretically be no reason for "West African NC speakers" in the presumed to be lush Benue Congo region to even migrate into the Savannah of the Sahara. Then if the impact of these cultural overlapping came not from Kemet, but from the Sahara what evidence is there of these cultures being present in Benue Congo region during the various phases of desertification spanning over thousands of years.
quote: Humans did not start evolving culture in Africa when the Sahara was set. These things have been evolving since humans were born in Africa.
Ok, so WHAT does this have to do specifically with DJED being practiced not only in Kemet, but in West Africa to this day? DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE of this cultural practice predating it's appearance in Nile Valley civilization? If not then you're gaslighting. You're telling us that what we're seeing is not what we're actually seeing with no good explanation.
quote:Just like Africans all over Africa have been wearing leopard skins since forever. This isnt something that came from the Sahara either.
And Africans have been worshiping nature since forever also.
Ok what is the REASON behind these Africans wearing leopard skin? Leopard skins represent an individual most likely a priest or noble who have notably defeated their lower human nature. Do we have evidence that this started in Nile Valley civilization no. We do however know the reason behind it's use in the Nile Valley society, and it is the same reason that it is used among Bantoid populations to this date. Can you trace that same meaning for the practice in a place aside from Nile Valley civilization?
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: [qb] Doug said: Mummification did not come from the Nile Valley. The oldest mummification was found first in the Sahara. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West. So the point is that those root cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. That is simply a fact. The biggest problem is that most of these cultures going back into prehistory did not have writing that we know of and that Archaeologists havent done enough digging. All of Africa has always been populated by Africans and that did not start with Bantus a few thousand years ago.
Indeed. A lot of traditions that were found in the Nile Valley originated further south and West, and cultural elements that tie all these cultures together as "African" are far older than KMT. KMT derives from this foundation and is one branch of a tree as someone says above, not the source.
"Following the indigenous development of pastoralism in the Sahara, settlers of the [Nile] Valley undertook a series of actions that culminated in the rise of dynastic Egyptian Civilization. The developments in Egypt were also enriched by a continuation of cultural interactions between the Nile Valley and its neighbors. Many similarities between Egypt and other African societies are related to this common past, a common heritage of which Egypt is an integral part. The cultural continuity with an African substratum and the strong historical cultural interactions between Egypt and other African societies clearly demonstrates that Africa was the cradle of Egyptian civilization." --F. Hassan, 1996, noted in Celenko 1996 Egypt in Africa. Pp 31-32
Doug says: I didn't say that common African cultural elements started in the Sahara. These are traditions that are tens of thousands of years old. Humans did not start evolving culture in Africa when the Sahara was set. These things have been evolving since humans were born in Africa.
quote:People should keep in mind that the Sahara was once a lush greenbelt that cut across 1/3 of Africa giving plenty of time, space and scope for people to migrate to the Nile Valley and elsewhere.
Aside from peripherals of the Sahara, and remaining Saharan oasis(s), Lake Chad, and the river Nile, what is the evidence of mass settlement of Saharan migrants elsewhere?
quote: The Sahara for example extends into the Sudan. Going west it cuts across Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and even parts of Senegal. And some schlars show that this great belt while not uniform, and hugely diverse, did on some counts, have a common material and cultural foundation,
Can you tie any of the specific practices shared in the examples presented to the evidence of the cultures in the ancient Sahara?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ I understand your point, but China also had extensive relations throughout Asia yet nobody calls Chinese civilization "Pan-Asian" and the same was true with Rome in Europe but nobody calls Rome a "Pan-European" civilization.
I would call Chinese civilization pan asian because it has many elements of culture that are common to Asia and its roots are in Asia.
Some Chinese scholars have made the argument that Chinese civilization came from none other the civilizations of the river Nile.
On a cool Sunday evening in March, a geochemist named Sun Weidong gave a public lecture to an audience of laymen, students, and professors at the University of Science and Technology in Hefei, the capital city of the landlocked province of Anhui in eastern China. But the professor didn’t just talk about geochemistry. He also cited several ancient Chinese classics, at one point quoting historian Sima Qian’s description of the topography of the Xia empire — traditionally regarded as China’s founding dynasty, dating from 2070 to 1600 B.C. “Northwards the stream is divided and becomes the nine rivers,” wrote Sima Qian in his first century historiography, the Records of the Grand Historian. “Reunited, it forms the opposing river and flows into the sea.”
In other words, “the stream” in question wasn’t China’s famed Yellow River, which flows from west to east. “There is only one major river in the world which flows northwards. Which one is it?” the professor asked. “The Nile,” someone replied. Sun then showed a map of the famed Egyptian river and its delta — with nine of its distributaries flowing into the Mediterranean. This author, a researcher at the same institute, watched as audience members broke into smiles and murmurs, intrigued that these ancient Chinese texts seemed to better agree with the geography of Egypt than that of China.....
In the past year, Sun, a highly decorated scientist, has ignited a passionate online debate with claims that the founders of Chinese civilization were not in any sense Chinese but actually migrants from Egypt. He conceived of this connection in the 1990s while performing radiometric dating of ancient Chinese bronzes; to his surprise, their chemical composition more closely resembled those of ancient Egyptian bronzes than native Chinese ores. Both Sun’s ideas and the controversy surrounding them flow out of a much older tradition of nationalist archaeology in China, which for more than a century has sought to answer a basic scientific question that has always been heavily politicized: Where do the Chinese people come from?
quote: Agreed [with Doug] , and both China and Rome had that pan-continental reach. Kemet by contrast did not, and did not have the geographical advantages of Rome or China to make it a reality in the same way.
What are you talking about? A statue of Thutmosis was found all the way in the Congo. It was only reported by the French. That is a size and distance that rivals that of the entire continent of Europe.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
Aside from peripherals of the Sahara, and remaining Saharan oasis(s), Lake Chad, and the river Nile, what is the evidence of mass settlement of Saharan migrants elsewhere?
No one has argued for massive settlements. As the Sahara dried up people moved to better locations, and migration to Lake Chad and the Nile are pretty good locations, compared to desert. Those who settled near the Nile, in conjunction with other southerly cultures were to go on and do some pretty amazing things.
Can you tie any of the specific practices shared in the examples presented to the evidence of the cultures in the ancient Sahara?
Some referenced in thread and keep in mind that there is much overlap between the Sahara and other regions. Thus there is no monolithic Saharan zone segregated off from everything else. The Sahara is a shifting entity, cutting across multiple territories and cultures, like the pastoralist traditions that dominated the key area of Nabta Playa.
Some Chinese scholars have made the argument that Chinese civilization came from none other the civilizations of the river Nile.
On a cool Sunday evening in March, a geochemist named Sun Weidong gave a public lecture to an audience of laymen, students, and professors at the University of Science and Technology in Hefei, the capital city of the landlocked province of Anhui in eastern China. But the professor didn’t just talk about geochemistry. He also cited several ancient Chinese classics, at one point quoting historian Sima Qian’s description of the topography of the Xia empire — traditionally regarded as China’s founding dynasty, dating from 2070 to 1600 B.C. “Northwards the stream is divided and becomes the nine rivers,” wrote Sima Qian in his first century historiography, the Records of the Grand Historian. “Reunited, it forms the opposing river and flows into the sea.”
In other words, “the stream” in question wasn’t China’s famed Yellow River, which flows from west to east. “There is only one major river in the world which flows northwards. Which one is it?” the professor asked. “The Nile,” someone replied. Sun then showed a map of the famed Egyptian river and its delta — with nine of its distributaries flowing into the Mediterranean. This author, a researcher at the same institute, watched as audience members broke into smiles and murmurs, intrigued that these ancient Chinese texts seemed to better agree with the geography of Egypt than that of China.....
In the past year, Sun, a highly decorated scientist, has ignited a passionate online debate with claims that the founders of Chinese civilization were not in any sense Chinese but actually migrants from Egypt. He conceived of this connection in the 1990s while performing radiometric dating of ancient Chinese bronzes; to his surprise, their chemical composition more closely resembled those of ancient Egyptian bronzes than native Chinese ores. Both Sun’s ideas and the controversy surrounding them flow out of a much older tradition of nationalist archaeology in China, which for more than a century has sought to answer a basic scientific question that has always been heavily politicized: Where do the Chinese people come from?
He can make the argument but he has little credible evidence in support. Old legends and stories can provide useful background but they are thin soup on which to make a major case as he is attempting to do. And just because a bronze resembles something in China does not make for any migrations to China to start civilization. Similar ores appear in different parts of the earth, and people trade long distance without any significant migration of cultural impact. Chinese pottery appears in East Africa’s Swahili cities but few go around making the argument that the Swahili cultures & cities are due to ancient Chinese migrants. These “diffusionist” claims can be fascinating but they too often lack credible evidence. They are also a double-edged sword as many want to use them to downplay or dismiss indigenous developments in Africa and attribute such to some foreign source.
What are you talking about? A statue of Thutmosis was found all the way in the Congo. It was only reported by the French. That is a size and distance that rivals that of the entire continent of Europe.
What credible evidence can you provide as to this Thutomsis of the Congo? When? Where? Says who? Supported by whom?
-------------------- 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!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic