Forgive me for the title, but this is a very interesting book/
Joe Mintsa is a Fanghish native, citizen of the present Gabon. At the end of his studies of philology and American history from Libreville University in 1998, he migrated to England for further studies and intensive searching and thinking on the moral and political crises of his world. His determination to bring to surface the conceptual fallacies of Egyptology and Afrocentricity, to reach a more pragmatic understanding of the "African Condition" and spell out the true needs and aspirations of Africans in today’s world, took him into a totally different path as a thinker. "What is Wrong with Black People?" (2007) is the book that features the fullest extent of this philosophical discoveries.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
From what I read off goggle, this is a good book to think (brainstorm) about black history but it's mostly geared toward "egyptocentrists".
I think most people on this forum are already aware Ancient Egypt and Kush are only 2 kingdoms among many civilizations of Africa like Ashanti, Yoruba, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, etc.
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
There is nothing wrong with Afrocentricity. Afrocentric historians tell the truth about black contribution to World history. Afrocentric history also give the point of view of black people on world history.
The reason most Afrocentric people focus on Egypt is because it is the greatest, long lasting black civilization (3000 years)composed of many African ethnic groups who invented many things that became the foundation of modern civilization. Many Afrocentric books like Introduction To African Civilization by John G Jackson, The Destruction of Black Civilization by Chancellor William, When We Ruled by Robin Walker countains the history of Ancient Egypt and the history of many South of the Sahara African Kingdoms.
Joe Minta books looks like an interesting book about philosophy when he ask the question whats wrong?. He is probably wrong about Afrocentricity.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by mena7: There is nothing wrong with Afrocentricity.
The moderator says that the Egyptology forum is for mainstream Egyptology not afrocentric, afrocentric stuff is for AE froum
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
So why are you posting this in the Egyptology forum? Desperate to build up your post count?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: So why are you posting this in the Egyptology forum? Desperate to build up your post count?
No, the book is related to Egyptology
plus I feel sorry for the recent desolation of the place
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
This book's a rambling piece of ass that leaves me wondering what is wrong with Jo Mintsa, me and other people who've ignored it 8 yrs now.
This is another example of Tukular banishing ideas he doesn't agree with even if such ideas are Egypt related and intellectual (and AFRICAN !) he moved this thread out of Egyptology forum into Ancient Egypt forum > A 600+ page book, he has probably only read a few pages of
This is what is wrong with Black people we are too emotional to handle debate
long live AE, where some freedom of thought still exists
notice how he only gives you the sarcastic quote from the book and tries to pass it off as the stance. He strategically quoted page 575 because he knows that page 576 which concludes the thought and is the last page of the chapter is not availble at the link.
Read some of this book and judge for yourself, it is not something you can read in an hour
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar
ANNOUNCEMENT: This month's set of stickies ausar
Moderator Member # 1797
Rate Member posted 01 March, 2015 05:45 PM will be moderated per real life societal norms also any replies to them oblivious to the mainstream will be deleted without notice.
The above only applies to these stickied past threads that I want to preserve from ES' current deteriorated level.
For any who may be interested this set theme of stickies reflects the original Ancient Egypt and Egyptology forum pre-Nov 2004 I wasn't a member until Nov 2004.
Tukuler al~Takruri, the ardo
quote:Originally posted by mena7: I like the history books
When We Ruled by Robin Walker
Introduction To African Civilization by John G Jackson
Exiled Africans by Moustafa Gadalla
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Mena
Your list has non-Egyptology books so I am forced to delete your post.
Sorry
Even Gadalla's book is propaganda not history. He just puts native Egyptian clothes on Speke's Hamitic Hypothesis (sending them westward instead of southward).
Tukuler al~Takruri, the ardo
Admittedly because new threads in Egyptology are so rare now in ES forum a thread that for this reason lingers at the top of the page called "What is Wrong with Black People?" is annoying
But isn't that what attracts people to Egyptsearch?
Do we really think Egyptology students are going to come here?
Well, we'll see if by the end of March Great Sage's regime has sparked (spanked) a new day
And some of these recent African authors, they have new, not so predictable interetsing points of view and don't want to follow AA's perspectives or either camp of centrics on history
lioness productions till the casket drop Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: This book's a rambling piece of ass that leaves me wondering what is wrong with Jo Mintsa, me and other people who've ignored it 8 yrs now.
Also see> Dictionnaire Français-Fang / Fang-Français (en construction) By Joe Mintsa
AND
THIS BRUTHA IS NO JOKE
peace to the Fang
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Well, I myself, I did not have access to the next page. GOOGLE BOOKS previews varies displayable pages from country to county.
Damn, that next page is even stupider [sic] No wonder after 8yrs in print na boddy ne'er heard of it less lone anybody cites it. It is just a guy going into his rap.
I never seen a book so full of misinformation. He didn't publish with Lulu because of account reckonings. He published via Lulu because no established publishing house would accept his draft.
I hoped to discover more things Cook may've mistranslated in Diop but that chapter does little than argue the title of the English summation of two Diop books (African Origin of Civilization) uses the word African whereas the two works it abridges (Nations nègres et culture; Antériorité Des Civilisations Nègres) have Negres in their title. Trite!
Anyway, I say more power to Mintsa but his What is Wrong book sucks eggsesses It's just an opinionated rap that's all it is and why nobody knows or uses it.
The reason most Afrocentric people focus on Egypt is because it is the greatest, long lasting black civilization (3000 years)composed of many African ethnic groups who invented many things that became the foundation of modern civilization.
Well the more we learn about nubia or the region that is nubia the more we know that it was longest lasting civilization in world(8,000 or 10,000 years) that still exist and the nubia was greatest civilization.
I Would say egypt is the second greatest,but anyway all of it was/is native african culture/civilization.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Just going on the title of the text there is one immediate out a set of others.
African peoples world-wide fail in the area of cultural advancement because of an ongoing situation of "massive alienation". It is the set of ideas that humans hold individually and collectively that lead to dispositions then action/behaviour.
African people today, for the most part, are under the spell of 2 totalising and alienating ideologies: Christianty and Islam. Christianty entered Africa by way of the Roman Empire into North Africa( Coptic Christianity in Egypt and Ethiopia has its own explanation)an and the rest of Africa by way of European colonialism. The forcibly removed Africans from West Africa also fell under the sway of Christianity in the Americas--courtesy Spanish priest Bartolomo de las Casas, who recommended that Africans replace the already enslaved Native Americans as the heavy lifters for the European colonisation of the Americas.
The result is the Africans of the Americas swear by an alienating Christianity with a Jewish messiah as the God-head. Christ sprang from the traditions of the Talmud and Torah and is viewed to be not of African lineage. Europe embraced Chrstianity is now in total control of this ideology in its many dimensions. There is Roman Christianity, Protestant Christianity, the Greek Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox and the Coptic variety. It is only in the case of Candomble of Brazil that there seems to be a genuine syncretism of the metphysical Yoruba(Nigeria and Dahomey) and Kimbundu religions of the Congo.
Corollary point: when you adapt a metaphysical system of beliefs in order to avoid alienation, one should seek to own and control it. The West has done so in the case of Christianity. The chief Christian centres of power are Rome(the Vatican) and Canterbury(England). There is no centre of Christianity in Africa--and it just may nit be worth it, given that Christianity does not offer any guide to development and progress. Japan is not Christian nor are Korea and China.
Bottom line: the African entered Christianity both as a captive/slave or a colonial peon/slave--both equally in a supine position.
With Islam the same thing. The African entered Islam as Bilal the slave/servant of Muhammad. Yet Islam is embraced enthusiastically by African Muslims despite the fact that Arabs refer to Africans pejoratively as "abd"/slave. Massive unthinking and unreflecting alienation as Macca is the dream spiritual refuge for the African Muslim. Now Boko Haram is slavishly following Isis and begging for recognition. All this massive alienation of the African spirit is played by the stupid Islam/Christian wars in Nigeria, Central African Republic, Sudan. Incredibly ignorant and alienated Africans slaughter wantonly in the name of Arab Islam in places like Somalia, Egypt, Mali, etc.
Historical Europe adopted and now owns Christianity--now being replaced by scientific secularism. In Asia indigenous Buddhism and Hinduism are dominant. Islam and Christianity are minority religions. Only Africa is dominated by 2 alien religions and much to its disadvantage. In the Americas Christianity controls the minds of the vast majority of Africans. But Candomble and Vodun are ineffective given their inability to solve the massive problems faced by the Africans living as displaced persons in those areas. There is the impressive religion of Ancient Egypt but Africans just don't pay attention to it, preferring to follow the European and Arab in their versions of such. Alienation at its maximum here.
It is on account of this ongoing alienation that the African turns to the European and the Arab for his/her salvation both in the spiritual and material worlds.
So "what is wrong with black people"? The 2 examples above are a good starting point.
This is the extent to which Joseph and Yusuf both have a serious problem.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
lamin says: Bottom line: the African entered Christianity both as a captive/slave or a colonial peon/slave --both equally in a supine position.
^^Nonsense. In fact, Christianity came to Africa in African kingdoms that were at the heights of strength and prowess. The Kushite chariot-rider in the Book if Acts came to Jerusalem on official business at the behest of his Queen, the Candace, and at his conversion still retained all the dignity of his official position as administrator under the Candace. And in fact, just a few years prior to the birth of Christ, the Kushite armies, despite some setbacks, posted some victories over Roman forces in the Sudan, and eventually were able to negotiate a favorable treaty with Roman Emperor Augustus himself in which the Romans ceded a vauable zone of the Thirty Mile Strip which included the city of Premis, and exempted the Kushites from paying tribute to Rome. It was these same people that were the among the leaders in adopting Christianity in Africa.
Hardly the "supine" peons or slaves you imagine. In fact, the Christian kingdom of Meroe, drawing on earlier developments in the Sudan were among the technological and economic leaders in "black" Africa, with its own writing system, solid iron industry, and far-flung prosperous trade links reaching from Central Africa, to India, to Rome. Christianity did not hinder them at all in these accomplishments.
The result is the Africans of the Americas swear by an alienating Christianity with a Jewish messiah as the God-head. Christ sprang from the traditions of the Talmud and Torah and is viewed to be not of African lineage.
Who says it was "alienating"? For one thing, Christianity was in Africa long before any of the Europeans that created the slave trade in the Americas appeared. It was already embraced by many Africans on the continent long before that. And as those Africans long ago pointed out, they do not worship a Jewish carpenter- they worship God- in human condition- the person of Christ. If Christ was not God as specified under their Christian doctrine, then their faith would be void. Religious leaders of modern Ethiopia have often pointed out this simple fact. When Haile Selassie came to Jamaica in the 1960s, he told the Rastas there who tried to worship him as God, that they were mistaken- and that he himself worshiped one he considered not a mere man, but God in human condition. If Christ were not God in their doctrine, then their faith was useless. Hence as others after him point out, the Africans worship God, not a mere regional Jewish figure.
This is the same ground taken by African Christians in the Americas. And far from alienation, christianity served as a mobilizing force against white oppression, as seen in events ranging from the revolts of the "Gabriel" uprising,, tot he numerous "underground" churches that preached an early doctrine of liberation specifically comparing the ensleaved blacks to the chosen people of Israel, to the liberation campaign of Christian leader martin Luther King who mobilized thousands, including white allies, to do this. Even Malcolm X pointed out that Christ may himself have been black, and that his likely swarthy middle eastern looks or complexion would have relegated to the\ back of the Jim Crow bus, just like all the other negroes. In fact Malcolm quoted from Daniel as a basis for saying this, holding that this Jim Crow treatment would have been meted out to the founder of Christianity himself. Malcolm's objection was not to Christ, but to home northern Europeans had hijacked his figure for negative racial use. Black Christianity has long recognized this and distinguished between the original an European distortion.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Typically brainwashed answer. Why so much love for the biographical life of a Jewish rabbi who broke ranks with his Talmudic traditions?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
No what's brainwashed is your dubious reasoning, not to mention your factual errors on many things above. And who are you to lecture the kings or peoples of Kush, or those of Ethiopia, on what they should or shouldn't believe? They had no problems with their Christian faith, which they embraced long before any white people showed up. What gives you any standing to judge them? And as far as Jewish religious figures, what gives you any standing to negatively judge the faith of others, who may follow some of their teachings- such as the Rasta, who quote from, and follow the teachings of Jewish prophets, kings and patriarchs? I think you need to learn more about the actual facts on the ground re Christianity in Africa before dispensing these dubious notions. It is not the simplistic story of "slaves and peons" that you make out.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Beta Israel
According to the Beta Israel tradition, the Jewish kingdom of Beta Israel, later called the kingdom of Gondar, was initially established after Ezana was crowned as the Emperor of Axum (in 325 CE). Ezana, who was educated in his childhood by the missioner Frumentius, declared Christianity as the religion of the Ethiopian empire after he was crowned. The inhabitants who practiced Judaism and refused to convert to Christianity began revolting – this group was referred to as "Beta Israel" by the emperor. Following civil war between the Jewish population and the Christian population the Beta Israel appear to have forged an independent state, either in northern western Ethiopia or the eastern region of Northern Sudan. By the 13th century, the Beta Israel have already moved to the more easily defensible mountains to the northwest of the Christianized region of the plains.
Origins of Christianity in Africa
Alexandria was founded around a small Ancient Egyptian town c. 331 BC by Alexander the Great. It became an important center of the Hellenistic civilization and remained the capital of Hellenistic and Roman & Byzantine Egypt for almost 1000 years until the Muslim conquest of Egypt in AD 641, when a new capital was founded at Fustat (later absorbed into Cairo). Alexander the Great conquered Egypt at an early stage of his great journey of conquests. He respected the pharaonic religions and customs and he was declared by the priest, Pharaoh of Egypt After his death, in 323 BC, his enormous empire was divided among his generals. Egypt was given to Ptolemy I Soter. Ptolemy and his descendants showed respect to Egypt's most cherished traditions - those of religion - and turned them to their own advantage. Alexandria became the centre of the Greek and Hellenistic world and the centre of international commerce, art and sciences.
The last Pharaoh was a Greek princess, Cleopatra VII, who took her own life in 30 BC, a year after the battle of Actium. With her defeat, the Roman Empire achieved a new completeness - encompassing the entire Mediterranean. Egypt remained under Roman control for the next six centuries.
From the reign of Nero onward, Aegyptus enjoyed an era of prosperity which lasted a century. Much trouble was caused by religious conflicts between the Greeks and the Jews, particularly in Alexandria, which after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 became the world centre of Jewish religion and culture. Under Trajan a Jewish revolt occurred, resulting in the suppression of the Jews of Alexandria and the loss of all their privileges, although they soon returned.
As Rome overtook the Ptolemaic system in place for areas of Egypt, they made many changes. The effect of the Roman conquest was at first to strengthen the position of the Greeks and of Hellenism against Egyptian influences.
the Romans saw the Greeks in Aegyptus as “Egyptians”, an idea that both the native Egyptians and Greeks would have rejected.[4] To further compound the whole situation, Jews, who themselves were very Hellenized overall, had their own communities, separate from both Greeks and native Egyptians.[5] The Romans began a system of social hierarchy that revolved around ethnicity and place of residence. Other than Roman citizens, a Greek citizen of one of the Greek cities had the highest status, and a rural Egyptian would be in the lowest class.
Egyptian Christians believe that the Patriarchate of Alexandria was founded by Mark the Evangelist around AD 33, but little is known about how Christianity entered Egypt. The historian Helmut Koester has suggested, with some evidence, that originally the Christians in Egypt were predominantly influenced by Gnosticism until the efforts of Demetrius of Alexandria gradually brought the beliefs of the majority into harmony with Nicene Christianity. By AD 300 it is clear that Alexandria was one of the great Christian centres. The Christian apologists Clement of Alexandria and Origen both lived part or all of their lives in that city, where they wrote, taught, and debated. With the Edict of Milan in 313, Constantine I ended the persecution of Christians. Over the course of the 4th century, paganism was suppressed and lost its following, as the poet Palladius bitterly noted. Graffiti at Philae in Upper Egypt proves worship of Isis persisted at its temples into the 5th century. Many Egyptian Jews also became Christians, but many others refused to do so, leaving them as the only sizable religious minority in a Christian country.
Christianity in Africa began in Egypt in the middle of the 1st century. By the end of the 2nd century it had reached the region around Carthage. Mark the Evangelist became the first bishop of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria in about the year 43. At first the church in Alexandria was mainly Greek-speaking. By the end of the 2nd century the scriptures and liturgy had been translated into three local languages. Christianity in Sudan also spread in the early 1st century, and the Nubian churches there were linked to those of Egypt. Christianity also grew in northwestern Africa (today known as the Maghreb). The churches there were linked to the Church of Rome and provided Pope Gelasius I, Pope Miltiades and Pope Victor I, all of them Christian Berbers like Saint Augustine and his mother Saint Monica.
The first Christians in Egypt were common people who spoke Egyptian Coptic.[5] There were also Alexandrian Jews such as Theophilus, whom Saint Luke the Evangelist addresses in the introductory chapter of his gospel. When the church was founded by Saint Mark during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, a great multitude of native Egyptians (as opposed to Greeks or Jews) embraced the Christian faith. Christianity spread throughout Egypt within half a century of Saint Mark's arrival in Alexandria, as is clear from the New Testament writings found in Bahnasa, in Middle Egypt, which date around the year AD 200, and a fragment of the Gospel of John, written in Coptic, which was found in Upper Egypt and can be dated to the first half of the 2nd century. In the 2nd century, Christianity began to spread to the rural areas, and scriptures were translated into the local languages, namely Coptic.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This is another example of Tukular banishing ideas he doesn't agree with even if such ideas are Egypt related and intellectual (and AFRICAN !) he moved this thread out of Egyptology forum into Ancient Egypt forum > A 600+ page book, he has probably only read a few pages of
This is what is wrong with Black people we are too emotional to handle debate
long live AE, where some freedom of thought still exists
notice how he only gives you the sarcastic quote from the book and tries to pass it off as the stance. He strategically quoted page 575 because he knows that page 576 which concludes the thought and is the last page of the chapter is not availble at the link.
Read some of this book and judge for yourself, it is not something you can read in an hour
I would have to agree with Tukler. After having read about 15 pages as well as looked at contents, it seems like a rambling, "stream of consciousness" piece or essay, rather than a real work of analysis. The only thing anywhere close to Egypt in there is discussion of Diop's work, and what it means as far as Black cultural achievement, etc, but he gets some aspects wrong. Its not really an Egyptological subject per se- but leans more towards black psychology, protest, etc etc, and Afrocentrism as a part of that protest tradition.
Some thing he writes are shaky. He also says Diop could not make sense of the difference between anthropology and biology- a dubious claim- but even aside from this he has little credible argument to put forth in defending his thesis. He expresses a lot of opinion, what he thinks about stuff, but imho does not marshal good logical arguments or data in support- just what HE thinks.
HE also says Diop focuses on "Negroes" not on any other Black or African type. But here again, his claim is incoherent, and so is his supporting argument. Who says Diop regarded any other "Black" types? In fact, Diop recognized other black types of people outside of Africa- such as the Grimaldi in Europe or black Asiatics- arguing for the primacy of the phenotype. Its difficult to follow his arguments sometimes because they are not laid out with precision, again, giving the book an overall rambling feel.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I would have to agree with Tukler. After having read about 15 pages as well as looked at contents, it seems like a rambling, "stream of consciousness" piece or essay, rather than a real work of analysis. The only thing anywhere close to Egypt in there is discussion of Diop's work,
So the unannouced new rule is - no books that are written in, to some, a "rambling" manner ?
Yet this thread:
Black UK Actors in US Media (TV/Film) It Upsets some US Blacks Why?
and others like it are fit to say on the main page in the Egyptology Forum?
______________________________________
Mintsa dicsussed Diop and Egyptology
Toronto 2014, September Worst Month for muder. WHY!!!
^^^ yet this is Egyptology?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^That was the bad old days of fighting racists fire with fire- before moderation was restored to E- now under the capable hands of Tukler. And don;t forget it was others who started those threads- you yourself among such. Now let's get back to the topic.
You say: By AD 300 it is clear that Alexandria was one of the great Christian centres.
True enough, and Egyptian Christians celebrate the fact that it was Africa that was foundational in protecting the genesis of CHristian faith. As Elizabeth Ischei notes in her History of Christianity in Africa- Coptics hold this, claiming that it was a hospitable Africa that protected the founder by divine providence- quote: "Modern African Christians cherish the same tradition: 'When Jesus was persecuted by the European Herod, God sent him into Africa' by this we know that Africans have naturally a true spirit of CHristianity."
But even before the Egyptians, almost the first non-Jewish convert to Christianity was not an Egyptian, but a high-ranking Kushite governmental administrator from the Sudan in the employ of his queen, Candace, who in Acts 8, was baptised by the Apostle Phillip, and returned to his land bearing the new faith. This conversion by the Apostle was within a few decades after the death of Jesus, not the centuries long wait before Egyptians showed up. Widespread dispersion of the faith in Africa, as elsewhere, would take centuries, but the black administrator was early on in place, and had already embraced the faith long before it went into Egypt and developed into the Coptic church. Egypt hogs most of the press, and the Coptic church would have strong influence later but Christianity in Africa, as far as converts, begins with Kush in the Sudan, not Egypt.
Ischei notes that Jews early on taunted Christians that they had no access to the original Jewish scriptures, but in fact, they had reasonably accurate translations via the Greek Language-Septuagint. When the Apostle Philip met the black chariot rider on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, as detailed in Acts 8, the black man was reading from the Septuagint, leading to what was to become, per Ischei "one of the most famous encounters of the ancient world."
As far as the country we know as "Ethiopia" today, Christianity was declared the state religion in Auxum, in 330Ad under Ezana, one of the first kingdoms on earth to make it their state religion, earlier than Egypt, and arguably the first some maintain, though Armenians also claim to be first. In any event the record shows that while it was influential, Egypt is not necessarily the starting point as far as conversions re Christianity in Africa, or establishment of official religion by the state. Kush and Auxum are ahead of Egypt.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
You say: By AD 300 it is clear that Alexandria was one of the great Christian centres.
True enough, and Egyptian Christians celebrate the fact that it was Africa that was foundational in protecting the genesis of CHristian faith.
As far as the country we know as "Ethiopia" today, Christianity was declared the state religion in Auxum, in 330Ad under Ezana, one of the first kingdoms on earth to make it their state religion, earlier than Egypt, and arguably the first some maintain, though Armenians also claim to be first. In any event the record shows that while it was influential, Egypt is not necessarily the starting point as far as conversions re Christianity in Africa, or establishment of official religion by the state. Kush and Auxum are ahead of Egypt. [/QB]
You said "true enough" to By AD 300 it is clear that Alexandriawas one of the great Christian centres.
The you spoke of Auxum, in 330Ad
300 AD is earlier than 330 AD'
Christianity emerged in the Levant in the mid-1st century AD. It stand to reason that it spread to Egypt first since Egypt is closer
___________________________________
the accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church. After his victory, Constantine supported the Church financially, built various basilicas, granted privileges (e.g., exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to some high-ranking offices, and returned property confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian.[47] Between 324 and 330, Constantine built, virtually from scratch, a new imperial capital that came to be named for him: Constantinople. It had overtly Christian architecture, contained churches within the city walls, and had no pagan temples.[48] In accordance with a prevailing custom, Constantine was baptised on his deathbed.
Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine (centre) and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. Constantine also played an active role in the leadership of the Church. In 316, he acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the Donatist controversy. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, the first Ecumenical Council.
Donatism in North Africa
Donatism (Latin: Donatismus, Greek: Δονατισμός Donatismos) was a Christian sect within the Roman province of Africa that flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries among Berber Christians. Donatism had its roots in the social pressures among the long-established Christian community of Roman North Africa (present-day Berber countries Algeria and Tunisia), during the persecutions of Christians under Diocletian. The Donatists (named for the Berber Christian bishop Donatus Magnus) were members of a schismatic church not in communion with the churches of the rest of Early Christianity in Late Antiquity.
The primary disagreement between Donatists and the rest of the early Christian Church was over the treatment of those who renounced their faith during the persecution under the Roman emperor Diocletian (303–5), a disagreement that had implications both for the Church's understanding of the Sacrament of Penance and of the other sacraments in general. The rest of the Church was far more forgiving of these people than the Donatists. The Donatists refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution. During the persecution some Church leaders had gone so far as to turn Christians over to Roman authorities and had handed over religious texts to authorities to be publicly burned.
As a result, many towns were divided between Donatist and non-Donatist congregations. The sect had particularly developed and grown in northern Africa. There was growing unrest and threats of riots in Carthage connected to the bishop controversy
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
If Christ was not God as specified under their Christian doctrine, then their faith would be void. Religious leaders of modern Ethiopia have often pointed out this simple fact. When Haile Selassie came to Jamaica in the 1960s, he told the Rastas there who tried to worship him as God, that they were mistaken- and that he himself worshiped one he considered not a mere man, but God in human condition. If Christ were not God in their doctrine, then their faith was useless. Hence as others after him point out, the Africans worship God, not a mere regional Jewish figure....
Malcolm X pointed out that Christ may himself have been black,
Malcom, if asked would have said, as the Muslims do, that Jesus like other prophets, was to be respected but was not God.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
I said as far as conversions, Sudanic Kush was before the Egyptians per Acts 8, and as far as official state religions, Auxum was before Egypt. As far as Malcolm sure, but the point is that he argued that the founder of Christianity was black/African. Whatever the specific doctrinal disagreements, to him it made no difference as far as that point.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Ya know it just ain't no use no more
As far as educating ES is officially dead
no nuff posters into non-chauvinistic learning learning that can hold up in any classroom
facts on the ground say AE triumphed over E w/no reversal in sight
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Ya know it just ain't no use no more
As far as educating ES is officially dead
no nuff posters into non-chauvinistic learning learning that can hold up in any classroom
facts on the ground say AE triumphed over E w/no reversal in sight
You might be able to revive Egytpology forum if you made more new posts
and not try to over-control it as much
I'll try to go low profile there
One easy one is to post the latest jpurnal paper, it's basically copy and paste --yet can lead to good replies as it is discussed
Give it the rest of the month, the key is making new posts,
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Well there are negatives, but still some residual value left, if only archival. Yeah I hear you though. Topics such as "why black people have lighter skin on palms" will draw 60-65 responses but a good educational thread in E- little. Or some "albino" threads with minimal educational data will run for 4 pages etc etc, with the same tired, boilerplate exchanges with "Doxie" and assorted duplicate accounts.
Part of it too is that trolls shy away from E because the know such eye-rolling crud will not fly. So they congregate where there is no oversight. Predictable. Only bright spot is that their traffic keeps the overall boat afloat as far as traffic, which in turn means the archives are kept fresher in Google, undercutting and end-running assorted "stealth" moles on Wiki, and propaganda on assorted racialist forums. Time and time again I see ES data being put to use to hammer them.
Admittedly, its not the best situation, but shrug.. Still let us give lioness kudos for her busy round of posting, which in its own way, is boosting traffic. She has even been adding actual usable current info. So, far from ES disappearing into obscurity, it consistently keeps coming up early in web searches, providing hard alternative data that undercuts all the detractors and racialists.
Minimum scenario is for XYZ, A-ra, me, yourself, lioness and others to keep occasionally posting new info (already being done to some extent) and let the "albino" brigade keep the traffic counts high, so that said info is at least on the web available for use and coming up quickly in searches. This is imperfect and unsatisfying yes, but on the flip side, accomplishes some positives.
liones says: ou might be able to revive Egytpology forum if you made more new posts
and not try to over-control it as much
I'll try to go low profile there
One easy one is to post the latest jpurnal paper, it's basically copy and paste --yet can lead to good replies as it is discussed
Give it the rest of the month, the key is making new posts,
Atta girl! Keep those posts coming!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: As far as Malcolm sure, but the point is that he argued that the founder of Christianity was black/African.
quote:
MALCOLM X: Christ wasn't white. Christ was a black man.
PLAYBOY: On what Scripture do you base this assertion?
MALCOLM X: Sir, Billy Graham has made the same statement in public. Why not ask him what Scripture he found it in? When Pope Pius XII died, LIFE magazine carried a picture of him in his privatestudy kneeling before a black Christ. What was the source of their information? All white people who have studied history and geography know that Christ was a black man. Only the poor, brainwashed American Negro has been made to believe that Christ was white, to maneuver him into worshiping the white man. After becoming a Muslim in prison, I read almost everything I could put my hands on in the prison library. I began to think back on everything I had read and especially with the histories, I realized that nearly all of them read by the general public have been made into white histories. I found out that the history-whitening process either had left out great things that black men had done, or some of the great black men had gotten whitened.
The Playboy Interview Malcolm X, Alex Haley
Taken from Playboy Magazine, May, 1963
quote: “Jesus was not a white man; He was not a black man. He came from that part of the world that touches Africa and Asia and Europe. Christianity is not a white man’s religion, and don’t let anybody ever tell you that it’s white or black. Christ belongs to all people; He belongs to the whole world.”
--Billy Graham
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
and I'm not clear about how difficult it is now for new people to become members, that could be a big problem
Of course ESR doesn't have a lot of these issues
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:No what's brainwashed is your dubious reasoning, not to mention your factual errors on many things above. And who are you to lecture the kings or peoples of Kush, or those of Ethiopia, on what they should or shouldn't believe? They had no problems with their Christian faith, which they embraced long before any white people showed up. What gives you any standing to judge them? And as far as Jewish religious figures, what gives you any standing to negatively judge the faith of others, who may follow some of their teachings- such as the Rasta, who quote from, and follow the teachings of Jewish prophets, kings and patriarchs? I think you need to learn more about the actual facts on the ground re Christianity in Africa before dispensing these dubious notions. It is not the simplistic story of "slaves and peons" that you make out.
All nonsense. The only places in Africa that Coptic Christianity is embraced are Egypt and Ethiopia. Those populations amount to less 10% of African Christians. But even so how is Coptic Christianity helping them? Give all of them a safe boat and calm seas and they are on their way to Europe for salvation. Alas!
The Christianity that the rest of Africa and its diaspora practices derives directly from colonial imposition both on African captives in the Americas and conquered colonial peons/serfs in Africa.
But the central question is this: in what way have the religions of a Jewish rabbi and an Arab war lord benefited Africans in this world? "Jesus saves" and "Allahu Akbar"--are phrases and slogans that Africans everywhere love to shout. But the universe is cold and unforgiving. Nobody pays attention.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
The dude wrote a bunch of selfopiniated bollocks. No, scientific analyses. He's not wordy my time. Thus the question becomes, what's wrong with Joe Mintsa?
quote:"Ancient finds in the Western Desert of Egypt at Gebel Ramlah circa 5,000 BC show culture closely linked with indigenous tropical Africans of both the Saharan and sub-Saharan regions, not Europe or the Middle East. Dental studies put the inhabitants of Gebel Ramlah, closest to indigenous tropical African populations.
"During three seasons of research (in 2000, 2001 and 2003) carried out by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition at Gebel Ramlah in the southern part of the Egyptian Western Desert, three separate Final Neolithic cemeteries were discovered and excavated. Skeletal remains of 67 individuals, comprising both primary and secondary interments, were recovered from 32 discrete burial pits. Numerous grave goods were found, including lithics, pottery and ground stone objects, as well as items of personal adornment, pigments, shells and sheets of mica. Imports from distant areas prove far-reaching contacts.
Analysis of the finds sheds important light on the burial rituals and social conditions of the Final Neolithic cattle keepers inhabiting Ramlah Playa. This community, dated to the mid-fifth millennium B.C. (calibrated), was composed of a phenotypically diverse population derived from both North and sub-Saharan Africa. There were no indications of social differentiation. The deteriorating climatic conditions probably forced these people to migrate toward the Nile Valley where they undoubtedly contributed to the birth of ancient Egyptian civilization."
-- Burial practices of the Final Neolithic pastoralists at Gebel Ramlah, Western Desert of Egypt
Michal Kobusiewicz, Jacek Kabacinski, Romuald Schild, Joel D. Irish and Fred Wendorf
British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 13 (2009): 147–74
quote:Originally posted by lamin: All nonsense. The only places in Africa that Coptic Christianity is embraced are Egypt and Ethiopia. Those populations amount to less 10% of African Christians. But even so how is Coptic Christianity helping them? Give all of them a safe boat and calm seas and they are on their way to Europe for salvation. Alas!
The Christianity that the rest of Africa and its diaspora practices derives directly from colonial imposition both on African captives in the Americas and conquered colonial peons/serfs in Africa.
But the central question is this: in what way have the religions of a Jewish rabbi and an Arab war lord benefited Africans in this world? "Jesus saves" and "Allahu Akbar"--are phrases and slogans that Africans everywhere love to shout. But the universe is cold and unforgiving. Nobody pays attention. [/QB]
These books of these religions are a sets of rules that some people like to organize their lives by
You have suggested before why don't Africans return to traditional beliefs but those traditional beliefs are what led to the religions
When you say the " universe is cold and unforgiving" that would raise more the issue of "why don't Africans become atheists"?
Obviously a science minded person like yourself is not going to be believing in forest spirits and sorcery , right?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
lamin says: All nonsense. The only places in Africa that Coptic Christianity is embraced are Egypt and Ethiopia. [/b]
Lamin you need to have a grasp of the facts, instead of merely offering wild opinion. In fact, Christianity is the fast growing religion in Africa. Recent studies published by well known research outfit the Pew Forum -on Religion & Public Life has found that Christians now outnumber Muslims by 2 to 1 making Islam a minority belief.[6][7] The number of adherents to Christianity in sub-Saharan Africa grew from fewer than 9 million in 1910 to 516 million today, a 60-fold increase eclipsing the growth of Islam.[8] See for example sources such as- Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population - The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, December 19, 2011 or The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, April 15, 2010
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Those populations amount to less 10% of African Christians. But even so how is Coptic Christianity helping them? Give all of them a safe boat and calm seas and they are on their way to Europe for salvation. Alas! Your claim that Christianity is somehow confined to Coptics in Africa is complete nonsense, as I demonstrated above. And as for the promise in the afterlife- this is nothing new in religion, and nothing new in African religion. The Yoruba religion for example speaks of a separation of spheres in the afterlife. There is the orun rere (good heaven) and an orun apadi/orun buruku (bad heaven). Each went to the appropriate place, depending on his conduct on earth. There are differences with Christianity but the pointis that safety and bliss in the afterlife based on conduct on earth is part of African religion and is not unique to Christianity. In fact this is one of the reasons Christian missionaries made some headway in getting converts- they could appeal to established religious traditions like the above, though there was still much difference in doctrines- yet there was also common ground that Africans could sometimes see in the Christian message..
The Christianity that the rest of Africa and its diaspora practices derives directly from colonial imposition both on African captives in the Americas and conquered colonial peons/serfs in Africa.
^Laughable baloney as already demonstrated. Think man think! If CHristianity was in Africa circa a few decades after Christ's death, long before the Americas were "discovered" by Europeans, how are the Christian doctrines also practiced by black Christians in the Americas due directly to colonial impositions circa 1500? The core bottom line doctrines were long BEFORE 1500- are the same- they havent changed. In Africa, the Christians of Kush held to the doctrine of salvation fron one's sins through Christ. In America black people hold to the SAME doctrine. There are some church differences, of course, like anywher else, but the fundamental core doctrines, the bottom lines that define Christianity are the same in America as they are in the Sudan or Ethiopia. The white man is merely the local transmitter to a message already long in place in Africa. That message was not created by Europeans. In fact Europe itself had to be converted from the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic religions. They aren't anything special.
But the central question is this: in what way have the religions of a Jewish rabbi and an Arab war lord benefited Africans in this world? "Jesus saves" and "Allahu Akbar"--are phrases and slogans that Africans everywhere love to shout. But the universe is cold and unforgiving.
Actually Christianity has brought a lot of benefit, despite the racism of some of its white practitioners, who cast aside their own Christian message to engage in oppression and lies. Africans in fact embraced Christianity both for its spiritual message as well as the material benefits brought- from numerous hospitals, orphanages and institutions of mercy, to medical missions that saved the lives of thousands by healing diseases & medicine, to missions that save the lives of thousands via fammine relief, to the schools, workshops translations of native lanugages into written form, and other essentials of modernization.
You say "nobody listens" but this too is nonsense. In fact many Africans have listened quite closely and benefited as they chose what worked for them. This is why even a nationalist like Jomo Kenyata though condemning racism of certain various, pays tribute to the Christian mission efforts that brought education, medicine, advanced technology, and other benefits. Indeed Kenyatta himself was educated in a mission school, and would not have risen to be leader of a modern state without such things. Does this mean all was perfect? Of course not- and we all know there were greedy exploiters using Chrisianity for nefarious ends. Of course. But the actual facts, debunk your simplistic claims.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:You have suggested before why don't Africans return to traditional beliefs but those traditional beliefs are what led to the religions
When you say the " universe is cold and unforgiving" that would raise more the issue of "why don't Africans become atheists"?
Obviously a science minded person like yourself is not going to be believing in forest spirits and sorcery , right?
If Africans want to believe in some kind of metaphysical system then that of the Ancient Egyptians is the place to start. But mental laziness is one of the reasons why that has not been done.
There are scores of traditional belief systems in Africa but the problem is that they are not written down so as to "spread the word", and ethnic chauvinism would be an impediment for any single one spreading. People shamelessly prefer to fanatically worship a Jewish rabbi and an Arab warlord.
In terms of human conduct, whole tomes combined with nonsensical rituals are not necessary. Just a simple application of the Golden Rule is all that is necessary.
The most successful countries have no need for Christ or Muhammad. I am talking about Japan, Korea, China, and Taiwan. And the countries that are most disposed to human welfare have been discarding religion as they rely more on their own brains and their learned dispositions about human rights, etc. Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. come to mind.
It just points to human stupidity when fanatically religious Somalis get on rickety boats to cross over into places where Sunday is for football and the parks-rather than church.
Whether you pluck a rosary non-stop or bang your head on the hard ground 5 times a day no one in the sky will pay attention. Common sense and inductive inference should inform an intelligent man that most of that stuff is just BS.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
@zarahan, Sorry, we are just not on the same wavelength. I will leave it at that.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: Mama Africa Series
The Kilimanjaro Gene. Although Eurasians are ultimately all “out of Africa,” this rare autosomal allele mostly stayed on the African Continent until modern times when it spread with the forced migration of 15 million Africans destined to be slaves in the Western Hemisphere. It is thus more common in Africans than African Americans and is practically absent in Central Asia, the Mediterranean, Middle East and Far East. Kilimanjaro is the highest mountain in Africa and dominates the Great Rift, the volcanic fault line believed to mark the early home of humanity. The Kilimanjaro gene, although relatively rare even in Africa, is 500 times more common in West Africans than Greeks and 265 times more common in African and African American populations than Mediterranean peoples. Only 1 in every 200 Africans or African Americans have it—half of one percent. It has only a negligible appearance in Central Asian or East European DNA.
The Thuya Gene. One of the autosomal ancestry markers that ran strong in the Royal Egyptian families of the New Kingdom, this not-so-rare gene is Central African in origin and was passed to Thuya from her forbears, Queens of Upper and Lower Egypt and High Priestesses of Hathor, the Mother Goddess. Thuya passed it to her grandson Akhenaten and great-grandson Tutankhamun, among others, as documented in a study of the Amarna mummies by Zahi Hawass, head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo, in 2010. It is found in 1 in 6 Egyptians and 1 in 8 Africans or African Americans. It crops up in unlikely places around the world such as the Basque region and in Melungeons but is virtually unknown in East and South Asia, as well as Native America.
The Akhenaten Gene. Named for the pharaoh who attempted to convert Egypt to monotheism, this autosomal ancestry marker like most of the Amarna family group’s DNA is clearly African in origin. Akhenaten received it from his mother, Queen Tiye. It is most common today in Copts, the successors to the ancient Egyptians. The ancient marker makes a good showing in the Middle East and parts of southern Europe close to Africa, such as southern Italy and Spain. But it is mostly absent in Asia and the Americas, except where brought there by Africans or people carrying some African ancestry. About 1 in 6 Africans or African Americans has it.
The King Tut Gene. Tutankhamun is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. The archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other alleles it has a widespread, albeit sparse distribution outside Africa. Still, Africans (and African-influenced populations) are ten times more likely to have it than non-Africans.
Citation: Hawass Z, Gad YZ, Ismail S, et al. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family. JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647.
The Egyptian Gene. Although not carried in the royal mummies whose DNA has been studied so far, this autosomal ancestry marker is also clearly African in origin and enjoys its greatest spread in Egyptians. Quite rare worldwide, it is found in about 1 in 10 Copts, today’s successors to the ancient Egyptians. Less than one percent of European Americans have it, while African Americans preserve it at a rate of three times that of their white neighbors. Oddly, East Coast Indians and Melungeons have it at elevated levels. It is hardly noticeable in Asia, suggesting that it did not form a significant part of the Great Migration of Humanity out of Africa about 100,000 years ago but spread to Eurasian populations primarily from Egypt and the Middle East in historical times.
The Christianity that the rest of Africa and its diaspora practices derives directly from colonial imposition both on African captives in the Americas and conquered colonial peons/serfs in Africa.
Very true. Zarahan is being ridiculous.
While some coptic christians in Africa were converted earlier, they are not the ones which converted black people in West Africa, most of Africa and in the Americas (not that it would change anything beside the truth). It was the white colonial masters and his missionaries. Using the carrot and the stick techniques.
I'm not a practitioner of any religions or spirituality. But from a traditionalists point of view, christianity and islam are absurd (less so judaism even if it's not like traditional African religions), because each people, each populations, each family, have their own customs and spiritual knowledge. There's no need to become some little religious Hitler to impose your belief to the whole world.
In African "religions" you can even pray and communicate to your own grandfathers and ancestors if you want to.
Note: Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people -there's only one god and his name is Yahveh- which is bad by itself. In reality, each populations have their own knowledge and name for God.
For example, even if Zulu are black people and great proud people, it doesn't mean populations in Ghana must adopt their Zulu customs and religions. Yes, there's many similarities and even a shared common Niger-Kordofanian origin with Zulu speakers, but there's also differences too.
The same applies for Ancient Egyptian or Abrahamic religions. It seems to be a bit the point of the book.
lamin:if you read more about African history and religious beliefs, you will understand how traditions of neighboring ethnic groups influence each others. We can see it also to some degree in Ancient Egyptian history (beside the quickly reversed Akhenaten megalomaniac reign and his corrupted aten cult).
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
If Africans want to believe in some kind of metaphysical system then that of the Ancient Egyptians is the place to start. But mental laziness is one of the reasons why that has not been done.
There are scores of traditional belief systems in Africa but the problem is that they are not written down so as to "spread the word", and ethnic chauvinism would be an impediment for any single one spreading. People shamelessly prefer to fanatically worship a Jewish rabbi and an Arab warlord.
In terms of human conduct, whole tomes combined with nonsensical rituals are not necessary. Just a simple application of the Golden Rule is all that is necessary. ---------------------------------------------
Africans don't have to start with Egypt for a metaphysical system. Complex systems were in place BEFORE Dynastic Egypt arose, and in fact, Egyptian religion is based on indigenous African religion such as the numerous cults, or the divine king as chief ritualist, etc. And they aren't mentally lazy if they are attracted to other religious concepts like Christianity, anymore than white people are lazy by being attracted to Rastafari, or Buddhism. You have too simplistic a view of Africans, who you make seem like childlike automatons. All I am saying is do not take this simplistic view- look at the overall picture. And the Golden Rule by the way is only ONE part of many belief systems. There is much more to such systems than that.
Very true. Zarahan is being ridiculous. While some coptic christians in Africa were converted earlier, they are not the ones which converted black people in West Africa, most of Africa and in the Americas (not that it would change anything beside the truth). It was the white colonial masters and his missionaries. Using the carrot and the stick techniques.
As usual on this forum, you appear to be having severe reading comprehension problems, and knee-jerk style start with mere restatements of the obvious that people have already noted. No one said Copts were the people that converted blacks in West Africa- duh. No need to set up this shallow strawman to "refute." And yes it is ALREADY noted that colonialists converted people in the Americas and in areas they ruled. This is painfully obvious, so obvious it hardly needs restatement in your usual breathless style as if you are making some sort of significant "discovery." **roll eyes** The point to lamin is that Christianity did not begin in Africa with white people who showed up on the West African coast, and in many cases the new faith was willingly embraced, for spiritual as well as material reasons- just like anywhere else. The picture is a mixed one, not a simplistic one.
Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people -there's only one god and his name is Yahveh- which is bad by itself. In reality, each populations have their own knowledge and name for God. Gee another statement of the obvious from Captain Obvious. You really think people around the world have their own local name and knowledge for their concept of a god or divine being? Wow.. really? WHat a discovery.
And why would the Jewish name for Yahveh be "bad"? Can you enlighten us with your theological wit and wisdom oh wise one as to why it would be "bad"? How so, Cap Obvious? And if the Jewish "Yahveh" be bad, why isn't the Yoruba Supreme God- Olodumare/Olorun/Olofi "bad" as well?
I'm not a practitioner of any religions or spirituality. But from a traditionalists point of view, christianity and islam are absurd (less so judaism even if it's not like traditional African religions), because each people, each populations, each family, have their own customs and spiritual knowledge. There's no need to become some little religious Hitler to impose your belief to the whole world.
Traditional religions are not exempt from imposing their own religious hierarchies on others. The Inca specifically moved the most prominent idols or statutes of conquered peoples into their own territory in a secure location to impress upon the conquered that the Inca gods were more powerful than their own. The Romans seized and/or destroyed the temples, priests and religious resources of peoples they defeated, as did the Assyrians. The Actecs likewise removed images of defeated peoples' gods and relocated them to their capital to demonstrate the powerlessness of the defeated. And those wacky Aztecs,! They sacrificed thousands to their gods, under their "kinder, gentler" religious practice.
In Africa, victorious pre-dynastics in Egypt sometimes seized the images of defeated enemies and incorporated them into local or regional pantheons, with the conqueror on top- demonstrating that the desirable features of the conquered deities would be appropriated or assimilated by the victorious god to enhance his own powers. Religious hierarchism and oppression of the conquered is a phenomenon occurring on every continent. In Dahomey, the defeated had to provide a stream of captives for human sacrifice to satisfy the victorious Dahomean gods, ancestors or other divine beings. Too bad for you, if your tribe lost, there was no "kinder, gentler" religion waiting for you, only butchery on the chopping block as determined by the Annual "customs" for that year. Even slaves captured from the conquered were perennially in danger of being offered up as human sacrifice to the Dahomean religious bigwigs. See book: (Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion, and Paternity, By Nancy Jay 1992)
In fact human sacrifice not only functioned religiously but was a means of social control. The Ashanti king told one visitor in 1848 that without human sacrifice "I should deprive myself to one of the most effectual means of keeping the people in subjection." Operating on a larger scale the kings of Dahomey reportedly sacrificed of male and a female daily to his ancestors, "to carry to them his message of gratitude for another day of life." (Jay 1992)
For example, even if Zulu are black people and great proud people, it doesn't mean populations in Ghana must adopt their Zulu customs and religions. Yes, there's many similarities and even a shared com Gee another obvious "discovery".. wow... the Zulu be black people, and "proud" people. Uh huh.. And Ghana people don;t have to be Zulu people. Dang! Now why didn't we think of that? Mmmm.. such "obvious" wisdom...
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: It is argued that just as there is a common Afroasiatic language family, so too there is a common Afroasiatic family of religions. There is an inner logic to be found in myths, folk-tales, rituals, customs and beliefs as far apart as Yemen and Nigeria which go back to an ancient past shared by the Bible and the pharaohs.
Using the method of comparative mythology, the author sifts through the work of scholars - including anthropologists, religious historians, archaeologists and classical Greek writers and contemporary comments on them by professional Egyptologists - to build his picture of the Afroasiatic heritage, and how much of it is still with us in modern Western thought.
--Julian Baldick,
Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Religions
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Zarahan I have a lot of respect for you but you surely lost the plot here. You act like a hurt little baby trying to find problems in my statements instead of trying to understand my statements as a whole. Did my statements hurt you? Did me saying you were being "ridiculous" too much for you? I'm sorry if it was.
I state 'facts' you reply 'obvious'. I'm sorry buddy but what I say doesn't seem obvious to you considering your reply to me above. Yes, facts are supposed to be obvious. That's how you start a book, an academic discussion or an argument with a basic set of facts. But again, obvious to you, no, I don't think so....
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] As usual on this forum, you appear to be having severe reading comprehension problems, and knee-jerk style start with mere restatements of the obvious that people have already noted. No one said Copts were the people that converted blacks in West Africa- duh. No need to set up this shallow strawman to "refute." And yes it is ALREADY noted that colonialists converted people in the Americas and in areas they ruled. This is painfully obvious, so obvious it hardly needs restatement in your usual breathless style as if you are making some sort of significant "discovery." **roll eyes** The point to lamin is that Christianity did not begin in Africa with white people who showed up on the West African coast, and in many cases the new faith was willingly embraced, for spiritual as well as material reasons- just like anywhere else. The picture is a mixed one, not a simplistic one.[QB]
Here's what Lamin said and your reply to it:
quote:
quote:Lamin: The Christianity that the rest of Africa and its diaspora practices derives directly from colonial imposition both on African captives in the Americas and conquered colonial peons/serfs in Africa.
Zarahan reply:
^Laughable baloney as already demonstrated.
You're the one suffering from a reading problem. Lamin already said in the REST of Africa, African captives and colonial peons. Do you understand the expression 'rest of'. Anyway it doesn't matter if Northeastern Africans (or whoever) were first converted to Christianity (due to their geographic proximity). Those people still had/have their own sets of religious beliefs before their conversion to christianity or islam. As all African populations do.
quote:Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people -there's only one god and his name is Yahveh- which is bad by itself. In reality, each populations have their own knowledge and name for God. Gee another statement of the obvious from Captain Obvious. You really think people around the world have their own local name and knowledge for their concept of a god or divine being? Wow.. really? WHat a discovery.
And why would the Jewish name for Yahveh be "bad"? Can you enlighten us with your theological wit and wisdom oh wise one as to why it would be "bad"?
The answer to your question is obvious to anybody but you. Can't you read? Because they **imposed** one set of religious beliefs to their people. That's what I said, but you act like a hurt little baby who can't read.
Of course, as a non-jewish, it doesn't bother me as much, but this is what started it all since christianity and islam are both born out of Jewish faith (and this fascist idea they have of imposing their beliefs to other people).
quote:Traditional religions are not exempt from imposing their own religious hierarchies on others.
While they often share many similarities, all traditional religions are unique. Yes, it's obvious but not to you considering you're talking about Aztec to me.
Even if somehow the Fang had the "worst" traditional religions in the world (which is not the case and doesn't mean anything anyway). It doesn't mean all traditional religions in Africa are similar to Fang. So please, Aztec?!? You're better than this Zarahan...
This is the same thing as saying Northeastern Africans (or whoever) were converted first to Christianity or Islam. Why should I care? All African populations are their own people with their own history, their own culture, their own sets of beliefs, etc. Yes, there's a lot of similarities but also a lot of differences.
quote:Amun-Ra The Ultimate: For example, even if Zulu are black people and great proud people, it doesn't mean populations in Ghana must adopt their Zulu customs and religions. Yes, there's many similarities and even a shared common Niger-Kordofanian origin with Zulu speakers, but there's also differences too.
Zaharan replies: Gee another obvious "discovery".. wow... the Zulu be black people, and "proud" people. Uh huh.. And Ghana people don;t have to be Zulu people. Dang! Now why didn't we think of that? Mmmm.. such "obvious" wisdom...
Yes, it's obvious and true hence why I said:
The same applies for Ancient Egyptian or Abrahamic religions. It seems to be a bit the point of the book.
Each African populations have their own sets of religious beliefs. There's no need to become some little religious Hitler to impose your beliefs to the whole world like Jewish, European and Arab people did. Even more so since western people (Europeans, Americans) are now abandoning religion for a more, let's say, scientific/natural world view.
I like to read about Ancient Egypt and their religious belief (my ID name pay homage to Amun-Ra like the name(s) of many Ancient Egyptians Kings) but I would never try to claim THIS is the only religion black people should follow. I know there's various religious belief all across Africa. Sure they share a lot of similarities but there's differences too. They are different people with their own history and culture. It's a bit what is discussed in the book I think.
I sincerely hope you understand my point of view better now.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Religions
It doesn't matter even if Jewish people, Jesus, Moses, Paul and Mohammed would be black Africans themselves. Zulu are black and proud people, it doesn't mean people in Ghana must convert to their customs and religious beliefs. Each African populations are their own people, with their own history, customs, cultures, languages, etc. They share both similarities and differences between each others. For Africans and the whole world, it's always about unity in diversity.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
No I mainly see repetition of the obvious as if you "discovered" some point. As for you "hurting" me, dude, please. Hold that nonsense. Telling me about "the rest of Africa" is another example of your Captain Obvious approach. It is already obvious that Christianity was substantially spread by the colonialists, particularly in West/Central/South Africa. That was never at issue.
But keep in mind that there are huge parts of Africa from Morocco to Carthage to Libya that where the faith took hold, WITHOUT needing any white colonialists to "impose" it. The Coptic area is only a small one when Africa is considered overall. What is at issue with lamin, which you conveniently skip over, is (a) the shaky notion that early African Christianity is mostly confined to the Copts -(I pointed out that it is not), (b) the notion of sweeping imposition across the board- when in fact the core doctrines of Christianity are what most African Christians practice. The message and printed Bible was brought to West Africa by colonialists, but they brought the core doctrines that the Christians of the Sudan and Ethiopia practiced from the early times. Doctrines such as the resurrection are not "white" doctrines. Many Africans already embraced them before white people showed up. In fact the new faith spread quite willingly in many parts of Africa, even as it does now in the modern era. It does not merely exist as an "imposition" as lamin claimed.
Nor (3)were said Africans necessarily "peons and serfs" - to accept the faith- another point at issue I questioned lamin on.
Again keep in mind that Christianity was a fact on the ground in Africa from end to end in the north- from Morocco to Carthage to Egypt- and on into the Sudan and Auxum/Ethiopia. Here again, the notion of white colonialists "imposing" Christianity outside the Coptic area doesn't hold up. At one time, Christianity was in place from coast to coast in Africa, in a broad stretch of the continent OUTSIDE Coptic Egypt, and long BEFORE northern Europeans showed up to allegedly "impose" it.
those people still had/have their own sets of religious beliefs before their conversion to christianity or islam. As all African populations do... All African populations are their own people with their own history, their own culture, their own sets of beliefs, etc. Yes, there's a lot of similarities but also a lot of differences.
^^You mean to tell me that African people have their "own history, beliefs etc?" Wow. Blinding insight, indeed.
I sincerely hope you understand my point of view better now.
I have no problems with things not at issue, and yes of course Africans have their own adaptations, and their own traditions, beliefs etc. Of course. But I did not understand this statement of yours above. You say:
Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people -there's only one god and his name is Yahveh- which is bad by itself. In reality, each populations have their own knowledge and name for God.
As already asked, why would the Jewish name for Yahveh be "bad"? And if the Jewish "Yahveh" be bad, why isn't the Yoruba Supreme God- Olodumare/Olorun/Olofi "bad" or named manifestations thereof, be "bad" as well?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: You say:
Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people -there's only one god and his name is Yahveh- which is bad by itself. In reality, each populations have their own knowledge and name for God.
As already asked, why would the Jewish name for Yahveh be "bad"? And if the Jewish "Yahveh" be bad, why isn't the Yoruba Supreme God- Olodumare/Olorun/Olofi "bad" or named manifestations thereof, be "bad" as well?
As already answered to you above, it's not the name of the god which is bad, it is the fact that they ***imposed*** one set of belief to their own people, which eventually started the whole Abrahamic proselytizing craze.
When you start to believe you're the ONLY true follower of the words of god himself and that other people are infidels, heretics, pagans, etc if not converted. It can only lead to conflicts with other people (atheist, agnostic, non-believers, people of other religions and denominations, etc). In fact, it can only lead to conflicts even within the same religion as each denominations are fighting one another (catholic vs protestant vs sunni vs shia vs independant churches vs Jews/judaism, etc). This all started with the idea that there was only one religion (in fact, one denomination) which is true while the other religions are not. Others are heretics, infidels, non-believers, pagans, etc. that needed to be converted to the ONLY true religion.
In fact, while writing my post, I included the stuff between -- after I wrote:
Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people which is bad by itself.
My sentence above can be read easily without the stuff between the -- which I used here only as a form of parenthesis (a side note).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ there are some interesting parts of Joe Mintsa's book on Christianity
I got 22 hits, here are 2 of them,
Versus
quote:The God of the monotheistic ('one God') religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - is usually perceived in one of two ways: (1) as a formless spirit or (2) as a white man (see for example the image from the Biblioteca Aposotolica Vaticana which graces the front-jacket of Bernhard Lang's recent book, The Hebrew God: Portrait of an Ancient Deity: the image is of God the creator as a white-bearded, purple-robed, white male). But these conceptions of God, Dr. Wesley Muhammad demonstrates, are not rooted in the primary texts-Bible and Qu'ran-but instead stem from ideas and sensitivities of a later period and a foreign cultural-intellectual orientation (Hellenism or Greek philosophy). In contrast, the God of the Semitic monotheistic tradition, that tradition from which sprung the Bible and Qur'an, is neither formless nor white: he is a man-immortal, supremely holy, and possessing a black body. This is the same black God that we encounter in the religious literature throughout the ancient Near East. The black body of God was the focus of the ancient mysteries, for example in New Kingdom Egypt and Vedic India, and was at the center of the esoteric tradition of theTemple in Jerusalem. One of the priests of this Temple and custodians of the secret of this Black God was the priest responsible for the editing of the Torah (the so-called Five Books of Moses or Pentateuch of the Old Testament) The Truth of God is a History-of-Religions study based on a critical examination of the primary texts of scripture (Bible, Qur'an, Sunnah) in Hebrew, Greek and Arabic, as well as the critical scholarship in the secondary literature: English, German and French. This multi-lingual literacy has enabled Dr. Wesley Muhammad to answer the question, 'Who is God?' from the scriptural perspective with a depth not heretofore seen in writing. Dr. Wesley Muhammad has also drawn extensively from the religious texts, in translation, of the ancient Near East and India. With these primary and secondary sources he has been able to demonstrate that: (1) According to a widespread ancient Near and Far Eastern tradition, as evidenced in Egyptian, Sumerian/Babylonian, and Indic sources, God the creator was a black god, with a black body. The answers to such questions as: how did this body develop, of what substance was this body made, and why was this body black, were the focus of the mysteries in these nations. (2) The Creator God of Ancient Israel was this same Black God, and those responsible for forming the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) were devotees of this Black God. (3) The Black God of ancient Near Eastern and Semitic monotheistic traditions was a self-created black man-god, whose physical (though not spiritual) beginnings were from an atom hidden in a primordial darkness. The Hebrew of Genesis I specifies that this was a triple-darkness in which this atom was hidden and from which Elohim (God) emerged. (4) According to the Hebrew Bible and Arabic Qur'an the original black man, in his original state, was God on earth. (5) The Bible and the Qur'an/Sunnah, when allowed to speak their own languages (Hebrew, Greek and Arabic) affirm that God is a transcendent man, not a transcendent, formless spirit. (6) The God of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the Qur'an is this same Black God of the ancient Near East and ancient Israel. The claim of modern Muslim theologians that God has no form and could never be a man is based on later theological developments away from the Qur'an and Sunnah, developments inspired by the introduction of Greek philosophic ideas into Islam.
--Wesley Muhammad
The Truth of God: The Bible, The Quran and the Secret of the Black God
quote:there are some interesting parts of Joe Mintsa's book on Christianity
Mintsa rambles on an on while saying nothing that is coherent or even sensible. Plus, he unabashedly continues to use stupid colonial and Eurocentric terms like "negros", "Black Africa", etc. This foolish man tells us that a true map of Africa would be a map with its "nations" delineated by language. that would mean a map of Africa with over 3,000 nations. Just silly, and unrealistic.
The world's most successful and influential nations are mostly monolingual. China, Japan, Germany, U.S., Korea, etc. In fact, the largest ethnic[not racial] group in the U.S. is German yet it is doubtful that the members of that group communicate in German--even at home.
Mintsa's text--the little I've read of it--seems like an exercise in intellectual naivete and silly rambling. 600 pages of what?
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
quote:there are some interesting parts of Joe Mintsa's book on Christianity
Mintsa rambles on an on while saying nothing that is coherent or even sensible. Plus, he unabashedly continues to use stupid colonial and Eurocentric terms like "negros", "Black Africa", etc. This foolish man tells us that a true map of Africa would be a map with its "nations" delineated by language. that would mean a map of Africa with over 3,000 nations. Just silly, and unrealistic.
The world's most successful and influential nations are mostly monolingual. China, Japan, Germany, U.S., Korea, etc. In fact, the largest ethnic[not racial] group in the U.S. is German yet it is doubtful that the members of that group communicate in German--even at home.
Mintsa's text--the little I've read of it--seems like an exercise in intellectual naivete and silly rambling. 600 pages of what?
What is his academical background?
Ifa and Islam as Sibling Rivals: The Black Arabian Origins of the Yoruba
Patrol said: Ifa and Islam as Sibling Rivals: The Black Arabian Origins of the Yoruba [by Dr Wesley Muhammed]
Critics of Wesley Muhammed says he downplays the destructive Islamic jihads in Yorubaland, and that he is stealing the culture of the Yoruba people by trying to appropriate it for Arabs and Muslims. They hold that any claim that the Yoruba are from Arabia is false pseudo-history, and that the Yoruba are indigenous West Africans, with DNA and linguistic profiles that have little to do with Arabia. C. Skutch 2013 in Encyclopedia of WOrld's Minorities for example, holds that mainstream linguists classify the Yoruba languages with others from West Africa- Igbo, Edo, Nupe with those of the Niger-Benue confluence in West Africa, not Arabic. Other critics hold that archaelogy shows continuous occupation of the Yoruba area, and while Yoruba legends sometimes speak of "coming from the east" this has nothing to do with Arabia, and that said legends have been false appropriated by Muslims.
Other critics of Dr Wesley see him as an erroneous Muslim in that he fails to acknowledge Prophet Muhammed as white, in accordance with many Muslim writings. These Muslim scholars hold that any attempt to see Muhammed as other than white is insulting to the Prophet, perhaps even infidel. For example, modern Iranian Shi’it shaykhs Maulana Muhammad Zakaria and Ahmed E. Bemat authoritavely stated in 2006:
" “the Holy Prophet’s (s) white complexion had a touch of redness and there was a luster in it…Hence the Imams have stated that ‘if someone says that the Holy Prophet’s (s) complexion was black, we will issue a fatwa of infidelity (kufr) for him because he insulted and disparaged the Holy Prophet (s) and the insulting and disparaging of a prophet amounts to infidelity…” (inShamail-e-Tirmizi, trans. Prof. Murtaza Hussain F. Qurashi [New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2006] 3).
Similarly, internationally renowned Syrian (Sunni) scholar, Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi who teaches today at the Grand Umayyad Mosque in Syria, in the following video matter-of-factly informs us of the Prophet Muhammad that:
"“His skin color was white, but not jet white…there was some redness on his skin…he had a touch of pink color…”
Sahih Al Bukhary Volume 4, Book 56, Number 744: Narrated Isma'il bin Abi Khalid: I heard Abii Juhaifa saying, "I saw the Prophet, and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali resembled him." I said to Abu- Juhaifa, "Describe him for me." He said, "He was white and his beard was black with some white hair. He promised to give us 13 young she-camels, but he expired before we could get them."
-----------------------------------------
Interestingly enough, some Muslim hadiths hold that Jesus was black, reported for example by Ali Qawi al-Harawi (d. 1605) in his commentary on al-Tirmidhi’s famous al-Shama’il al-Muhammadiyah, according to which Muhammad said regarding Jesus: “I saw a black-skinned man (rajul adam), the best one can see among black-skinned men.”
Thus, Jesus and Moses in this variant, would have been black-skinned men.
Without getting into the details of these controversies, I think the origin of the Yoruba needs more study. "From the east" could mean the Saharan zone, Central Africa, Chad, maybe even the Nile Valley. DNA and more anthro/archaeo research will shed further light.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
I agree that the book is only good to brainstorm some ideas but I disagree with most of his "conclusions" from what I read thus far from google books.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [QUOTE] The world's most successful and influential nations are mostly monolingual.
You use a European mindset to analyse Africa, dividing Africa into nations in your head because it is divided that way politically. What is important with Europe and even large part of Asia like Japan, China, South Korea, etc is that they use their own languages. Even colonized country reverted back to their own language, which was a source of success and development. For example, each and every single country in Europe use their own languages for business, schools and everyday life. Even small and advanced countries like Finland, Sweden, Denmark, etc. A characteristic of African country that is different than Europe is that they are multilingual, but Europe as a whole is multilingual. This reality must be taken into account. Bilingualism/multilingualism and the use of lingua franca resolve all the issue of intercommunication (like in China and Europe as a whole).
In fact, bilingualism makes people, thus our children, more intelligent (as a sort of gymnastic for the mind):
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Without getting into the details of these controversies, I think the origin of the Yoruba needs more study. "From the east" could mean the Saharan zone, Central Africa, Chad, maybe even the Nile Valley. DNA and more anthro/archaeo research will shed further light. p.
We know a lot already. We know West Africans share a common E-P2 origins (as well as various MtDNA) with East Africans somewhere in NorthEastern Africa around Sudan (See study). We're talking about well before 10 000 years ago. But after this common origin and migration to their respective West and East African current location there's little evidence of admixtures between E1b1b and E1b1a carriers in both East and West Africa. We can see it with autosomal DNA, but also with the lack of E1b1b in Western Africa and vice versa for Northeastern Africa especially along the coast to some degree depending on the population (Somali have little if none E1b1a in their populations). Of course nowadays, Northeastern Africans like Somali are heavily admixed with Semitic people from West Asia/Arabia/Yemen both biologically and culturally.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Among other aspect, people may check out the table called: Supp Table 4: Proportion of Eurasian ancestry in AGVP populations in the supplementary documents.
We can see in this table the proportion of Eurasian admixtures among various African populations.
edit: here's the table I found on the web:
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Based on these analyses, we can propose a model for the spread of west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa as follows. First, a large-scale movement of people from west Eurasia into Ethiopia around 3,000 y ago (perhaps from southern Arabia and associated with the D’mt kingdom and the arrival of Ethiosemitic languages) resulted in the dispersal of west Eurasian ancestry throughout eastern Africa. [...]
History of West Asian admixtures in Northeastern Africa:
1- First, a large-scale movement of people from west Eurasia into Ethiopia around 3,000 y ago (perhaps from southern Arabia and associated with the D’mt kingdom and the arrival of Ethiosemitic languages)
3000 years ago correspond to (2014-3000=) 986 BC. We can note the presence of Semitic (ethio-semitic) language in the region as evidence of cultural admixtures between West Asia and Northeastern Africa long with the genetic evidence of course.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
So basically West Eurasian influence in Northeastern Africa always has been heavy at least since 986 BC. So it's no wonder they have been the first Africans converted to Christianity and Islam respectively.
People interested in Ancient Egyptian bio-history must note that the first evidence of substantial admixture in Northeastern Africa is 986 BC.
986 BC which is well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt and even much more later than the Naqada, Badarian, Tasian culture which preceded it.
986 BC correspond to Third Intermediate/Late Period history of Ancient Egypt, which correspond to foreign conquests of Ancient Egypt (Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, etc). (although there's been the Hyksos/Aamu foreign conquest before in Ancient Egyptian history but it is said they have been expelled to some degree by the 18th Dynasty)
The African Genome project study posted above also shows us similar results (for the earliest evidence of West-Eurasian admixtures in Northeastern Africa).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: --Wesley Muhammad
The Truth of God: The Bible, The Quran and the Secret of the Black God
quote:The Truth of God: The Bible, The Quran and the Secret of the Black God by Wesley Muhammad (True Isam)
This is the historical backdrop against which we must view the ongoing dispute, if you will, between Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam on the one hand, and Christian and orthodox Muslim theologians on the other, regarding the question. Who is God? Elijah Muhammad, very boldly and unapologetically condemned this "ignorant belief that God is "a formless something" ^^ and declared in fact that "God is a man, and we just can't make Him other than a man."....
It is therefore our intension here, in this Introduction to the 'Truth of God',' to provide only some of the overwhelming evidence that the God of the scriptures is a man...
A close reading of these Hebrew passages do not support the use that has been made of them; the passages do not contradict the more numerous affirmations that God is a man.
The KJV of this verse reads, "God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent." Fidelity to the Hebrew syntax requires a different translation, however. Both versets are better translated as relative clauses. The waw (1) followed by a verb reflected for number and gender (3TD\ Dn^D"') can have the sense of a relative particle "that/who. "'^° The better translation is therefore, "God is not a man who lies, nor a son of man who repents." This small syntactical clarification produces a significant change in meaning. Num. 23:19 is not an absolute denial that God is a man; it only denies that God is a man who lies or repents. Similar is the statement, "I, True Islam, am not a man who smokes." I am denying in this statement not my manhood or humanity, but that I smoke.,,,,,
He is anthropopathic: he has human feelings. And, importantly, he is called a man repeatedly in the HB, a fact lost in the various English translations.
__________________________________________
The Book of God: An Encyclopedia of Proof That the Black Man Is God by TRUE ISLAM (Wesley Muhammad)
True Islam's 1997 cult classic is back in print in a new, revised edition. The Book of God has been called 'the bible of the Black God,' as it presents a wide range of scientific, historical, and scriptural evidence demonstrating that the Original Black Man is the God of the world's religious traditions, from the religious traditions of the Ancient Near and Far East such as Kemet (Egypt) and India to the Biblical religions and Islam. The Book of God answers such questions as: How is the Black Man God and what does this mean? What is God's relationship to spirit and matter? What does Albert Einstein's mathematical revelation E=mc2 have to do with the Reality of God? If the Original Black Man is God, Who is the Original Black Woman? Is there evidence of the reality of the Twenty Four Scientists? Who is Master Fard Muhammad? Was he actually an ex-con named Wallie Ford who served time in San Quentin on a drug charge? And more. The Book of God also demonstrates that: The God of the ancient religious traditions around the world was a self-created Black God. The Six Days of Creation in the book of Genesis chronicles the Black God's Six Trillion year evolution. The ancient sacred texts of the Original Man and Woman from around the world agree with the Hon. Elijah Muhammad's Teaching on God. The fields of Genetics and Hebrew Sacred Tradition converge to reveal that the Essence of the Creator inhabits the very genetic makeup of the Original Man and Woman. The Secret of the ancient Mysteries, the Masonic Lodge and Shrine, and the Church of Rome is the Reality of the Black God. Astrophysical evidence and ancient tradition converge to support the Hon. Elijah Muhammad's teaching on the Deportation of the Moon by a Black God. And much more.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
What's the use Enrique?
Teenagers know it all, no matter they just discovered what grown ups have known longer than they've been alive.
And the ideologues, well, they don't care for facts except to manipulate them for propaganda.
There just ain't no nuff registered users of ES who are down with their business not their egos.
Same with troll fighters. What good are they? What people base their history etc on countering roorag?
Never picked up on a history of any people other than us Afrikans who constantly harp on the negatives thus keeping all that **** alive in memory instead of flushed out of mind.
My history culture spirituality language way of living is not a protest literature as too many would make it.
It must be passed to its inheritors in a positive self-centered manner not a reflex in effect centered on another people's interaction with me and mine.
Been sayin' this too long now, like since 2005. I'm tired and finally see why the people we need to turn ES around are gone never to return or lurking and shaking their head at the low life who frequent the site. I mean what halfway decent halfway serious forum presents itself as disgustingly childish rude racist and hateful as ES?
All that GOOGLE caching and ranking wasted on posts that are little more than parodies or on threads that are simple cut n paste jobbies.
And when you and others give kudos to the one who drove the old rank and file away I gotta wonder what are you under? You think her posts make up for the discord she brought to disrupt ES? Disrupt and replace! Mission accomplished. Yeah, atta girl!!
Maybe it's me too blind to see how great these dregs are (and I thank the Eternal for that).
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
A-Ra, Somalia is due East Africa--right next to Kenya and Ethiopia. It is hardly "North East Africa".
Plus, the idea of "Eurasian genes" is highly problematic. There is nothing in the Somali phenotype that says Europe or Asia. I have seen many Somalis and they are some of the blackest people in Africa and they tend to very lean--quite distinct from the more muscled and squat West Asian types one finds in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.
The film "Captain Phillips" offers a good example of what the generic Somali looks like.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
lamin: I admit, I was a bit surprised by the amount of Eurasian admixtures in Somali people. As you say the phenotype of many of them, which kind of looks like the majority by looking at various media, doesn't show much West-Eurasian admixtures while the phenotype of some other Somali do show heavy West-Eurasian admixtures (they may be "recent" migrants). It must be noted also that Somali is a Cushitic language, thus not a Semitic language like ethio-semitic languages.
As I noted before, it is always possible that the individuals Somali used as samples for those studies are taken from Somalian urban centers which may be more admixed than the countryside.
Nevertheless, the study we have show us a large proportion of West-Eurasian admixtures in Somali (above 40%). This is what science shows us in various studies at the moment.
There's no doubt in my mind that Northeastern Africans (in which I include Somali) are heavily admixed with Eurasians. For Somali and other people, is it 40%, 30%, 25%. We can't be 100% sure but above 40% are the current results. Even at 30% it would show definitive West-Eurasian admixtures in Somali. We also know the influence of Islam in that region.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Ra,
Again you are not following what I am saying. I am saying that Mintsa is pushing an absurd line when he says that the true map of Africa is a linguistic map.To have 3,000 nations in Africa is just absurd. Only a fool would see nothing wrong with that.
The solution to the problem of Africa's weakness--both in economics and politics in this world--is to use more brain work and less laziness to create an Africa with just one or two languages excluding Arabic. Mintsa stupidly hands over the vast expanses of North Africa to the invader Arabs. They don't belong there and at some point should be expelled.
With a few unifying languages the foundatiosn would be set to establish regional and Pan African economies and political structures. The point is that organisations such as ECOWAS, AU, and SADEC have little influence on African economic and political life.
An European linguist created Esperanto many years ago but there were already the dominant languages of English, French, and German on the continent--with most educated Europeans especially Scandinavians very fluent in English. So Esperanto didn't progress very far.
It is a fact that the world's dominant nations are monolingual with indigenous languages being used. The only exception is the U.S. where the ancestors of more than 85% of the population did not speak English.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
You just repeated what you said before. Look at a world map. Somalia is not "North East Africa" I am making a simple point of geography.
And what exactly is a "Eurasian"? Asia is a huge expanse of landmass inhabited mostly by East and South Asians. West Asians are a tiny portion of the Asian population--so the idea of "Eurasian genes" is highly problematic and smacks of illogical Eurocentrism.
I go mostly on what people look like. The generic Somali looks nothing like a European or an Asian. Again, check out the film "Captain Phillips".
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Ra,
Again you are not following what I am saying. I am saying that Mintsa is pushing an absurd line when he says that the true map of Africa is a linguistic map.To have 3,000 nations in Africa is just absurd. Only a fool would see nothing wrong with that.
As I said both Mintsa and you view the world through European eyes. You may not realize it but somewhow you want to mimic Europe when in reality Europe and Asia always have been their own people, using their own reality, languages and culture for development. As should Africa of course. Ironically, the best way to mimic Europe would be to use our own languages and cultures as a foundation to our nations as Europeans did.
African nations are made of various languages. It is exactly similar than Europe? Maybe not. So what? Does Africa needs to be exactly like Europe in every way?
Europeans at the moment, are made of various people and languages, are uniting themselves under the European Union (they already have one currency). I don't see much people saying this is bad since they have so many languages in Europe.
Unity in diversity can apply to Europe as well to Africa and even individual countries in Africa.
The use of multilingualism (people knowing 2 or more languages including one national language) can easily resolve all the issues of inter-communication (as it is already the case since even before colonization). Europe, Africa and the whole world is multilingual.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: You just repeated what you said before. Look at a world map. Somalia is not "North East Africa" I am making a simple point of geography.
I understand you point of view. This is just semantic. The important part for me is that they are neighboring Arabia and West Asia. It would be very surprising if 2 neighboring populations never admixed with each others at any point in their history. Genetic studies clearly show admixtures with West-Eurasian, what they look like, less so depending on the individual.
Don't tell me you seriously think there is 0% Eurasian admixtures in Somali? It would be ridiculous. Genetic research says above 40%. The same genetic research showing much lower percentages of Eurasian admixtures in other African populations from other regions (as posted above in this thread). So, they can't be that much biased in favor of Eurasian admixtures beside by what I said above about the representativity of the samples.
quote: I go mostly on what people look like. The generic Somali looks nothing like a European or an Asian. Again, check out the film "Captain Phillips".
Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
But when human beings and human interests are involved the science is often tailored to fit ideological interests. So one has to be careful when so-called "scientific studies" are put out claiming so and so.
"Eye-balling": well, that kind of casual sociology is what determines whether you get searched at an European airport or whether some person gets pulled over by the Police in the U.S. The U.S. cops don't walk with genetic test kits when they are out patrolling.
And "Arab people"? That would include white Lebanese[I see them all the time in Africa], Syrians[ Assad of Syria and his wife look white to me], many Iraqis, Jordanians--all are mainly white. But on the Arabian peninsula the people there are darker and obviously not white. "Arab" includes a wide range of phenotypes--from white to African.
And don't forget that Africans crossed over first into West Asia and other contiguous parts before moving on. So what may be called Eurasian or "Arab" may just be an African phenotypical variant.
Truth is Somalis are phenotypically akin to the Nilotioc types stretching from Upper Egypt down to Uganda and Rwanda-Burundi.
Note that though genetic tests are useful they don't factor in all those environmental elements that eventually produce a particular phenotype. Haplogroup analysis only tells us the extent of random mutational distance and connection within the context of some mutation time frame.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
But when human beings and human interests are involved the science is often tailored to fit ideological interests. So one has to be careful when so-called "scientific studies" are put out claiming so and so.
"Eye-balling": well, that kind of casual sociology is what determines whether you get searched at an European airport or whether some person gets pulled over by the Police in the U.S. The U.S. cops don't walk with genetic test kits when they are out patrolling.
And "Arab people"? That would include white Lebanese[I see them all the time in Africa], Syrians[ Assad of Syria and his wife look white to me], many Iraqis, Jordanians--all are mainly white. But on the Arabian peninsula the people there are darker and obviously not white. "Arab" includes a wide range of phenotypes--from white to African.
And don't forget that Africans crossed over first into West Asia and other contiguous parts before moving on. So what may be called Eurasian or "Arab" may just be an African phenotypical variant.
Truth is Somalis are phenotypically akin to the Nilotioc types stretching from Upper Egypt down to Uganda and Rwanda-Burundi.
Note that though genetic tests are useful they don't factor in all those environmental elements that eventually produce a particular phenotype. Haplogroup analysis only tells us the extent of random mutational distance and connection within the context of some mutation time frame.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
quote:Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
But when human beings and human interests are involved the science is often tailored to fit ideological interests. So one has to be careful when so-called "scientific studies" are put out claiming so and so.
"Eye-balling": well, that kind of casual sociology is what determines whether you get searched at an European airport or whether some person gets pulled over by the Police in the U.S. The U.S. cops don't walk with genetic test kits when they are out patrolling.
And "Arab people"? That would include white Lebanese[I see them all the time in Africa], Syrians[ Assad of Syria and his wife look white to me], many Iraqis, Jordanians--all are mainly white. But on the Arabian peninsula the people there are darker and obviously not white. "Arab" includes a wide range of phenotypes--from white to African.
And don't forget that Africans crossed over first into West Asia and other contiguous parts before moving on. So what may be called Eurasian or "Arab" may just be an African phenotypical variant.
Truth is Somalis are phenotypically akin to the Nilotioc types stretching from Upper Egypt down to Uganda and Rwanda-Burundi.
Note that though genetic tests are useful they don't factor in all those environmental elements that eventually produce a particular phenotype. Haplogroup analysis only tells us the extent of random mutational distance and connection within the context of some mutation time frame.
Consigned.
quote: Oman and the adjoining districts, in shape of head, color, length and slenderness of limbs and scantiness of hair, point to an African origin." The first inhabitants of Arabia were known to the national traditions as Adites. The Scriptures called Ad a descendant of Ham.
I also wonder why the authors never mentioned the Abyssinian empire. As if it never existed.
quote: In any case, an antiquity of the root greater than that previously estimated is evident from the present tree structure. It is worth noting that A1b, long neglected in previous large-scale resequencing studies of theMSY, contributes to the older TMRCA and high nucleotide diversity values that we observe, highlighting the importance of targeted studies on rare haplogroups.
quote:Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
But when human beings and human interests are involved the science is often tailored to fit ideological interests. So one has to be careful when so-called "scientific studies" are put out claiming so and so.
It's ok to question science but I based my analysis on a wide variety of studies and common sense (since they are neighboring territories).
Don't forget that those who ask you to renounce science also have their own ideological interests. So people must be careful about those too.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
quote:Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
But when human beings and human interests are involved the science is often tailored to fit ideological interests. So one has to be careful when so-called "scientific studies" are put out claiming so and so.
It's ok to question science but I based my analysis on a wide variety of studies and common sense (since they are neighboring territories).
Don't forget that those who ask you to renounce science also have their own ideological interests. So people must be careful about those too.
The supplementary tables are most remarkable. These do not speak of neighboring territories. See "reference populations".
Supplementary information for: Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:It's ok to question science but I based my analysis on a wide variety of studies and common sense (since they are neighboring territories).
Neighbours do not necessarily marry each other. Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia are close neighbours but they marry each other only very rarely.
In the case of Somalia: some Arab types may have traveled over to Somalia with the Qur'an as their main ideological tool and decided to settle there. That could probably explain your so-called "Eurasian genes". But your numbers seem too high. The vast majority of the Somali population in no way resemble the Arab populations of the Levant and even the Arabian peninsula.
Question: would you say that the people of the Andaman Islands carry Asian genes--same for the people of New Guinea?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
quote:It's ok to question science but I based my analysis on a wide variety of studies and common sense (since they are neighboring territories).
Neighbours do not necessarily marry each other. Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia are close neighbours but they marry each other only very rarely.
In the case of Somalia: some Arab types may have traveled over to Somalia with the Qur'an as their main ideological tool and decided to settle there. That could probably explain your so-called "Eurasian genes". But your numbers seem too high. The vast majority of the Somali population in no way resemble the Arab populations of the Levant and even the Arabian peninsula.
Question: would you say that the people of the Andaman Islands carry Asian genes--same for the people of New Guinea?
what 50% European looks like:
Posted by Habsburg (Member # 21824) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Ra,
Again you are not following what I am saying. I am saying that Mintsa is pushing an absurd line when he says that the true map of Africa is a linguistic map.To have 3,000 nations in Africa is just absurd. Only a fool would see nothing wrong with that.
The solution to the problem of Africa's weakness--both in economics and politics in this world--is to use more brain work and less laziness to create an Africa with just one or two languages excluding Arabic. Mintsa stupidly hands over the vast expanses of North Africa to the invader Arabs. They don't belong there and at some point should be expelled.
With a few unifying languages the foundatiosn would be set to establish regional and Pan African economies and political structures. The point is that organisations such as ECOWAS, AU, and SADEC have little influence on African economic and political life.
An European linguist created Esperanto many years ago but there were already the dominant languages of English, French, and German on the continent--with most educated Europeans especially Scandinavians very fluent in English. So Esperanto didn't progress very far.
It is a fact that the world's dominant nations are monolingual with indigenous languages being used. The only exception is the U.S. where the ancestors of more than 85% of the population did not speak English.
Your reveal your racist Taliban/ISIS mindset at every turn. White people who pretend to be black people and label everything in economic terms. The whole of African culture must be reduced to economic necessities, of which linguistic monocultures are a necessity. You may not realize it but English and French already serve that purpose, so why adopt other languages? Which African languages do you have in mind anyway?
Africans have were doing quite well until their governments were corrupted by banking and financial interests. Why don't you consider the condition of Greece and Spain today? What is happening there is what has been happening in Africa when governments are seduced by aid loans and grants which bankrupt the nation and undermine the governments abilities to set their own priorities.
Languages don't exist for economic purposes only. They are ways in which the human mind and spirit expresses itself, and according to you they have to be whittled down to a minimum in service of alleged economic needs. I wouldn't be surprised if people like you were the ones behind ISIS. Languages don't exist to serve economic needs, and African is not going to be like another EU or the US where banks take over the whole political system in the name of economic cooperation. Stop fronting and shilling for white supremacist banking cartels and take a hike.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
quote:It's ok to question science but I based my analysis on a wide variety of studies and common sense (since they are neighboring territories).
Neighbours do not necessarily marry each other. Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia are close neighbours but they marry each other only very rarely.
In the case of Somalia: some Arab types may have traveled over to Somalia with the Qur'an as their main ideological tool and decided to settle there. That could probably explain your so-called "Eurasian genes". But your numbers seem too high. The vast majority of the Somali population in no way resemble the Arab populations of the Levant and even the Arabian peninsula.
Question: would you say that the people of the Andaman Islands carry Asian genes--same for the people of New Guinea?
Considering the geography of the region itself it is not lot logic a foreign people entered there in mass numbers. What may have happened was a genetic drift in the region.
And we know Arab ethnic groups have settled in the Horn, during the expel, 700 A.D.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Here's what science says about the proportion of Eurasian admixture in various African populations (alleles which appeared in Eurasia after the OOA migrations). They used 3 different methods which convey slightly different percentages. Of course we could do the same thing and show the percentage of African admixtures in Eurasians (alleles which appeared in Africa after the OOA migrations). As I said in another thread, Einstein is said to be from the African E haplogroups, which is an haplogroup which appeared in Africa well after the OOA migrations. There's a lot of African E haplogroups carriers in the Balkans for example too (probably due to genetic drift considering MtDNA and autosomal DNA but this is still evidence of admixtures).
We can see in this table the proportion of Eurasian admixtures among various African populations.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
I asked for the meaning of "Eurasian gene" and I am waiting for an answer.
I also asked whether the Andaman Islanders and New Guineans also carry Asian genes to the maximum or even "Eurasian genes".
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Your reveal your racist Taliban/ISIS mindset at every turn. White people who pretend to be black people and label everything in economic terms. The whole of African culture must be reduced to economic necessities, of which linguistic monocultures are a necessity. You may not realize it but English and French already serve that purpose, so why adopt other languages? Which African languages do you have in mind anyway?
Africans have were doing quite well until their governments were corrupted by banking and financial interests. Why don't you consider the condition of Greece and Spain today? What is happening there is what has been happening in Africa when governments are seduced by aid loans and grants which bankrupt the nation and undermine the governments abilities to set their own priorities.
Languages don't exist for economic purposes only.
quote:They are ways in which the human mind and spirit expresses itself, and according to you they have to be whittled down to a minimum in service of alleged economic needs. I wouldn't be surprised if people like you were the ones behind ISIS. Languages don't exist to serve economic needs, and African is not going to be like another EU or the US where banks take over the whole political system in the name of economic cooperation. Stop fronting and shilling for white supremacist banking cartels and take a hike.
Mostly illiterate gibberish from an infantile mind. Waste of time to mix intellectually with morons. Sorry.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: I asked for the meaning of "Eurasian gene" and I am waiting for an answer.
The answer is there you just didn't notice it.
Eurasian "gene": alleles which appeared in Eurasia after the OOA migrations
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
So that would include Andaman Island and New Guinean genes? Right?
But let's get down to the "hidden meaning" behind all this Eurasian talk. It's just the old discredited Seligman hypothesis dressed up in fancy biological language.
Seligman(1930)claimed that civilisation arose in Africa only when "quicker witted" West Asian Hamites invaded Africa to inject "better genes" into the resident "negro"[the colonial term au courant at the time]. These quicker witted West Asian types were dubbed as Hamites--thereby giving rise to the "Hamitic hypothesis" which included the so-called "dynastic race" invading from West Asia that gave rise to the AE civilisation.
This Seligman thesis is still at work under the guise of "Eurasian genes entering Africa" hypothesis.
But let's assume there is such a thing as an "Eurasian gene" then what is its significance? The Somalis and Foulahs who are reported to carry the most are only 2 of Africa's very varied phenotypical and genotypical terrain.
Many Cameroonians carry the R1b gene which is shared with West Europeans and South East Asians. OK, but what does that confer on those Cameroonians who are carriers? Nothing really.
So this Eurocentric obsession with Eurasian genes in African populations is not much more than pseudo-racial narcissism--the modern version of the Seligman hypothesis.
The point is that the non-African rest of the world all carry variants of African genes--whether one touts the OOA or Multiregional hypothesis for the peopling of the world. Yet that obvious fact does not excite racial juices as the "Eurasian gene" hypothesis.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Yes, we are all humans and all siblings. Population genetics makes a big case out of the few genetic variations among humans. My interest in it is to study history and the movements of people. Humans are about I think 99.9% similar genetically. Population genetics seems to make a big case out of the 0.01% or so. Each humans are born with about 60-100 new mutations. So we are also all unique in a way.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: I asked for the meaning of "Eurasian gene" and I am waiting for an answer.
The answer is there you just didn't notice it.
Eurasian "gene": alleles which appeared in Eurasia after the OOA migrations
Haplo E-V13 they say originated in the Cresent/ Eurasia And is associated with the spread of farming. The Balkan carries this E-V13.
And one point in time, they claimed that entire Hg E* arose at Eurasia. How about that one!
On multiple occasions we have noticed that so-called eurians allleles had their root in nuclear resolutions found in Africa.
Ps, you don't study history and movements, otherwise you would have answered questions addressed on archeology, anthropology assemblages. As we know you always considered it as irrelevant. Your background in history is laughable, since you only came to know about Seligman's thesis until today.
quote: Y-DNA haplogroup F is the parent of all Y-DNA haplogroups G through T and contains more than 90 percent of the world's population. Haplogroup F was in the original migration out of Africa, or else it was founded soon afterward, because F and its sub-haplogroups are primarily found outside, with very few inside, sub-Saharan Africa. The founder of F could have lived between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, depending on the time of the out-of-Africa migration.
quote:The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe. The J branch subsequently split again and contributed to the current North African population.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: So that would include Andaman Island and New Guinean genes? Right?
But let's get down to the "hidden meaning" behind all this Eurasian talk. It's just the old discredited Seligman hypothesis dressed up in fancy biological language.
Seligman(1930)claimed that civilisation arose in Africa only when "quicker witted" West Asian Hamites invaded Africa to inject "better genes" into the resident "negro"[the colonial term au courant at the time]. These quicker witted West Asian types were dubbed as Hamites--thereby giving rise to the "Hamitic hypothesis" which included the so-called "dynastic race" invading from West Asia that gave rise to the AE civilisation.
This Seligman thesis is still at work under the guise of "Eurasian genes entering Africa" hypothesis.
But let's assume there is such a thing as an "Eurasian gene" then what is its significance? The Somalis and Foulahs who are reported to carry the most are only 2 of Africa's very varied phenotypical and genotypical terrain.
Many Cameroonians carry the R1b gene which is shared with West Europeans and South East Asians. OK, but what does that confer on those Cameroonians who are carriers? Nothing really.
So this Eurocentric obsession with Eurasian genes in African populations is not much more than pseudo-racial narcissism--the modern version of the Seligman hypothesis.
The point is that the non-African rest of the world all carry variants of African genes--whether one touts the OOA or Multiregional hypothesis for the peopling of the world. Yet that obvious fact does not excite racial juices as the "Eurasian gene" hypothesis.
Consigned!
All this obsesses is over ancient Egypt, eventually.
quote: Seligman acknowledged varying degrees of Negroid admixture amongst the Hamitic groups, but emphasized throughout his major works the essential racial and cultural unity of the various Hamitic peoples. In his Some Aspects of the Hamitic Problem in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (1913), he writes that the Northern and Eastern Hamitic "groups shade into each other, and in many parts a Negro admixture has taken place, nevertheless, culturally if not always physically, either division stands apart from its fellow."[11]
Ps, don't really expect an answer, from AR the Ultimate. Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Here is more on the paper pushed by AR the Ultimate.
They have found away to claim populations responsible for the rise of ancient Egypt. By populations who gave rise the Walata, Kerma, Nabta Playa, Naqada. Because they inhabited these regions "actually", as they claim.
quote: Specifically, ancient Eurasian admixture was observed in central West African populations (Yoruba; ~7,500–10,500 years ago), old admixture among Ethiopian populations (~2,400–3,200 years ago) consistent with previous reports10, 12, and more recent complex admixture in some East African populations (~150–1,500 years ago) (Fig. 2, Extended Data Fig. 7 and Supplementary Note 5).
Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period 13, 14.
The African Genome Variation Project shapes medical genetics in Africa
Nature 517, 327–332 (15 January 2015) doi:10.1038/nature13997
Perhaps AR the Ultimate can elaborate on this?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
No, this African Genome Variation Project is very good for recognizing the African ethnic affiliation of Ancient Egyptians since the earliest substantial trace of Eurasian admixtures in this Northeastern part of Africa is said to be 986 BC (see my post above in this thread). Which correspond roughly to Assyrians and other late period foreign conquest of Ancient Egypt (Greeks, Romans, etc).
Of course, only Ancient DNA taken from actual Ancient Egyptian mummies can confirm the thing. But as you know it is the case considering Ramses III is determined to be E1b1a (BMJ study) and the JAMA/BMJ and DNA Tribes analysis of the autosomal DNA of the Ancient Egyptian mummies. AKA they are all Africans related to so-called Sub-Saharan Africans more than any other people.
As you know, I always considered as very probable that they must have been low level of Eurasian admixtures in Ancient Egyptians probably even at its foundation stage. That is even much before the Hyksos/Aamu conquest during the second intermediate period. But the African Genome Variation Project, if we extend the results to the whole Northeastern African region, and the ancient DNA taken from actual AEians mummies all indicate that this admixture would be very minimal. Ancient Egyptians mummies, according to current results, are mostly black Africans (See BMJ, JAMA and DNA Tribes studies).
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: No, this African Genome Variation Project is very good for recognizing the African ethnic affiliation of Ancient Egyptians since the earliest substantial trace of Eurasian admixtures in this Northeastern part of Africa is said to be 986 BC (see my post above in this thread). Which correspond roughly to Assyrians and other late period foreign conquest of Ancient Egypt (Greeks, Romans, etc).
Of course, only Ancient DNA taken from actual Ancient Egyptian mummies can confirm the thing. But as you know it is the case considering Ramses III is determined to be E1b1a (BMJ study) and the JAMA/BMJ and DNA Tribes analysis of the autosomal DNA of the Ancient Egyptian mummies. AKA they are all Africans related to so-called Sub-Saharan Africans more than any other people.
As you know, I always considered as very probable that they must have been low level of Eurasian admixtures in Ancient Egyptians probably even at its foundation stage. That is even much before the Hyksos/Aamu conquest during the second intermediate period. But the African Genome Variation Project, if we extend the results to the whole Northeastern African region, and the ancient DNA taken from actual AEians mummies all indicate that this admixture would be very minimal. Ancient Egyptians mummies, according to current results, are mostly black Africans (See BMJ, JAMA and DNA Tribes studies).
In craniometric studies, ancient Egyptians don't cluster/pool or closely match with modern West/Central African (i.e. "Negroid") means, they are fairly close though to Somali or Horn populations (Froment, 1991, 1992, 1994):
Also claiming that "Somalis" are part of "black phenotypic diversity" (as those with the ESR pan-African political agenda claim) is false, since Sub-Saharan Africans/"blacks" do not cluster together. So despite Froment writing: "Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations", this does not mean you can extend this to West Africa.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Amun Ra keep in mind that Troll Patrol like xyyman think that no new haplogroups formed after humans left Africa
Ask TP to name a haplogroup that is Eurasian. He will say there are none.
That is the philosophy of xyyman and Troll Patrol so all their argumenataion is built on that premise
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
AngloBuffoon says: In craniometric studies, ancient Egyptians don't cluster/pool or closely match with modern West/Central African
^^Laughably Bogus as usual, and Froment shows that indeed the Egyptians match with other African populations. Sure, but that's only one African population at hand. His data shows the Horn especially but other studies debunk your claim.
Yawn.
And why would West and Central Africans be the only "true" representatives of Africans, while you do not apply the same standard in white Europe? Take your hypocritical double standards out of here.
But in any event, the closest match with the Egyptians are fellow Africans, Nubians to be exact, an unmistakably "black" population. Sorry. You lose again.
And as for craniometric studies, others show just such links with "West/Central" Africans.
As always, you lose again.
AngloBuffoon/Pyramido/Dead/"Thule" says: Also claiming that "Somalis" are part of "black phenotypic diversity" (as those with the ESR pan-African political agenda claim) is false, since Sub- Saharan Africans/"blacks" do not cluster together.
^Hapless buffoon, must we again school you? Here are the sub-Saharan Somalians and notice they DO cluster with other sub-Saharan blacks. Don't you get tired of being debunked on the same nonsense? What? You think by running the same BS claims every few months that it will change anything?
No matter what screen name you reappear under to retail your rubbish, it is already "dead" on arrival.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead: In craniometric studies
Those things have been discussed countless times on this forum. Your argument only works (edit:well not really if you consider Zarahan's post above for example) if you ignore DNA studies and post-cranial analysis. You must take all lines of argumentation into account.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample by Trenton Holliday 2013
Ancient Egyptians are their own people different from modern West/East/South Africans. But they are related to Sub-Saharan black Africans (Zulu, Yoruba, Somali, Karrayyu, Wolof, Kongo, etc) much more than they are related to Eurasians or West Asians. This is what DNA, limb proportion/post-cranial analysis and craniometric analysis says. Of the 3, DNA provides the best discriminative power.
This is just to say racist people in the past were wrong when they tried to claim AE was founded by a dynastic race coming from outside the continent to create Ancient Egypt in Africa. AEians were truly indigenous black Africans. Made of people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations. Related and in continuity with the Green Sahara, Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, Naqada culture.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
They don't cluster/overlap/pool with any modern population - they are just closer to Somalis than West/Central Africans ("Negroids") in Africa. However they are as close as Somalis, as to southern Mediterranean's (above I was only discussing Africa). The post-cranial data shows the same.
"Le physique des egyptiens anciens est exactement a equidistance de celiu des europeens et se celui des negro-africains; certaines populations de la mediterranee d'une part de la corne de l'afrique (Tigre, Somalie) de l'autre, tombent a l'interieur de la gamme de variation des egyptiens anciens". (Froment, 1992)
trans:
"Physically the ancient ancient Egyptians are exactly equal distance of European and that of the African Negro; some populations of the mediterranean on one hand the Horn of Africa (Tigre, Somalia) on the other, fall in the interior of the range of variation of the ancient Egyptians."
They are 'intermediate', un gradient de forme régulier (trans. “a regular gradient form”) between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans, but closest to southern Mediterraneans in the north, and Somalis to their south).
Crappy images spams won't save you. Educated people can read and see this clinal data. You guys are like 5-10 years behind on this stuff.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Show me a genetic study that supports continental or "racial" clustering. The idea there is an "African" genetic cluster is totally bogus. This is discredited racialism plain and simple. You guys support it because you're driven by a political pan-African or "black" nationalist agenda (which is what that ESR forum is), but this has no support from science whatsoever.
"Zones of discontinuity in human gene frequency distributions are present, but the local gradients are so small that they can be identified only by simultaneously studying many loci using complex statistical techniques. In addition, such regions of relatively sharp genetic change do not surround large clusters of populations, on a continental or nearly continental scale. On the contrary, they occur irregularly, within continents and even within single countries." - Barbujani et al. 1997
Without an "African" cluster, the stuff you are posting totally collapses. "Don't you get tired of being debunked on the same nonsense?" yet when Zaharan is at the level of a Stormfront poster who thinks there are races/genetic continental clusters. lol. Wasn't he meant to be an ES veteran? Yet he's not learnt the basics of clines in all these years.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: well not really if you consider Zarahan's post above for example
Post directly out of Keita 2005 and try to debunk what Dead says and you will fail, just like your string of failures ever since you started meddling in anthro conversations you don't know anything about.
Keep on hammering 'em Dead. Apparently they're still in need of a full fledged intellectual ass-whoopin'.
The data in Keita 2005 comes to the exact same conclusion as Froment, only thing is both don't explicitly account for the fact that most/all the Med samples have "Egyptian" ancestry (although both authors may be aware of it), causing the northern and eastern Mediterranean samples to gravitate towards the NE African series. The dynastic Egyptian samples that diverge from the predynastic Naqada samples also have non-local ancestry.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
"Keep on hammering 'em Dead. Apparently they're still in need of a full fledged intellectual ass-whoopin'"
Oh boy........
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^You're silent in these scientific debates for a reason, boy. Don't forget that. Stick to pseudo- science.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
AngloBufoon/Thule says: "Physically the ancient ancient Egyptians are exactly equal distance of European and that of the African Negro; some populations of the mediterranean on one hand the Horn of Africa (Tigre, Somalia) on the other, fall in the interior of the range of variation of the ancient Egyptians."
Sure in Froment's sample they may be "equal distance" but as he himself admits "Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations". The primary cluster is STILL with sub-Saharan Africans, a point confirmed by other studies more current than Froment 1992. You fail again.
The idea there is an "African" genetic cluster is totally bogus.
But, you your yourself say they cluster with Africans in the south, and produce a writer that says just that. If the cluster is "non-existent," as you now claim, after having on the same page asserted that it does, then you are not only a very confused individual, but again, have contradicted your own claim, with your own "supporting" reference.
"Zones of discontinuity in human gene frequency distributions are present, but the local gradients are so small that they can be identified only by simultaneously studying many loci using complex statistical techniques. In addition, such regions of relatively sharp genetic change do not surround large clusters of populations, on a continental or nearly continental scale. On the contrary, they occur irregularly, within continents and even within single countries." - Barbujani et al. 1997
lol, you fail again. Up above Barbjuani says "they occur" within continents, and we are talking populations inside Africa's Nile Valley. You are trying to divert attention from your earlier failure by "broadening" into a strawman query, but you still fail. Barbujani himself acknowledged clustering of Africans found in other studies, noting that sampling schemes, loci chosen, etc impact results, a point made to you by Badmuntish or whatever he is called now almost 2 years ago. You were debunked then and still are now. Posting the same BS 2 years later in the hope people have forgotten won't save you. Even recent arrival Amun-ra has pointed out glaring errors and contradictions in your claims. But let's take your own writer elsewhere. Quote:
With k=6 Rosenberg et al. [49] found genetic clusters corresponding to (1) Africa, (2) Europe, Western Asia and part of Central Asia; (3) the Kalash of Pakistan; (4) East Asia and part of Central Asia; (5) Oceania; and (6) South America. Bamshad et al. [68] observed a separation between Africa and Eurasia with k=2, a split between Asia and Europe with k=3, and two African clusters with k=4, confirming that variation within Africa exceeds that among other continents [57, 69, 70]. EXCERPT FROM: Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity. Current Genomics, 2005, 6, 000-000 Guido Barbujani*
Barbjuani noted results can be mixed based on sampling, beginning assumptions, etc but once again, someone you used as a "supporting" reference, debunks your claim that there is no support for such clusters. Your own guy which you referenced says there is.
Hapless buffoon! When are you going to learn that the very same "supporting" references you keep using undermine your position? lmao..
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
hahahahahahahahaha
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
What Keita 2005 actually says, if you can get past the tendentious misrepresentations of the Keita parasites, who, for some reason, still can't be trusted to paraphrase him correctly after ten years:
quote:At another level, the morphometric patterns of Egyptian crania in general, although highly variable, exhibit a position intermediate to stereotypical tropical Africans and Europeans in multivariate analyses (see review in Keita, 1993).
--Keita 2005
quote:The results are not supportive of European agriculturalists colonizing el-Badari in the early- to mid-Holocene. The Badarian series evinces greater phenetic affinity with the tropical African comparative groups and, notably, the east African Teita. This affinity is relative and not to be taken as indicating identity. This finding can only be interpreted as showing a particular broad similarity in the morphometric space circumscribed by the particular groups used
--Keita 2005
quote:The Badarians were a local Saharo-Nile Valley population, based on archaeological and other data (see below).
--Keita 2005
quote: The dendrograms of Brace et al. (1993) would seem to illustrate in the main a facet of indigenous African diversity observed elsewhere: a subset of African series evincing similarity to non-African groups not primarily due to gene flow, analogous to individual Africans (even with the socially constructed stereotypical African morphophenotype) being found throughout mtDNA of trees of world samples, in some analyses
--Keita 2005
quote:Additional analyses using 22 variables and including additional material from Sudan, late dynastic northern Egypt (Gizeh), Somalia, Asia, and the Pacific islands, show the Badarian series to be most similar to a series from the northeast quadrant of Africa and then to other Africans.
--Keita 2005
quote:The evidence indicates early Egypt to foundationally belong to a northeast African biocultural descendant community.
--Keita 2005
^There is no fundamental discrepancy between Froment's and Keita's results, despite shaky attempts to insinuate otherwise.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: hahahahahahahahaha
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers/Mikemiev: posted 07 February, 2013 04:30 PM [Forensic anthropologists, osteologists and paleo-anthropologists who use craniometry still exist and their research is valid.
You're just setting up a well known fallacy to try and portray physical racial anthropology as "obsolete", when it isn't, and never will be.
^^2 years ago he argued for racial clustering based on craniometry. Now up above he says clusters are invalid, or "totally bogus." Which is it? He can't have it both ways. Can't he keep track of his many bogus or contradictory claims which too often are "dead" on arrival?
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
There's little wrong with that old quote of mine. There is a systematic structure (i.e. geographical patterning) to cranial variation. If there wasn't - a forensic scientist wouldn't be able to determine someone's ancestry with 70-80% success rate. However, while there are populations that differ in terms of (mean) skeletal measurements, they don't cluster or form a nested hierarchy at the continental or sub-continental level (this is why if I use terms like "Negroid" I now always highlight them) hence:
"We can only concur with Howells modification of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘There are no races, only populations." (Ousley et al. 2009)
I abandoned race/clustering for the populationist approach in 2013, as well as recognising the strong clinal pattern of human biological variation. But in forensic science, "race" is synonymous with population or ancestry. That's more a semantics issue though.
What I have stated though is correct: populations in Africa don't cluster together as a continent.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Note also that Amun Ra's repeated botched attempts at citing out of Holliday's work shows how truly cosmically confused he is. He and his fellow ideologues try to create a fictive rift between OOA and non-OOA populations, but it will get the looney toons nowhere.
In full accordance with OOA, it has already been demonstrated by Holliday that the AMHs that excited Africa after 70kya had a bodyplan that was an extension of the NE African bodyplan (Holliday 1997a), further demonstrating the patent absurdity of trying to create a fictive Africa-nonAfrica boundary, or a continentally circumscribed cluster of Africans vs Eurasians using Holliday's work (or anyone else', for that matter).
quote:As in the NJ tree, the EUP are closest to the Sub-Saharan Africans. In this case, they share closest morphological affinity with the Sudanese [Kerma]. Interestingly, the LUP and MES sample are closest to each other, but are connected to the recent humans via a North African group (Nubia)—a result similar to that obtained in the NJ cluster.
--Holliday 1997a
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You must take all lines of argumentation into account.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample by Trenton Holliday 2013
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Some folk will never understand the game.
The times and the techniques change but the Hamite and/or Caucasian N&E Africa mentality by the academy remains the same despite new shoes and clothes.
It is important to push Eurasian Nigeria in the best Speke Seligman Baker mode because of
* Iwo Eleru * Dafuna canoe * Nok (terra cotta et al * Ife (lost wax et al)
how could the dull witted negroes accomplish what those items represent without superior the Eurasian Hamite Caucasian N&E Africa "genes?"
Seligman (1930) claimed that civilisation arose in Africa only when "quicker witted" West Asian Hamites invaded Africa to inject "better genes" into the resident "negro"[the colonial term au courant at the time]. These quicker witted West Asian types were dubbed as Hamites--thereby giving rise to the "Hamitic hypothesis" which included the so-called "dynastic race" invading from West Asia that gave rise to the AE civilisation. This Seligman thesis is still at work under the guise of "Eurasian genes entering Africa" hypothesis.
But let's assume there is such a thing as an "Eurasian gene" then what is its significance? ...
[...]
So this Eurocentric obsession with Eurasian genes in African populations is not much more than pseudo-racial narcissism--the modern version of the Seligman hypothesis.
Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period 13, 14.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: I asked for the meaning of "Eurasian gene" and I am waiting for an answer.
The answer is there you just didn't notice it.
Eurasian "gene": alleles which appeared in Eurasia after the OOA migrations
Haplo E-V13 they say originated in the Cresent/ Eurasia And is associated with the spread of farming. The Balkan carries this E-V13.
And one point in time, they claimed that entire Hg E* arose at Eurasia. How about that one!
On multiple occasions we have noticed that so-called eurians allleles had their root in nuclear resolutions found in Africa.
Ps, you don't study history and movements, otherwise you would have answered questions addressed on archeology, anthropology assemblages. As we know you always considered it as irrelevant. Your background in history is laughable, since you only came to know about Seligman's thesis until today.
quote: Y-DNA haplogroup F is the parent of all Y-DNA haplogroups G through T and contains more than 90 percent of the world's population. Haplogroup F was in the original migration out of Africa, or else it was founded soon afterward, because F and its sub-haplogroups are primarily found outside, with very few inside, sub-Saharan Africa. The founder of F could have lived between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, depending on the time of the out-of-Africa migration.
quote:The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe. The J branch subsequently split again and contributed to the current North African population.
"Badumtish" is/was a philosopher. I debated him from 2011-early 2013. He didn't understand about science. Also despite him claiming his philosophy was "individualistic" he just robbed it from Nelson Goodman. All his arguments were from Goodman, a nominalist and critic of set theory who argued similarity is a flawed concept - so absolutely nothing can be categorized.
His favourite quote he used to spam was this:
"Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute.”
Though, this is pretty good to troll people with.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Note also that Amun Ra's repeated botched attempts at citing out of Holliday's work shows how truly cosmically confused he is. He and his fellow ideologues try to create a fictive rift between OOA and non-OOA populations, but it will get the looney toons nowhere.
It has already been demonstrated by Holliday that the AMHs that excited Africa after 70kya had a bodyplan that was an extension of the NE African bodyplan (Holliday 1997a), further demonstrating the patent absurdity of trying to create a fictive Africa-nonAfrica boundary, or a continentally circumscribed cluster of Africans vs Eurasian, using Holliday's work (or anyone else', for that matter).
quote:As in the NJ tree, the EUP are closest to the Sub-Saharan Africans. In this case, they share closest morphological affinity with the Sudanese [Kerma]. Interestingly, the LUP and MES sample are closest to each other, but are connected to the recent humans via a North African group (Nubia)—a result similar to that obtained in the NJ cluster.
--Holliday 1997a
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You must take all lines of argumentation into account.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample by Trenton Holliday 2013
FROMENT (A.) 1998, Le peuplement de l’Afrique Centrale : contribution de la paléoanthropologie, in M. Delneuf, J.-M. Essomba, A. Froment (éds), Paléoanthropologie en Afrique centrale : un bilan de l’Archéologie au Cameroun.
There's a lot of useful stuff in there but its in French.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:With k=6 Rosenberg et al. [49] found genetic clusters corresponding to (1) Africa, (2) Europe, Western Asia and part of Central Asia; (3) the Kalash of Pakistan; (4) East Asia and part of Central Asia; (5) Oceania; and (6) South America. Bamshad et al. [68] observed a separation between Africa and Eurasia with k=2, a split between Asia and Europe with k=3, and two African clusters with k=4, confirming that variation within Africa exceeds that among other continents [57, 69, 70]. EXCERPT FROM: Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity. Current Genomics, 2005, 6, 000-000 Guido Barbujani*
Barbjuani noted results can be mixed based on sampling, beginning assumptions, etc but once again, someone you used as a "supporting" reference, debunks your claim that there is no support for such clusters. Your own guy which you referenced says there is.
Barbujani does quote Rosenberg, but he/she debunks his continental clusters. See also Serre and Pääbo (2004).
Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters. Without “a sampling strategy that maximizes the geographic distribution of samples and keeps similar sample size for each geographical area,” they warned, researchers risked falsely creating “apparent substructures” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1681). In contrast, when these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)
Rosenberg just took samples from distant locations (with few or no samples between those extremes). Its no wonder he produces clusters, since he polarized the data by missing lots of populations.Barbujani warns against this. So my "supporting reference" does not go against what I posted.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Sure in Froment's sample they may be "equal distance" but as he himself admits "Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations".
When you look at the means (as central tendencies/probabilities) they don't exactly "fit well"; look at the diagram. While Somalis are the closest modern African population to Egyptians in his study, they still don't pool together or sit on top of each other as an average. But they "fit well" in the sense of variation/range overlap.
Anyway, if you look you have "Proto-Meds" as close as the Somalis. Those are the Mediterraneans he mentions:
"Physically the ancient ancient Egyptians are exactly equal distance of European and that of the African Negro; some populations of the Mediterranean on one hand the Horn of Africa (Tigre, Somalia) on the other, fall in the interior of the range of variation of the ancient Egyptians."
quote: The primary cluster is STILL with sub-Saharan Africans, a point confirmed by other studies more current than Froment 1992. You fail again.
No, this is false. See above.
quote:But, you your yourself say they cluster with Africans in the south, and produce a writer that says just that. If the cluster is "non-existent," as you now claim, after having on the same page asserted that it does, hence you are not only a very confused individual, but again, have contradicted your own claim, with your own "supporting" reference.
Neither me or the study states they cluster with Africans. A breakdown:
1. Ancient Egyptians fall intermediate as a mean between Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans.
2. Ancient Egyptians are closest as a mean to southern Mediterraneans and Somalis.
3. Given morphological overlap in the range of variation among populations, these closest populations "fit well" into the Egyptian morphological variation, despite not overlapping in means.
There's no clustering here whatsoever.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:At another level, the morphometric patterns of Egyptian crania in general, although highly variable, exhibit a position intermediate to stereotypical tropical Africans and Europeans in multivariate analyses (see review in Keita, 1993).
--Keita 2005
quote:There is no fundamental discrepancy between Froment's and Keita's results, despite shaky attempts to insinuate otherwise. [/QB]
Good quote. Virtually everyone seems to have missed Krantz (1980) (even, Keita 1993) who labelled Egyptians as just Saharans or Saharanoids. He described them as having a mix of Negroid and Caucasoid features but contra Coon, argued this was not the result of race mixture, so he was along the same lines of Froment and Keita. Krantz' book though is very simplistic and he only discusses a small number of climatic (i.e. adaptive) traits. The only reason Krantz' book is ignored is because he believed in bigfoot, do he basically isolated himself in academia and then all other scientists ignored him. Howeber this is unfortunate because regardless of his fringe views on cryptozoology, he was one of the best physical anthropologists of the mid-late 20th century.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
A lot of waffling and posting the same craniometric informations over and over again which doesn't do them (Swenet and dead/anglo-pyramidologist) any good anyway (see Zarahan post above and many other studies). But there's no escape when you take into account ALL lines of evidences discussed many times on this forum.
1) DNA =Ancient Egyptians are black Africans 2) Cultural continuity (anthropology) = black Africans 3) Post-cranial/Limb proportion= black Africans 4) Craniometric = black Africans
Even modern European people present variation (DNA, craniometric, cultural, body proportion) between each others in all those aspects, but it doesn't mean they don't share common ancestors too. They also share similarities. Which is the same thing with Ancient Egyptians which share common ancestors with most other African populations well after the OOA migrations. See Keita mentioning the PN2 bridge. That is all E haplogroup carriers (Bantu, Somali, Karrayyu, Yoruba, Kongo, Ramses III and son, etc), for example, share common ancestors after the OOA migration. Making them closer to each others in every aspect (cultural and anthropological) than with any OOA/Eurasian populations.
quote:Originally posted by Dead: In craniometric studies
Those things have been discussed countless times on this forum. Your argument only works (edit:well not really if you consider Zarahan's post above for example) if you ignore DNA studies and post-cranial analysis. You must take all lines of argumentation into account.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample by Trenton Holliday 2013
Ancient Egyptians are their own people different from modern West/East/South Africans. But they are related to Sub-Saharan black Africans (Zulu, Yoruba, Somali, Karrayyu, Wolof, Kongo, etc) much more than they are related to Eurasians or West Asians. This is what DNA, limb proportion/post-cranial analysis and craniometric analysis says. Of the 3, DNA provides the best discriminative power.
This is just to say racist people in the past were wrong when they tried to claim AE was founded by a dynastic race coming from outside the continent to create Ancient Egypt in Africa. AEians were truly indigenous black Africans. Made of people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations. Related and in continuity with the Green Sahara, Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, Naqada culture.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
You don't know what to believe still? Here's the real bottom line (published by a reliable source - The Oxford university press)
"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as `black' while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." --Source: The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. 2001. p. 27-28
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: No, this African Genome Variation Project is very good for recognizing the African ethnic affiliation of Ancient Egyptians since the earliest substantial trace of Eurasian admixtures in this Northeastern part of Africa is said to be 986 BC (see my post above in this thread). Which correspond roughly to Assyrians and other late period foreign conquest of Ancient Egypt (Greeks, Romans, etc).
Of course, only Ancient DNA taken from actual Ancient Egyptian mummies can confirm the thing. But as you know it is the case considering Ramses III is determined to be E1b1a (BMJ study) and the JAMA/BMJ and DNA Tribes analysis of the autosomal DNA of the Ancient Egyptian mummies. AKA they are all Africans related to so-called Sub-Saharan Africans more than any other people.
As you know, I always considered as very probable that they must have been low level of Eurasian admixtures in Ancient Egyptians probably even at its foundation stage. That is even much before the Hyksos/Aamu conquest during the second intermediate period. But the African Genome Variation Project, if we extend the results to the whole Northeastern African region, and the ancient DNA taken from actual AEians mummies all indicate that this admixture would be very minimal. Ancient Egyptians mummies, according to current results, are mostly black Africans (See BMJ, JAMA and DNA Tribes studies).
According to the sources, I've posted there were also other mutations forming Hg's, which are still present till this day in multiple regions within Africa. Especially Northeast Africa. You love to ignore this.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Same thing with the archaeological/cultural continuity which show them to be indigenous Africans. Even displaying "STRONG SIMILARITIES TO MODERN AFRICAN CULTURES".
"Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns , appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons. [...] Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization" - The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001). p.28
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: No, this African Genome Variation Project is very good for recognizing the African ethnic affiliation of Ancient Egyptians since the earliest substantial trace of Eurasian admixtures in this Northeastern part of Africa is said to be 986 BC (see my post above in this thread). Which correspond roughly to Assyrians and other late period foreign conquest of Ancient Egypt (Greeks, Romans, etc).
Of course, only Ancient DNA taken from actual Ancient Egyptian mummies can confirm the thing. But as you know it is the case considering Ramses III is determined to be E1b1a (BMJ study) and the JAMA/BMJ and DNA Tribes analysis of the autosomal DNA of the Ancient Egyptian mummies. AKA they are all Africans related to so-called Sub-Saharan Africans more than any other people.
As you know, I always considered as very probable that they must have been low level of Eurasian admixtures in Ancient Egyptians probably even at its foundation stage. That is even much before the Hyksos/Aamu conquest during the second intermediate period. But the African Genome Variation Project, if we extend the results to the whole Northeastern African region, and the ancient DNA taken from actual AEians mummies all indicate that this admixture would be very minimal. Ancient Egyptians mummies, according to current results, are mostly black Africans (See BMJ, JAMA and DNA Tribes studies).
In craniometric studies, ancient Egyptians don't cluster/pool or closely match with modern West/Central African (i.e. "Negroid") means, they are fairly close though to Somali or Horn populations (Froment, 1991, 1992, 1994):
Also claiming that "Somalis" are part of "black phenotypic diversity" (as those with the ESR pan-African political agenda claim) is false, since Sub-Saharan Africans/"blacks" do not cluster together. So despite Froment writing: "Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations", this does not mean you can extend this to West Africa.
It's a fact that there is diversity within Africa, this goes for popuations above the Sahara, within the Sahara and sub to the Sahara.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
For those who want to explore the subject more even if the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt does a good summary.
Here's many other reliable academic sources (not afrocentrists or racist eurocentrists from another era):
Ancient DNA studies (BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes analysis 1, DNA Tribes analysis 2) also prove Ancient Egyptians to be for the most part indigenous black Africans.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Your post on the recent findings of alleles makes your position problamatic. Thus the question by Lamin was, what is meant by eurasian alleles? This was unfortunately never answered.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Same thing with the archaeological/cultural continuity which show them to be indigenous Africans. Even displaying "STRONG SIMILARITIES TO MODERN AFRICAN CULTURES".
quote:"Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns , appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons. [...] Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization" - The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001). p.28
This is one of the most profound places, as a building block for ancient Egypt.
"Ancient finds in the Western Desert of Egypt at Gebel Ramlah circa 5,000 BC show culture closely linked with indigenous tropical Africans of both the Saharan and sub-Saharan regions, not Europe or the Middle East. Dental studies put the inhabitants of Gebel Ramlah, closest to indigenous tropical African populations.
"During three seasons of research (in 2000, 2001 and 2003) carried out by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition at Gebel Ramlah in the southern part of the Egyptian Western Desert, three separate Final Neolithic cemeteries were discovered and excavated. Skeletal remains of 67 individuals, comprising both primary and secondary interments, were recovered from 32 discrete burial pits. Numerous grave goods were found, including lithics, pottery and ground stone objects, as well as items of personal adornment, pigments, shells and sheets of mica. Imports from distant areas prove far-reaching contacts.
Analysis of the finds sheds important light on the burial rituals and social conditions of the Final Neolithic cattle keepers inhabiting Ramlah Playa. This community, dated to the mid-fifth millennium B.C. (calibrated), was composed of a phenotypically diverse population derived from both North and sub-Saharan Africa. There were no indications of social differentiation. The deteriorating climatic conditions probably forced these people to migrate toward the Nile Valley where they undoubtedly contributed to the birth of ancient Egyptian civilization."
-- Burial practices of the Final Neolithic pastoralists at Gebel Ramlah, Western Desert of Egypt
Michal Kobusiewicz, Jacek Kabacinski, Romuald Schild, Joel D. Irish and Fred Wendorf
British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 13 (2009): 147–74
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Amun Ra keep in mind that Troll Patrol like xyyman think that no new haplogroups formed after humans left Africa
Ask TP to name a haplogroup that is Eurasian. He will say there are none.
That is the philosophy of xyyman and Troll Patrol so all their argumenataion is built on that premise
Where did I say that, or ever make such statement/ claim?
quote: Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Same thing with the archaeological/cultural continuity which show them to be indigenous Africans. Even displaying "STRONG SIMILARITIES TO MODERN AFRICAN CULTURES".
"Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns , appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons. [...] Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization" - The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001). p.28
None of us is in disagreement with the above.
Rock art from West Bank Aswan and Wadi Abu Subeira
Every time this Amun Ra loony toon spams fig. 5 from Holliday 2013, his interpretation of it is radically different from what fig 5 actually says, and what the text says about it. Fig 5, just like fig 1, 2, 3 and 4 from Holliday 2013, put the recent 'North African' cluster, which includes the Pygmy sample and the historic Egypto- Nubian samples, in an intermediate position, albeit closer to other Africans (but note that the latter aren't necessarily closer to the North African cluster than the Germany sample is; but then again, this European sample looks like an outlier). Yet, this confused fraud cooks up the fantasy that fig 5 presents a picture different from Froment, and that it depicts Eurasia and Africa as two entirely distinct entities.
That's why he deliberately always cites fig. 5, but never fig. 4, like the scheming manipulator that he is:
Doesn't have the faintest clue. SMH. Just takes dendrograms and spins his own fairytale around it, just like he does with Tishkoff's data. But the second you ask this fraud to actually corroborate his interpretation of a dendrogram with a citation from the full text itself, he runs with his tail between his legs, as we've seen him do so many times already.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Well, nothing you say contradict what I said, you only use strawman and ad hominem, so thanks for your input Sweety.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lol "only strawman". This is what you said in relation to Froment's results, amongst other things:
Your argument only works (edit:well not really if you consider Zarahan's post above for example) if you ignore DNA studies and post-cranial analysis. You must take all lines of argumentation into account. --Amun Ra The Incompetent
But, as fig 1, 2, 4 and 5 in Holliday et al 2013 show, there is no inconsistency between the Froment's results and Holliday 2013, a fact you tried to hide by nitpicking fig 5 and spinning it's interpretation to make it seem like it undermines Froment.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
It's a strawman and ad hominem again. I just disagreed with Dead/anglopyramidologist (and your's apparently) interpretation of the Froment results. I disagreed with his interpretation of the froment results not the froment results themselves. LOL
I gave my own interpretation, using all lines of evidence (DNA/genetics, archaeological continuity/cultural, anthropological data, etc), in this post for example:
I also posted many reliable sources and links discussing such issues such as the Oxford Encyclopedia and countless others after that post above. Nothing in my analysis contradict Froment or any genetic/archaeological or anthropological data.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
"[T]he ancient Egyptians were distinct from Melano-Africans and Europeans alike and are situated in an intermediate position [...] We notice that in the centre of the figure are found close to each other the Neolithic Proto-Mediterraneans, the Somali and Galla, the Nubian average and the Indians." (Froment, 1994)
Perhaps you could though say Lower Egyptians, are closer to Mediterraneans and Maghreb, and the Upper Egyptians closer to Somali and Nubians:
"The populations of Lower Egypt are very close to those of the Maghreb, and those of Upper Egypt resemble those of Nubia." (Froment, 1992)
This reminds me of Angel (1972), who saw something similar.
Anyway:
"The diversity of “authentic” Africans is a reality. This diversity prevents bio-geographical/bio-historical Africans from clustering into a single unit, no matter the kind of data." (Keita and Kittles, 1997)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^This closeness to Neolithic Europeans isn't specific to ancient Egyptians. It pertains to the Somali, Nubians, etc. They are all close to the neolithic Mediterranean populations that entered Europe from the Aegean Sea (see the affinity of the pooled NE African sample in Brace et al 2005). This closeness can be seen in craniometric data, limb data, as well as genetic data. It's a function of Epipalaeolithic Egyptian ancestry:
quote: Humero-clavicular, brachial and crural indices in a large sample (n=75) of Linienbandkeramik (LBK), Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age specimens from the middle Elbe-Saale-Werra valley (MESV) were compared with Eurasian and African terminal Pleistocene, European Mesolithic and geographically disparate recent human specimens. Mesolithic Europeans display considerable variation in humero-clavicular and brachial indices yet none approach the extreme "hyper-polar" morphology of LBK humans from the MESV. In contrast, Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age peoples display elongated brachial and crural indices reminiscent of terminal Pleistocene and "tropically adapted" recent humans.
Note that Galaghner et al understand this limb measurement difference as temporal (early farmers were cold adapted, later farmers were tropically adapted), but this (seemingly temporal) difference is likely the result of differential local assimilation of native European hunter gatherers. As Brace 2005's data showed, some neolithic Germans resemble living Europeans more and others resemble the earliest colonists more.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: just disagreed with Dead/anglopyramidologist (and your's apparently) interpretation of the Froment results.
What is this "interpretation of Froment" that you disagreed with and how is this "interpretation" incompatible with the Holliday 2013 paper you cited in contradiction of me?
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Mesolithic Europeans don't show much of a change in crural/brachial index since the Upper Palaeolithic [although I've seen a recent study that disputes this]. This is why Frayer et al. (1993) cited this as an evidence against RAO for Europeans:
"Equally important is the fact that limb-segment indices show no trend over time in Europe, but remain high throughout the Upper Paleolithic and into the Mesolithic. This is not what one would expect if the Upper Paleolithic Europeans were heat adapted (African) populations, adjusting biologically to the cold of the most extreme Wurm maxima."
Holliday (1999) also came up with some weird explanation.
But I found this recent study which touches upon the limb data in Neolithics:
quote: "The diversity of “authentic” Africans is a reality. This diversity prevents bio-geographical/bio-historical Africans from clustering into a single unit, no matter the kind of data." (Keita and Kittles, 1997)
The same can be said about Europe. Even Modern European populations have a wide diversity of DNA, craniofacial measurements, post-cranial/limb proportion measurements and even cultural diversity.
This also apply for Africa. The wide diversity of phenotypes and cultures doesn't exclude common origin. People in Africa would have acquired their distinctive phenotypic traits after their common origin and migrations to their current geographic locations within Africa. Here's a quote from the same Keita about it:
quote:The PN2 transition[edit:also called P2], a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004). This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions.."
- From (S.O.Y Keita. Exploring northeast African metric craniofacial variation at the individual level: A comparative study using principal component analysis. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 16:679–689, 2004.)
To put this into perspective, I calculated the proportion of Y-DNA and MtDNA shared between Yoruba and Somali (in my thread linked above):
For Y-DNA: Yoruba P2(PN2)/e1b1a 93.1% Somali P2(PN2)/e1b1b 81.1% (using numbers from here)
For MtDNA (L2a, L3bf, L3cd, L3eikx, L0a1): Yoruba 75.75% Somali 66.93% (using the numbers from Here)
So even populations within Africa (same as within Europe) who share phenotypic differences (and similarities), can also share a common origin for a large part of their genome. The differences having been created (or having drifted in term of proportions in the population) after their common origin and thus after their migrations to their current locations in Africa. While the similarities would be related to this common origin. Keita talks of PN2/P2 as a common lineage which appeared in Africa after the migration of modern humans from Africa. Thus after the OOA migrations.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: Although two mtDNA lineages with an African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups, macrohaplogroup L (including haplogroups L0-L6) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa.
Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.
--Sarah Thiskoff, Gonder et al.
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Back to the essence of Joe Mintsa
Late Neolithic megalithic structures at Nabta Playa (Sahara), southwestern Egypt.
By Fred Wendorf
Anthropology Department Southern Methodist University 3225 Daniel Avenue Dallas, Texas 75275-0274 USA
Introduction
1 Located 100 km west of Abu Simbel, in southernmost Egypt, Nabta Playa is a large, internally drained basin, which during the early Holocene ( ca. 11,000 - 5500 calibrated radiocarbon years ago) was a large and important ceremonial center for prehistoric people. It was intermittently and seasonally filled with water, which encouraged people to come there, and today it contains dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of archaeological sites. People came from many regions to Nabta Playa to record astronomical events, erect alignments of megaliths, and build impressive stone structures.
2 From around 65,000 years ago until about 12,000 years ago the Western Desert was hyper-arid, at least as dry as today and perhaps drier. This began to change after 12,000 years ago when the summer rains of tropical Africa began to move northward, bringing sufficient moisture for a wide variety of sahelian grasses, trees and bushes to grow, and for a few small animals to exist, mostly hares and small gazelle, but also including a few small carnivores. Even with the rains it was still very dry; the annual rainfall was no more than 100 - 150 mm per year, and it was unpredictable and punctuated with numerous droughts, some of which caused the desert to be abandoned for lengthy periods. The earliest (11,000 - 9300 years ago, calibrated) settlements at Nabta were composed of small seasonal camps of cattle-herding and ceramic-using people. These early cattle are regarded as domestic (Wendorf and Schild 1994), and it may have been in the Western Desert that the African pattern of cattle herding developed, wherein cattle serve as a "walking larder" and provide milk and blood, rather than meat (except for ceremonial occasions) and are the economic basis for power and prestige. Pottery is very rare in these sites, but distinctive. It is decorated over the entire exterior with complex patterns of impressions applied with a comb in a rocking motion. The source of this pottery has not been identified, but it is among the oldest known in Africa, and older than pottery in Southwest Asia. These early people probably came into the desert after the summer rains from either farther south or the adjacent Nile Valley, in either case searching for pasture for their cattle. Each fall, when the surface water in the playas dried up and there was no water for them or their cattle, they had to return to the Nile, or perhaps to the better watered areas to the south.
3 By 9000 years ago (8000 bp, uncalibrated), the settlements were much larger, and their inhabitants were able to live in the desert year-round, digging large, deep wells and living in organized villages consisting of small huts arranged in straight lines. The many plant remains in these sites tell us they were collecting large numbers of edible wild plants, including sorghum, millets, legumes, tubers, and fruits. Around 8800 years ago (7800 bp, uncalibrated), they began to make pottery locally, possibly the earliest pottery in Egypt. A few hundred years later, around 8100 years ago (7100 bp, uncalibrated), sheep and goats occur for the first time at Nabta, almost certainly introduced from Southwest Asia, where domestic caprovids had been known for over 2000 years. There must have been many changes in the settlement system to accommodate these new animals; the settlements are very large and contain numerous hearths, but there is no evidence of huts or houses.
4 A major change occurred in the character of the Neolithic society at Nabta occurred around 7500 years ago, following a major drought which drove the previous groups from the desert. The groups who returned to the desert now clearly had a complex social system that expressed a degree of organization and control not previously seen in Egypt. They sacrificed young cows and buried them in clay-lined and roofed chambers covered by rough stone tumuli, they erected alignments of large, unshaped stones, they built Egypt's earliest astronomical measuring device (a "calendar circle" which appears to have been used to mark the summer solstice), and they constructed more than 30 complex structures having both surface and subterranean features. A shaped stone from one of these complexes may be the oldest known sculpture in Egypt.
5 These structures are important because they indicate the way the people were able to organize work, celebrate their culture, and perhaps express their religious beliefs, and furthermore, they tell us that the Saharan people may have been more highly organized than their contemporaries in the Nile Valley.
II - Nabta: A Regional Ceremonial Center
6 A regional ceremonial center is a place where related but widely separated groups gather periodically to conduct ceremonies and to reaffirm their social and political solidarity. Even today in many parts of Africa these centers serve as foci of religious, political and social functions for the entire group. Nabta seems to have been such a center for pastoralists living in the southwestern portion of the Egyptian Western Desert. It probably began to function as a regional ceremonial center during the Middle Neolithic (8100-7600 years ago), when groups residing in other nearby basins gathered there for ceremonial and other purposes during the summer wet season when the playa was at its largest extent. This gathering occurred on a dune along the northwestern shore of the playa where there are hundreds of hearths and more than two meters of accumulated cultural debris.
7 Among the more interesting elements in the cultural debris at this gathering site were numerous bones of cattle. While present in most sites, bones of cattle are elsewhere never very numerous, good evidence that they were kept primarily for their milk and blood, rather than for meat. This pattern resembles the role of cattle among modern African pastoralists, where cattle represent wealth and political power and are rarely killed except on important ceremonial or social occasions, such as the death of a leader or a marriage. This (ancient) so-called "African Cattle Complex" may have begun in the Western Desert of Egypt.
8 The role of Nabta as a regional ceremonial center is also indicated by a north-south alignment of nine large (average, 3 x 2 x 0.5 m) quartzitic sandstone slabs set upright about 100 m apart, and partially imbedded in playa sediments near the gathering area along the northwest margin of the seasonal lake. The blocks were unshaped, and many of them are now broken; however, they can be refitted. Outcrops of similar sandstone occur in the vicinity, some less than a kilometer from the alignment. The alignment cannot be dated precisely, but it is probably Late Neolithic in age, and if so it was erected between 7500 and 5500 years ago (7500 BP = 5500 BC). It is similar to the large stone alignments found in Western Europe, where they are dated to the late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, about the same age as the Nabta alignment. There are other alignments known farther south in both East and West Africa, but they are thought to date much later, to the Iron Age.
9 About 300 m beyond the north end of the Nabta alignment is a "calendar circle" consisting of a series of small sandstone slabs arranged in a circle about 4 m in diameter. Among the ring of stones are four pairs of larger stones, each pair set close together and separated by a narrow space, or gate. The gates on two of these pairs align generally north-south; the gates on the other two pairs form a line at 700 east of north, which aligns with the calculated position of sunrise at the summer solstice 6000 years ago. In the center of the circle are six upright slabs arranged in two lines, whose astronomical function, if any, is not evident. Charcoal from one of the numerous hearths around the "calendar" dated around 6800 years ago (6000 bp +/- 60 years, CAMS {1} - 17287).
10 Another 300 meters farther north of the calendar circle is a stone-covered tumulus containing the remains of a complete articulated young adult cow buried in a chamber that was dug into the floor of the wadi, surrounded by a clay collar, and roofed with limbs of tamarisk. The chamber was then covered with broken rocks forming a mound 8 meters in diameter and a meter high. A piece of wood from the roof yielded a calibrated radiocarbon date between 7400 and 7300 years ago (6470 bp +/- 270 years, CAMS - 17289). In the same area seven other similar stone tumuli containing the remains of cattle were excavated, but none of them had subsurface chambers; instead, the bones of the cattle, a few of which were still articulated, were simply placed among the stones.
11 Among the most interesting features at Nabta is the group of thirty "complex structures" located in an area about 500 meters long and 200 meters wide, on a high remnant of playa clays and silts about a kilometer south of the large settlement which yielded so many bones of cattle. Each of these structures consists of a group of large, elongated, roughly shaped or unshaped sandstone blocks set upright to frame an oval area about five meters in length and four meters in width, oriented slightly west of north. In the center of this oval there is one, sometimes two, very large flat slabs laid horizontally. Two of these structures have been excavated, a third has been tested, and drill-holes have been dug at two others. All are basically similar, although they differ in some details. All of the excavated and tested structures were built over mushroom-shaped tablerocks, the tops of which were deeply buried (from two to three and a half meters below the surface) in heavy playa clays and silts. These tablerocks are quartzitic lenses in the underlying bedrock which were shaped by erosion of the softer surrounding sediments before the overlying playa sediments were deposited. How the Nabta people managed to find these tablerocks deeply buried below the surface is not clear, but it may have been mere chance and occurred during the excavation of a water well. Except for the structures, however, there is no other archaeological material in this area, which is highly unusual for the Nabta Basin, where archaeological sites of various ages occur almost everywhere.
12 The excavation of the largest of these complex structures disclosed that before the upright stones were erected, a large pit about six meters in diameter and four meters deep had been dug. The table rock at the base of the pit was shaped by removing the irregular edges, leaving a convex perimeter on three sides. The fourth side, at the north end, was worked by flaking to form a straight edge. The top of the table rock was also smoothed. The pit was then partially refilled with playa clay to a level about a half meter above the top of the table rock, and then an enormous (ca. 2.5 tons), carefully shaped stone was brought in and held in position by several small slabs. The base of the shaped stone was 2.5 meters below the surface. What this "sculpture" represents is not clear; it is shaped on only two sides, and its sculptors used the natural bedding in the rock to achieve a wide, curved surface which they smoothed. In some views the stone vaguely resembles a large animal. After the shaped stone was placed in position, the pit was backfilled completely, and the surface architecture of large upright stones and two large horizontal central stones was erected directly over the tablerock.
13 The other excavated structure also had been erected over a tablerock, and it too had a large stone over the tablerock, but work on that stone was limited to a few flakes removed from one end. The third complex structure was only tested. It was one of eight that were tightly clustered and interlocked together. The units were smaller, constructed of smaller stones, but had the same configuration with a large horizontal central stone. The test excavations recovered charcoal from a shelf on the edge of the pit under the structure, and this charcoal yielded a calibrated radiocarbon age between 5600 and 5400 years ago (4800 +- 80 years bp; DRI 3358). This is the only date available for these structures, and it is about 1500 years later than we had estimated from the stratigraphic evidence. This cluster differs from the other complex structures, and it may relate to a late phase in this phenomena; however, there is no other reason to reject the date.
14 Drilling at two other structures showed that they had also been erected over buried tablerocks. Although only two of these features were excavated completely, and a third only tested, it is highly likely that most of the others were also built over deeply buried tablerocks that may or may not have been modified, and may also have large worked stones in the fill above the tablerock. These complex structures appear to be unique to Nabta; they are not known to occur in the Nile Valley, or elsewhere in the Western Desert. It should be noted, however, that they are difficult to recognize (they were regarded a bedrock outcrops for many years), and they may be more widespread in the Eastern Sahara than now believed.
15 We had expected to find burials of elite individuals below the central stones, but no traces of human remains were seen, although the excavations were carried beyond the limits of the original pits dug to expose the tablerock. The function of the complex structures remains unknown, however, it may be useful to consider the implications of their presence at Nabta.
III - Additional Comments
16 The construction of the megaliths and the large complex structures at Nabta required significant effort, indicating the presence of a religious or political authority with control over human resources for an extended period of time. They, together with the calendar circle and cattle burials, represent an elaborate and previously unsuspected ceremonialism in the Neolithic of the Eastern Sahara. Although the evidence remains insecure and thus it cannot be demonstrated that these Saharan cattle pastoralists had a ranked society (NDLR: i.e. ranked pastoralists), this is, nevertheless, a strong possibility.
17 The discoveries at Nabta Playa suggest the possibility of a previously unrecognized relationship between the Neolithic people living along the Nile and pastoralists in the adjacent Sahara which may have contributed to the rise of social complexity in ancient Egypt. This complexity, as expressed by different levels of authority within the society, forms the basis for the structure of both the Neolithic society at Nabta and the Old Kingdom of Egypt. It was this authority at Nabta which made possible the planned arrangement of their villages, the excavation of large, deep wells, and the construction of complex stone structures made of large, shaped and unshaped stones. There are other Nabta features which are shared by the two areas, but which appear suddenly and without evident local antecedents in the late Predynastic and early Old Kingdom in the Nile Valley. These include the role of cattle to express differences of wealth, power and authority, the emphasis on cattle in religious beliefs, and the use of astronomical knowledge and devices to predict solar events. Many of these features have a prior and long history of development at Nabta.
18 The geographic position of the Nabta center is also of interest. Nabta may have been a contact point between the early Neolithic groups along the Nile who had an agricultural economy and the cattle pastoralists in the Eastern Sahara. The functional separation of these two different economies may have played a significant role in the emergence of complexity among both groups. The evidence for Nilotic influence on pastoralists is not extensive and is presently limited to ceramic technology, domestic caprovids, and the occasional trade of shells of Nile species and rare stones from the Nile gravel. However, there are many aspects of political and ceremonial life in the Predynastic and Old Kingdom that reflects a strong impact from Saharan cattle pastoralists.
19 The likely possibility of a symbiotic relationship between the cattle pastoralists in the Sahara and the Neolithic groups in the Nile Valley points to a potentially important role for the Nabta regional ceremonial center. Among East African cattle pastoralists regional ceremonial centers, because of their integrative role, are frequently placed near boundaries between different segments of a tribe, or between different tribal groups. The Nabta center could well have served that purpose, it could have been located between several groups of pastoralists, and between pastoralists and the Neolithic farmers along the Nile, 100 km away.
20 It has long been assumed that Egypt borrowed the concepts of complexity from Mesopotamia; however, it is now generally recognized that a process like social complexity cannot be diffused from one area to another, but instead develops from local causes. It might occur, for example, when there are two radically different economic systems in close physical proximity, as is found where agriculturists have close relationships with pastoralists. Pastoralists usually live in tense harmony with their village neighbors, but from time to time they will take advantage of a weakness and take control. It is in this setting that the socially complex Late Neolithic cattle pastoralists and their regional ceremonial center at Nabta is of particular importance.
21 There are many features in the religious beliefs and social systems of early Egyptians which are not found in Mesopotamia. Among the ancient Egyptians, cattle were the central focus of the belief system. They were deified and regarded as earthly representatives of the gods. A cow was also seen as the mother of the sun, who is sometimes referred to as the "Bull of Heaven." The Egyptian pharaoh was regarded as the embodiment of two gods, Horus, for Upper Egypt and Seth, for Lower Egypt, but he was primarily Horus, son of Hathor, who was a cow. Horus is also sometimes depicted as a strong bull, and images of cattle are prominent in Predynastic and Old Kingdom art; in some instances images of bulls occur with depiction's of stars. Another important Old Kingdom concept was Min, the god of rain, who is associated with a white bull, and to whom the annual harvest festival was dedicated.
22 It is significant that the emphasis on cattle in the belief system of the Old Kingdom was not reflected in the economy. While cattle were known and were the major measure of wealth, the economy was based primarily on agriculture and small livestock - sheep and goats. Also, cattle were not important among the preceding Neolithic in the Nile Valley, which suggests that the Old Kingdom belief system was imposed from the outside, perhaps in the traditional fashion, a conquest by pastoralists who periodically come in from their "lands of insolence" to conquer their farming neighbors (Coon 1958:295-323; Khazanov 1994).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^This closeness to Neolithic Europeans isn't specific to ancient Egyptians. It pertains to the Somali, Nubians, etc. They are all close to the neolithic Mediterranean populations that entered Europe from the Aegean Sea (see the affinity of the pooled NE African sample in Brace et al 2005). This closeness can be seen in craniometric data, limb data, as well as genetic data. It's a function of Epipalaeolithic Egyptian ancestry:
quote: Humero-clavicular, brachial and crural indices in a large sample (n=75) of Linienbandkeramik (LBK), Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age specimens from the middle Elbe-Saale-Werra valley (MESV) were compared with Eurasian and African terminal Pleistocene, European Mesolithic and geographically disparate recent human specimens. Mesolithic Europeans display considerable variation in humero-clavicular and brachial indices yet none approach the extreme "hyper-polar" morphology of LBK humans from the MESV. In contrast, Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age peoples display elongated brachial and crural indices reminiscent of terminal Pleistocene and "tropically adapted" recent humans.
Note that Galaghner et al understand this limb measurement difference as temporal (early farmers were cold adapted, later farmers were tropically adapted), but this (seemingly temporal) difference is likely the result of differential local assimilation of native European hunter gatherers. As Brace 2005's data showed, some neolithic Germans resemble living Europeans more and others resemble the earliest colonists more.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: just disagreed with Dead/anglopyramidologist (and your's apparently) interpretation of the Froment results.
What is this "interpretation of Froment" that you disagreed with and how is this "interpretation" incompatible with the Holliday 2013 paper you cited in contradiction of me?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
*bump*
A lot of good info in this thread
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
What is wrong with Black people ?
"http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2015-04-07/russell-westbrook-gives-all-start-game-mvp-car-to-single-mother-oklahoma-city-thunder" Russell Westbrook gives MVP car to single mother
"Russell Westbrook is one of the most passionate players both on and off the court.
The Thunder star proved how dedicated he is to the community by donating a car to a single mother of two. Westbrook got the car back in February as a gift for winning MVP of the All-Star game. He said he wanted to honor "all the hard work she's done to keep her family together. I just want to be able to help others any way I can."
Russell Westbrook brings tears of joy to single mom Kerstin Gonzales,....
Wealthy Black Ball player gives car to "Mestizo" looking single mother...
How many Black single mothers are there ?? and does he mean to say that he could not find one worthy of this help ??
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
"since we don't know the situation, lets give him the Benefit of the doubt."
I disagree here Mike.
We kind of do know the situation.....we have analyzed Black behavior enough to recognize the patterns.
Charity is Charity, but as they say....
Charity starts at Home.
PS: Mulattoes typically dislike Blacks or often perceive themselves as superior to Blacks, while at the same time they idolize Whites. What is this man thinking ???? apparently little or no sense of racial consciousness.
Posted by Habsburg (Member # 21824) on :
@Kdolo You should have followed up beyond your link and checked the story further.
He didn't personally choose who the car was going to. Some other person did, a white woman from some kind of community care service was asked to nominate someone for the gift and she selected the Hispanic woman.
Whether he left it to people who he could have expected to be more sympathetic to black single parents is another matter.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
'He didn't personally choose who the car was going to.'....
This is exactly my point.
he doesnt care enough. But you notice that the white woman who made sure a Black woman didnt benefit.
..with great power comes great responsibility. Charity begins at home.
Posted by Habsburg (Member # 21824) on :
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: 'He didn't personally choose who the car was going to.'....
This is exactly my point.
he doesnt care enough. But you notice that the white woman who made sure a Black woman didnt benefit.
..with great power comes great responsibility. Charity begins at home.
You can't assume that he didn't care. It may all have been some kind of publicity stunt arranged in advance, ie the plan may have been for him to donate the car even before he won it. After all if people have a choice on giving away a car, their relatives will probably be their first choice.
My own feeling that because Blacks have been made to feel guilty or thankful on account of affirmative action and equal rights they feel they have to make a show of reciprocation in some way, although they are still being robbed a lot of the time. It is as though some 'successful' blacks are made to feel that someone is doing them a favour or some kindness so they have to go out the way to show how non racist and kind they can also be. You also have to know more about the demographic profile of the area where that sporting club is based.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
"You can't assume that he didn't care."
That is about all you can assume....
My own feeling .... Blacks tend to love everybody but themselves and their own.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Joe Mintsa Whats Is Wrong With Black People table of content make me want to read the book.
The mood in the world today is such that either you believe that Black people are natural slaves, or you believe that White people are evil by nature. In either case, you are in a stalemate: you can't change "nature", can you Yet, not only is it very improbable for someone to turn up slave or evil just by nature; it is neither demonstrable that evil is conditioned by skin colour. The question, here, is: why should evil be White; and why should evil's target be Black In other words, what is wrong with evil always tending to choose Black In fact, the actual question is: what is wrong with Black people always tending to be evil's preferred targets This book simply personifies a totally different type of intuition, where the most unsuspected - yet, the most damning - causes of the suffering and the struggles of Africans in today's world are not only laid open with courage, but also resolved with vision. ISBN 978-1-4716-1039-4. For more info, write to JoeMintsa@hotmail.com or... More >
Amazon.com doesn't have the book of Joe Mintsa but they have a similar book name Whats Wrong With Being Black.
Thoroughly researched and extensively referenced, this highly credible work uses evidence from biblical, anthropological, historical, and ancient literature sources dating as far back as 3,000 years ago to support the facts that: People of color have a positive history. People of color were the first to give structure and order in society. Scripture cites Black role models. Current issues such as idolatry and slavery have their roots in the practices of ancestors. Color was not used as a segregating tool until 300 years ago. Racial equality is a truth Black people have different issues. There is nothing wrong with being black. I have said,...all of you are children of the most High (Psalm 82:6). Pastor of the largest church in Western Europe, Matthew Ashimolowo looks at the glorious past of the Black race and examines uncompromisingly the conformations that have molded Black people. His fascinating insight celebrates the rich heritage and confronts today s challenges
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^Excellent post.
Posted by Habsburg (Member # 21824) on :
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: "You can't assume that he didn't care."
That is about all you can assume....
My own feeling .... Blacks tend to love everybody but themselves and their own.
Kdolo you didn't follow up on your own post well enough. Your conclusions were based on prejudice and you should concede that you should have followed it further before making your comments.
If you have adverse or prejudiced comments to make about black people, you may go ahead but don't relate it to incomplete evidence.
Posted by Habsburg (Member # 21824) on :
@Mike You really need to consider whether your being black is about how you relate among and within black people on an everyday basis or it is mainly about you concern about how they conform to your notions of European development and civilization.
You first start of which a comment about "big mouth ghetto welfare queens". You really sound like white people who always say stuff like " I am not prejudiced against black people BUT I don't like those loud ghetto blacks". Being black means being sensitive towards the condition of blacks regardless of how much some of them annoy you.
I will tell you one thing. Black people in my observation speak louder than whites and it is down to both physical and cultural differences. So going about blacks speaking loudly is not really meaningful. People don't just change their cultural induced mannerisms to suit you any more than most people develop an urge to change the accent they were raised it.
Then again you go on about "ghetto mothers with x amount of children by x different men". How do you know that the Hispanic woman's children were all from the same father? You don't. And how do you know that because a black woman has 5 children by 5 different men she doesn't care about them or love them, or strive to help them as much?
All because you were taken by the sight of an attractive light-skinned Latino woman with light-skinned children who didn't confirm to the stereotypical image of the black welfare queen. Involve yourself more with the social environment of black people and less with concern about the way they are portrayed and stereotyped in the media.
And where did this issue of "No Justice, No Peace come from"? I will show where it comes from in another post, and prove to you how all the media focus on black people and their issues in the media, traditional or social, whether or not they are black controlled or not, revolve around a single thing, getting black people not to focus on their main power, their ability to vote tactically and strategically Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by mena7: [QB] Joe Mintsa Whats Is Wrong With Black People table of content make me want to read the book.
You can read a lot of the 700 page book at the link
After reading Raxter thesis a bit better, or actually for the first time.
Here is the following, full citation. Instead of the broken down version. Folks like lioness and ilk used.
quote: Cranial and dental evidence then tends to support a scenario of biological continuity in Egypt.
[...]
The main skeletal sample consisted of 492 males and 528 females, all adults from the Predynastic and Dynastic Periods, a time spanning c. 5500 BCE-600 CE.
Egyptian body dimensions were compared to Nubian groups, as well as to modern Egyptians and other higher and lower latitude populations.
The present study found a downward trend in ancient Egyptian stature for both sexes through time, as well as decreased sexual dimorphism in stature. The decreases may be associated with dietary and social stress with the intensification of agriculture and increased societal complexity.
Modern Egyptians in the study’s sample are generally taller and heavier than their predecessors; however, modern Egyptians exhibit relatively lower sexual dimorphism in stature.
Ancient Egyptians have more tropically adapted limbs in comparison to body breadths, which tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations.
These results may reflect the greater plasticity of limb lengths compared to body breadth.
The results might also suggest early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa.
-- Michelle H. Raxter (2011)
Egyptian Body Size: A Regional and Worldwide Comparison
What it says is that modern incoming populations from abroad may have influenced the body ratio. This so, especially in the North/ Lower Egypt. Since there was a trend of difference over time. Historically this is accurate.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: After reading Raxter thesis a bit better, or actually for the first time.
Here is the following, full citation. Instead of the broken down version. Folks like lioness and ilk used.
quote:
Ancient Egyptians have more tropically adapted limbs in comparison to body breadths, which tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations.
These results may reflect the greater plasticity of limb lengths compared to body breadth.
The results might also suggest early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa.
-- Michelle H. Raxter (2011)
Egyptian Body Size: A Regional and Worldwide Comparison
What it says is that modern incoming populations from abroad may have influenced the body ratio. This so, especially in the North/ Lower Egypt. Since there was a trend of difference over time. Historically this is accurate.
Possible early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa, interesting
But I don't know why you bring up Raxter in this thread nobody even mentioned her in this thread See if you can deal with a Joe Mintsa quote
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: In Egypt, the earliest evidence of humans can be recognized only from tools found scattered over an ancient surface, sometimes with hearths nearby. In Wadi Kubbaniya, a dried-up streambed cutting through the Western Desert to the floodplain northwest of Aswan in Upper Egypt, some interesting sites of the kind described above have been recorded.
"Remains in the immediate eastern foreland of Kurkur, just east of the Sinn el-Kiddab escarpment, are sparse. Numerous and widely distributed hearth mounds18 occur in the area. Pottery, though sparse, further demonstrates the association of early Nile Valley and Western Desert cultures. "
--John Coleman Darnell and Deborah Darnell
The Archaeology of Kurkur Oasis, Nuq‘ Maneih, and the Sinn el-Kiddab
A Tableau of Royal Ritual Power in the Theban Western Desert
The Theban Western Desert preserves several important tableaux of late Naqada II through Early Dynastic date. One of the longest and most artistically accomplished of these tableaux is Image 1located in a wadi northeast of Gebel Tjauti, on a branch of the ‘Alamat Tal Road (Figure 1). The strongly marked tracks, with associated ceramic material, lead to the head of the wadi, in the upper part of which, despite the lack of any clear path of ascent, are a number of dry stone structures, as well as the remains of “game traps.” Near the head of this wadi, apparently the haunt of hunters traveling the Alamat Tal Road, are several concentrations of rock inscriptions, providing extreme examples of the clustering of a particular genre of image in one area, and the dominance of one genre of representation at a discrete site. We have named the wadi after an inscription at Site No. 2 — the serekh of the late First Dynasty ruler Horus Qa-a.
The Origin of the Predynastic: Western Desert and Central Sudan
With the intensification of archaeological research in the Egyptian Western Desert evidence of prehistoric humanoccupation has been consistently found in both the oasesregion and the playas region to the south. Major breaks in the chrono-cultural sequence are related to climaticvariations. After a major arid event during the latePleistocene, which completely dried up the Sahara,forcing the people to cluster along the Nile (and in theCentral Sahara massifs), the Holocene period wascharacterised by better climatic conditions due to anorthward shifting of the monsoon summer rain regime(Kuper and Kropelin 2006; Wendorf and Schild 2001).The desert was again settled, although cyclical minor aridspells required the population to move back and forthfrom the desert to the Nile or to remain in the oases. Fromthe 4th millennium BC another major arid event forcedthe people to concentrate in the oases area and to settlemore permanently to the Nile Valley"
-- Karen Exell
Egypt in its African Context
Proceedings of the conferenceheld at The Manchester Museum,University of Manchester, 2-4 October 2009
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: [QB] Possible early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa, interesting
Why is this interesting?
Oh I forgot, what you put is boring I take it back
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: [QB] Possible early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa, interesting
Why is this interesting?
Oh I forgot, what you put is boring I take it back
No, it's not boring. Go ahead....let your eurocentrism shine.
Why is that particularly interesting?
Apparently you forget quite a lot. Amnesia?
Sure, it was boring..., typical response by a KKK member!
quote: "Radiocarbon data from 150 archaeological excavations in the now hyper-arid Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Chad reveal close links between climatic variations and prehistoric occupation during the past 12,000 years. Synoptic multiple-indicator views for major time slices demonstrate the transition from initial settlement after the sudden onset of humid conditions at 8500 B.C.E. to the exodus resulting from gradual desiccation since 5300 B.C.E.
Southward shifting of the desert margin helped trigger the emergence of pharaonic civilization along the Nile, influenced the spread of pastoralism throughout the continent, and affects sub-Saharan Africa to the present day".
--Kuper R, Kröpelin S.
science. 2006 Aug 11;313(5788):803-7. Epub 2006 Jul 20.
Climate-controlled Holocene occupation in the Sahara: motor of Africa's evolution.
Collaborative Research Center 389 (ACACIA), University of Cologne, Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Africa Research Unit, Jennerstrasse 8, 50823 Köln, Germany.
quote: "The elaborate process of burial, which would become profoundly important in pharaonic society for 3,000 years, is much more pronounced in the Neolithic Badarian culture of Middle Egypt than in the earlier Saharan Neolithic or the Neolithic in northern Egypt.
[...]
Cultural differences went well beyond pottery types, however: the Naqada burials may symbolize increasing social complexity through time as the graves became more differentiated, in size and numbers of grave goods, whereas at Buto-Ma’adi sites burials are of a fairly simple type and seem to have had much less socio-cultural significance.
Occupation at Ma’adi came to an end in the later 4th millennium bc (equivalent to the Naqada IIc phase), when the site was abandoned. At Buto, the stratigraphic evidence suggests the assimilation of the Lower Egyptian Predynastic Buto-Ma’adi culture in Layer III, and the continuation into Dynastic times of a material culture that had its roots in the Predynastic Naqada culture of Upper Egypt."
[...]
What may be seen at the Badarian sites is the earliest evidence in Egypt of pronounced ceremonialism surrounding burials, which become much more elaborate in the 4thmillennium bc Naqada culture. Brunton excavated about 750 Badarian burials, most of which were contracted ones in shallow oval pits. Most burials were placed on the left side, facing west with the head to the south. This later became the standard orientation of Naqada culture burials. Although the Badarian burials had few grave goods, there was usually one pot in a grave. Some burials also had jewelry, made of beads of seashell, stone, bone, and ivory. A few burials contained stone cosmetic palettes or chert tools.
[...]
Burials such as the Badarian ones represent the material expression of important beliefs and practices in a society concerning the transition from life to death (see Box 5-B). Burial evidence may symbolize roles and social status of the dead and commemoration of this by the living, expressions of grief by the living, and possibly also concepts of an afterlife.
--Kathryn A. Bard - (2015)
An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt
quote: "As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007).
Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)
Go recite your Mein Kampf "mantra".
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: [QB] Possible early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa, interesting
Why is this interesting?
Oh I forgot, what you put is boring I take it back
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Same thing with the archaeological/cultural continuity which show them to be indigenous Africans. Even displaying "STRONG SIMILARITIES TO MODERN AFRICAN CULTURES".
"Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns , appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons. [...] Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization" - The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001). p.28
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Iwo Eleru's place among Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene populations of North and East Africa
quote:Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.
--Michael Brass Reconsidering the emergence of social complexity in early Saharan pastoral societies, 5000 – 2500 B.C.
quote: "Of special interest are finds that may testify to the beliefs of the population discussed here. Namely, in two cases from cemetery E-01-2, skulls were found that indicated tooth replacement in antiquity. In both cases, the teeth were apparently collected and repositioned by Neolithic people after being disturbed by later burials. In the first case, a young female’s maxillary anterior alveoli contained a combination of mandibular and misplaced maxillary teeth (Irish et al. 2005). In the second case, another young female’s maxilla and mandible contained two incorrectly placed teeth. Also in the same cemetery, four bracelets were found encircling a right humerus (Fig. 38), which had been moved from its original anatomical position during the deposition of a later burial. However, the bracelets were maintained in place by the insertion of the individual’s own right ulna and radius that had been fractured post-mortem."
--Michał Kobusiewicz, Jacek Kabaciński, Romuald Schild, Joel D. Irish and Fred Wendorf
Burial practices of the Final Neolithic pastoralists at Gebel Ramlah, Western Desert of Egypt
quote: The regional distribution of an ancient Y-chromosome haplogroup C-M130 (Hg C) in Asia provides an ideal tool of dissecting prehistoric migration events. We identified 465 Hg C individuals out of 4284 males from 140 East and Southeast Asian populations. We genotyped these Hg C individuals using 12 Y-chromosome biallelic markers and 8 commonly used Y-short tandem repeats (Y-STRs), and performed phylogeographic analysis in combination with the published data. The results show that most of the Hg C subhaplogroups have distinct geographical distribution and have undergone long-time isolation, although Hg C individuals are distributed widely across Eurasia. Furthermore, a general south-to-north and east-to-west cline of Y-STR diversity is observed with the highest diversity in Southeast Asia. The phylogeographic distribution pattern of Hg C supports a single coastal 'Out-of-Africa' route by way of the Indian subcontinent, which eventually led to the early settlement of modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia. The northward expansion of Hg C in East Asia started approximately 40 thousand of years ago (KYA) along the coastline of mainland China and reached Siberia approximately 15 KYA and finally made its way to the Americas.
--Zhong H1, Shi H, Qi XB, Xiao CJ, Jin L, Ma RZ, Su B.
Global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup C reveals the prehistoric migration routes of African exodus and early settlement in East Asia.
quote: Kröpelin's analysis revealed that it took some 3,000 years — from 5,600 to 2,700 BC — for the fully vegetated savannah there to transform into a barren desert 4.
[...]
The results from Lake Yoa crown a long list of discoveries that Kröpelin has made in the region. In one of his earliest major finds, Kröpelin established that the dry valley known as Wadi Howar, which sits in an extremely arid part of northern Sudan, was once one of Africa's largest rivers and a tributary to the Nile7. This extinct river flowed from about 9,500–4,500 years ago and supported a rich savannah that was home to a host of animals, including antelopes, giraffes, zebras and elephants.
quote:While the relative similarity between the Upper and Lower Egyptian morphologies is addressed above, underlying heterogeneity is most likely to be problematic for the Jebel Sahaba foragers, because of their temporal distance from the other populations. In addition, there is some evidence from dental morphology to suggest that these Paleolithic Nubians are of independent origin to the later Nubian populations (Irish, 2005).
--Anne P. Starling* and Jay T. Stock
Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528 (2007)
It is entirely appropriate to note that when the international salvage efforts began, there was virtually no information available on the prehistoric development anywhere in Nubia, and even in Egypt little was known concerning prehistoric materials beyond a few scattered and rolled pieces found in ancient deposits along the Nile. From this limited evidence, archaeologists had concluded that the Nile Valley, both Nubia and Egypt, has been a culturally conservative cul-de-sac where the technological and typological attributes of the Middle Paleolithic survived relatively unchanged until near the end of the Pleistocene. The lithic industries of Late Paleolithic age along the Nile Valley were believed to be limited to a few simple tool types, usually made on flakes, and with a high frequency of the Levallois technology which elsewhere is characteristic of the Middle Paleolithic. Those diagnostic elements of the Late Paleolithic -the blade technology and the associated complex of tools emphasizing end-scrapers, burins, and backed pieces -were believed to be absent. These simple flake industries were seen as persisting long after com pound tools, indicated by the presence of geometric microliths, had appeared in Europe and southwest Asia.
At a still later date, the role of the Nile Valley in the origin and development of food production was also discounted as it became fashionable to regard the upland areas around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers as the probable center for the origins of agriculture.
Perhaps the major result of the Nubia prehistoric campaign was to lay to rest these concepts of Nilotic cultural conservatism. The Nubian work not only disclosed the presence of numerous rich prehistoric living sites ranging in age from Early Paleolithic to the beginning of written records, but these sites yielded convincing evidence that they had been occupied by groups whose lithic technology and typology were fully as complex and as progressive as those from other parts of the world.
There is no evidence that these early efforts to use grain for food resulted in a corresponding primary development of food production, but they were an important first step which may ultimately have led to the crucial achievement of food production, either along the Nile or elsewhere in the Near East.
The Combined Prehistoric Expedition surveyed and located several hundred prehistoric sites within the assigned concession areas, and of these, 102 sites were excavated and studied systematically. These range from Early Paleolithic to Neolithic. The final reports on these studies have been published in several volumes (Wendorf, 1965 and 1968; Marks, 1970). The Prehistoric sites in Nubia have been grouped into five broad cultural stages, and within each stage several distinct lithic industries were defined.
The stages may be summarized as follows:
Nubian Early Stone Age:
The sites of this stage are typologically and technologically within the range of the Acheulean complex and share many resemblances with the Middle and Late Acheulean from further south, especially Klor Abu Anga near Khartoum, Sudan. No living sites of this group are known, only quarries and workshops. Ferrocrete sandstone was preferred for tool production, although quartz was also important in some sites. Bifaces were the most common tools, while cleavers, trihedral forms, and para-Levallois flakes are rare. Levallois technology appears during the middle phase of this stage and becomes increasingly important thereafter. Nubian Early Stone Age sites occur only in the Older Pediments. None are known to occur within the silts of the river.
Nubian Middle Stone Age: This stage is generally equivalent to the Middle Paleolithic elsewhere. It contains four distinct industries the Nubian Mousterian, Denticulate Mousterian and the Nubian Middle Paleolithic and the Khormusan. The latter has affinities with the Sangoan-Lupemban of central and west Africa; the first two are more similar to the Mousterian complexes of the Near East and Europe. The first three of these industries share the following features: a nearly complete absence of handaxes (these are replaced by biface foliates or flake tools); a strong preference for ferrocrete sandstone for tools; and a frequent use of Levallois technology (although this varies among the three industries of this stage). Sites of these three industries occur only in the Older Pediments. The Khormusan sites occur imbedded in the oldest Nile silts known in the part of the Valley and are believed to date between 65,000 and 55,000 years old. Khormusan sites record a diverse food economy.
They contain an abundance of fish remains as well as numerous bones of wild cattle, gazelle and hartebeest. In addition to the typical wide, flat Levallois flakes, the Khormusan sites contain numerous burins (a kind of engraving tool), scrapers and perforators.
Nubian Upper Stone Age:
Three distinct industries are also included in this stage: the Khormusan, the Gemian, and the Sebilian. Each of these industries is markedly different from the others, but as a group they share an emphasis on medium-sized flakes for the manufacture of tools; the biface foliates of the preceding stage are gone, and there are no true geometric, microlithic, or backed microblade tools characteristic of later stage. Except for the Sebilian, which differs sharply from all other known lithic assemblages in Nubia, sites of this stage yield increasing frequencies of artifacts made on Nile pebbles, while burins, endscrapers, and retouched points occur commonly in one or the other industries. The Sebilian retains the emphasis on ferrocrete sandstone preferred during the earlier stages, and the tools of this industry emphasized various kinds of truncations. These differences have led to the suggestion that the Sebilians were an outside, non-Nilotic group who briefly intruded into the area. In some respects they have close affiliations to some of the industries known farther south in central Africa -especially the Tshitolian.
Nubian Final Stone Age:
This stage contains four distinct industries: the Halfan, the Qadan, the Arkinian, and the Shamarkian. All of these industries share a tendency for the retouched tools to be microlithic, suggesting extensive use of composite tools. They also all make frequent use of microblades and bladelets in the manufacture of finished tools, and Nile chert pebbles were used almost exclusively as raw material for these tools. The Nile and its resources, especially fish, become increasingly important, and it is during this stage that the first use of ground grain occurs. There is an overlap in time between the Nubian Final Stone Age and the preceeding Nubian Upper Stone Age. The earliest Nubian Final Stone Age sites (the Halfan) occur in situ in Nile silts and have radiocarbon dates of around 17,000 B.G., while the Nubian Upper Stone Age probably begins before 20,000 B.G., but survives as a technological stage represented by the Sebilian, as late as 9,000 B.G.
Nubian Ceramic Age:
This stage includes at least three distinct lithic industries in Nubia. Pottery, the diagnostic feature of this stage, first appears in the final phase of the Shamarkian industry, and is also present in two distinct and seemingly contemporary groups named the Abkan and Khartum Variant. Both the Shamarkian and Abkan ceramics appear to be stimulated by Egyptia sources; however, the Khartum Variant pottery clearly is similar to that of Shaheinab in central Sudan. All three industries share an emphasis on large flake tools, and the Abkan and Shamarkian sites are dramatically larger than those known previously in Nubia. This change of settlement size may indicate the appearance in Nubia of a new economic resource -possibly cultivation.
quote: Settled communities in Africa began to be developed in at least 20,000 years BC. Quite probably these communities first sprung up along the River Nile in the cataract regions of southern Egypt and northern Sudan or as it was once known Ancient Nubia. Archaeological historians believe that barley was been harvested as early as 16,000 years BC. The people living in these established and settled communities had the skills and capabilities to use wild grain as well as the ability to exploit water resources and were able to form stable and long lasting communities. The domestication of plants and the building up of livestock herds also led to the emergence of aesthetics, individual taste, discrimination as well a language. Modern day African language has its foundations in these small and settled communities established thousands of years previously. The beginning of modern day history can be partly marked through the introduction and development of agricultural systems.
[...]
They manufactured and used stone and bone tools as well as pottery. But the foundations of these communities could go back to much earlier time of 15,000 years BC. By that period the Nile Valley was a rich source of food. There was an abundance of wild game, grains, animals and fish and later on wild fowl. Along coastal regions shell fish was a valuable source of food. Permanent communities in sustainable locations were formed. Effective methods were devised for storing food. Smoking and drying techniques were developed and as a result of improvement to nutrition population growth occurred. Also a range of millet and dry rice was grown in West Africa at this time while sorghum was grown in Chad and Sudan. Yam and palm oil quite possibly could have been cultivated at a much earlier period. Communities could have been based around the movement of wild game and the seasonal harvesting of wild crops.
[...]
Western and Central Sudan has a history of successfully cultivating specialized crops. It is thought that the camel was introduced into Africa before the birth of Christ and some historians claim that the horse has its origins in Africa and that the donkey was first domesticated in north east Africa. Other people claim that cattle were first domesticated in the Sahara region because rock paintings have been found that show people with cattle. A grain of corn has been found in this region which dates back to 19,000 years ago give or take 300 years. This is thought to show proof of the early domestication of grass at a time when Asia Minor and West Asia were covered in ice. One also has to take in the role of birds when considering the origins and development of agriculture. They might have helped to promote plant growth across a region by dropping seeds over a wide area through their digestive system. Tuerag traders may also have taken new plants, seeds and trees along early trade routes and planted them en-route.
[...]
Research by Patrick Munson of Illonois University where he excavated ruins in the Tichitt Walata region of Mauritania and found an early agricultural community which dates back to between 1500 Years BC and 1100 Years BC. (*Which is dated earlier now, back to 4000 Kya) Most of the villages were built on the top of cliffs and were made of stone. The walls of the cliff plus a series of protective walls help to protect the villages. Some of these communities covered an area of 1 square kilometer. Munson believed that they could have been food producing as well as food gathering communities. Some of the communities were constructed alongside lakes and could have been home to fishermen, herdsmen and horticulturalists.
[...]
The beginnings of livestock rearing, animal husbandry and grain cultivation could have occurred in the Sahara Desert when it was fertile savanna grassland and teeming with wild life. Animal husbandry and the domestic rearing of cattle occurred in the Sahara Desert region of Africa before it happened in the Nile Valley. Cave paintings have been found in this desert region depicting the herding of cattle. Since the start of this current millennium agriculture was seen as happening in the Sahara region as early as the 7th millennium BC. Pottery and ceramics are also linked to the development of agriculture. Pots were produced for specific purposes such as sowing, harvesting, growing plants in, for eating and drinking, all activities linked to agriculture. The greening of the Sahara Desert came to an end with ending of the last Ice Age. As the ice slowly melted in Europe and the Near East the region became more arid and was transformed into the desert region that we know today. Some pottery and rock paintings still remain from this period, which depict life as it was lived at the time.
[...]
G.P. Murdoch went against the grain of conventional thinking that saw the continent of Africa as having no past or history except for Ancient Egypt. He put forward the theory that agriculture was invented and that food plants were domesticated in the Mandingo country of the Upper Niger basin. Writing in Africa: Its People and Their Culture (1959) he expands on the concept that there was the cultivation and domestication of up to 24 nutritional and fibre plants south of the Sahara. He also raises the question as to whether the Decrue Irrigation System originated in this region and not on the Niger Bend. Also he was convinced that the domestication of cattle first happened in North Africa. Murdoch based his theories through the research he carried out exploring diet plant origins in Africa. Other researchers say that agriculture has its origins at Dhar Tichitt in Mauretania where the Decrue Water System was also practiced.
[...]
Arab writers over the centuries describe an Africa plentiful in agricultural produce. "
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Forgive me for the title, but this is a very interesting book/
Joe Mintsa is a Fanghish native, citizen of the present Gabon. At the end of his studies of philology and American history from Libreville University in 1998, he migrated to England for further studies and intensive searching and thinking on the moral and political crises of his world. His determination to bring to surface the conceptual fallacies of Egyptology and Afrocentricity, to reach a more pragmatic understanding of the "African Condition" and spell out the true needs and aspirations of Africans in today’s world, took him into a totally different path as a thinker. "What is Wrong with Black People?" (2007) is the book that features the fullest extent of this philosophical discoveries.
Lionness thanks for the links to buy Joe Mintsa What is Wrong With Black People book. It is a big 700 pages book.I am probably going to buy this book in the future to read the author different point of view on black people.
The author have another book. Lionness can you find the table of content for this book.
African History Books have been written and rewritten thousands of times. But what is bizarre about all these African History Books is that they are divided into three groups: one that deals with Colonial History, one that deals with Mediterranean History, and one that deals with Pre-history. The first one tells us about the Europeans all over the African continent. The second one tells us about the Kemets, the Persians and the Greeks in North Africa. And the last one tells us about primitive Negroes who did not themselves have any idea of the notion of History; so someone else has had to write their History in their place. There is no wonder that Basil Davidson has had to come to the embittering conclusion that what is referred to as African History today is nothing but “African History Without Africans” (1999). This is the book in which the true face of what may be referred to as African History is shown in full beam to a world that has cessed to believe in it. [View on <]www.lulu.com/content/4471308]< Less
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
First off, Diop is not here anymore to defend himself, so that already makes Minsta's attacks cowardice.
Secondly, he is debunking himself if you read between the lines, since he is now trying to talk for "all black people". Yet he fails to mention what he proposes be such.
Diop proved that ancient Egyptians originated in Africa, and we now know that he was correct. This bothers eurocetrics extremely, up to a point they will use a negro who has nothing to do with the sciences he speaks of, to validate their position. And at the same time attack a black man who is schooled in the fields.
quote: Previous craniometric analyses generally noted the mosaic of archaic and modern morphology with respect to large comparative fossil samples. Brothwell and Shaw (1971) presented a craniometric analysis but are non-specific as to the actual samples and variables used for comparison. They note at least two analyses were performed with 11 and 18 variables, that the position of Iwo Eleru varied depending on the particular configuration of variables, and that the specimen was distinct from samples of modern Africans. Their Fig. 1 suggests it was closest phenotypically to early East Africans and early Egyptians but the sample contexts are not stated. It is also unclear whether references to “a large sample of north African mesolithic (sic) skulls (Brothwell and Shaw, 1971:226)” indicate that comparisons with Taforalt and Afalou were performed.
--Christopher M. Stojanowski
Iwo Eleru's place among Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene populations of North and East Africa
Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
For Joe
quote: "Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afroasiatic' (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural features, both material and ideological and particularly in the earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western Asia."
--Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction. p. 10)
quote:"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'... we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
quote:"Over the last two decades, numerous contemporary (Khartoum Neolithic) sites and cemeteries have been excavated in the Central Sudan.. The most striking point to emerge is the overall similarity of early neolithic developments inhabitation, exchange, material culture and mortuary customs in the Khartoum region to those underway at the same time in the Egyptian Nile Valley, far to the north." (Wengrow, David (2003) "Landscapes of Knowledge, Idioms of Power: The African Foundations of Ancient Egyptian Civilization Reconsidered," in Ancient Egypt in Africa, David O'Connor and Andrew Reid, eds. Ancient Egypt in Africa. London: University College London Press, 2003, pp. 119-137)
--O'Connor, David B., Reid, Andrew
Ancient Egypt in Africa
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
What this map actually shows is most the Levant is the same "hot desert environment" as Egypt.
And if you want to actually look up biogeographical realms, mostly based on faunna, we find this-
Of course this doesn't fit well with Afrocentric politics.
Dumbass you don't know anything about the Sahara and climate in the Sahara.
quote: The Sahara (Arabic: الصحراء الكبرى, aṣ-ṣaḥrāʾ al-kubrā , 'the Greatest Desert') is the largest hot desert and the third largest desert in the world after Antarctica and the Arctic.[1] Its area of 9,200,000 square kilometres (3,600,000 sq mi)[2] is comparable to the area of the United States.
stop spamming over here to duplicate the same post you made addressing Cass in Egyptology instead of Joe Mintsa. Will your trolling never end? Joe Mintsa said nothing about these climate maps
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Dear Lioness,
It was posted in the wrong browser box, I had several open, including this one. It was meant for the other thread. But it is still funny thou.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
facts without flames.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
