quote:Nope. That evidence confirms who are the people who belonged to the culture of ancient Kemet. It confirms that it was their everyday culture that the World is fascinated by when at it's highest state.
It just confirms that you like to cherry pic images you think support your ideas. Try to write an article, built around those cherry picked images and forward to a serious archaeological magazine, then we will see if you will be taken seriously.
If my images are cherry picked then present your own images to create a convincing narrative as I have. Notice that my images do not even revolve around received one's narrow perception of Black African phenetic diversity and pairing that against select images of ancient Egypt. Instead they are comparisons of what really matters which is the culture. The culture lives on in our people, and nobody else.
Actually, stone circles and similar monuments exist all over the world, nothing especially Egyptian with that.
I have stone circles where I live too.
People seem to come up with similar ideas wherever they live. No need to explain all similarities concerning ancient monuments with diffusion.
Better show ancient Egyptian artefacts with hieroglyphs in West Africa or other parts of Africa, or glass beads made in ancient Egypt and buried at contemporary African sites, or a lot of other very specific Egyptian objects, preferably made in Egypt.
Like this Egyptian artifact found in a shipwreck outside todays Turkey.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: If my images are cherry picked then present your own images to create a convincing narrative as I have. Notice that my images do not even revolve around received one's narrow perception of Black African phenetic diversity and pairing that against select images of ancient Egypt. Instead they are comparisons of what really matters which is the culture. The culture lives on in our people, and nobody else.
A more convincing narrative would be if you could present actual archaeological evidence that the ancient Egyptians migrated to, or at least transferred their culture to other parts of Africa (like West Africa). I would like to see Egyptian artifacts among the ancestors to the peoples you claim to have gotten the culture from ancient Egypt. Where are the Egyptian writing among those people? Where are the graves with Egyptian objects? How did the transfer take place?
Everyone can point out similarities between different cultures but to make a realistic claim you must be able to show, step by step, from 2500 years back (or more) how these people received the Egyptian influence. You must be able to compare the cultures before and after Egyptian influence. You must be able to show how they transferred Egyptian cultures to their own versions of it.
Diffusion and migration exist, but to prove it you must be able to follow a special category of objects through space and time and se how it transforsm to local versions. Maybe something in the style of brakteats in Scandinavia, who first consisted of imported Roman objects (medallions) but over time transformed into local variants. Or maybe a special type of ceramics that one can follow from Egypt to the different cultures which where influenced by it. Like you can follow the expansion of Austronesian peoples in the Pacific through Lapita ceramics, or you can follow Anatolian inspired farming cultures through the funnel beaker ceramics.
A convincing scenario is if you step by step can show what happened between the time of the ancient Egyptians and the pictures from recent times that you so often show.
Also you must be able to show that a certain cultural trait could only come from Egypt and not from other influences, from green Sahara, or from local, independent development.
If you can not in any way show a convincing scenario for a certain development your article will not be accepted in any serious archaeological magazine (if you ever thinking of publishing any serious article about it).
But it takes hard work, it is not sufficient to just post pictures from different times and cultures with certain similarities.
And remember you are the one making the claims about diffusion, so it is up to you to present the evidence. Other people can only point to the gaps in your narrative.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: If my images are cherry picked then present your own images to create a convincing narrative as I have. Notice that my images do not even revolve around received one's narrow perception of Black African phenetic diversity and pairing that against select images of ancient Egypt. Instead they are comparisons of what really matters which is the culture. The culture lives on in our people, and nobody else.
A more convincing narrative would be if you could present actual archaeological evidence that the ancient Egyptians migrated to, or at least transferred their culture to other parts of Africa (like West Africa).
read Chapter IX page 179 - 203
Peopling of Africa from et Nile Valley
The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality by Cheikh Anta Diop
The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality by Cheikh Anta Diop
Well at least Cheik Anta Diop presents his material in a better way than Big O. But still, his theories are outdated, and some of his claims are plain wrong, as when he talks about negroid Phoenician. Also he claims megalith cultures are negroid, even if megalithic monuments in Europe (even up in Scandinavia) predates most similar monuments in Africa. Also not all megaliths are tied to agricultural societies. Some of the oldest were made by hunter gatherers.
Also he talks about a great megalithic civilisation which extends from Africa to India, Australia and South America, Spain and Brittany. Here he makes the same mistake as many diffusionists, mixing together monuments and cultural phenomena from different peoples, different time periods and from totally different geographical and cultural contexts.
And he still does not present any hard archaeological evidence.
He puts too much faith in legends, myths and old texts. Better he presented chains of archaeological evidence instead.
He reminds of diffusionists like Heyerdahl who based on ancient mythology, and words from different languages speculated about Oden being an immigrant from the east who created a special cult in Scandinavia.
So, Cheik Anta Diop do not impress so very much. He may have some valid ideas, but there are also too much speculation and far-fetched reasoning.
I prefer more robust physical evidence. Give me Egyptian writing, give me Egyptian beads, give me Egyptian scarabs.
It seems that there are more than I who are not too impressed by Cheikh Anta Diops writings
quote: Diop's works have been criticized as revisionist and pseudohistorical. According to Marnie Hughes-Warrington, Diop's works were criticised by leading French Africanists, but they (and later critics) noted the value of his works for the generation of a "politically useful mythology", that would promote African unity.
quote: Critique of Diop
Diop's work has been subjected to criticism from a number of scholars. Robert O. Collins, a former history professor at University of California, Santa Barbara, and James M. Burns, a professor in history at Clemson University, have both referred to Diop's writings of Ancient Egypt and his theories, characterizing it as "revisionist". Toyin Falola has called Diop's work "passionate, combative, and revisionist". Santiago Juan-Navarro a professor at Florida International University has described Diop as having "undertaken the task of supporting this Afrocentric view of history from an equally radical and 'mythic' point of view". Diop's book "Civilization or Barbarism" was summarized as Afrocentric pseudohistory by academic and author Robert Todd Carroll.
posted
"Actually, stone circles and similar monuments exist all over the world, nothing especially Egyptian with that."
Megaliths are a phenomena of Africans who spread throughout the World. The fact that these are found in relatively remote regions of Africa are evident that these peoples were Black Africans.
"Better show ancient Egyptian artefacts with hieroglyphs in West Africa or other parts of Africa"
Now run off.
"A more convincing narrative would be if you could present actual archaeological evidence that the ancient Egyptians migrated to, or at least transferred their culture to other parts of Africa (like West Africa)."
You are more than welcome to review the countless examples provided throughout this thread (especially in the early part). Respond to each of those before you get more to run from.
"Where are the Egyptian writing among those people?"
Here is this for "Egyptian writing"
Akan
Akan - the name of a god Akaniu - a class of gods like Osiris
Fante
(An Akan group) Fante - "he of the nose" - a name of Thoth - one of the 42 judges in the Hall of Osiris ("Shante" in modern Egyptian)
Yoruba
Ourbaiu - great of souls, a title of gods or kings Ouruba - Great God of soul Egungun (Yoruba) and Djed Pillar (ancient Kemet)
Hausa
Hosa - a singing god
The Bini
(the original people and founders of the Edo/Benin Empire) Binni - a phallic god
-credit to Wally
The very names of these groups has translative meaning in Medu Neter. Go sit down.
"Everyone can point out similarities between different cultures but to make a realistic claim you must be able to show"
No you can't. If you can then go make a convincing case for the ancient Khamites being Russian, Arab or French. You already been asked to do this, but you keep running from the challenge.
"You must be able to compare the cultures before and after Egyptian influence. You must be able to show how they transferred Egyptian cultures to their own versions of it."
You're trying to build a strawman. You know that the argument is that the Yoruba, Akan, Bamleke, Igbo etc in total are from Nubia-Kemet. They did not "mingle" with the Khamites in "trade" you little weasels lol smh, THEY THEMSELVES WERE A GROUP COMPRISING KEMET.
"Diffusion and migration exist, but to prove it you must be able to follow a special category of objects through space and time and se how it transforsm to local versions."
White people are so insane lol smh. They honestly think that we are going to go through their little obstacles to validate our lineage. "You must prove"... No how about you....
There is more than enough evidence for you in this thread from my the pictures and oral traditions posted up and down the first few pages, and even a linguistic expert proving that ancient Khamet was Bantu lol. Go handle that before asking for more you troll.
PS y'all can stop the good cop bad cop act. If y'all ain't on board with this truth, then you can flush all of that other nonsense.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Megaliths are a phenomena of Africans who spread throughout the World. The fact that these are found in relatively remote regions of Africa are evident that these peoples were Black Africans.
Megaliths of different kinds exists all over the world. There are no evidence that they originate in Africa or were spread over the world by Africans.
(Except those found in Africa of course. They were African, but not the others outside Africa)
Oldest megalithic structure is probably Göbekli Tepe i todays Turkey. It is about 11000 years old.
Among the oldest megaliths are dolmens. They exist in Western Europe already 7000 years ago.
Similar structures also exist in other parts of the world. As an example one can mention Korea which has among the most dolmens in the world, 35 000.
We have among the worlds oldest chamber graves in France already 6800 years ago, like the one in Barnenez.
Another old form of megaliths are passage tombs, with the oldest examples in France and Ireland. They are about 6000 years old.
Among the oldest megalithic temples are those found on Malta. They are about 5600 years old.
There are no evidence that dolmens, passage tombs, megalithic temples or even stone circles originates in Africa. They exist all over the world and many are local inventions.
It is just like pyramids, people have invented those kinds of monuments independently from each other in both Egypt and the New World (the Americas), despite the ramblings of hyper- diffusionists like Ivan van Sertima and others.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O:Here is this for "Egyptian writing"
Your "Egyptian writing" are just cherry picked words that you picked out because some of them have some similarities. With writing I mean actual writing, like hieroglyphs, preferably on stone, or on other materials. And I would also like to see the Egyptian beads, or scarabs, or other actual Egyptian artefacts that show Egyptian contacts with, or migration to different parts of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: No you can't. If you can then go make a convincing case for the ancient Khamites being Russian, Arab or French. You already been asked to do this, but you keep running from the challenge.
I did not claim that Russians or French or Arabs were Egyptians. It is you who claim a lot of things so the burden of proof is upon you. I just show you the holes in your theory, or your speculations.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: White people are so insane lol smh. They honestly think that we are going to go through their little obstacles to validate our lineage. "You must prove"... No how about you....
Well, professional archaeologists and historians of all colors want tangible evidence before they accept any speculations or theories. Why else do we at all have those fields of knowledge? Just to let our fantasy run amok?
The evidence you presented would not be approved even as a second term essay in any history course or archaeology course at any university.
You talk about your lineage. Are you Egyptian? have you relatives in Egypt? Can you through genealogy trace your ancestry to Egypt? Do you live in Egypt?
Or are you just a culture vulture who wants to leech onto the heritage of the people who actually are Egyptians?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Well at least Cheik Anta Diop presents his material in a better way than Big O. But still, his theories are outdated, and some of his claims are plain wrong, as when he talks about negroid Phoenician."
Phoenicia was originally Black with noted phenetic affinity with "Niger=Congo" speakers until events in the second millennium BC.
"F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."
"Following the numerous interactions among eastern Mediterranean and Levantine populations and regions, caused by the introduction of agriculture from the Levant into Anatolia and southeastern Europe, there was, beginning in the Bronze Age, a period of increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, mainly during the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. These interactions resulted in the development of trading networks, military campaigns, and settler colonization. Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations. "
"Also he claims megalith cultures are negroid, even if megalithic monuments in Europe (even up in Scandinavia) predates most similar monuments in Africa."
The original people of Europe were "Negroid". The Grimaldi.
This was followed by the Negroid farmers moving from Northeastern Africa up the Levant and into Anatolia as described by Ricaut in the passage above. The Bronze age civilizations were developed and maintained by these tropically adapted African migrants. The Indo-European or White man did not come into Europe until 1,400-1,200 BC. All things before that period in Europe were African.
"Here he makes the same mistake as many diffusionists, mixing together monuments and cultural phenomena from different peoples, different time periods and from totally different geographical and cultural contexts."
I think it's ridiculous to believe that distinct unrelated people with distinct cultures, lifestyles and beliefs could possibly make the same astrological monuments in the same or similar fashion. I think that a group of people or a common culture with a common origin (Africa) spread these ideas and beliefs everywhere around the World that they went.
"And he still does not present any hard archaeological evidence."
There is more than enough.
Those legends are correct;
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
"You talk about your lineage. Are you Egyptian? have you relatives in Egypt? Can you through genealogy trace your ancestry to Egypt? Do you live in Egypt?"
You deliberately use the word "Egypt" rather than Khamet, because you know that Egypt and Khamet are two different things. Find another trolling tactic.
posted
"Megaliths of different kinds exists all over the world. There are no evidence that they originate in Africa or were spread over the world by Africans."
Well it's common sense. Africans are the only people to have circumnavigated the globe. Who else could account for their presence in Africa besides Africans? Since we know that Africans created the ones in Africa, we know that the creators are certainly in Africa. There is no such certainly anywhere else in the World.
"Among the oldest megaliths are dolmens. They exist in Western Europe already 7000 years ago.
Similar structures also exist in other parts of the world. As an example one can mention Korea which has among the most dolmens in the world, 35 000."
We know again that Europe was comprised of Africans from the beginning until the collapse of the Bronze age. Simply stating a land mass, and forcing the assumption of the contemporary population is as low brow as it gets. Yet and still it is your tactic to proclaim that an invasive group (wytes) have always been in the areas where they are. These people in Europe prior to the noted period were Black Africans which includes the Dravidian type noted in Nile Valley civilization and Sumer.
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 [/QB]
The above page does not prove the origin of mankind was in the Nile Valley or spread from there Some the oldest humans remains were found near the Omo River in southern Ethiopia but that is not part of the Nile Basin. And there is another very old site in Morocco. Also this Diop page does not say on this page when this peopling of Africa from the Nile occurred, 200,000 years ago or 2,000. It doesn't say
Ancient West African foragers in the context of African population history nature research January 2020Nature 577(7792) DOI:10.1038/s41586-020-1929-1
however looking at a quote from it
quote: Linguistic and genetic evidence points to western Cameroon as the most likely area for the development of Bantu languages and as the ultimate source of subsequent migrations of Bantu-speakers, and—although the regional mid-Holocene archaeological record is sparse—Shum Laka has previously been highlighted as a site that was potentially important in the early phase of this process1–4,6–11. However, the genetic profiles of our four sampled individuals—even by about 3,000 bp, when the spreads of Bantu languages and of ancestry associated with Bantu-speakers were already underway—are very different from those of most speakers of Niger–Congo languages today, which implies that these individuals are not representative of the primary source population(s) that were ancestral to present-day Bantu-speakers. These results neither support nor contradict a central role for the Grassfields area in the origins of Bantuspeakers, and it may be that multiple, highly differentiated populations formerly lived in the region—with potentially either high or low levels of linguistic diversity. It would not be surprising if the Shum Laka site itself was used (either successively or concurrently) by multiple groups with different ancestry, cultural traditions or languages1 , evidence of which may not be visible from the collection of remains as preserved today
All this is saying is they found remains of people at a site in Cameroon carrying YDNA groups B and A (two from around 8,000 years ago and two from around 3,000 years ago)
That doesn't mean at those times there weren't people in other places in Cameroon or in anywhere in West or Central Africa that were of haplogroup E, Bantu speakers also there
and Egypt and the Nile Valley aren't mentioned in the article
you have no argument
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Phoenicia was originally Black with noted phenetic affinity with "Niger=Congo" speakers until events in the second millennium BC.
Phoenicians were a semitic people related to other peoples of the Levant. They were not negroid. Their closest relatives were cananites and other semitic peoples in the area, and they also have affinities with people in Lebanon of today.
Here is a facial reconstruction of a 2500 years old Phoenician from Carthage.
quote: Estimated to be between 19 and 24 years old at time of death, the young man of Carthage was about 170 centimeters tall, and bore physical features that have come to be associated with Phoenicians – a broad forehead, high orbits and long skull. The reconstruction is considered to be 95 percent accurate, since the colour of eyes, hair, and skin could not be verified through criminal investigation techniques.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: The original people of Europe were "Negroid". The Grimaldi.
The "Grimaldi" did not build the European megaliths. The earliest West european megaliths are about 7000 years old, but the Grimaldi findings are 26,000 to 22,000 years old. And the negroid classification is not supported by most modern scholars which a simple search on Wiki can inform about.
quote: Grimaldi man is the name formerly given to two human skeletons of the Upper Paleolithic discovered in Italy in 1901. The remains are now recognized as representing two individuals, and are dated to ca. 26,000 to 22,000 years ago (i.e. c. 24000–20000 BC) and classified as part of the wider European early modern humans population of the late Aurignacian to early Gravettian. Because of their early discovery, there is a long history of interpretation of the fossils. Notably, the remains were originally classified as Negroid by Boule and Vallois (1921). This identification has been obsolete since at least the 1960s, but it was controversially revived in the 1980s as part of the Afrocentrism propagated by Cheikh Anta Diop.
The original people of Europe may have been dark skinned (at least the western hunter gatherers, the eastern hunter gatherers that merged with them where light skinned).
Later Anatolian farmers whose descendants mixed with the hunter gatherers were also light skinned. Most passage graves were built by those farmers, also some dolmens (even if the earliest were built by hunter gatherers). The chest graves in Scandinavia were built after the merging of people with steppe ancestry with the farmers (+ a remaining ancestry from the hunter gatherers).
In Scandinavia we have light skinned people already 7700 years ago (as shown by the mesolithic site of Motala in Sweden)
No Africans brought any megalithic tombs to Europe since the European megaliths mostly predates the megaliths of Africa,
quote:Originally posted by Big O: I think it's ridiculous to believe that distinct unrelated people with distinct cultures, lifestyles and beliefs could possibly make the same astrological monuments in the same or similar fashion. I think that a group of people or a common culture with a common origin (Africa) spread these ideas and beliefs everywhere around the World that they went.
Not at all ridiculous. many people immigrated into the places they lived long before they built any astronomical monuments. We humans have a tendancy to develop similar cultural traits independantly from each other.
A good example is the civilisations in the Americas who developed many institutions and material culture that was rather similar to those in the old world. Still there are no real tangible evidence for any contacts, less cultural exchange before 1492 (except for some vikings who came to Newfoundland around the year 1000, but who did not make any big impact).
quote:Originally posted by Big O: There is more than enough.
They are not contemporary, you can not just take random artifacts from totally different time periods and compare them. That is not science, it is just lookership. If you want to prove the connectio you have to show more contemporary artifacts that are from the same time, and you must show that the shape of the more recent one comes directly by cultural diffusion from the makers of the older ones. Or even better you have to show artifats that are made in Egypt but found in sites that belong to other peoples.
It is hard to prove that two objects are connected if they are too separated by space and time.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: 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").
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
It does not prove any Egyptian descendancy. It just shows that there lived ancient hunter gatherers in an area where other peoples moved in.
The Bantu migrations are well known since before, so it is really not any news.
Some studies instead want to connect the earliest Bantu migrations with people like the Kiffians from todays Niger, who later spread into west Africa and also towards east Africa.
quote:
Bantu-speaking populations living throughout sub-Saharan Africa are relative new-comers to this vast area. Archaeological, linguistic, and other evidence (e.g., oral histories) revealed that their origins lie to the northwest. Specifically, ca. 8,000 BP the desiccating Western Sahara forced precursors of ‘proto-Bantu’ peoples south into Nigeria and Cameroon. Between 4-3,000 BP these now-agriculturalist proto-Bantu began expanding farther south – to become so-called ‘western’ Bantu, and eastward – ‘eastern’ Bantu, who continued populating the sub-continent. The goal of this research is assess the likelihood of these proposed migrations, i.e., before and during the initial phase of this “Bantu Expansion.” Over 120 traits from the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System were recorded in 14 skeletal samples (n=526 individuals). One small sample from Niger (ca. 7600 BC) was used to explore the purported proto-Bantu Saharan origins. The remaining samples, dating to the Iron Age and historic periods, are from west, west-central (i.e., western Bantu), and central (eastern Bantu) Africa. After editing, data from 24 traits were compared using the mean measure of divergence to yield inter-sample phenetic distances. The following results were obtained: 1) the Niger sample’s affinity to west Africans supports the possibility that it is representative of proto-Bantu ancestors, 2) temporal affinities are apparent, in that older samples are more similar to one another, and 3) spatial divergence is evident in the form of an apparent cline from more to less dental complexity between west Africa and the other regions. All told, these results seem supportive of the hypothesized migrations
quote:Originally posted by Big O: "Megaliths of different kinds exists all over the world. There are no evidence that they originate in Africa or were spread over the world by Africans."
Well it's common sense. Africans are the only people to have circumnavigated the globe. Who else could account for their presence in Africa besides Africans? Since we know that Africans created the ones in Africa, we know that the creators are certainly in Africa. There is no such certainly anywhere else in the World.
It is about 40000 years since the out of Africa migrations reached Europe (after about 30 000 years in Asia). It is about 7000 years since Europeans started to build megaliths. Those Europeans can hardly be called Africans anymore after many millennia outside Africa. If they were Africans then all people are Africans. People changed, adapted, there were mutations, genetic drift, sexual selection who made people somewhat different. The early Eurasians were not Africans anymore.
And as I mentioned people can invent things separately. And even if there were connections one must show in what directions the diffusion went.
It seems like the megaliths in for example Senegambia, or Ethiopia are independent innovations from the ones in Europe. Also Nabta Playa is probably unrelated to the European ones.
quote: We know again that Europe was comprised of Africans from the beginning until the collapse of the Bronze age. Simply stating a land mass, and forcing the assumption of the contemporary population is as low brow as it gets. Yet and still it is your tactic to proclaim that an invasive group (wytes) have always been in the areas where they are. These people in Europe prior to the noted period were Black Africans which includes the Dravidian type noted in Nile Valley civilization and Sumer.
People in the Bronze age in Europe were not Africans, they were a mix of hunter gatherers, Anatolian farmers and eastern steppe people. We do not find any Africans in bronze age tombs, at least not in my place. In Denmark we actually find people with blond hair in bronze age tumulus graves (I have myself seen some of these bodies).
But already the ancient megalith builders were not Africans.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Phoenicians were a semitic people related to other peoples of the Levant. They were not negroid. Their closest relatives were cananites and other semitic peoples in the area, and they also have affinities with people in Lebanon of today."
Here is a coin from Carthage representing it's main people;
Nations Negres et Culture - Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop
Semitic according to Dr. C.A. Diop means semi white and semi Black. Semites are mixed race individuals. Nothing pure about them. In order to be mixed you have at least two elements. The evidence provided shows that the Black element came into Asia before the white element. The dating again is around 1,400-1,200 BC for this region. This mixing correlates with the collapse of the Bronze age around the Mediterranean.
"Here is a facial reconstruction of a 2500 years old Phoenician from Carthage."
Here is an actual coin from Carthage.
"The "Grimaldi" did not build the European megaliths. The earliest West european megaliths are about 7000 years old, but the Grimaldi findings are 26,000 to 22,000 years old"
Build up that strawman all you would like. The fact is the early Europeans until the end of the Bronze age were Black Africans. All of the "accomplishments" in what is now called "Europe" was that of Black Africans. Scholars have spoken on the nature of the interactions between the aboriginal Africans of the land and the coming whites from the Caucus.
"Later Anatolian farmers whose descendants mixed with the hunter gatherers were also light skinned. Most passage graves were built by those farmers, also some dolmens"
The reason why this is so irrelevant is that the phenotype is determined by the skulls. The NEGROID skulls that characterize those Neolithic populations in the Levant, Turkey and Europe define the phenotype. These people were tropically adapted, and those same genes that are found in those non Africans claiming to be "light skinned" are also found in modern Black African populations;
"The strongest association is in SLC24A5, which is a well-known pigmentation gene (Lamason et al., 2005... including missense mutations that influence skin and eye pigmentation (Table 2), are at high frequency in the KhoeSan ... these variants arose in southern Africa more than 100,000 years ago and were later selected for in Europeans after the out-of-Africa migration..
Because African populations often carry the ancestral (i.e., dark) allele for skin pigmentation genes identified in Eurasians, allusions to African skin pigmentation have ignored the great variability in this phenotype across Africa. Here, we reiterate that skin pigmentation varies more in Africa than in any other continent, and we show that pigmentation in African populations cannot simply be explained by the small number of large-effect alleles discovered in Eurasians. Even in lightly to moderately pigmented KhoeSan populations, the polygenicity of skin pigmentation is much greater than in Eurasians , encompassing both known pigmentation genes as well as novel loci." --Martin et al., 2017, An Unexpectedly Complex Architecture for Skin Pigmentation in Africans. Cell 171, 1340–1353
"A good example is the civilisations in the Americas who developed many institutions and material culture that was rather similar to those in the old world. Still there are no real tangible evidence for any contacts, less cultural exchange before 1492 (except for some vikings who came to Newfoundland around the year 1000, but who did not make any big impact)."
That's not a good example to prove your point lol.
A.6' 7,11 X-ray findings of the skulls in Mayan Indians were suggestive of sickle cell disease. 20 It has also been described in Mexicans. The sickle cell trait was found in 7.3 per cent of a series of over eight thousand Negroes,9 with a higher percentage in South African natives.10 https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC1643817&blobtype=pdf
AND
". We then used a combination of forward time simulation, phylogenetic network analysis, and coalescent analysis to infer a single origin of the sickle allele approximately 7,300 years ago, during the Holocene Wet Phase or Green Sahara."
This came into the Americas within the last 2,000 years. An African and particularly Niger-Congo mutation dating to the last 10,000 years was found in the remains of one of Meso-America's greatest civilization. The same sickle cell that was found in pre-dynastic-dynastic Khemetic nobles-royalty. There is a clear link in these civilizations as indicated by ONE particular peoples, and that is the NC speaking family.
"They are not contemporary, you can not just take random artifacts from totally different time periods and compare them. That is not science, it is just lookership. If you want to prove the connectio you have to show more contemporary artifacts that are from the same time, and you must show that the shape of the more recent one comes directly by cultural diffusion from the makers of the older ones. Or even better you have to show artifats that are made in Egypt but found in sites that belong to other peoples."
lol No I don't. The evidence speaks for itself supreme cultural continuity from Khamet into contemporary Equatorial Africa and vicinity. Once again we see the Khametic religion on display among peoples in Western Africa supporting a migration from Nile Valley civilization.
The Nok civilization was the first agricultural civilization in West Africa, and that only makes sense as even admitted by White academia to have diffused from Nile Valley civilization;
The History of Crop Cultivation in West Africa: A Bibliographical Guide M. A. Havinden
You have agriculture coming from Nile Valley civilization, and you have Nile Valley religion coming into Western Africa as a result of a wholescale movement of people between 2,000 and 1,500 BC. Now is there context behind why there may have been a migration during this period? Did the Hyksos dominate parts of Khamet and the Sinai which were formerly owned by natives? There were natives in that region despite the bulk of the peoples being in the south. We know that because the Hyksos were reportedly brutal to the natives in the region. So we have a circumstance (hostile takeover/war) that warrants a migration of people during the period when the Nok (& Olmec ) civilization begins to spring up.
"Tracing the Bantu Expansion from its source"
The Greenbergian theory of the Bantu migration from Cameroon has been debunked on every level. No genetic evidence from early West-Central African to Southern suggest the presence of the Bantu. Not not to mention it FAILS to explain why E-M2 dominates the Western Sahara as well. Archaeology nor ecology supports this theory. Not to mention NO BANTU'S claim this Greenbergian theory of their origin. Here is the criticism of the theory that was OMMITED in the final version of UNESCO 1974;
UNESCO deleted S. Lwanga-Lunyiigo on 'Bantu movement' from the paperback. Even in the 1988 they apologized for printing SLL's original contribution which begins:
"Basing my conclusion on archaeological evidence, I suggested recently that the speakers of Bantu languages occupied from very early times a broad swath of territory running from the Great Lakes region of East Africa to the shores of the Atlantic in Zaire and that the supposed movement of Bantu speakers from West Africa to central, eastern, and southern Africa did not take place. [24]" [24] Lwanga-Lunyiigo, S. (1976) The Bantu problem reconsidered Current Anthropology 17,2, pp. 282-6
posted
"People in the Bronze age in Europe were not Africans, they were a mix of hunter gatherers, Anatolian farmers and eastern steppe people. We do not find any Africans in bronze age tombs, at least not in my place. In Denmark we actually find people with blond hair in bronze age tumulus graves (I have myself seen some of these bodies).
But already the ancient megalith builders were not Africans.'
lol notice how he tries to deny that phenetic conformity between Stone age-Bronze Age Europeans and Black Africoid peoples by simply naming the places and trying to make us imagine what the people there look like today. Completely ignoring the fact that they are clearly a mixed race people, and the logical conclusion from our argument that the Black element came before the white one. Then ignoring the fact that the white element completely degraded the culture and civilization of the original Black ones that were in that place. Look at the Indus Valley and Sumer.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: lol notice how he tries to deny that phenetic conformity between Stone age-Bronze Age Europeans and Black Africoid peoples by simply naming the places and trying to make us imagine what the people there look like today. Completely ignoring the fact that they are clearly a mixed race people, and the logical conclusion from our argument that the Black element came before the white one. Then ignoring the fact that the white element completely degraded the culture and civilization of the original Black ones that were in that place. Look at the Indus Valley and Sumer.
You do not know what you are talking about. Already in the mesolithic there were light skinned people in Northern Europe, and both the Anatolian farmers and the east steppe peoples who spread to here were light skinned, according to DNA studies.
In Northern Europe you will not find any Africoid peoples during the neolithic or bronze age, and as I said, light skinned people were present in Motala already 7700 years ago, and probably even earlier. That we also know through DNA studies.
Already the eastern hunter gatherers who came from the east were light skinned. They mixed with the darker western hunter gatherers and gave rise to fairly light skinned Scandinavian hunter gatherers. There is still a portion of them in Scandinavian DNA, together with DNA from the Anatolian farmers and the later eastern steppe people, bearers of the battle axe culture. I am an archaeologist, I work here in Northern Europe so I have a fairly good understanding of the different cultures and peoples of at least Northern Europe. But I notice that you totally lack understanding of even basic historical and archaeological concepts. And what about degrading some black civilisation? Sounds like a pure day dream and racial fantasy. Here in Scandinavia there of course were a transition from hunter gatherer life style to an agrarian one with the arrival of the funnel beaker culture, but some of the hunter gatherers were already light skinned. I bet you have never partaken in any archaeological excavation or any archaeological work, at least not here in Northern Europe.
And as I said, I have myself seen Danish well preserved bronze age bodies from a couple of tumulus tombs, and among other parts their blonde hair were very well preserved. So I actually have seen with my own eyes how some of the people looked like in the bronze age.
I soon get tired of discussing with you, you are just too ignorant.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haha with this collage you are really letting your fantasy fly.
There are thousands of miles between Mexico and Egypt and there are no evidence whatsoever of any connection between them in precolumbian times.
On top of that ancient Egypt and at least the Aztec culture are seperated by thousands of year.
And the structure you posted is not an ankh but more like a ceremonial altar. It has nothing to do with either ankh or Egypt.
And the prairie headdress is even more separated in time and space from ancient Egypt.
And the man wearing it in the picture is not even a Native American but a Black man in a native headdress.
Your knowledge about Native American culture, history and archaeology seems to be absolutely zero.
Once again I recommend Gabriel Haslip Vieras book Thieves of Civilisation where this kind of hyperdiffusionist silliness is thoroughly debunked.
And if you want to have any serious debate about precolumbian American cultures I recommend you to take a beginners class in Native American archaeology, history or anthropology. Then you maybe do not so easily become mislead by pseudo historical nonsense.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
This coin is found in Italy and is a picture of the other, an African. It is not a Phoenician.
Here is a couple of coins with pictures of a real Carthaginian. There are actually hundreds of Carthaginian coins and the overwhelming majority do not show any negroid faces.
Some Phoenician art. I recommend you to visit some museum where they have Phoenician art. It is quite nice.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: You do not know what you are talking about. Already in the mesolithic there were light skinned people in Northern Europe, and both the Anatolian farmers and the east steppe peoples who spread to here were light skinned, according to DNA studies.
In Northern Europe you will not find any Africoid peoples during the neolithic or bronze age, and as I said, light skinned people were present in Motala already 7700 years ago, and probably even earlier. That we also know through DNA studies.
Already the eastern hunter gatherers who came from the east were light skinned. They mixed with the darker western hunter gatherers and gave rise to fairly light skinned Scandinavian hunter gatherers. There is still a portion of them in Scandinavian DNA, together with DNA from the Anatolian farmers and the later eastern steppe people, bearers of the battle axe culture. I am an archaeologist, I work here in Northern Europe so I have a fairly good understanding of the different cultures and peoples of at least Northern Europe. But I notice that you totally lack understanding of even basic historical and archaeological concepts. And what about degrading some black civilisation? Sounds like a pure day dream and racial fantasy. Here in Scandinavia there of course were a transition from hunter gatherer life style to an agrarian one with the arrival of the funnel beaker culture, but some of the hunter gatherers were already light skinned. I bet you have never partaken in any archaeological excavation or any archaeological work, at least not here in Northern Europe.
And as I said, I have myself seen Danish well preserved bronze age bodies from a couple of tumulus tombs, and among other parts their blonde hair were very well preserved. So I actually have seen with my own eyes how some of the people looked like in the bronze age.
I soon get tired of discussing with you, you are just too ignorant.
SLC24A5 is found throughout Africa, with highest diversity among the brown skinned Bantu's. Not pale Europeans. You therefore have no evidence indicating that these people were actually pale skinned at all.
The osteological evidence makes it clear that these people during the Neolithic had a phenotype associated with Black peoples both Dravidian (often mistakenly called a "Eur-African" or hybrid in earlier text) type and affinities to NC speakers. These peoples dominated Europe until the Bronze age collapse with;
"THE MEDITERRANEAN RACE
Preface
WHEN this little book was first published in an Italian edition in 1895, and in a German edition in 1897, I was still unable to obtain many anthropological data needed to complete tha picture of the primitive inhabitants of Europe. In the English edition the book is less incomplete, richer in anthropological and ethnological documents, and hence more conclusive; it also contains replies to various objections which have been brought forward. This English edition, therefore, is not so much a translation of a work already published as a new book, both in form and arrangement
The conclusions I have sought to maintain are the following :- +
(1.) The primitive populations of Europe, after Homo Neandertkalensis, originated in Africa; these constituted the entire population of Neolithic times.
(2.) The basin of the Mediterranean was the chief centre of movement whence the African migrations reached the centre and the north of Europe.
(3.) From the great African stock were formed three varieties , in accordance with differing telluric and geographic conditions: one,.,peculiarly African, remaining in the continent where it originated; another, .the Mediterranean, which occupied the basin of that sea; and a third, the Nordtic:, which reached the north of Europe. These three varieties are the three great branches of one species, which I call Eurafrican, because it occupied, and still occupies, a large portion of the two continents of Africa and Europe.
(4) These three human varieties have nothing in common with the so-called Aryan races; it is an error to maintain that the Germans and the Scandinavians, blond dolichocephals or long-heads (of the Reihengraber and Viking types), are Aryans; they . are Eurafricans of the Nordic variety.
(5.) The Aryans are of Asiatic origin , and constitute a variety of the Eurafrican: species,• the physical characters of their skeletons are different from those of the Eurafricans.
(6.) The primitive civilisation of the Eurafricans is Afro-Mediterranean, becoming eventually AfroEuropean.
(7.) The Mycenrean civilisation had its origin in Asia, and was transformed by diffusion in the Mediterranean.
(8.) The two classic civilisations, Greek and Latin; were not Aryan, but Mediterranean. The Aryans were savages when they invaded Europe: they destroyed in part the superior civilisation of the Neolithic populations, and could not have created the Greco-Latin civilization
(9.) x The two classic civilisations, Greek and Latin; were not Aryan, but Mediterranean. The Aryans were savages when they invaded Europe: they destroyed in part the superior civilisation of the Neolithic populations, and could not have created the Greco-Latin civilization ., being genuine branches of the Aryan tongue; in other cases the Aryan languages underwent a transformation, preserving some elements of the conquered tongues, as in the NeoCeltic of Wales. Some of these conclusions no longer arouse the same opposition as when I first brought them forward. The arguments meeting with most resistance are those tending to overthrow the ancient conception of an Aryan civilization.
THE FUTURE WILL ENABLE US TO SEE THESE QUESTIONS MORE CLEARLY. G. SERGI.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Haha with this collage you are really letting your fantasy fly.
There are thousands of miles between Mexico and Egypt and there are no evidence whatsoever of any connection between them in precolumbian times.
On top of that ancient Egypt and at least the Aztec culture are seperated by thousands of year.
And the structure you posted is not an ankh but more like a ceremonial altar. It has nothing to do with either ankh or Egypt.
And the prairie headdress is even more separated in time and space from ancient Egypt.
And the man wearing it in the picture is not even a Native American but a Black man in a native headdress.
Your knowledge about Native American culture, history and archaeology seems to be absolutely zero.
Once again I recommend Gabriel Haslip Vieras book Thieves of Civilisation where this kind of hyperdiffusionist silliness is thoroughly debunked.
And if you want to have any serious debate about precolumbian American cultures I recommend you to take a beginners class in Native American archaeology, history or anthropology. Then you maybe do not so easily become mislead by pseudo historical nonsense.
Notice how you ignored acknowledging the sickle cell found in the Mayan mummies, and what that proves. Followed by nothing other than the dismissible and typical "I'm white and I say so" responses. The only thing that you're pointing out is the physical distance, and saying the Khamites and saying that the commonalities are not true solely for the reason. Australia is 3,089km further from Egypt than it is to America, yet and still you find coins from Kilwa (modern day Tanzania) in Australia, which is about 1,000 KM further than a trip from Egypt to the Americas. So no distance does not discount the existence of pre-columbian intercontinental relationships.
quote:SLC24A5 is found throughout Africa, with highest diversity among the brown skinned Bantu's. Not pale Europeans. You therefore have no evidence indicating that these people were actually pale skinned at all.
The osteological evidence makes it clear that these people during the Neolithic had a phenotype associated with Black peoples both Dravidian (often mistakenly called a "Eur-African" or hybrid in earlier text) type and affinities to NC speakers. These peoples dominated Europe until the Bronze age collapse with;
You are out of your league, you do not know anything about Scandinavian archaeology and you do not know how the osteological material up here looks like (have you ever seen one single ancient Scandinavian skull with your own eyes? I have, because osteology was a part of the archaeology training), and you do not know if the neolithic northerners were dark or light. But we know that already the Motala hunter gatherers at least had the disposition for light skin.
And we actually know that some of the Danish bronze age people were blonde. We have their preserved hair and other parts of their bodies. We do not find any so called "africoids" among them, whatever that is.
There is no reason to think that the Motala hunters, or the neolithic population, or the battle axe people (who descended from eastern steppe people) where "africoids", it is just your wet dream.
Seems you think that all people after leaving Africa staid the same for all eternity, that no people adapted to different circumstances, for example regarding available food, or amount of uv radiation, or other environmental factors. Do you think there were no mutations or any changes in peoples genomes or phenotype after leaving Africa and living in other environments for thousands of years? It is not how evolution works, evolution is change, to adapt to different environments. And also humans are subject to evolution, just like all other living organisms.
You live in a fantasy land where you want everyone in prehistory, whereever they lived, to be black or negroid. It is a fantasy that actually seems a bit racist.
And your arguments are not helped by quoting outdated old writings.
The interplay between genes and phenotype, and the different migrations, and intermixings between different peoples in Eurasia is quite complicated, it is not just a simple question about black or white. Future research will give us more facts and higher resolution concerning which phenotypes different peoples had (if that really matters, it is maybe more interesting to know how they lived, what they ate, how their social structure looked like, and similar questions).
Reality is too complicated to fit into simple stereotypes about black and white. Archaeological and genetic research are all the time progressing. Old racial writings from more than 100 years back do not say anything about what we know today.
Here is a map that summarizes some of the knowledge and theories about distribution of skin color, hair color, eye color and migration in a European perspective.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Notice how you ignored acknowledging the sickle cell found in the Mayan mummies, and what that proves. Followed by nothing other than the dismissible and typical "I'm white and I say so" responses. The only thing that you're pointing out is the physical distance, and saying the Khamites and saying that the commonalities are not true solely for the reason. Australia is 3,089km further from Egypt than it is to America, yet and still you find coins from Kilwa (modern day Tanzania) in Australia, which is about 1,000 KM further than a trip from Egypt to the Americas. So no distance does not discount the existence of pre-columbian intercontinental relationships. [/QB]
Well if you want that Africans came to the Americans, why not also the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese and all other people who had some kind of naval technology? Seems that ancient Mexico must have had some big international harbor to receive all the guests that came there from all corners of the world.
Unfortunately we have not found any of those harbors yet, nor have we found any old world archaeological artifacts, or skeletons, or anything that show any contact between Africa (or Rome, or Greece, India or China) and precolumbian Mexico.
If there were such contacts we would have found at least some artifacts made in those countries. We would maybe have found tombs or buildings that these foreigners built.
If any of those peoples had arrived after the discovery of iron we would perhaps have found iron objects, or places for iron working (as we have found concerning the vikings on Newfoundland around 1000 AD).
Also when the Spaniards and other Europeans came to the Americas they brought a plethora of epidemic diseases that profoundly affected the American indigenous population. If Africans, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, or Chinese had come to Mexico we would probably have seen something similar.
Seems the effect of the viking presence in Newfoundland was not especially profound since the area was sparsely populated and the contacts between Vikings and Native Americans were rather short and sporadic.
Also foreigners who came there and maybe stayed there ought to have left some genetic evidence, but we do not find that in precolumbian human remains.
And facts have nothing to do with if a white man tells about them or not. Actually when it comes to alleged Africans in precolumbian Americas, or the claims that the "real" aboriginals of Americas were black "negroid" people, many Native Americans have taken offence by such loud mouthed claims made by Afrocentric extremists. Seems those Afrocentrists or "Wabos" (wanna be Aboriginals) are trying to insert themselves into Native American history and take credit for Native American achievements.
Once again I recommend Gabriel Haslip Vieras book "Thieves of Civilisation" where this kind of hyperdiffusionist silliness is thoroughly debunked.
As a side note, it seems that most hyperdiffusionists claim that a lot of different peoples visited the Americas in precolumbian times. Seems most of them do not discuss the opposite possibility, that Native Americans can have visited other places. One of the few who forwarded such scenario was Tor Heyerdahl who with his Kon Tiki expedition wanted to show that ancient South Americans can have travelled to Polynesia. Actually there have been found genetic markers in some Polynesian island that indicate such contacts.
Concerning the vikings there has been found a MtDNA haplogroup in 80 Icelanders who by some have been interpreted as the vikings may have brought back one or more Native American women.
About Kilwa coins in Australia. Kilwa traded with among others Arabs and Indians, and there is also contacts between East Africa and China. India and China had contact with peoples in Indonesia who were known to be avid sailors. So nothing says that East Africans sailed to Australia.
Austronesian sailors actually reached both Madagascar and a most island in the Pacific- Also among Melanesians not far from Australia there were chains of maritime exchange.
Actually it is not very long way from Wessel Islands were the coins were found to New Guinea and not extremely far from Indonesia either.
Also the coins were found on a beach, not in a controlled archaeological excavation. Europeans have been living in Australia a couple of hundred years. Some European who visited the islands can have lost the coins there. One argument for that is that the man who found the coins also found four Dutch coins from the 17th and 18th centuries.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:SLC24A5 is found throughout Africa, with highest diversity among the brown skinned Bantu's. Not pale Europeans. You therefore have no evidence indicating that these people were actually pale skinned at all.
The osteological evidence makes it clear that these people during the Neolithic had a phenotype associated with Black peoples both Dravidian (often mistakenly called a "Eur-African" or hybrid in earlier text) type and affinities to NC speakers. These peoples dominated Europe until the Bronze age collapse with;
You are out of your league, you do not know anything about Scandinavian archaeology and you do not know how the osteological material up here looks like (have you ever seen one single ancient Scandinavian skull with your own eyes? I have, because osteology was a part of the archaeology training), and you do not know if the neolithic northerners were dark or light. But we know that already the Motala hunter gatherers at least had the disposition for light skin.
And we actually know that some of the Danish bronze age people were blonde. We have their preserved hair and other parts of their bodies. We do not find any so called "africoids" among them, whatever that is.
There is no reason to think that the Motala hunters, or the neolithic population, or the battle axe people (who descended from eastern steppe people) where "africoids", it is just your wet dream.
Seems you think that all people after leaving Africa staid the same for all eternity, that no people adapted to different circumstances, for example regarding available food, or amount of uv radiation, or other environmental factors. Do you think there were no mutations or any changes in peoples genomes or phenotype after leaving Africa and living in other environments for thousands of years? It is not how evolution works, evolution is change, to adapt to different environments. And also humans are subject to evolution, just like all other living organisms.
You live in a fantasy land where you want everyone in prehistory, whereever they lived, to be black or negroid. It is a fantasy that actually seems a bit racist.
And your arguments are not helped by quoting outdated old writings.
The interplay between genes and phenotype, and the different migrations, and intermixings between different peoples in Eurasia is quite complicated, it is not just a simple question about black or white. Future research will give us more facts and higher resolution concerning which phenotypes different peoples had (if that really matters, it is maybe more interesting to know how they lived, what they ate, how their social structure looked like, and similar questions).
Reality is too complicated to fit into simple stereotypes about black and white. Archaeological and genetic research are all the time progressing. Old racial writings from more than 100 years back do not say anything about what we know today.
Here is a map that summarizes some of the knowledge and theories about distribution of skin color, hair color, eye color and migration in a European perspective.
posted
The vikings were not black. The Scandinavian bronze age population (at least the farmers) were not black, we know that for sure since we have well preserved bodies with blonde hair.
Also there is no proof that neolithic Scandinavians were black. There is even no proof that the Scandinavian hunter gatherers or eastern hunter gatherers were black. The skeletons of Motala have been reconstructed as light skinned and light haired because their DNA. They had genes that code for light skin, and even light hair. They also have mutations that are connected with straight hair. The western hunter gatherers were darker. Probably as the picture you posted, even if that also is a guess work.
The first hunter gatherers migrated into Scandinavia about 14000 years ago in a short warm chronozone during the last part of the ice age, but the cold returned so they probably left again. Around 11700 years ago the climate got milder again and the people came back.
The western hunter gatherers came from the south, and soon after them eastern hunter gatherers came from the east, some came over the Cap of the North and others came trough Finland and the area of todays Baltic states.
The neolithic in Scandinavia starts around 4000 BC, but at that time agriculture had existed on the European continent for more than 1000 years.
Immigrants with the roots in the eastern steppes came to Scandinavia around 2800 BC with the battle axe culture.
The Scandinavian bronze age begins in the South around 1700 BC.
The viking age lasted between 800 AD (some say earlier since we have viking raids already 750 as shown by the Salme ships is Estonia) to about 1060.
And as said before, we have preserved bodies with blond hair at least during the bronze age. We have genes that can express light skin and hair already among Scandinavian hunter gatherers and of course among the neolithic peoples. You have no proof that those genes were not expressed and that those people were black africoids.
Honestly, I do not think that you know more about how ancient Scandinavian peoples looked than the Scandinavian researchers who examine their skeletons, and analyze their DNA, and whose research lay the foundation for the reconstructions of them. Are you an archaeologist? Or a geneticist? Have you ever conducted any research on any Scandinavian material (archaeological, osteological or genetic)?
It is always funny when foreigners try to define other peoples ancestors. I recommend you to visit here, visit our museums or universities, talk to our researchers. You might learn something.
Yeah, it is maybe better to return to the original subject of the thread.
A girl with the same clothes and the same color of her hair as some of the well preserved Danish human remains from the bronze age.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: "What do you mean where were those cultures?"
Well where tf was that said in the quoted passage for one?
"or these were all home grown cultural traits tied to prehistoric traditions. It is a little of both."
That is your inference, and I asked for specifics on these prehistoric traditions that explain why we see parallels in these various African peoples and ancient Kemet.
"What I am saying is for example many elements of the Nile Valley had an origin in cultures that were preliterate"
I definitely agree with this, but the combination of these cultural elements in that place in time is what lead to the creation of dynastic Khamet.
"So if you are going to argue about diffusion you should first check to see if there are older archaeological evidences of some trait or tradition that predates the Nile before defending this concept."
That has already been looked into. Unless there is an Atlantis in the ancient Alien Sahara like the one that Henry Lhote hypothesized that we generally don't know about then what else should we look for at this early period to explain these cultural overlappings. Better...Why is there a need to provide another explanation that has absolutely no basis in fact, but is meaningless conjecture?
"I never said West Africa was a people, as opposed to a region of Africa with a long history. To claim that all of that culture came from the Nile is disingenuous."
That is something that again has been attributed to me that was never stated. The Mande and Nilo-Saharan speakers in the region did not come from Kemet from the evidence that I have seen. The Mande being NCish do have a Nile Valley-Nubian origin however. The Pygmies in the region have been indigenous there before the coming of the main NC branch that dominates the region today.
"What I am saying is that some of these traditions you claim originated from the Nile are part of an African cultural complex or pattern of complexes that has existed in some form for tens of thousands of years."
What you are negating to acknowledge is that these traditions that are pointed out are often times linked to directly to the distinctly Khemetic religion centering around the honoring of Ausar. Why does it appear that you are trying to SO HARD to find ANYTHING to CREATE DOUBT on what is an apparent truth. You keep trying to negate this connection, when these groups (Akan, Yoruba, Bemleke, Igbo, Ewe, etc etc etc) literally have ORAL TRADITIONS of coming from Kemet with intricate details of historical events including NAMES.
"Dar Tichitt had mummification and that does not require Ausarian cosmology. If anything the Ausarian cosmology is tied to pre dynastic cultures from the Nile searching for water and oases as a part of survival in the once wet Sahara, which predates Dynastic culture. And many cultural elements are a result of those influences which also reached into other parts of Africa. Ancestor worship, the belief in some aspect of the soul surviving death and being able to communicate to dead ancestors is NOT unique to the Nile Valley."
So... you keep trying to tear apart the culture unique to ancient Kemet, and shown in tact in the modern cultures of NC speakers, and then you turn around and acknowledge the undeniable parallel while claiming that they arose independently from unspecified but common African elements. That is YOU doing mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that NC speakers have a direct link to Kemet - Nile Valley civilization.
"Carving a bird on a stone did not come from Kemet. Now if there were heiroglyphs being drawn/carved that would be different, but come on carving a bird? Seriously?"
The famous bird and serpent/Sekreh is evidence of this diffusion.
Meaningless conjecture? The oldest pastoral traditions arose in the Sahara before the Nile Valley during the wet phase. That isn't conjecture.
quote: The division of the entire Saharan population into broad regional sets (Fig. 2b) allows a preliminary look at spatial variation in the timing of population change. The population curves for the Eastern Sahara, the Atlas & Hoggar and Central Sahara start broadly synchronous; showing a rapid population increase after the onset of humid conditions c. 10.5 ka and during the millennial-long population decline between 7.5 and 6.5 ka (Fig. 2b). At the end of the AHP, however, we observe divergence in the regional demographic response. The eastern Sahara, which is today extremely arid, appears to have undergone a rapid population decline, as occupation shifted towards the Nile Valley. It has even been suggested that this subsequently gave rise to the Pharanoic civilisation45. To the north and west, in the Atlas & Hoggar mountain region, population decline appears to have been equally rapid (c. 900 years, Fig. 2b). The central Sahara, on the other hand, saw a much more gradual decline in population levels that never reached the pre-Holocene population low (Fig. 2b). The fact that societies practicing pastoralism persisted in this region for so long, and invested both economically and ideologically in the local landscape, does not support a scenario of over-exploitation (see Methods). Additionally, the ethnographic record demonstrates how the flexibility inherent in traditional African pastoralist strategies enables them to make the most efficient use of patchy and fragile environments4,5,37. It is therefore likely that the origins of such strategies co-evolved with the drying environment in a way that enabled humans to live in an adaptive balance with available pasture.
quote: By the 6th millennium BC, evidence of a prehistoric religion or cult appears. From 5500 BC the Late Neolithic period began, with "a new group that had a complex social system expressed in a degree of organisation and control not previously seen."[11] These new people were responsible for sacrificial cattle burials in clay-lined and roofed chambers covered by rough stone tumuli.
It has been suggested that the associated cattle cult indicated in Nabta Playa marks an early evolution of Ancient Egypt's Hathor cult. For example, Hathor was worshipped as a nighttime protector in desert regions (see Serabit el-Khadim). To directly quote professors Wendorf and Schild:
... there are many aspects of political and ceremonial life in prehistoric Egypt and the Old Kingdom that reflects a strong impact from Saharan cattle pastoralists ...
Rough megalithic stone structures buried underground are also found in Nabta Playa, one of which included evidence of what Wendorf described as perhaps "the oldest known sculpture in Egypt."
quote: The discoveries at Ounjougou (Mali), an open-air site in the Dogon Country, shed new light on the “early Neolithic” in Africa. The stratigraphic sequence and a cluster of absolute dates established a terminus ante quem of 9400 cal bc for ceramic sherds associated with a small bifacial lithic industry. The emergence of this typo-technical complex corresponds to one of the wet phases of the Pleistocene–Holocene transition in West Africa, most probably that of the climatic upturn at the beginning of the Holocene, between 10,200 and 9,400 cal bc. Paleoenvironmental results, particularly archaeobotanical ones, indicate that the landscape was in a state of change and that, for several millennia, the surfaces covered by desert overlapped an open steppe with grasses, some of which were edible. This environmental situation allowed the dispersion of prehistoric groups over the continent and probably encouraged a new behavior: the practice of intensive selective gathering (i.e., the targeted and rational harvesting of wild grasses for their seeds). However, not only must seeds be kept dry and protected from rodents, they must also be processed through cooking or fermentation. This process helps the human body to assimilate the starch, as the digestive enzymes necessary for its digestion are not naturally present. Ceramics would have been particularly useful in this process. Ceramics emerged in sub-Saharan Africa and seem to have spread toward the central Sahara during the early Holocene at the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 9th millennium cal bc, while the desert zone became increasingly greener. It has yet to be understood whether the Nile Valley was an important corridor for the diffusion of this technology or if ceramics appeared as the result of a second independent process of innovation.
Obviously if there was pottery in Mali at least going as far back as the 9th Millenium BCE, it couldn't simply be a diffusion from the Nile.
quote: In the 10th millennium BCE, Niger-Congo speakers developed pyrotechnology and employed subsistence strategy at Ounjougou, Mali.[30] Prior to 9400 BCE, Niger-Congo speakers independently created and used matured ceramic technology[30][31] (e.g., pottery, pots) to contain and cook grains (e.g., Digitaria exilis, pearl millet);[30][32] ethnographically and historically, West African women have been the creators of pottery in most West African ceramic traditions[33][34] and their production of ceramics is closely associated with creativity and fertility.[34] Amid the tenth millennium BCE, microlith-using West Africans migrated into and dwelt in Ounjougou alongside earlier residing West Africans in Ounjougou.[35] Among two existing cultural areas, earlier residing West Africans in Ounjougou were of a cultural area encompassing the Sahara region (e.g., Tenere, Niger/Chad; Air, Niger; Acacus, Libya/Algeria;[35] Tagalagal, Niger; Temet, Niger)[36] of Africa and microlith-using West Africans were of a cultural area encompassing the forest region of West Africa.[35]
Following the Ogolian period, between the late 10th millennium BCE and early 9th millennium BCE, the creators of the Ounjougou pottery – the earliest pottery in Africa – migrated, along with their pottery, from Ounjougou, Mali into the Central Sahara.[37] Whether or not Ounjougou ceramic culture spread as far as Bir Kiseiba, Egypt, which had pottery that resembled Ounjougou pottery, had implements used for grinding like at Ounjougou, and was followed by subsequent ceramic cultures (e.g., Wadi el Akhdar, Sarurab, Nabta Playa), remains to be determined.[37] The emergence and expansion of ceramics in the Sahara may be linked with the origin of both the Round Head and Kel Essuf rock art, which occupy rockshelters in the same regions (e.g., Djado, Acacus, Tadrart) as well as have a common resemblance (e.g., traits, shapes).[38] In the Central Sahara, the Kel Essuf Period and Round Head Period were followed by the Pastoral Period.[39] As a result of increasing aridification of the Green Sahara, Central Saharan hunter-gatherers and cattle herders may have used seasonal waterways as the migratory route taken to the Niger River and Chad Basin of West Africa.[40]
they have a panel, I'm not sure they all agree, will check it out later
Well I think this idea will ruffle a couple of afrocentrics around here... who postulate that all of the migrations where west to east
some folks might need to abridge their "theories"
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
they have a panel, I'm not sure they all agree, will check it out later
Well I think this idea will ruffle a couple of afrocentrics around here... who postulate that all of the migrations where west to east
some folks might need to abridge their "theories"
Which "Afrocentrics" would that be?
Also, I have called out before this 'fake Nubian pride' because basically it promotes the idea that African civilization and culture started in Nubia 5,000 years ago. As if African culture and history isn't over 100,000 years old. And it can actually be used to support the Eurocentric argument that Africa had nothing to do with Kemet and that all African civilization stems from Egyptian (non African) influence.
My position here has always been that the 'roots' of African cultural commonality are far older than Kemet and widespread across all of Africa. For example, wearing braids in Africa is not something that started in Kemet. Neither did wearing kilts or skirts for men, carrying stuff on the head of women, scepters, pottery, jewelry, religious worship, ceremonial burials, nature/animal worship, mining, carving, cosmetics, etc. All of this stuff is very ancient in Africa and not simply a case of diffusion from one particular location. That is absurd.
So it is a chicken and egg question. Did the chicken come first (common patterns of african culture) or did the egg come first (Nile Valley culture). A good analogy is modern Afrobeat and Hip Hop. We know hip hop has influenced Afrobeat but does that mean that African drumming came from American Africans? Of course not. Hip Hop and modern Afrobeat come from the same common root culture of the drum in Africa.
So when you say diffusion of culture, most times it implies a single starting point of everything. But we know that in Africa, due to its antiquity it is more like a bunch of ripples bouncing around a pond, as opposed to a single point of origin for everything. So influences bounce around over time but it is impossible to identify a single "starting point" because of the long amount of time that has gone by.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug I was not talking about you... I was speaking in general....
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Doug I was not talking about you... I was speaking in general....
I get it but I am speaking to those who may be reading.
When speaking of African cultural history I would avoid a single diffusion model of history. It doesn't make sense in the scope and breadth of African history.
quote: Genetic analyses reveal that eastern and southern African lineages diverged sometime in the Pleistocene epoch, approximately 350–70 thousand years ago however, little is known about the exact timing of these interactions, the cultural context of these exchanges or the mechanisms that drove their separation. Here we compare ostrich eggshell bead variations between eastern and southern Africa to explore population dynamics over the past 50,000 years. We found that ostrich eggshell bead technology probably originated in eastern Africa and spread southward approximately 50–33 ka via a regional network. This connection breaks down approximately 33 ka, with populations remaining isolated until herders entered southern Africa after 2 ka.
....
Unresolved questions in human evolution concern the ancient distribution and diversification of our species (Homo sapiens) across Africa. The metapopulation model suggests that anatomical modernity and behavioural complexity arose within a pan-African patchwork of populations who experienced pulses of connection and isolation6, possibly in response to environmental circumstances. Research into these shifting connections is increasingly derived from DNA and ancient DNA analyses, which reveal that present-day African hunter–gatherer populations diverged into regional lineages sometime in the Pleistocene, including a deep division between southern and eastern groups approximately 350–70 ka.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Which "Afrocentrics" would that be?
Also, I have called out before this 'fake Nubian pride' because basically it promotes the idea that African civilization and culture started in Nubia 5,000 years ago. As if African culture and history isn't over 100,000 years old. And it can actually be used to support the Eurocentric argument that Africa had nothing to do with Kemet and that all African civilization stems from Egyptian (non African) influence.
You describe what seems to be the Big O position. He might say the same thing but exclude "(non African) " from the statement
In other words yes, "African civilization stems from Egyptian influence." - and Egypt is African, totally
- and in these remarks, what is the definition of "civilization" could come up and with it an implication of superiority or some kind of specialness
Yet "civilization" is about manipulating natural resources and this is what is now destroying the planet and accumulation of that sort of activity
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest problem is that a lot of African cultural history has been under the control of European institutions for the last few hundred years. And the colonial education system distorted a lot of that history with the Nile being the most obvious example. That is just the tip of the iceberg but the Nile valley is the one that gets everybody's attention so of course it has to be the source of everything and a lot of Africans look to it as a reference. But the harder work is to reconstruct the history of Africa in a holistic matter and not just starting with the Nile. The West Sahara period is only now just starting to get a lot of traction and there are likely numerous sites that haven't been published or found yet there. A lot of stuff in these museums and universities has been deliberately hidden due to it not conforming to colonial histrionics. Case in point, I talked about the 'trade beads' of South and East Africa a long time ago on this forum and how it was being claimed to be the result of Indian origin. Only now are we seeing the fact that beads in Africa are over 50,000 years old.
quote: xcavations conducted between 2010 and 2012 at Magoro Hill, a site in South Africa’s Limpopo Province frequented or intermittently occupied by African farming communities since the first millennium AD, yielded a substantial glass bead assemblage. A selection of the beads was studied non-destructively by classifying them according to morphological attributes, supplemented by Raman analyses and XRF measurements. It became evident that a morphological classification of beads recovered from sites that include imports into Africa after the seventeenth century AD could be problematic due to apparent morphological similarities between earlier and later beads. This paper demonstrates the use and archaeological application of Raman and XRF measurements to separate earlier imported beads from later counterparts by identifying glass nanostructure, as well as pigments and opacifiers, which were not used in bead series pre-dating the seventeenth century AD.
quote: The presence of exotic materials in funerary contexts in the Sudanese Nile Valley suggests increasing social complexity during the fifth and sixth millennia BC. Amazonite, both in artefact and raw material form, is frequently recovered from Neolithic Sudanese sites, yet its provenance remains unknown. Geochemical analyses of North and East African raw amazonite outcrops and artefacts found at the Neolithic cemetery of R12 in the Sudanese Nile Valley reveals southern Ethiopia as the source of the R12 amazonite. This research, along with data on different exotic materials from contemporaneous Sudanese cemeteries, suggests a previously unknown, long-distance North African exchange network and confirms the emergence of local craft specialisation as part of larger-scale developing social complexity.
Early faience jewelry from the predynastic in so-called "Nubia". Found at a place called Koshtamna by a British archaologist named John Garstang. It is here that the famous Qustul incense burner was also found. Obviously more stuff like this lay below lake Nasser. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_Nubia_display,_Garstang_Museum.jpg
quote: The site of Koshtamna, in the Aswan region, was excavated by John Garstang in 1906. The site is approximately 7 km northeast of Dakka, and contains material remains dating from various periods of Pharaonic history. The majority of Garstang’s finds, however, dated to prehistory; material remains of the Sudanese ‘A-Group’. John Garstang’s excavation at Koshtamna was never published, but the Garstang Museum is working to bring these artefacts, and the story of this site, into the public eye for the first time.
quote: o-called cosmetic palettes are rarely found on prehistoric sites in the Western Desert of Egypt. The study presents nine palettes found between 1998 and 2006 on sites within the ACACIA study areas of Djara, Chufu, Meri, and the Glass Area. Size and shape of the objects, as well as small handstones from the same contexts reveal their use as palettes, though remains of colour pigments have not been observed due to strong weathering processes in the desert regions. The archaeological contexts support a dating of the palettes into the 6 th millennium BC. Dating evidence on three sites at Djara allows a more precise attribution to the Late Djara B-phase, ca. 5600-5200 BC. In comparison to the early Predynastic cosmetic palettes, the Western Desert palettes are similar in size and proportion, and to some extent also in regard to the materials used. The evidence concerning the climatic deterioration and depopulation of the Eastern Sahara which set in after ca. 5300/5200 BC and the following beginning of early Predynastic settlement activity in the Nile Valley and the Fayyum depression strongly suggests that the early Western Desert objects are the historic forerunners of the Predynastic cosmetic palettes.
quote: The excavations at Blombos Cave have yielded important new information on the behavioural evolution of anatomically modern humans. The archaeological record from this cave site has been central in the ongoing debate on the cognitive and cultural origin of early humans and to the current understanding of when and where key behavioural innovations emerged among Homo sapiens in southern Africa during the Late Pleistocene.[6][7][8] Archaeological material and faunal remains recovered from the Middle Stone Age phase in Blombos Cave – dated to ca. 100,000–70,000 years BP – are considered to represent greater ecological niche adaptation, a more diverse set of subsistence and procurements strategies, adoption of multi-step technology and manufacture of composite tools, stylistic elaboration, increased economic and social organisation and occurrence of symbolically mediated behaviour.
A cosmetic palette is simply an evolved version of a grinder to make cosmetic paste and/or a surface to hold the paste after grinding.... And of course that use of grinders to make cosmetics leads to the use of grinders to make paint and paint palettes.
Now with that in mind, listen to the double talk from the people in "Egyptology" excavating in Egypt:
quote: Grinding stones are some of the most ubiquitous 'domestic' objects found in settlement sites, their first appearance dating back to the Late Palaeolithic, over 16,000 years ago. Although they have been given a rather lowly place in the hierarchy of material culture found in archaeological sites, these artefacts can provide important clues into the processing of plant remains for food, as well as ochre and pigments for decorating pots and tombs.
Grinding stones can come in a range of styles and materials depending on what purposes they served. Simple hand-held grinders were used to crush pigments, while the better known and appropriately loaf-shaped variety was for processing grain by dragging them back and forth over a boat-shaped lower stone called the 'saddle quern'. Grinding is often depicted in Dynastic tomb scenes and models, therefore telling us a lot about the symbolic importance of this activity in social life. The precursor of this symbolic attachment to grinding goes back into prehistory, given that grinding stones were included in the burial equipment of some of the earliest graves. The presence of the two 'quartzite' grinding stones in HK6 Tomb 72 at Hierakonpolis, dating to Naqada IIA-B, is further evidence of the importance that these objects held to individuals, not only in everyday life, but also in the afterlife.
Grinding stones obviously had abrasive properties, and quartzite (or more correctly 'silicified sandstone') was a particularly favoured rock to use. However, we have yet to fully explore what importance was placed on the origin of the grinding stones, in terms of the source of the material. Although silicified sandstone is a common rock found in Egypt, its quality can range significantly and therefore grinding stones from certain sources, perhaps distant from place of use, were often specifically sought-after. Grinding stones found in Naqada I-II settlements at Hu-Semaineh in Middle Egypt were found to be imported from sources upwards of 150km away in the Wadi Hammamat and Aswan regions. So, what might the origin of the Hierakonpolis grinding stones be? Were some sources especially preferred because of links (ancestral, political or cultural) to specific places like Nubia?
The Aswan West Bank, 130km south of Hierakonpolis, is certainly a possible contender as a source for the stones because of the high quality of the silicified sandstone deposits found there. 'Quartzite' from the Aswan West Bank has been more famed as the stone for the obelisks and statues connected with New Kingdom kings, but our recent research here revealed this to be just the tip of the iceberg. We discovered this area was actually a hub of grinding stone production spanning an in- credible 15,000 years from the Late Palaeolithic to the early Roman Period (30 BC). Over 80% of the quarries that cover 60km2 of the Aswan West Bank were dedicated to the pro- duction of grinding stones, largely because of its especially fine quality silicified sandstone. The earliest of these quarries, at Wadi Kubbaniya dating to 18,100 BP, established the crucial role played by grinding stones as essential equipment for food processing in some of Egypt’s first settlements. Little did its founders know that this ‘industry’ would continue to be one of the largest in the region. Therefore we should consider whether the grinding stones at Hierakonpolis have their origins in Aswan and whether there is a Nubian connection with this particular source.
They sit here and say that grinding stones must have had a symbolic, ritual and political cultural connection to a certain region. So they ask what region could that be and then turn around and provide the answer right in their own paper in the 18,000 year old evidence of grinding stones to the South. Then they say that the area at Aswan was the main source of such grinding stones. Keeping in mind that Aswan is only 80 miles from Heirakonpolis and Wadi Kubbaniya only 10 miles from Aswan. And even more importantly Wadi Kubbaniya was part of the Halfan and Qadan Cultures which stretched between Aswan and the 2nd Cataract. And this is the same area from which the A-group emerged. And one of significant aspects of these groups is they used grinding stones to crush wild grain......
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: "Well if you want that Africans came to the Americans, why not also the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese and all other people who had some kind of naval technology? Seems that ancient Mexico must have had some big international harbor to receive all the guests that came there from all corners of the world."
I'm actually not opposed to this theory. The uninvited pale European was the one who crashed the party.
"Unfortunately we have not found any of those harbors yet, nor have we found any old world archaeological artifacts, or skeletons, or anything that show any contact between Africa (or Rome, or Greece, India or China) and precolumbian Mexico."
Ok tell ya what.. Since this thread is about ancient Khamet and the entirely of the post that I am responding to deals with Black Native Americans lets address these Black native American questions in this thread where the argument is already set up, and won't require a divestment from the original topic
As far as Khamet is concerned I'm going to assume that have conceded that it was a Pan African Bantu centered civilization, giving that you completely failed to respond to any of my last points on Khamet especially regarding the diffusion of agriculture from Nile Valley civilization into West Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The vikings were not black. The Scandinavian bronze age population (at least the farmers) were not black, we know that for sure since we have well preserved bodies with blonde hair.
Also there is no proof that neolithic Scandinavians were black. There is even no proof that the Scandinavian hunter gatherers or eastern hunter gatherers were black. The skeletons of Motala have been reconstructed as light skinned and light haired because their DNA. They had genes that code for light skin, and even light hair. They also have mutations that are connected with straight hair. The western hunter gatherers were darker. Probably as the picture you posted, even if that also is a guess work.
The first hunter gatherers migrated into Scandinavia about 14000 years ago in a short warm chronozone during the last part of the ice age, but the cold returned so they probably left again. Around 11700 years ago the climate got milder again and the people came back.
The western hunter gatherers came from the south, and soon after them eastern hunter gatherers came from the east, some came over the Cap of the North and others came trough Finland and the area of todays Baltic states.
The neolithic in Scandinavia starts around 4000 BC, but at that time agriculture had existed on the European continent for more than 1000 years.
Immigrants with the roots in the eastern steppes came to Scandinavia around 2800 BC with the battle axe culture.
The Scandinavian bronze age begins in the South around 1700 BC.
The viking age lasted between 800 AD (some say earlier since we have viking raids already 750 as shown by the Salme ships is Estonia) to about 1060.
And as said before, we have preserved bodies with blond hair at least during the bronze age. We have genes that can express light skin and hair already among Scandinavian hunter gatherers and of course among the neolithic peoples. You have no proof that those genes were not expressed and that those people were black africoids.
Honestly, I do not think that you know more about how ancient Scandinavian peoples looked than the Scandinavian researchers who examine their skeletons, and analyze their DNA, and whose research lay the foundation for the reconstructions of them. Are you an archaeologist? Or a geneticist? Have you ever conducted any research on any Scandinavian material (archaeological, osteological or genetic)?
It is always funny when foreigners try to define other peoples ancestors. I recommend you to visit here, visit our museums or universities, talk to our researchers. You might learn something.
Yeah, it is maybe better to return to the original subject of the thread.
A girl with the same clothes and the same color of her hair as some of the well preserved Danish human remains from the bronze age.
You don' have ANY EVIDENCE that they were pale. What you were attempting to do was be unscientific, and claim that a gene found in the Blackest of Africans TODAY which is also found in ancient European remains, SOMEHOW to you proves that these ancient Europeans were not Black.
But anyway like I said....create your thread about pre-Bronze Age pale Europeans. Let's see how far you get with that here lol.
posted
"Meaningless conjecture? The oldest pastoral traditions arose in the Sahara before the Nile Valley during the wet phase. That isn't conjecture."
Ok Doug, so how does this explain how the Ausarian religion;
" 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 almost identically (even pointy noses) to how the ancient Mesopotamians depicted themselves"
is practiced THROUGHOUT the NC speaking family. From Togo to Kenya. But guys according to Doug M....This is merely a pastorial tradition. lol To Black people reading this...Egyptsearch is full of non Black people IN DIGITAL BLACKFACE on a cointelpro mission to gaslight Black Americans from claiming our legacy. He's not being "objective" is he is GASLIGHTING. People who lie like Doug need to be ENTIRELY divested from.
Oh and "Archeopteryx" is a sock puppet account sent out to make DJhueti appear to be a Pro Black "good guy" in the debate. If you don't get tf out of here with that nonsense. These mf's think that they are slick lol.
posted
Still interesting that Egyptian writing did not spread to all parts of Africa. It spread to Nubia and Ethiopia, but seems not have spread to Central and South Africa. Also in most of West Africa it seems to have been absent.
We still wait for inscribed Egyptian or Nubian stelae in Congo or Nigeria.
One can compare with Europe where it spread from Southern Europe all the way up to Scandinavia (a local form, modelled from the Latin alphabet, is known already 2000 years ago, even if the more common version of the Latin alphabet came in use much later in Scandinavia).
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Djheuti's sock puppet...STFU and respond to this post that you ran from twice;
"Start out by responding to the shyt that you ran from in the other thread;
lol No I don't. The evidence speaks for itself supreme cultural continuity from Khamet into contemporary Equatorial Africa and vicinity. Once again we see the Khametic religion on display among peoples in Western Africa supporting a migration from Nile Valley civilization.
The Nok civilization was the first agricultural civilization in West Africa, and that only makes sense as even admitted by White academia to have diffused from Nile Valley civilization;
The History of Crop Cultivation in West Africa: A Bibliographical Guide M. A. Havinden
You have agriculture coming from Nile Valley civilization, and you have Nile Valley religion coming into Western Africa as a result of a wholescale movement of people between 2,000 and 1,500 BC. Now is there context behind why there may have been a migration during this period? Did the Hyksos dominate parts of Khamet and the Sinai which were formerly owned by natives? There were natives in that region despite the bulk of the peoples being in the south. We know that because the Hyksos were reportedly brutal to the natives in the region. So we have a circumstance (hostile takeover/war) that warrants a migration of people during the period when the Nok (& Olmec ) civilization begins to spring up.
"Tracing the Bantu Expansion from its source"
The Greenbergian theory of the Bantu migration from Cameroon has been debunked on every level. No genetic evidence from early West-Central African to Southern suggest the presence of the Bantu. Not not to mention it FAILS to explain why E-M2 dominates the Western Sahara as well. Archaeology nor ecology supports this theory. Not to mention NO BANTU'S claim this Greenbergian theory of their origin. Here is the criticism of the theory that was OMMITED in the final version of UNESCO 1974;
[i]UNESCO deleted S. Lwanga-Lunyiigo on 'Bantu movement' from the paperback. Even in the 1988 they apologized for printing SLL's original contribution which begins:
"Basing my conclusion on archaeological evidence, I suggested recently that the speakers of Bantu languages occupied from very early times a broad swath of territory running from the Great Lakes region of East Africa to the shores of the Atlantic in Zaire and that the supposed movement of Bantu speakers from West Africa to central, eastern, and southern Africa did not take place. [24]" [24] Lwanga-Lunyiigo, S. (1976) The Bantu problem reconsidered Current Anthropology 17,2, pp. 282-6"
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Still interesting that the art of writing did not spread to all parts of Africa. It spread to Nubia and Ethiopia, but seems not have spread to Central and South Africa. Also in most of West Africa it seems to have been absent.
We still wait for inscribed Egyptian or Nubian stelae in Congo or Nigeria.
One can compare with Europe where it spread from Southern Europe all the way up to Scandinavia (a local form, modelled from the Latin alphabet, is known already 2000 years ago, even if the more common version of the Latin alphabet came in use much later in Scandinavia).
This is where wyte people/Typhonians stood in ancient Khamet
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Still interesting that the art of writing did not spread to all parts of Africa. It spread to Nubia and Ethiopia, but seems not have spread to Central and South Africa. Also in most of West Africa it seems to have been absent.
We still wait for inscribed Egyptian or Nubian stelae in Congo or Nigeria.
One can compare with Europe where it spread from Southern Europe all the way up to Scandinavia (a local form, modelled from the Latin alphabet, is known already 2000 years ago, even if the more common version of the Latin alphabet came in use much later in Scandinavia).
Nsibidi is a script native to West Africa that dates back to 400 AD.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: "Meaningless conjecture? The oldest pastoral traditions arose in the Sahara before the Nile Valley during the wet phase. That isn't conjecture."
Ok Doug, so how does this explain how the Ausarian religion;
" 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 almost identically (even pointy noses) to how the ancient Mesopotamians depicted themselves"
is practiced THROUGHOUT the NC speaking family. From Togo to Kenya. But guys according to Doug M....This is merely a pastorial tradition. lol To Black people reading this...Egyptsearch is full of non Black people IN DIGITAL BLACKFACE on a cointelpro mission to gaslight Black Americans from claiming our legacy. He's not being "objective" is he is GASLIGHTING. People who lie like Doug need to be ENTIRELY divested from.
Oh and "Archeopteryx" is a sock puppet account sent out to make DJhueti appear to be a Pro Black "good guy" in the debate. If you don't get tf out of here with that nonsense. These mf's think that they are slick lol.
Big O, I am going to say it again, African history is over 200,000 years old and many of the traditions common to the Nile and other parts of Africa is because of a shared common history that is thousands of years old. That does not mean that some modern groups of Africans outside of the Nile have not been influenced by the culture of the Nile Valley. That is not my point and I have said this numerous times yet you keep responding to me like you are trying to prove that all African history and culture starts in the Nile Valley. NO IT DOES NOT.
Period.
quote: Ounjougou is the name of a lieu-dit found in the middle of an important complex of archaeological sites in the Upper Yamé Valley on the Bandiagara Plateau, in Dogon Country, Mali. The Ounjougou archaeological complex consists of over a hundred sites. The analysis of many layers rich in archaeological and botanical remains has enabled establishment of a major chronological, cultural and environmental sequence crucial to understand settlement patterns in the Inland Niger Delta and West Africa. Ounjougou has yielded the earliest pottery found in Africa, and is believed to be one of the earliest regions (along with East Asia) in which the independent development of pottery occurred.
...
Early Holocene (>9500 BC-6750 BC) At the onset of the Holocene, pottery appears early at Ounjougou, during the first half of the 10th millennium BC. The region was then confronted with the return of more humid conditions linked to a rapid return of the monsoons after the Younger Dryas and the development of an open grassland savanna on the Bandiagara Plateau. In this context, populations made pottery characterized especially by small bowls and imprinted décors. The appearance of pottery at Ounjougou is associated with a small bifacial point lithic industry. These innovations are quite likely linked to environmental changes during the establishment of tropical savannas during the Early Holocene, the new composition of hunted fauna that resulted and the development of edible wild grasses. This phase thus probably coincides with the establishment of a form of proto-agricultural economy, consisting of a strategy of selective and intensive gathering of grasses. In the layers dated to the 8th mill. BC, the pottery is also associated with grinding materials (grindstones and crushers). This occupation phase at Ounjougou was thus associated with an early Neolithic.
Following the Ogolian period, between the late 10th millennium BCE and early 9th millennium BCE, the creators of the Ounjougou pottery – the earliest pottery in Africa – migrated, along with their pottery, from Ounjougou, Mali into the Central Sahara. Whether or not Ounjougou ceramic culture spread as far as Bir Kiseiba, Egypt, which had pottery that resembled Ounjougou pottery, had implements used for grinding like at Ounjougou, and was followed by subsequent ceramic cultures (e.g., Wadi el Akhdar, Sarurab, Nabta Playa), remains to be determined. The emergence and expansion of ceramics in the Sahara may be linked with the origin of both the Round Head and Kel Essuf rock art, which occupy rockshelters in the same regions (e.g., Djado, Acacus, Tadrart) as well as have a common resemblance (e.g., traits, shapes). In the Central Sahara, the Kel Essuf Period and Round Head Period were followed by the Pastoral Period. As a result of increasing aridification of the Green Sahara, Central Saharan hunter-gatherers and cattle herders may have used seasonal waterways as the migratory route taken to the Niger River and Chad Basin of West Africa.
posted
Just some words by Jock M. Agai from the Department of Religion, Philosophy and Classics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, who has looked at alleged connections between Ancient Egypt and Nigeria.
quote: In conclusion this research accepts the following:
The Yorubas have a high regard for the Oduduwa legend and many of them see the legend as the most preferred means with regard to understanding their origins, their main influencers and their earliest system of monarchical governance. Oduduwa, his sons Kukuwa and Gogobiri, could not have been the original ancestors of the Yorubas or the Hausas. Yoruba legend teaches that there were people living in Yorubaland before Oduduwa's arrival (Johnson 1921:4), but the identity of these people is unknown. Also, information concerning preferred routes and the exact distances that Oduduwa20 and his followers assumedly travelled to Nigeria and to Yorubaland is not known hence the Yoruba or Oduduwa legend did not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the Egyptians migrated to Nigeria.
The ancient Egyptians were not known to be too keen about travelling and to adapt so much to foreign cultures (Burland 1957:62-63). Trade, adventure and escape from wars might have led some of them to travel to other parts of the world, but travelling to stay in other countries seemed not to be one of their preferences. Furthermore, the absence of a known and generally acceptable descendant of Egyptians in Nigeria suggests that the Egyptians did not live in Nigeria permanently. The very few historical records supporting possible visits of very few Egyptians into northern Nigeria and not Yorubaland, show that those possible visits were mostly done sometime from the 11th century CE onwards when humans had already developed advanced means of travel. Yet, there is no evidence that those Egyptians left specific landmarks that indicated their presence in Nigeria.
No one knows precisely the origins of the methods of specialised bronze and brass castings in Nigeria, and the reasons for the similarities between the Nok terracottas (500 BCE - 200 CE), the art from Igbo-Ukwu near Enugu (Shinnie 1965:80-81), and the Yoruba art that produced the famous Ife bronze heads and those of ancient Egyptians (Clark 1970:214-216). These arts found in Nigeria might have been produced independently of any foreign culture and that is why 'archaeologists are looking at the possibility that West Africans developed iron-working technology autonomously, possibly starting with the Nok' (Atwood 2013:14).
Early 20th century writers of Yoruba history like Johnson (1921), Lucas (1948, 1970) and Parrinder (1951) all suggest that the Egyptians migrated to Yorubaland particularly during the predynastic and dynastic periods and their speculation is based on the existence of certain cultures shared by the Yorubas and the Egyptians. These three authors together with Frobenius (1913) who in particular is of the opinion that Etruscan culture passed through North Africa to Yorubaland, have not been able to provide any archaeological evidence which supports their hypothesis. In the view of this researcher, the cultures shared between the Yorubas and the Egyptians together with the civilisations of the Yorubas might have been developed independently in accordance with their specific environmental formations or the Yorubas might have learnt and developed those cultures from a specific source alongside the Egyptians.
It makes sense to believe that the search for gold, other minerals, black slaves and the escape from wars prompted some ancient Egyptians to emigrate temporarily from Egypt to other parts of the Semitic world and to Africa as well. Even if they had temporarily and possibly only visited northern Nigeria, yet, there might have been only very few of them and they did not leave any evidence to this claim. There is clearly no evidence that the ancient Egyptians visited or lived in Yorubaland. This research is open for further interpretation and re-interpretation especially with regard to the search for further evidence that the ancient Egyptians had contact with the ancient Nigerians either in Nigeria or in Egypt before the advent of Christianity.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) civilization begins to spring up. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic