...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
OT: historical data from morocco
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: Stone is [i]well[/i], stone; and so, I'd like to know what you define "monumental" stone. What time frame is in question here; dynastic or predynastic? Because, you go onto say: [i]We dont really know much about the architecture of ancient buildings in the [b]predynastic[/b] for the same reason. [/i] [/QUOTE]Monumental stone architecture is really a reference to size, the size of the stones and/or the size of the resulting structure.[/QUOTE]So "monumental" simply refers to 'size' in the context that you placed it, and hence, immaterial to the point about the utilization of 'stone' in architecture transcending the Nile Valley? [QUOTE]Doug M: [b]In ancient Egypt the temples were built of large stones and were very large.[/b] The buildings at dar tichitt are not monumental, either in overall size or the materials used. The stones at dar tichitt were small enough to be moved by a single person by hand.[/QUOTE]How large? The only Egyptian structures which utilized 'large' stone blocks as far as I can recall, were the Pyramids at Giza, and perhaps the nearby colossal Sphinx sculpture. These structures are obviously unique to the Nile Valley, and hence, again of no relevance to the issue of stone architecture or buildings. [QUOTE]Doug M: Secondly, [b]if I remember correctly, the point I was making when I first made this argument a long time ago[/b], is that the Egyptians were rare among African cultures in that they both built in monumental stone and decorated the stone with scenes of everyday life, religious beliefs and important events that we can use now in understanding how they lived.[/QUOTE]Simply put, this is what sparked the debate and [i]what[/i] the argument centered on: [i][b]Originally posted by Doug M:[/b] "I believe that the only difference between Egypt and [b]the rest of Africa[/b] is [b]that they built in stone[/b] and left images of their religious practices and texts for us to study."[/i] To which I replied... [i][b]Originally posted by Supercar:[/b] What about the Great Zimbabwe, the stone walls of Jenne Jeno, the megaliths of the Sahara, the artistic impressions left by the Nok? I suppose I could go on with other examples. To understand the history of Africans, the peopling of the continent is a must know, not to mention linguistic reconstructions, and chronology of cultural processes such as those of economy or subsistence. The key to avoid making incorrect observations about Africans, is to thoroughly research Africa.[/i] …to be exacerbated by comments like this: [i][b]Originally posted by Doug M:[/b] Ok, if you want to be TECHNICAL, unlike MOST African cultures, the Egyptians built in stone and left lasting images of their religious ceremonies and processions for us to observe. Even though there were OTHER cultures in Africa that built in stone, NONE other than Egypt, carved images into stone of daily scenes of life and worship. [b]MOST African cultures DID NOT build in stone regardless.[/b] Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Please, come off your grandstand or whatever it is trying to correct me over such a SMALL issue. If it is that siginificant show me more than a HANDFUL of cultures in ancient Africa that built in stone like the Egyptians…[/i] Source discussion: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003189;p=1 [QUOTE]Doug M: The Egyptians left us temples of stone covered with scenes of all sorts. They had decorated tombs featuring scenes of everyday life and models of daily activity. [/QUOTE]Hardly unique to the Egyptians [including even in Africa], and immaterial to the issue of stone buildings. [QUOTE] Doug M: However, what I was saying then and what I am saying now is that the [b]Egyptians were but a part of a larger tradition that originated in Africa.[/b][/QUOTE]That point isn’t reflected in this: Doug M: [i]I believe that the only difference between Egypt and the rest of Africa is that they built in stone and left images of their religious practices and texts for us to study.[/i] [QUOTE]Doug M: These traditions stretch back into antiquity, but the difficulty now is in trying to piece together where they originated.[/QUOTE]As pointed out, the Nile Valley traditions drew from their ultimate East African origins, [i]in situ[/i] [including traditions emanating from what is now dubbed by Eurocentric scholarship as “Nubia”] and the eastern Sahara-Sahel regions. [QUOTE]Doug M: I believe that many of the sites on the Nile submerged under Lake Nasser would have given us some insight. I also beleive that there are some places in the sahara that have yet to be uncovered that would give us a better understanding as well. I also believe that the people of dar Tichitt were also connected with those of the Nile Valley through trade. So, I dont believe that Egypt is separate from the larger scope of African cultural tradition, but it is a [b]somewhat unique in that it built in stone[/b] and left so much information to us about how they lived, [b]whereas others did not[/b]. [/QUOTE]Was just a matter of time…before you reverted back to your strange claim about ‘stone building’ being unique to ancient Egypt, even as you have cited an example to the contrary. It flies in the face of logic. This is what got you in the hot seat in the earlier discussion, and which you’ve attempted to explain away here as you tried then, but apparently unsuccessfully. My earlier assessment that you may have broaden your perception, may need reexamination. [QUOTE]Doug M: Remember as well that there were other African people, who did not build in stone at all, but their lifestyles and worldviews were just as much reflected in Egyptian art as any other African group. [/QUOTE]Red herring. Immaterial to the fact that your point about ancient stone building being unique to Egypt is baseless. [/qb][/QUOTE]I dont know why you dredged up that old thread, but yes you were right in pointing out that other African cultures did indeed build in stone. It seems that my post was improperly worded and because of that we wasted a whole lot of time and space debating a side issue and not the true point I was trying to make. So, I dont think it is necessary to argue what we both agree is a long history of stone building in Africa. The fact, IMO, still stands that outside the Nile Valley, very few African civilizations built in stone or, if they did, left any sort of documentation of their every day lives and/or daily lives on the walls of their monuments, which makes it a bit harder to reconstruct such things from the remaining evidence. It does not say that no other African cultures built in stone, but just that most did not and those that did did not write an account of their daily lives on the wall. Many other civilizations in Africa built in mud brick and others reed, grass, wood, straw, cloth or animal hides for tents or huts or other structures. These structures do not have the longevity of stone and therefore do not allow us to uncover the evidence of their existence as easily. Likewise, even when you do find such sites, there is still a lot more work that needs to be done filling in the details on the day to day material existence of such groups. Even in Egypt, with all the details they left to us of every day life and religious ceremonies, will still dont know a lot about how they lived at all levels, commoner and king. Yes, my statement in the original thread was wrong, as I said. But it is not a red herring since I know what I was trying to point out and just correcting me on the one statement and continguing to correct me does not change it. The issue now, as I said before, is one of study and research and how many aspects of African culture and history are undocumented. I didnt know about the existence of the Nok culture prior to the discussion on that thread. I also didnt know about dar Tichitt prior to this thread, as a result of my own searching. Anyone who is studying African history and culture should not have to dig as hard to get unbiased facts about the history and culture of Africa. Unfortunately, to many of our scholars are to busy attacking the system just for the purpose of attacking the system or are chasing ideas that are tangent to the core facts of African history. More needs to be done to redress the fact that large parts of African history are under researched due to either a lack of interest or funds, bias or all three. Likewise, when the information is found and researched, it is not updated in the mainstream knowledge base about Africa. Most people are not going to go to a college library and read through hundreds of journals to uncover the facts and discoveries unearthed in Africa that shed light on its history. Most people only get African history either from high school history, the discovery channel, national geographic or maybe on the internet, if at all. The answer is ultimately in the hands of Africans to research and document their own history and stop relying on foreigners to "do the right thing" and tell African history in an accurate and unbiased manner. As a matter of fact, I went to a college library yesterday to do some research. I was shocked(not really) to find out that 1) they dont have much on Moorish civilization in Europe (other than Stanley Lane Pool and Van Sertima) and they dont allow general use of the "Image of the Black in Western Art, Vol 1." (which is out of print for some reason and the original photos are only available for primary research) Also, I was reading a recent book on battles leading up to the expulsion of the Moors from Spain (written from the perspective of European's rise to prominence) and found some glaring distortions as well some very funny facts. The distortions were mainly related to the level of sophistication and technology in Moorish Spain, especially regarding the use of gunpowder weapons by the Moors. The funniest part is how the Spanish were bombardi ng some of the last strongholds in Granada with cannon, when Boabdil persuaded them to fight mano-a-mano. Ferdinand and Isabella's forces were being summarily dispatched by the Moorish troops with ease. Finally, realizing that this was futile and that the goal was to win and not about chivalry, honor and personal courage, they went back to bombarding the strongholds with cannon. Very funny indeed. The book is here: http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C8853.aspx The issue about the Moors introducing gunpowder to Europe is here: http://www.avalanchepress.com/Cannon_of_Granada.php [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3