posted
From the Egyptian book of the dead, Confessions from The Book of the Great Awakening. I noticed nine Akan names? Namely; Anu, Fanti, Khememu, Tebu, Hensu, Maati, Per-Menu, Tutu and Ati.
Since these names are for the dead to introduce themselves in the after-life, with so many Akan names, more than half in fact, isn't the book of the dead telling us that the ancient Egyptians are the Akan people of West Africa?
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't say the Akan are THE Egyptians. They are a subgroup among many. For some reason, even some African centered scholars, assume that Ta-Meri was a monolingual and monolithic culture. That is not the case. I am doing some research and formulating a method on how to isolate what languages were spoken primarily in specific nomes using Waset (thebes) as a starting point.
I start there because the God MUNTU was centered there and MUNTU is a God from Rwanda to South Africa. Also at the center of worship in Waset is the god IMANI (Amen) which is primarily worshiped today (under that name) in the Kongo and in Rwanda.
So I will try to isolate a specific text and see if I can read it using one of the languages that is spoken in the mentioned areas. If not, I will try using common Bantu.
We know that the Bantu were in ancient Egypt because in their texts they have BATU (another form of bantu) as a place name for the Sudan. Also, you have the very terms MUNTU, MTU, NTU and UNTU in the Egyptian language.
UNTU - things (AE and Bantu) UNTU - men, women, people (AE and Bantu MUNTU - Warrior God from Thebes (see Budge). Also see placed Temples Bantu Philosophy as well as Johanz' MUNTU for documentation that states MUNTU is not only the name for a human being but for GOD.
Also in the Egyptian language you have the term "gnbtw" which means a foreigner of Pwnet (Punt - Buntu). In Kiswahili the term is KIGENI BATU. In Common Bantu it is simply GENI BATU; both meaning foreigner. To be specific the transliteration is "other people."
As you can see, it's not as simple as isolating one people. The Nile Valley civilizations are the result of various African nations coming together during and after the drying of the Sahara (Kayinga in Kikongo).
If I were you I would study the following people: Songye, Great Zimbabwe, Gala [Sine Delta], Fang, Zulu, Batchuana, Lamba, Yaga [Bayaka], Bakons [Bakongo], Lunda kingdom, Wanyamwezi [M’Siri], Lulua, Bena Konji, Kanyok, Kalundwe, Hemba, Basanga of Katanga, and the First Luba Empire.
I am also currently working on a document that proves HERW should be pronounced something like OSHULU and the word ZULU and HERU are one and the same. So the Heru kings may have been early Zulu warriors.
Also for your studies, if you don't already have it, you might want to look into Dr. Nana Banchie Darkwah's book The Africans Who Wrote The Bible. The focus of this book is to prove that the Egyptians and the Isrealites (Asrae) are in fact Akan (Ga, Adangbe, etc.).
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I wouldn't say the Akan are THE Egyptians. They are a subgroup among many.
You mean different African tribes came together to build ancient Egypt? Sorry, but Africa does not work like that. Tribes simply don't mix and cooperate like that in Africa. Tribalism is real and lethal on the Africa continent.
I can see an argument of one ethnic group, say Akan, starting a kingdom, being dominant and ruling over as well as having in subjugation other less powerful African ethnic groups to form the kingdom of ancient Egypt but to have them working in tandem to build ancient Egypt? NO WAY! It just wouldn't work. People don't work like that anywhere in the world to start their kingdoms.
quote: For some reason, even some African centered scholars, assume that Ta-Meri was a monolingual and monolithic culture. That is not the case.
They are absolutely right. Great kingdoms civilizations are usually started by a monolingual and monolithic culture. Kingdoms or Empires do not come about through alliances of different ethnicities. It is usually done by a monolithic culture and others join in later through subjugation in war or alliances.
quote: We know that the Bantu were in ancient Egypt because in their texts they have BATU (another form of bantu) as a place name for the Sudan. Also, you have the very terms MUNTU, MTU, NTU and UNTU in the Egyptian language.
UNTU - things (AE and Bantu) UNTU - men, women, people (AE and Bantu MUNTU - Warrior God from Thebes (see Budge). Also see placed Temples Bantu Philosophy as well as Johanz' MUNTU for documentation that states MUNTU is not only the name for a human being but for GOD.
Interesting! I can recognize the names as Akan as well. That defeats the notion that those names are Bantu; doesn't it?
Isn't the ANU credited as being the founders of ancient Egypt? Guess what, 'ANU' is an Akan word. Likewise ancient Egypt big city name like Tanis and Memphis are obvious anglicized Akan names like Memphe and Tani.
The after-life is the beginning of a new life so the information buried with the dead is crucial to identify the dead person for him or her to start the new life in the after-life. Therefore if Bantu was in ancient Egypt, shouldn't there be Bantu names in the Egyptian book of the dead? Why are Bantu names missing in this crucial area that identifies the ancient Egyptian but instead the book of the dead is dominated by Akan names, WHY? The dead ancient Egyptians wants to be identified even in death so in the book of the dead, they shout out loud and clear; 'We are AKAN!"
Here is something else to ponder on; if the Bantu were in ancient Egypt what happened to their knowledge of writing things down pictorially? You may be interested to know the Akan on the hand hand, have pictorial writing aka hieroglyphics handed down the generations to this present day.
All the evidence points to AKAN than any other group as the ancient Egyptians.
quote: As you can see, it's not as simple as isolating one people. The Nile Valley civilizations are the result of various African nations coming together during and after the drying of the Sahara (Kayinga in Kikongo).
No I can not see it at all. In fact it is rather a nonsense to me, to say different African tribes came together to build ancient Egypt, because as I already pointed out, no great kingdom that became a civilization on this earth was ever built like that. Great kingdoms that become great civilizations are usually started by one monolingual and monolithic culture. Other people might join in later but they would all not be present at the beginning and working together to build the kingdom.
quote: Also for your studies, if you don't already have it, you might want to look into Dr. Nana Banchie Darkwah's book The Africans Who Wrote The Bible. The focus of this book is to prove that the Egyptians and the Isrealites (Asrae) are in fact Akan (Ga, Adangbe, etc.).
Dr. Nana Banchie Darkwah book is very is very inaccurate. One minute he claims the Akan are the ancient Egyptians and in another breath claims they are the Hebrews as well. Ga-Adangbe may be Hebrews but Ga-Adangbe's are not Akan. Do you see the problem? As I said, Dr. Nana Banchie Darkwah book is very inaccurate.
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I won't waste my time with your inaccurate response as you know nothing of Africa. Today the Ga-Asafo, the Dangbe-Asafo and the E-Gbe people have all come together before colonialism to become the Ga-Adangbe people of Ghana. According to Credo Mutwa and Jordan Ngabane, there used to be a Great Ba-Ntu nation in the Sudan. This is confirmed by the Egyptians who have on record the name BATU for the Sudan as a place name for a nation. BATU is another form of BANTU. It is the BANTU nations that comprised the Nubian nations which gave rise to Pharaonic Egypt (see Questal evidence).
This nonsense of Africans and tribalism is just unintelligble gibberish from someone who has never visited the continent nor spoken with African people. I won't waste my time on the other nonsense you typed. You don't even know the basics of the UNION OF THE TWO LANDS (civilizations) coming together to create Pharaonic Egypt. That's basic.
"I only debate my equals. All others I teach" - John Henrik Clarke
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I won't waste my time with your inaccurate response as you know nothing of Africa. Today the Ga-Asafo, the Dangbe-Asafo and the E-Gbe people have all come together before colonialism to become the Ga-Adangbe people of Ghana.
Wow! ROTFLMBAO! Hehehehehe. This is incredibly funny and you rather call my earlier intelligent response inaccurate? Wow and double WOW!
Do you know what the word, 'ASAFO' means at all my clueless friend? Let me educate you. It means warrior. So according to you the Ga-warriors and the Dangbe warriors came together to form the Ga-Adangbe people. This must have been a first, that is, warriors coming together to start a new ethnic group. LOL!
Listen up. First of all I am a Ghanaian and the Ga-adangbe is a tiny small section of a bigger ethnic group, my ethnic group. In fact the Ga-adangbe is a very tiny minority. I doubt if they even come to a million people. Africa is made up of a billion people and you wanna focus on a million people to tell us who we are? You must be CRAZY!
Furthermore there is nothing like Ga-Asafo or Dangbe Asafo coming together to form Ga-Adangbe. The Ga Adangbe has always been one homogeneous sub group within a bigger ethnic group spread across West Africa. They are called various names depending on where you encounter them. For example, in Ghana they are called, Ga, Ada, Krobo. In Togo, Nigeria and Benin (formerly Dahomey) they are know as the 'GE or GENYI.'
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: According to Credo Mutwa and Jordan Ngabane, there used to be a Great Ba-Ntu nation in the Sudan. This is confirmed by the Egyptians who have on record the name BATU for the Sudan as a place name for a nation. BATU is another form of BANTU. It is the BANTU nations that comprised the Nubian nations which gave rise to Pharaonic Egypt (see Questal evidence).
IRRELEVANT. Stop throwing up smoke screens to hide the fact that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
So there was a civilization in Africa called the BATU did you see anywhere that the ancient Egyptians claiming to be BATU or they came from the BATU? Rather what you have is the book of the dead which is there to advice the deceased of his identity in the after-life and in it, you have clear AKAN names and not a single BATU name.
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: This nonsense of Africans and tribalism is just unintelligble gibberish from someone who has never visited the continent nor spoken with African people. I won't waste my time on the other nonsense you typed. You don't even know the basics of the UNION OF THE TWO LANDS (civilizations) coming together to create Pharaonic Egypt. That's basic.
"I only debate my equals. All others I teach" - John Henrik Clarke
Deal with REALITY my brother. That is the faster way of getting at the truth and knowledge. As you have seen so far, compared to you, I know what I am talking about. YOU DON'T!
We have nearly two thousand languages in Africa and you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that African tribalism does not exist? You must be mad. It is alive and well. It has always been and that explains all the tensions and wars that frequently plague the African continent. Do you remember the genocide in Rwanda? Guess what led to it. Given this background it is only the UNINFORMED or the DREAMER that would say ancient Egypt was built by a collection of different ethnic groups in Africa coming together to build a kingdom.
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nonsense. The kingdoms in West Africa that became empires were multi-ethnic in composition of both common citizens and government officials.
quote:Originally posted by Energy:
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I wouldn't say the Akan are THE Egyptians. They are a subgroup among many.
You mean different African tribes came together to build ancient Egypt? Sorry, but Africa does not work like that. Tribes simply don't mix and cooperate like that in Africa. Tribalism is real and lethal on the Africa continent.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was the direct result of colonizers applying Speke's Hamitic hypothesis on the colonized who found themselves forced into new Tutsi or Hutu classifications quite arbitrarily by calipres and cattle count no matter which class they previously belonged to.
Before colonization classification was fluid with movement in both directions Tutsi <---> Hutu then made rigid and requiring ID cards to verify who was who.
quote:Originally posted by Energy: ... you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that African tribalism does not exist? You must be mad. It is alive and well. It has always been and that explains all the tensions and wars that frequently plague the African continent. Do you remember the genocide in Rwanda? Guess what led to it.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Nonsense. The kingdoms in West Africa that became empires were multi-ethnic in composition of both common citizens and government officials.
Hi alTakruri, thanks for joining in the discussion. Here is the problem, according to you, "The kingdoms in West Africa that became empires were multi-ethnic in composition of both common citizens and government officials."
My question is, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? If that is how Africans operated in the past how come they were not operating like that in recent memory? How come there is no reference to what you say in their oral history? And as I keep pointing out to Asar Imhotep , where on this planet, in history, did different ethnic groups come together to start a kingdom?
Please provide evidence to back up your claim that this phenomena that never happened anywhere else on this planet did happen in Africa. Don't just label logical questions ; 'NONSENSE,' and then leave it at that, provide evidence to show that is how Africans used to operate in the past.
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: It was the direct result of colonizers applying Speke's Hamitic hypothesis on the colonized who found themselves forced into new Tutsi or Hutu classifications quite arbitrarily by calipres and cattle count no matter which class they previously belonged to.
Before colonization classification was fluid with movement in both directions Tutsi <---> Hutu then made rigid and requiring ID cards to verify who was who.
LOL! Now this where I would use the word "NONSENSE," to describe everything you have said.
Now notice I explain why what you say is "NONSENSE!" Nonsense in the sense that Africans were at each others throat CONSTANTLY, long before the European colonizers set foot in Africa. The white man simply took advantage of the war and chaos created by the Africans themselves and simply moved in and took over. That is the gospel truth.
For example, Chaka the Zulu did not go round slaughtering fellow Africans as cattle because of instigation by any white man.
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too bad for you I place no credence in the Gospels nor on the typical non-African mindset that makes a monolith of the diverse peoples and cultures of the African continent and employs the paradigm of savage tribesmen mindlessly indulging bloodlust in ageless perenial tribal warfare. I mean like wtf is tribal war anyway? How does it differ from plain old war?
What does Chaka, of another era and ethnicity, have to do with Tutsi, Hutu, Speke and his Hamitic hypothesis?
Have you ever read any Lacustrine Africans' own take on the genocide against colonial mandated "Tutsi?" No, huh? I didn't think so because I've only reported what they have to say about the matter.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: It was the direct result of colonizers applying Speke's Hamitic hypothesis on the colonized who found themselves forced into new Tutsi or Hutu classifications quite arbitrarily by calipres and cattle count no matter which class they previously belonged to.
Before colonization classification was fluid with movement in both directions Tutsi <---> Hutu then made rigid and requiring ID cards to verify who was who.
LOL! Now this where I would use the word "NONSENSE," to describe everything you have said.
Now notice I explain why what you say is "NONSENSE!" Nonsense in the sense that Africans were at each others throat CONSTANTLY, long before the European colonizers set foot in Africa. The white man simply took advantage of the war and chaos created by the Africans themselves and simply moved in and took over. That is the gospel truth.
For example, Chaka the Zulu did not go round slaughtering fellow Africans as cattle because of instigation by any white man.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Pick up any recent serious book on West African history. Question: what ethnicity was Askia Muhammed of Songhai?
Oh come on, don't be like this. If you have the evidence as requested why don't you simply post it so that we can discuss it?
Now what about Askia the great' ethnicity? Wasn't his mother the sister of the previous King Sunni Ali?
How does his usurping of the Songhai throne support your theory that a collection of different ethnic groups in Africa coming together to build a kingdom from scratch?
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Too bad for you I place no credence in the Gospels nor on the typical non-African mindset that makes a monolith of the diverse peoples and cultures of the African continent and employs the paradigm of savage tribesmen mindlessly indulging bloodlust in ageless perenial tribal warfare. I mean like wtf is tribal war anyway? How does it differ from plain old war?
What does Chaka, of another era and ethnicity, have to do with Tutsi, Hutu, Speke and his Hamitic hypothesis?
Have you ever read any Lacustrine Africans' own take on the genocide against colonial mandated "Tutsi?" No, huh? I didn't think so because I've only reported what they have to say about the matter.
Am I to take this drivel you just posted as an admission to the fact that you don't have any evidence to back this claim of yours that different ethnicities came together to start the ancient Egyptian Empire?
Nice try. Give it up because this theory of different ethnicities in Africa coming together to start a kingdom - ancient Egypt is a fallacy.
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The conquest theory of civilization is patently absurd and was abandoned even before the turn of this millenium.
Although I didn't post it current scholarship attests to a variety of African peoples descending on the Lower Nile Valley to in time birth pre-dynastic Egypt. Now I'll not spoonfeed you or anyone. I expect each capable of conducting the necessary homework on their own after I drop my hints.
In any event you can use YAHOO! search engine to find my points of view on topics that interest you. I don't engage in debates (which are contests) I broach or join in on discussions (shared learning).
quote:Originally posted by Energy:
Am I to take this drivel you just posted as an admission to the fact that you don't have any evidence to back this claim of yours that different ethnicities came together to start the ancient Egyptian Empire?
Nice try. Give it up because this theory of different ethnicities in Africa coming together to start a kingdom - ancient Egypt is a fallacy. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The conquest theory of civilization is patently absurd and was abandoned even before the turn of this millenium.
According to you, 'the conquest theory of civilization is patently absurd.' Sorry but you are grossly misinformed. All the great civilizations on this planet were formed based on this pattern of conquest and subjugation by one monolingual and monolithic culture. Examples are the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonish Empire, ancient Greece, the Roman Empire and quite recently the British Empire. The pattern is alway the same. The Kingdom that mushrooms into Empire is started by a monolingual and monolithic culture. That is how things have always been everywhere on this planet. Ancient Egypt being the mother of all these civilizations would have followed this pattern hence the other civilizations that followed it would have simply copied their example.
quote: Although I didn't post it current scholarship attests to a variety of African peoples descending on the Lower Nile Valley to in time birth pre-dynastic Egypt.
In other words what you have is speculation by some academic on how ancient Egypt started as a Kingdom even though the evidence of life among the African people says that is not the case.
Even if I wish to be magnanimous and allow room for your speculations, the problem is, such speculation changes with new evidence and so it is not reliable. For example, it was not long ago that humans had various theories about the shape of the earth and the fact that if one journeyed too far into the horizon, one would actually fall off the earth.
No I don't deal with speculation. If you say ancient Egypt was not started by a monolingual and monolithic culture, the way kingdoms have always been started from the time of Adam, then you have to show the evidence to the contrary and not base your theory on speculation or conjecture.
quote:Now I'll not spoonfeed you or anyone. I expect each capable of conducting the necessary homework on their own after I drop my hints.
LOL! Yet another admission that you simply have no evidence to back up your theory huh? Give it up bro. Just give it up. Why don't you just admit defeat?
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Could you please tell us what do the aforementioned names do mean in Akan nowadays?
quote:Originally posted by Energy: From the Egyptian book of the dead, Confessions from The Book of the Great Awakening. I noticed nine Akan names? Namely; Anu, Fanti, Khememu, Tebu, Hensu, Maati, Per-Menu, Tutu and Ati.
Since these names are for the dead to introduce themselves in the after-life, with so many Akan names, more than half in fact, isn't the book of the dead telling us that the ancient Egyptians are the Akan people of West Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: Hello Energy,
Could you please tell us what do the aforementioned names do mean in Akan nowadays?
Hi MIDOGBE,
Anu in Akan means mouth
Fanti is the name of a large section of Akan people in the Central Region of Ghana.
Khem means either to divide or shout.
Tebu is also the name of an Akan town in Ghana
Maati means I heard
Per-Me means to like me
Menu means inside of me
Tutu means to uproot.
Incidentally the founder of the Asante Empire is called Osei-TUTU.
Ati means torn.
Someone also mentioned, 'MUNTU.' Muntu means to ask people to move out.
As you can see these are clear Akan words. You can cross reference the meanings I have given you with any Akan person you know. What is amazing is that given that language evolves, those Akan words in the Egyptian book of the dead can be recognized after thousands of years after they were first spoken by the ancestors of the Akan. Simply amazing!
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Why do you have to start a new thread on the same subject when it is being discussed here? Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
U r one sad case. What is it you are huffing and puffing with those misconceptions of urs.
Me huffing and puffing? Put the crack-pot down friend, it is making you hallucinate because I don't recall huffing and puffing anywhere in this discussion
quote:I am ready to make your day.
Good! Give me your best shot.
quote:Now answer...what ethnicity was the Mel empire?
LOL! ROTFLMBAO! Mel Empire? Never heard of it. I can see you still puffing on that crack-pot
quote:How many ethnicities were in the Sokoto empire?
Oh dear, I thought you said you are here to make my day and here you are making a complete ass of yourself?
Do you understand what is being discussed at all? Now pay attention bwoy. The subject is whether a kingdom is started by a monolingual and monolithic culture or not.
We are not discussing how many ethnicities end up in a kingdom AFTER it has been formed and in existence. Do you get it now? To give you an idea of what I am talking about, take the British empire for instance. It was started by the English. After the English started it you'd find many ethnicities have become part of the Empire through migration and other means to make the British Empire multi-ethnic. The question is not to do with how many ethnicities are in the British Empire but rather WHO STARTED IT.
quote: How many ethnicities made up the Oyo Kingdom? Dahomey?
How many ethnicities made up the Ngola Kingdom?
How many ethnicities made up the Ethiopian empire?
Same NONSENSE. Check my previous response.
quote: Bwoy with all that huffing and puffing of yours given the triteness of the issues involved, you do sound ignorant and showy.
Calm down now and learn from the wisdom of elder. And be civil abaout it...
Seriously Lion! Don't you think you should be listening to your own advice? Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread of yours is about Akan as Egyptians. The issue of the civilizations genesis deserves a thread of its own. Some folk will appreciate an on topic thread compared to one that meanders from one subject to another subject ...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This thread of yours is about Akan as Egyptians. The issue of the civilizations genesis deserves a thread of its own. Some folk will appreciate an on topic thread compared to one that meanders from one subject to another subject ...
Let me get this right. I have already dismissed this idea of yours that multiple ethnicities can come together to build a kingdom as a NONSENSE. I even went as far as explaining to you that NOWHERE in history on this planet has such a phenomena ever taken place let alone in Africa with it's thousands of different ethnicities who were constantly at each others throat. It simply wouldn't happen.
But here you are starting a completely new thread to discuss what I have dealt with and dismissed as RUBBISH. Why should I bother with the same thing after I have digested and vomited it out? CRAZY!
Tell you what you can do. Give me an example of any Kingdom here on this Earth in history that was started by this idea of yours and I would be convinced there is some substance to your claims. Until you do that, I would just continue to point out the fallacy in your claims and dismiss it out of hand as utter rubbish.
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This thread of yours is about Akan as Egyptians. The issue of the civilizations genesis deserves a thread of its own. Some folk will appreciate an on topic thread compared to one that meanders from one subject to another subject ...
There is this great book by this guy from Ghana titled "The Africans who wrote the bible"... It does an excellent exposition on the topic of this thread backed with copious evidence.
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There is this great book by this guy from Ghana titled "The Africans who wrote the bible"... It does an excellent exposition on the topic of this thread backed with copious evidence.
Lion!
Lion, no disrespect but you need to follow the discussion closely Bro. I have already addressed this book in this discussion. It is full of inaccuracies. I wouldn't quote anything in it if I were you. An example of a very glaring inaccuracy in the book is the author says Akans are the ancient Egyptians in one breath and in another breath, he claims the same Akans are the Hebrews. Even a baby a few months old knows that is not the case, cos the Israelites aka the Hebrews used to be slaves of the ancient Egyptians, hence the story and the countless movies about Moses and the ten commandments. Everybody knows the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Israelites were two separate people but Dr. Nana Banchie Darkwah gets something as basic as that, wrong in his book.
He may be right on Akans being the ancient Egyptians but he is dead wrong to say that that the same Akans somehow, metamorphosed into the ancient Israelites who wrote the Bible.
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Energy: He may be right on Akans being the ancient Egyptians but he is dead wrong to say that that the same Akans somehow, metamorphosed into the ancient Israelites who wrote the Bible.
Are "Ancient Israelites" really the authors of the Bible?
quote:Originally posted by Nay-Sayer: Are "Ancient Israelites" really the authors of the Bible?
I doubt it...
So why do you doubt it? Do you have any evidence to show the Hebrews did not write the Bible?
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There is this great book by this guy from Ghana titled "The Africans who wrote the bible"... It does an excellent exposition on the topic of this thread backed with copious evidence.
Lion!
Lion, no disrespect but you need to follow the discussion closely Bro. I have already addressed this book in this discussion. It is full of inaccuracies. I wouldn't quote anything in it if I were you. An example of a very glaring inaccuracy in the book is the author says Akans are the ancient Egyptians in one breath and in another breath, he claims the same Akans are the Hebrews. Even a baby a few months old knows that is not the case, cos the Israelites aka the Hebrews used to be slaves of the ancient Egyptians, hence the story and the countless movies about Moses and the ten commandments. Everybody knows the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Israelites were two separate people but Dr. Nana Banchie Darkwah gets something as basic as that, wrong in his book.
He may be right on Akans being the ancient Egyptians but he is dead wrong to say that that the same Akans somehow, metamorphosed into the ancient Israelites who wrote the Bible.
Energy
According to the old testament 12 sons of jacob went down as refugees into Egypt. 400 years later, after having increased to to 100s of thousands inside Egypt how can they be different people?
Take 12 Akans and drop them in Iceland and come back four hundred years later after they have would have married extensively if not exclusively amongst Icelandic women...does it sound like you would still meet the same Akan tribe?
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have Darkwah's book...and yes he seems wrong in a lot of things... but what do I know... The connections between Kemities and Hebrews seems more stronger if Dr Charles Finch is right...i posted this some time ago:
The Hebrew Adam is the first man in the image of God,the father of mankind,and the completion of creation. The Egyptian Atem is the first God in the image of man and the father of mankind through a self-creative act. the root "tem" in Atem means both "completion" and "mankind". the word "At" is an Egyptian name for "father". moreover we know that Adam the first namer of created things;the Egyptian "dem" means "to name"clearly there is an Egyptian parentage for Adam and he is to be equated to Atem. Adam's consort is Eve whose Hebrew name is"(C)Havvah"and who, in the Genesis, story is seduced by the Serpent. the name Havvah corresponds to the Egyptian "Hefa" who is the Great Mother Serpent of the world.There are several meaning to peeled back here: Eve-Havvah as Hefa is the is Serpent of Geneisis in it's form as the Great Mother but Adam-Atem is also the the Great Serpent.the Serpent of Genesis,then,is indubitably Eve in one aspect but Adam in another;Thus Adam and Eve are both humanized forms of the Great Cosmic Serpent.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for the long post guys but if any of you guys who I know have the skills to confirm,trash or adjust the language terms involved it would be greatly appreciated.
Ham one of the sons of Noah,is derived from from the Egyptian "Kam" which is the strongest word in the language for "black" or "blackness."Noah second son Shem or Sem is of course the eponymous ancestor of the Semitic people whom the Egyptians first encounter as nomads,fittingly the Egyptian"sem" means wonderer or traveler.Abram,his name can be analyzed in Egyptian as follows:"Ab" means father in Egyptian and "rem" mean the people,giving "Ab-rem" meaning literally,the father of the people.This is perfectly consistent with Abram's positon of patriach of two important branches of Semitic peoples Hebrews and Arabs.After making the covenent with God through circumcision Abram becomes Abraham and the letters of his name can be broken down as follows in Egyptian,"ib" is an egyptian word for "heart,disire,wisdom,"Ra" is the sun God Ra,and "im" means "fire or light," giving "Ib-Ra-Im"(remembering that Abraham is Ibrahima in Arabic)which means "the disire or wisdom of Ra's light or fire.Through this we can connect Abraham to Ra and it is Ra in Egyptian mythology who first institutes the rite of circumcision.This correspondences cannot possibly be coincidental and given the fact that Abrahams sorjourn in Egypt as discribed in Genesis and the cultural hegemony of Egypt over Wearern Asia,this makes him a devotee,a priest,or even a personification of Ra himself. the connection continues in the figure of Abraham's second son Isaac,which in Hebrew is Ysak.In Egyptian "Ys" means place and "akh" means offering by fire or burnt offering,giving "Ys-akh"or the "place of burnt offering" In the O.T story the out standing event of Issac life when he was about to sacrificed to God as a burnt offering.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Interestingly this Kemetic word "tutu", which is the late Kemetic/Coptic pronunciation of the name of the city of Busiris <ḏdw>= [djedu???] could well be compared to some toponyms related to Akan. British anthropologist Eva (LEVIN-RICHTER) MEYEROWITZ (1957), The Akan and Ghana, in Man, Vol. 57, (Jun., 1957), pp. 83-88, identified the place of origin of the Akan kingdom of Bono claimed to be Jedu or Njadum with an oasis called Jado in modern Libya as the cradle of matrilineal ancestors of the Akan. I still have to read more about it, but I am wondering why the most remote matrilineal Akan place of origin would be in modern Libya, not Kemet, where plethora of similar toponyms are found, such as Greek "Mendes" (Kemetic ḏd.t), as well as another place named ḏdw in the Fayum area (R. HANNIG (2001), Die Sprache der Pharaonen. Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, p.1411).
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The words the letters make are the same but are you supposing the meanings are the same in Akan and Egyptic for the given letter combinations?
quote:Originally posted by Energy: Anu in Akan means mouth
Fanti is the name of a large section of Akan people in the Central Region of Ghana.
Khem means either to divide or shout.
Tebu is also the name of an Akan town in Ghana
Maati means I heard
Per-Me means to like me
Menu means inside of me
Tutu means to uproot.
...
Ati means torn.
... Muntu means to ask people to move out.
As you can see these are clear Akan words. You can cross reference the meanings I have given you with any Akan person you know. What is amazing is that given that language evolves, those Akan words in the Egyptian book of the dead can be recognized after thousands of years after they were first spoken by the ancestors of the Akan. Simply amazing!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Energy writes (repeatedly) We have nearly two thousand languages in Africa and you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that African tribalism does not exist? You must be mad. It is alive and well. It has always been and that explains all the tensions and wars that frequently plague the African continent. Do you remember the genocide in Rwanda? Guess what led to it. Given this background it is only the UNINFORMED or the DREAMER that would say ancient Egypt was built by a collection of different ethnic groups in Africa coming together to build a kingdom.
If you study Narmer's tablet, it is clear that the unification of Ancient Egypt was not brought about through different African ethnic groups coming together peacefully - there was no Kumbaya moment; No, Ancient Egypt was united through armed struggle - military force - a protracted military struggle predating Narmer but culminating with his victory over the heterogeneous African nations dwelling within the Nile Valley and Delta regions...
After this victory, there were no long millenniums of political and ethnic harmony; Egyptian history is replete with struggles, even though it had achieved the ideological goal of creating a national Egyptian identity...
There are lessons in the formation of these African Civilizations; Kemet, Kush, Khami: Zimbabwe, Ghana, Mali, Songhay which are instructive in the context of modern day Africa...
a) all of these civilizations were multi-ethnic and came into existence through armed struggle...
b) are you not at all familiar with Shaka and the formation of the Zulu nation? Again, armed struggle...
and a great leap forward is made when the African stops thinking in the terms of European colonialism. For example, you speak of African nationalism, ethnic chauvinism as if it were an exclusive African phenomenon when, if you received a Western education, you should know that European "tribalism" is just as widespread and destructive; there is no distinction between German genocide and Rwandan genocide...
If folk had not cooperated to build civilization there wouldn't've been any states for Narmer to force under his submission.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Egypt didn't begin with Narmer
If folk had not cooperated to build civilization there wouldn't've been any states for Narmer to force under his submission.
Now...folks here...what does this incoherent statement have to do with my statement:
quote: If you study Narmer's tablet, it is clear that the unification of Ancient Egypt was not brought about through different African ethnic groups coming together peacefully - there was no Kumbaya moment; No, Ancient Egypt was united through armed struggle - military force - a protracted military struggle predating Narmer but culminating with his victory over the heterogeneous African nations dwelling within the Nile Valley and Delta regions...
I mean, what do we need here, a 'Dick & Jane' approach?:
--Once upon a time, in the ancient Nile valley, there dwelt many small and diverse African nations; each a fiefdom with its own gods and identities. Over time, there began a movement in the south to bring these various nations together into a single unified unit...this wasn't easy as each unit wanted to keep its independence...it could only be done through force; and so many battles took place in this long, long war of political unification until political unity was finally achieved under the king(s) Narmer and dynasty Egypt began...
posted
If something seems incoherent due to mental limitations one need simply ask for further clarification or expansion.
My meaning is quite obvious with or without lame attempts at ridicule. Egyptian civilization didn't magically bloom with Narmers' conquest, for had not both civilization and statehood already existed no unification could occur. But one needs to be beyond a primer level to grasp that given.
The civilization and polities of the Middle and Lower Nile Valleys arose from cooperation between at least three factors:
the indigenees
migrants from upriver
migrants from the once Green Sahara.
Statements predicated on tomfoolery cannot negate that fact. Try falsifying it and good luck with such misguided an effort.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri...jeeeez man, are you enjoying your game of fencing with yourself - intrigued with playing solitaire?
I'm talking about the process of the political unification of the Nile Valley and you're talking about the 'blooming of civilization!'
Ex: I'll state, for example, that the United States of America came into existence after a long nationalist war against the British and was culminated with the signing of the Articles of Confederation; a union which remained intact, despite a brutal civil war, until this day.
and then you respond with:
American civilization did not begin to bloom with the war of independence for there were the original colonies and blah, blah, blah
Do you not see that one is discussing apples and that the response is a discussion of oranges?
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wally stop playing with yourself before you go blind.
You're the one who moved away from the discussion going on between Energy and myself as to the origins of civilization and statehood. Energy positted that states only come about through a single ethnic group and conquest. I put up that their genesis can come about through multi-ethnic cooperation. Then you wander in, gender confused, singing girl scout camp songs and babbling something about wars occuring long after either civilization or state are founded.
quote: the unification of Ancient Egypt was not brought about through different African ethnic groups coming together peacefully
Are you playing stupid or are you really too slow to see the difference building states and taking over existing states that've already been built? We were discussing the former until you came out of left field.
So either shut up and admit that Egyptian civilization was built by a confluence of peoples or bring forth the evidence, so far lacking, that a single ethnicity built Egypt.
I know you'll do neither. What you will do is continue your inane clowning to cloud the issue. With you ad hominen and all you're rapidly becoming like these beneath notice trolls. You need to learn to comment on the topic instead of making snide remarks about the author of a post.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri...if you had actually taken the time to read what I said, you would know that my statement is in support of your own position vis-a-vis that of Energy's:
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
quote: Energy writes (repeatedly) We have nearly two thousand languages in Africa and you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that African tribalism does not exist? You must be mad. It is alive and well. It has always been and that explains all the tensions and wars that frequently plague the African continent. Do you remember the genocide in Rwanda? Guess what led to it. Given this background it is only the UNINFORMED or the DREAMER that would say ancient Egypt was built by a collection of different ethnic groups in Africa coming together to build a kingdom.
If you study Narmer's tablet, it is clear that the unification of Ancient Egypt was not brought about through different African ethnic groups coming together peacefully - there was no Kumbaya moment; No, Ancient Egypt was united through armed struggle - military force - a protracted military struggle predating Narmer but culminating with his victory over the heterogeneous African nations dwelling within the Nile Valley and Delta regions...
After this victory, there were no long millenniums of political and ethnic harmony; Egyptian history is replete with struggles, even though it had achieved the ideological goal of creating a national Egyptian identity...
There are lessons in the formation of these African Civilizations; Kemet, Kush, Khami: Zimbabwe, Ghana, Mali, Songhay which are instructive in the context of modern day Africa...
a) all of these civilizations were multi-ethnic and came into existence through armed struggle...
b) are you not at all familiar with Shaka and the formation of the Zulu nation? Again, armed struggle...
and a great leap forward is made when the African stops thinking in the terms of European colonialism. For example, you speak of African nationalism, ethnic chauvinism as if it were an exclusive African phenomenon when, if you received a Western education, you should know that European "tribalism" is just as widespread and destructive; there is no distinction between German genocide and Rwandan genocide...
...don't you see? Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know Wally if you'd just be straight up with the info and knowledge without trying to be semantically cute you'd be 1000% percent more understandable.
You also should know it's not about personalities, who is right or who is wrong, it's about the issue at hand and what support exists for the varying hypotheses surrounding the issue.
As far as civilizations being multi-ethnic at their start we do indeed agree but as to war being their progenitor we disagree. And disagreement is good because it's a catalst for free thought and further research.
While a conquerer very well can establish a new state by exploiting an existing society, I just can't figure how the arts of war create civilization.
I don't think I need to show that peaceful cooperation allows for the security, economy, and time to meld cultural advancements into civilization. I think that's a given.
Can you patiently explain to a dim wit like me how warfare makes for civilization to follow in its wake?
Thank you.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: alTakruri wrote: ...While a conquerer very well can establish a new state by exploiting an existing society, I just can't figure how the arts of war create civilization.
I don't think I need to show that peaceful cooperation allows for the security, economy, and time to meld cultural advancements into civilization. I think that's a given.
Can you patiently explain to a dim wit like me how warfare makes for civilization to follow in its wake?
again, this is a misrepresentation of what I said, or at least meant; that a study of history reveals that the *sine qua non for creating a great nation or civilization, especially an empire, is an armed struggle in order to create the conditions for a civilization to come into its own...
Now, I hate to answer a question with a question but:
- pick any era, any continent, any great nation and/or civilization that came into being NOT as a result of armed struggle - where indeed is this imaginary Utopia?
can you find a single one? --- *sine qua non: “Without which it could not be” (”but for”). It refers to an indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient.
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I ask are the people that lived in Kemet the Akan people? Because I know the word Kemet is the land not the people, so who were these people in Kemet?
Posts: 2 | From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Energy: From the Egyptian book of the dead, Confessions from The Book of the Great Awakening. I noticed nine Akan names? Namely; Anu, Fanti, Khememu, Tebu, Hensu, Maati, Per-Menu, Tutu and Ati.
Since these names are for the dead to introduce themselves in the after-life, with so many Akan names, more than half in fact, isn't the book of the dead telling us that the ancient Egyptians are the Akan people of West Africa?
posted
You wrote; "to introduce themselves in the after-life, with so many Akan names, more than half in fact"
Since you rightly noted that there were others, it may mean that the most active players may have been Akan (for that period). But just like any other nation today, it appears that Ancient Egypt was a very diverse state with specific language groups specialised in specific areas - My observation and translations from the antiquity through the Amarna period to about the 21st dynasties indicate very a strong Akan presence in the (main) believe and political concepts but there are many others concepts that may be deciphered better by others who understand other languages. Looks like there were many language groups but I believe African case "of being present in the beginning" could be more emphasized if they all agree on the one with a more powerful presence. That is what Europe did with the Greek and Roman presence in Egypt.
Posts: 4 | From: Accra | Registered: Dec 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I wouldn't say the Akan are THE Egyptians. They are a subgroup among many.
You mean different African tribes came together to build ancient Egypt? Sorry, but Africa does not work like that. Tribes simply don't mix and cooperate like that in Africa. Tribalism is real and lethal on the Africa continent.
I can see an argument of one ethnic group, say Akan, starting a kingdom, being dominant and ruling over as well as having in subjugation other less powerful African ethnic groups to form the kingdom of ancient Egypt but to have them working in tandem to build ancient Egypt? NO WAY! It just wouldn't work. People don't work like that anywhere in the world to start their kingdoms.
quote: For some reason, even some African centered scholars, assume that Ta-Meri was a monolingual and monolithic culture. That is not the case.
They are absolutely right. Great kingdoms civilizations are usually started by a monolingual and monolithic culture. Kingdoms or Empires do not come about through alliances of different ethnicities. It is usually done by a monolithic culture and others join in later through subjugation in war or alliances.
quote: We know that the Bantu were in ancient Egypt because in their texts they have BATU (another form of bantu) as a place name for the Sudan. Also, you have the very terms MUNTU, MTU, NTU and UNTU in the Egyptian language.
UNTU - things (AE and Bantu) UNTU - men, women, people (AE and Bantu MUNTU - Warrior God from Thebes (see Budge). Also see placed Temples Bantu Philosophy as well as Johanz' MUNTU for documentation that states MUNTU is not only the name for a human being but for GOD.
Interesting! I can recognize the names as Akan as well. That defeats the notion that those names are Bantu; doesn't it?
Isn't the ANU credited as being the founders of ancient Egypt? Guess what, 'ANU' is an Akan word. Likewise ancient Egypt big city name like Tanis and Memphis are obvious anglicized Akan names like Memphe and Tani.
The after-life is the beginning of a new life so the information buried with the dead is crucial to identify the dead person for him or her to start the new life in the after-life. Therefore if Bantu was in ancient Egypt, shouldn't there be Bantu names in the Egyptian book of the dead? Why are Bantu names missing in this crucial area that identifies the ancient Egyptian but instead the book of the dead is dominated by Akan names, WHY? The dead ancient Egyptians wants to be identified even in death so in the book of the dead, they shout out loud and clear; 'We are AKAN!"
Here is something else to ponder on; if the Bantu were in ancient Egypt what happened to their knowledge of writing things down pictorially? You may be interested to know the Akan on the hand hand, have pictorial writing aka hieroglyphics handed down the generations to this present day.
All the evidence points to AKAN than any other group as the ancient Egyptians.
quote: As you can see, it's not as simple as isolating one people. The Nile Valley civilizations are the result of various African nations coming together during and after the drying of the Sahara (Kayinga in Kikongo).
No I can not see it at all. In fact it is rather a nonsense to me, to say different African tribes came together to build ancient Egypt, because as I already pointed out, no great kingdom that became a civilization on this earth was ever built like that. Great kingdoms that become great civilizations are usually started by one monolingual and monolithic culture. Other people might join in later but they would all not be present at the beginning and working together to build the kingdom.
quote: Also for your studies, if you don't already have it, you might want to look into Dr. Nana Banchie Darkwah's book The Africans Who Wrote The Bible. The focus of this book is to prove that the Egyptians and the Isrealites (Asrae) are in fact Akan (Ga, Adangbe, etc.).
Dr. Nana Banchie Darkwah book is very is very inaccurate. One minute he claims the Akan are the ancient Egyptians and in another breath claims they are the Hebrews as well. Ga-Adangbe may be Hebrews but Ga-Adangbe's are not Akan. Do you see the problem? As I said, Dr. Nana Banchie Darkwah book is very inaccurate.
posted
Yes, I agree with you that tribes don't mix like that in Africa. But nations controlled by matrilineal empires (The Akan empire specifically as a very specific case) function exactly like ancient Egypt so long all pay their taxes.
In fact, the Akan God O'twa'di-ampong (O'Ptah'di-ampong) - omnipotent one who swallows his multiples (ie. gods) allows allows joining nations to bring their gods into the fold so long as they subscribe to Twah ( sounds like Ptah). I think we are dealing with a society (ancient though it is to us) which was far more complex than the state systems today before it's collapse. The other problem is that because the world is converging towards mono-lingual states, it appears to us that large and complex multilingual states were impossible - but the Akan empire (Then Koumasi, defined as Ashanti on paper) was exactly that trading with Spanish, Portuguese, Arabs etc until the British came and redefined them under single languages and dialects on paper during the colonial conquests and enforced their divergence through separate trade deals!
Posts: 4 | From: Accra | Registered: Dec 2018
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic