|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 28, 2011 0:48:49 GMT -5
rará_Sabalú
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:46 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Also, I don't think it impossible for ideas and materials to be transmitted through trade, but where is the evidence that actual people were trasmitted??
The evidence is found in the languages where the presence of some linguistic features can only be explained by living in the Nile Valley and the extreme precision of oral traditions concerning details of the life in the Nile Valley.
Quote:
I'd also like to point out that although there is no evidence of the presence of Egyptians in West Africa, there are Chadic speaking peoples like the Hausa who, as Afrasians, are ethnolinguistically related to the Egyptians. Perhaps it is these people who are the key in understanding the "Egyptian" connection in West Africa.
As I said,the Chadic languages are not the only West-African languages related to Kemetic.Plus I don't know any linguist who think that Chadic languages descended from Kemetic...So if Chadic speaking people'd diffused their "afrasian" culture to west Africa,it should be similar to predynastic Egypt's not dynastic's.However,you can find numerous examples of the diffusion of dynastic Egyptian culture in West-Africa like the Amma/Amun ram symbolism.
Back to top
Arará_Sabalú
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:49 pm Post subject:
Quote:
The concept is interesting and maybe worthy of some merit but cannot
be seperated from the colonialist Hamitic hypothesis and can seem to
be somewhat no less than a black washing of it.
I know what you're meaning but Lam's theories differ from Hamitic's because according to the Senegalese scholar thinks that many current West-African trace their roots to the Nile Valley just like modern Japanese people are descending from ancient Japanese...It's not like Gadalla who said that White migrants brought their culture to "uncivilized" Black Africans.
Back to top
Arará_Sabalú
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Here is something I found rather interesting. Lam seem to make a connection to a modern day agritcultural utensil and that used in ancient Kmt:
95.1108
LAM, Aboubacry Moussa, mr: <http://www.leidenuniv.nl/nino/aeb95/Image11.gif> . Un outil agricole à travers le temps et l?espace, Ankh. Revue d?égyptologie et des civilisations africaines, Gif-sur-Yvette 2 (avril 1993), 19-28. (maps, ill.).
In ancient Egypt the hieroglyph mr (Sign-list U7) denoted a large or small hoe. In contemporary Black Africa similarly shaped hoes are used for the same agricultural tasks as in Ancient Egypt. Also, the terminology used for designating agricultural space and land ownership by Fulaani of the Senegal river region and the Mandigo of Casamance is the same as in Ancient Egypt. These are only several of numerous examples which indicate the deep cultural unity connecting the Ancient Egyptians with present day Negro Africans.
Cf. AEB 95.0881. Author
Yep,Lam wrote a lot of articles and books between the relationships between Kemetic and contemporary Black African cultures,about myths,hairdresses,sticks and scepters,headrests,linguistics,etc...Most of his articles have been published in Ankh,Revue d'égyptologie et des civilisations africaines.If you're interested in getting some of it,please let me know.
Back to top
Arará_Sabalú
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:55 pm Post subject:
Quote:
It might be interesting if we chronicle the best, non anicdotal evidence of strong direct links between the Nile Valley and West Africa.
* A major branch of the Afrasan language, Chadic, exists in West Africa, and so must have an East African origin per current linguistic theory of a Horn/Sudanese origin of proto-Afrasan.
* A strong genetic affinity has been found among certain East and West African peoples - for example the Taureg of West Africa and the Beja of East Africa. One genetisist [Cavelli-Sforza] has theorised a largely common origin of the two populations within the last 5 thousand years which is within the pharaonic era.
Please add other evidences........
I'll translate some articles to from french to english about this when I'll have the time...
Back to top
AswaniAswan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 1053
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:08 pm Post subject: .......
Alot of Afri-asian words in Sahelian African languages might have more to do with interaction with Amazigh[Berber] speakers like the Zenaga than direct relationship with the ancient Egyptians. I am rather skeptical about Nile Valley migratants coming into Western Africa after the collapse of the dyanstic Egyptian civlization. I see a more plausible link to be a common pre-history than a back migration to western Africa. More archaeological work has to be done in this area to confirm or deny this linkage.
A book that might be of interest is Ancient Egypt in Africa edited by David O'Connor. In this book is a crtique of Diop's theories about Nile Valley migrants into Egypt.
Back to top
Arará_Sabalú
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:14 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Alot of Afri-asian words in Sahelian African languages might have more to do with interaction with Amazigh[Berber] speakers like the Zenaga than direct relationship with the ancient Egyptians. I am rather skeptical about Nile Valley migratants coming into Western Africa after the collapse of the dyanstic Egyptian civlization. I see a more plausible link to be a common pre-history than a back migration to western Africa. More archaeological work has to be done in this area to confirm or deny this linkage.
As I said,there are details specifics to the life in the Nile Valley found among many Niger-Congo languages which can't be explained by borrowings from Berber.
Quote:
A book that might be of interest is Ancient Egypt in Africa edited by David O'Connor. In this book is a crtique of Diop's theories about Nile Valley migrants into Egypt.
Oum Ndigi's works are more relevant than Diop's IMO.I recommend you to read his thesis entitled:"Les Basa du Cameroun et l'antiquité pharaonique égypto-nubienne : Recherche historique et linguistique comparative sur leurs rapports culturels à la lumière de l'égyptologie. Thèse Université Lyon, 1997.",where he deals with egyptology,rigorous comparative linguistics,mythology,religion,ethnonyms,toponyms,etc. to prove that Basaa people trace their roots to the Nile Valley.
Back to top
rasol
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 593
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:15 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I know you'll probably be skeptical about what I'm saying,but I guarantee you that many "Niger-Congo" languages are closely related to Kemetic.Also I plan to publish an article about the genetic relationship between a kwa language and Kemetic.If you're interested in it,please tell me and I'll keep you updated.
Always!
Back to top
Arará_Sabalú
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:17 pm Post subject:
rasol wrote:
Quote:
I know you'll probably be skeptical about what I'm saying,but I guarantee you that many "Niger-Congo" languages are closely related to Kemetic.Also I plan to publish an article about the genetic relationship between a kwa language and Kemetic.If you're interested in it,please tell me and I'll keep you updated.
Always!
No problem bro!
Back to top
AswaniAswan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 1053
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:48 pm Post subject: ....
Unfortunately, I can't read French. Otherwise I would check ut the book in question. Francophone scholarship seems to be above the average English speaking populations. I notice that the so-called Afrocentric work there is excellent. You might tell Franocphone scholars to translate more into English for the average english speakers.
Back to top
Wally
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 201
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:25 pm Post subject:
Quote:
AswaniAswan wrote:
I must disagree with the diffusion of ancient Kmt into Western or Central Africa. Unfortunately, too many times this has been used to explain away the technological achievements of Western African and even Central Africans. Colonialists have used this to uproot any signs of civilization into the Sahelian,Western African,and even Central African cultural history. One of the biggest victims were the Great Lakes region where it was claimed Chewzi a white man founded their culture.
The question is how can you prove diffusion into Western Africa or Central Africa by Egyptian migrants. By the time ancient Egypt would have been fragmented and lost much of its high culture. We see a evolution of Kemetian culture from the Old Kingdom down to the Late Dynastic Period into the Islamic invasion.
Some groups might have had a Kemetic origin but to prove all did is questionable. Moustafa Gadalla in his book Exiled Egyptians argues that that Western Africa was not populated until the period of 1500 B.C. He postulates that people migrating out of Egypt settled and founded most high culture in Western Africa. Of curse he does it in a more subtle non-racist way but still it smacks of the old Hamitic myth concept that has been heavily abused and misused in history.
One should never deny the evidence because it may or may not be spun to support some nonsensical, racist theory.
Quote:
AswaniAswan also wrote:
A book that might be of interest is Ancient Egypt in Africa edited by David O'Connor. In this book is a critique of Diop's theories about Nile Valley migrants into Egypt.
There's certainly nothing wrong with a critique of a Theory; but let us look at Diop's basic theory:
-- During antiquity, tall Blacks formed a cluster in the Nile Valley, and that over the centuries during the many times of internal disruptions, and of foreign conquests, some groups of these tall Blacks migrated back into the hinterland of the continent, taking Nile Valley culture (their own!) and languages (their own!) with them.
What is there to critique?
a) Humans throughout our long existence on this planet have always migrated towards the economic centers that were in existence, the closer the better; some historical economic magnets were/are Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, England, the United States, South Africa...
If the Nile Valley civilizations had to constantly fight these intrusions of non-Africans into their territories because of this natural phenomenon, why wouldn't the Nile Valley be a natural attraction to other Africans??? It would have been a Mecca!
b) Human societies throughout their long existence have always been disrupted through wars and famine, whereby its peoples have seen it necessary to emigrate to more tranquil places. Remember the Irish potato famine?; looked at Africa lately?
c) The linguistic evidence available supports what should, at first blush, have already been taken for granted...
I'll repeat myself:
Quote:
Africa does not lie outside the realm of human history and is not exempt from the general laws of human society. We can trace the origins and movements of Africans in the same fashion that we trace the origins and movements of any human society.
Back to top
AswaniAswan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 1053
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:18 pm Post subject: ......
Quote:
a) Humans throughout our long existence on this planet have always migrated towards the economic centers that were in existence, the closer the better; some historical economic magnets were/are Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, England, the United States, South Africa...
If the Nile Valley civilizations had to constantly fight these intrusions of non-Africans into their territories because of this natural phenomenon, why wouldn't the Nile Valley be a natural attraction to other Africans??? It would have been a Mecca!
Yes, there was migration into Kmt during the pre-dyanstic times. Mostly from the south because most of the Nile Valley was a big papyrus marsh that was slowly cleared. However, Africans and non-Africans formed economic immigrants into Kmt. Captives of war in Kmt were assimilated into Kemetian soceity alongside the already existing populations. Indeed there are many cases where Kemetians defend their border against the Asiatics and Libyans,but a sizable number of these people lived alongside Kemetians and intermarried with them peacefully.
The border of Kmt were tightly controlled both to the south and northern borders. The only economic migrants I am aware of are ''Medijay'' mercenaries that migrated to Kmt. Often settling in Middle and Upper Egypt intermarrying with the local population.
Quote:
b) Human societies throughout their long existence have always been disrupted through wars and famine, whereby its peoples have seen it necessary to emigrate to more tranquil places. Remember the Irish potato famine?; looked at Africa lately?
Yes, but what extreme condition do you believe made Kemetians migrated further to Western Africa. Definately there were trade routes around the Kharga Oasis and the road of the forty days. This route connects Kemetians with further inland Africa around Lake Chad region that then connects to Western Africa. The road of the forty days took forever without camels. During the Persian occupation camels were introduced to Kmt. This made the trek easier.
What time period do you propose there was mass migration of Kemetians into Western Africa. Would the eite priestly population have migrated or the peasents of soceity?
Quote:
c) The linguistic evidence available supports what should, at first blush, have already been taken for granted...
This needs more data before it becomes conclusive.
Back to top
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:53 pm Post subject:
I think the linquistic evidence is conclusive.
But has little to do with a physical migration.
Greenberg's theory of African languages, which has finally whittled down
to Afrasan, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, and San, is controversial and is
not universally accepted. The main criticism against it, though are many
more, is that basically it's geographical where it fails to deduce a genetic
affinity between sub-phyla and branches.
Cheik Anta Diop and Theophile Obenga have proved that Walaf is just
as close to Pharaonic Egyptian (PE) as is Coptic. They used a variety of
disciplines within linguistic analyses to arrive at their proofs. Nor are
they alone in seeing that not only Walaf but other languages like Hausa
(Chadic) and Songai (Nilo-Saharan) and language "families", notably
Bantu (Niger-Congo II), share many affinities with PE.
Berber and Semitic fail to show a relationship with PE in the way that
Walaf does and so cannot be intermediaries of transfusion of either
grammar, lexicon, phonemes, etc.
Obenga, based on his own and previous researches going back to
Homburger, has proposed only three major groupings for the more
than 1200 individual African languages; Négro-égyptien, Berbère,
and Khoisan.
Another proponent of linquistic affinities instead of genetic trees for
African languages is David Dalby. He sees a Northern Area of Greater
Affinty and a Southern Area of Greater Affinity. Outside of these areas
lie the phyla generally known as Nilo-Saharan and San. Dalby also
recognizes a Fragmentation Belt that cuts across both areas of affinity
and the northern unaffiliated area (Nilo-Saharan region). This belt is
defined by the fact that the vast majority of African language units
are found in a broad swath of territory stretching in the west from
southern Mauritania to the Gulf of Guinea eastward clear across the
continent to western portions of Ethiopia.
Back to top
Djehuti
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 188
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:37 pm Post subject:
Arara, there are many affinities between the Austrasian languages of Southeast Asia and Mandarin of northern China, yet practically all scholars Western and Asian alike have come to the general consensus that they are of two totally different linguistic families!
No one is denying that there are affinities between the Egyptian and West African but how is it all of a sudden you can say that these West African languages are closer to Egyptian than other Afraisan tongues.
And better yet, how is this proof of Egyptian migrations?!!
_________________
knowledge is not power but a path to it... How you use the knowledge is power!
Back to top
Arará_Sabalú
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:33 pm Post subject:
Djehuti wrote:
Arara, there are many affinities between the Austrasian languages of Southeast Asia and Mandarin of northern China, yet practically all scholars Western and Asian alike have come to the general consensus that they are of two totally different linguistic families!
No one is denying that there are affinities between the Egyptian and West African but how is it all of a sudden you can say that these West African languages are closer to Egyptian than other Afraisan tongues.
And better yet, how is this proof of Egyptian migrations?!!
Don't worry brother,being a student of linguistics I can easily distinguish typological similitudes from genetic affinities between two languages like there are between Indo-European tongues.
For example there are a lot of typological lexical and morphological similitudes between Kemetic and the Austronesian languages as you can see below:
Lexical evidence:
1)The word "house":per(kmt),balay(Cebuano)
2)"shoe":kebet(kmt),bakya(cebuano)->metathesis
3)"head,top":tep(kmt),atop(cebuano),tibbo(batak)
4)"four":ftouu(coptic),apat(tagalog),fatfat(chamoru)->reduplication
5)"bird,falcon":beneg(kmt),banog(cebuano)
6)"each time":tjen(kmt)->palatalization of k,kada(cebuano)
7)"good,right":maa(kmt),maayo(cebuano)
"day":heru(kmt),hari(indonesian)
9)"to love":mer(kmt),mahalon(cebuano)->epenthesis of h
10)"sun":ra(kmt),araw(tagalog),ra(maori)
etc...
Grammatical evidence
1)To express the negation:
Kmt:"n":n ink it.f("I'm not his father")
Tagalog:"uala":uala sila dinhi("they are not here")
2)Personal pronouns
k(you masc.);tj(you fem.) ka(you)
n(us) amo(our(exclusive))
etc...
Despite this typological similitudes there is no serious scholar who can demonstrate the genetic unity of Kemetic and austronesian languages.
The similitudes I plan to show in a future article can only be explained a common origin. Trust me bro,I know you'll probably laugh at me,but I'm serious.I'll let you know when I'll publish an article dealing with this issue.
Last edited by Arará_Sabalú on Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Wally
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 201
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:28 pm Post subject:
Quote:
AswaniAswan wrote:
The border of Kmt were tightly controlled both to the south and northern borders. The only economic migrants I am aware of are ''Medijay'' mercenaries that migrated to Kmt. Often settling in Middle and Upper Egypt intermarrying with the local population.
The southern borders of Kmt changed about as often as did its rulers!
But I was referring to the entire Nile Valley culture. Diop even pointed out the evidence that, through linguistics, the Wolof (Walaf) spent a time in what is now Sudan, enroute to their final destination.
Quote:
AswaniAswan also wrote:
Yes, but what extreme condition do you believe made Kemetians migrated further to Western Africa. Definitely there were trade routes around the Kharga Oasis and the road of the forty days. This route connects Kemetians with further inland Africa around Lake Chad region that then connects to Western Africa. The road of the forty days took forever without camels. During the Persian occupation camels were introduced to Kmt. This made the trek easier.
What time period do you propose there was mass migration of Kemetians into Western Africa. Would the elite priestly population have migrated or the peasants of society?
We're not talking about Exodus here.
Maybe, it's just because we're discussing Kmt and not another culture, where there seems to be a casual acceptance of;
a) the fact that German tribes migrated in successive waves to the British Isles. Or...
b) Djehuti can probably confirm the fact that the Tagalog peoples of the Philippines came originally from the Malay peninsula (and found the land originally inhabited by the Negritos; the "small Blacks" which Diop also maintains were the principle inhabitants of much of the African continent originally.); and that the Tagalog language is related to the Malagasy, Malay, and Indonesian languages.
c) the entire human race peopled the entire planet from a single location (Africa); migrating over centuries, first into Asia and then moving westwards into Western Asia (aka "Europe"), then across oceans...
Perhaps I should have written:
Quote:
Ancient Egypt does not lie outside the realm of human history and is not exempt from the general laws of human society. We can trace the origins and movements of Ancient Egyptians in the same fashion that we trace the origins and movements of any human society.
An Anecdotal example
I once had a conversation with an individual, who was African-American, and who had spent considerable time in Ethiopia (as a resident as opposed to a visitor). He was telling me that the migrations of Ethiopians into Rwanda and Burundi could be traced by the groups that settled in route to what would be their ultimate destination of Rwanda/Burundi; these people would ultimately become the Tutsi...
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 28, 2011 0:58:51 GMT -5
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm Post subject:
Arara_Sabalu wrote:
Quote:
The concept is interesting and maybe worthy of some merit but cannot
be seperated from the colonialist Hamitic hypothesis and can seem to
be somewhat no less than a black washing of it.
I know what you're meaning but Lam's theories differ from Hamitic's because according to the Senegalese scholar thinks that many current West-African trace their roots to the Nile Valley just like modern Japanese people are descending from ancient Japanese...It's not like Gadalla who said that White migrants brought their culture to "uncivilized" Black Africans.
Agreed. Judging from your Lam quote on Dyâo I'm inclined to at the least
posit some form of credibility to the particular migration mentioned because
I have faith in oral tradition where it names names. Oral traditions that tell
a complete story including the names of the principles are worthy of serious
scientific consideration. Dyâo's telling lacks the air of Hamitization.
Hamitization explains any interesting cultural features of inner Africa as
originating in external influences. Obviously the above telling does none
of that.
We must pay more attention to the oral tradition and exactly what its
passages are trying to relate. They are not straight up histories, yet
they contain historical material among a wealth of other tools helpful
for understanding the cultural milleau of a given people.
Can you give up some more from Dyâo or other stuff from Lam? Please.
Back to top
Wally
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 201
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:55 pm Post subject: The Nature of Emigration
Quote:
What time period do you propose there was mass migration of Kemetians into Western Africa. Would the elite priestly population have migrated or the peasants of society?
Most migrations throughout history have not been an "Exodus" of masses leaving a given location, but rather relatively small groups of disaffected people. For example, Africans today, who leave their impoverished states, head first to South Africa, and some move on, their ultimate goal being Western Europe or the United States. And the elite, unless suddenly disenfranchised, hardly ever leave a place where they are secure and comfortable:
Ancient Egyptian examples:
a) there's an account in Herodotus where, if I recall, there was an entire garrison of Egyptian troops who defected from the regime and went over to the "Ethiopians" (foreign southern regime).
b) We are also informed by Herodotus that the Colchians were, he believed, an Egyptian colony that had settled in Asia; a land that they particularly abhorred, if we are to believe the "Tale of Sinuhe." If Herodotus is accurate, they were either there by royal edict or they were a disaffected segment of Egyptian society.-- and for Egyptians to voluntarily decide to settle permanently in Asia, they had to be really disaffected!
c) After the Amarna counter-revolution, and the return to prominence of the Priesthood of Amon, what happened to the true believers of the old faith; that of Aten? Religious folk rarely acquiesce that easily...
Mexico for example:
The majority of the Mexicans pouring into the United States are Campesinos, poor, illiterate, rural farmers. Most of them are from the exploited class, descendants of the indigenous Indian peoples. Their emigration from Mexico relieves the political pressure on the Mexican ruling class through the use of this "American safety valve" by offering them, at some risk, job opportunities in the US that aren't available in Mexico. The elite, mostly White folk, who often boast of their Spanish blood, if they choose to come to America, they usually fly in, and only for a vacation or on business...
When these, mostly poor peoples, move to a new area in order to establish a new colony or settlement, they generally recreate the system that they left behind , usually establishing a new elite. Examples abound; Australia, USA, Brazil, Liberia, Sierre Leone, etc. etc.
Back to top
Arará_Sabalú
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject:
alTakruri wrote:
Arara_Sabalu wrote:
Quote:
The concept is interesting and maybe worthy of some merit but cannot
be seperated from the colonialist Hamitic hypothesis and can seem to
be somewhat no less than a black washing of it.
I know what you're meaning but Lam's theories differ from Hamitic's because according to the Senegalese scholar thinks that many current West-African trace their roots to the Nile Valley just like modern Japanese people are descending from ancient Japanese...It's not like Gadalla who said that White migrants brought their culture to "uncivilized" Black Africans.
Agreed. Judging from your Lam quote on Dyâo I'm inclined to at the least
posit some form of credibility to the particular migration mentioned because
I have faith in oral tradition where it names names. Oral traditions that tell
a complete story including the names of the principles are worthy of serious
scientific consideration. Dyâo's telling lacks the air of Hamitization.
Hamitization explains any interesting cultural features of inner Africa as
originating in external influences. Obviously the above telling does none
of that.
We must pay more attention to the oral tradition and exactly what its
passages are trying to relate. They are not straight up histories, yet
they contain historical material among a wealth of other tools helpful
for understanding the cultural milleau of a given people.
Can you give up some more from Dyâo or other stuff from Lam? Please.
I totally agree with you brother.This is one of the main points of Lam's book.The oral tradition sometimes provides precious information people cannot have invented and that we should not ignore.Please give some time and I'll translate other parts of Lam's works.
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:59 am Post subject:
Arara_Sabalu, please do keep me posted on the material that you intend to publish.
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
Arará_Sabalú
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:48 am Post subject:
Quote:
Can you give up some more from Dyâo or other stuff from Lam? Please.
The oral traditions of Soninke people of Mali who belong to the Mande subgroup collected among illiterate griots who certainly didn't learn about Kemetic culture and geography by reading books and didn't have any obvious reasons to claim the glorious Kemetic civilization, trace their origins to Kemet,more exactly to a city they call "Sonna".Also,the name" Soninke" etymologically means "inhabitant of Sonna".The other name they give to their place of origin is "the river of Kurutumu".Still according to oral traditions,the two principal divinities of the Soninke were the snake "Biida",a kind of water-god who lived in a well and a vulture which was a royal divinity.
There's actually a kemetic city whose name resembles Sonna's.This is the city called "Swnw" today known as "Aswan".The Kemetians believed that the Nile rose in the Swnw area,more precisely in a mountain by the name of "Senmut".Interestingly french Egyptologist P.Montet published a representation of Senmut as depicted in the gate of Hadrian in Philae.He writes:
"It's a rocky conurbation on the top of which are landed a vulture and a falcon.On the bottom the Nile God is hidden in a cave surrounded by a snake".
So the two principal Soninke divinities,the Snake living in a well and the vulture are depicted in a place where the Soninke people trace their roots.This is a very interesting point.
Let's now take an interest in the other name Soninke traditions give to their place of origin:"The River of Kurutumu".In XIX dynasty kemetic stelaes,it is said that the Nile rose in a place called "Qerti",which was located around Senmut.Lam concludes that "Kurutumu" derives from a kemetic name of the Nile,*Qerti-Mw,"Mw" here simply meaning "water".
So,despite of the spatio-temporal hiatus which separates Soninke people of Mali from the ancient Nile Valley,the Soninke people remembered the exact names of their place of origin,and kept worshipping the same deities that were worshipped in this place.These are striking similitudes which cannot be explained by chance.
Back to top
rasol
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 593
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject:
Arara_Sabalu wrote:
Quote:
Can you give up some more from Dyâo or other stuff from Lam? Please.
The oral traditions of Soninke people of Mali who belong to the Mande subgroup collected among illiterate griots who certainly didn't learn about Kemetic culture and geography by reading books and didn't have any obvious reasons to claim the glorious Kemetic civilization, trace their origins to Kemet,more exactly to a city they call "Sonna
Continuing in the guise of Devil's advocate:
Why are west African Kemitic traditions typically non-literate?
Why does no specific mdw ntr recording their Kemetic history survive if said populations are essentially exiled Egyptians?
The Niger Congo language family is the largest in the world and certainly these languages predate dynastic Egypt - while effort is made to show affinities between individual NC languages and mdw ntr, what about the problem of the relationship of these langauges to 'one another'.
In other words, we have literally hundreds of west African languages, related to each other, apparently ancient, and not found in East Africa.
To posit a Kemitic origin is to posit a common Kemitic root.
Or is it that it is being acknowledged that there are 'some' West African languages which are really - West African and pre Pharaonic in origin, while others, supposedly represent recent direct migrations from the nile?
Perhaps a prototype for a chronology would aid in convincing, plus a specific list of which languages are related to which with associated time depths for their putative divergence?
Back to top
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:57 pm Post subject:
While Greenberg's four way division is pretty much touted as fact there is, and
always has been, controversy with dissenters viewing only two major
affiliated families; a northern area of wider affiliation and a southern
area of wider affiliation, in David Dalby's terms. Per Theophile Obenga
thee would Berber and Negro-Egyptian. Olderogge, whose system I am
unfamiliar with but who classes the southern area of wider affiliation as
Zindj languages.
Back to top
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:43 pm Post subject:
Mande is a language that truly does not fit Greenberg's Niger-Congo
family. To Dalby it stands outside clear classification into either
family of wider affinity and a good majority of its speakers inhabit
the fragmentation belt. I assume this makes it a good candidate
for similarites with Afrasan, Niger-Congo, and most of all
Nilo-Saharan where some have even seen fit to affiliate it.
The Big Snake legend does seem to fit in with migration from Km.t.
The legend like the one in Abyssinia [the Arwe serpent]seems to
have its earliest tie in with the Perseus and Andromeda myth which
makes Tel Aviv/Yafo an AEthiopian kingdom. At root, the story shows
a changing of the guard usually by the introduction of an outsider
(either literally a foreignor or else someone somewhat estranged
from the general populace or cultural norm).
Quote:
According to the oral history of the Soninke people, a ruler named Dinga defeated a powerful goblin leader, marrying its three daughters. He established the influential city of Wagadu, where he enjoyed a long and prosperous reign as the first ruler of the Empire of Ghana.
After his death, his two sons, Khine and Dyabe fought for control of the empire. At the point of victory, Dyabe's forces were turned back by Khine's army. Facing a humiliating defeat, Dyabe made an oath with a large seven-headed serpent god named Bida. In exchange for victory, Dyabe promised to sacrifice a virgin to the snake once a year. Dyabe won and fulfilled his promise to Bida until his death. His successors followed suit for many years.
This continued until a woman named Sia was chosen to be sacrificed. A young warrior named Amadou [Mamadou Sarolle] loved Sia, and asked the royal priest how to save his beloved. The priest told him the only way to save the girl was to slay Bida by cutting off each of his seven heads. Undaunted by the enormity of the task, Amadou hid at the sacrifice area. When Bida came up for his sacrifice, Amadou leapt out, attacked and slew the powerful snake god. As his final head fell to the ground, Bida cursed Ghana for seven years, seven months, and seven days of drought and pestilence. As his curse unfolded, Ghana fell into decline and was overrun by invaders.
As with most oral traditions, this one is combination of fact, fiction and metaphor.
This leaves out the fact of the Bida being the source of the gold and its
severed head falling in the Bambuk which became a gold source after
Bure had less output. Somehoe the Soninke legend ties this in with the
increased desertification of the Niger bend and the Hodh where old Ghana
was actually located.
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:38 pm Post subject:
Arara_Sabalu,
You have generated by interest in your upcoming article. How is it coming?
And I'm still looking forward to your translations on parts of Lam's work. It seems like it could be an interesting read.
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:47 pm Post subject: Re: Yoro Dyâo and the Egyptian origin of Senegambian people
Arara wrote:
. . . .
Quote:
. . . . Yoro Dyâo claims there has been six migrations from Egypt to Senegambia.According to the local oral tradition he interrogated, the populations fled Egypt because they were "overwhelmed with the incessant labour they were forced to do by the kings of this country".According to Dyâo,this kings were Paate-Lamin and Soose-Tuure.If at first sight this names do not really sound egyptian,after a second look,they can be compared with some egyptian patronyms.Indeed if "Pa Di Imn" became in Greek "Pieteamoygis",it sure could have became Paate-Lamin.In the same vein,Setut-Re sure could have became Soose-Tuure.This second comparison is very interesting,because Setut-Re was the coronation name of Darius,the second pharaoh of the persian dynasty who conquered Egypt in 525 with Cambyses and imposed on it a draconian administration.
The oases of Kharga and Dakhla were places that those disaffected by
riverain government flocked to. For a possible route to the Woloff lands:
Kharga/ Dakhla oases to
Khufra oasis to
Ennedi or Tibesti to
Daima near Lake Chad to
Kanem to
Hausa to
Gao to
the Hodh and on to
the Senegal valley and
from there to the coast.
Part of this proposed route (to the Nigerian areas associated with Bauchi)
could have been the source for a good part of Kmty tin.
Historically, the Woloff are supposed to have crossed the Senegal from
Mauritania and not entered the region from an eastern approach (the
Hodh). Diop thinks the Lebou, a people in close association with the
Woloff as are the Serer and Pullo, possibly are migrant Lebu (ancient
Libyans). Their migration would have been more northerly moving
westward to Morocco then southward to the Senegal.
It appears this cluster of people were not involved with the ancient Dhar
Tichitt sites that were founded around 1700 BCE though there is evidence
from Saharan art that people extremely reminescent of Serer/Pullo were
Saharan neolithics. The people of Dhar Tichitt are thought to be possibly
ancestral to the Soninke (an original Mande folk intermarried with Pullo
and Berber speakers).
Last edited by alTakruri on Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:45 pm Post subject: Origins of groups of Wolof peoples by their ethnic names
From the Ankh Online page NUBIE / EGYPTE also in Diop's Precolonial Black Africa
Back to top
Arará_Sabalú
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:05 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Continuing in the guise of Devil's advocate:
Why are west African Kemitic traditions typically non-literate?
Why does no specific mdw ntr recording their Kemetic history survive if said populations are essentially exiled Egyptians?
1)If at the very least 85% of the Kemetians were illiterate as specialists claim,it'd be logic that some of their descendants are as well.
2)I guess you agree that the Black people living in Colchidia were descendants of Kemetians.So why didn't Herodotus and other authors find any trace of medw netjer among them if they were?
3)African egyptologists (J.C.C Gomez,Th.Obenga) published comparative studies of some west-african and kemetic writing systems,concluding that they share an common origin.
Quote:
In other words, we have literally hundreds of west African languages, related to each other, apparently ancient, and not found in East Africa.
Trust me,Kemetic is closely related to many west-african languages.
Quote:
To posit a Kemitic origin is to posit a common Kemitic root.
Nope,there are ancestors of some west-african people who may have lived in Kemet without necessarily speaking the medw netjer as a mother language.The medw netjer may have been a lingua franca without being the mother language of all Kemetians.
Quote:
Or is it that it is being acknowledged that there are 'some' West African languages which are really - West African and pre Pharaonic in origin, while others, supposedly represent recent direct migrations from the nile?
Perhaps a prototype for a chronology would aid in convincing, plus a specific list of which languages are related to which with associated time depths for their putative divergence?
I can't express myself on this issue because I haven't studied the relationships between all african languages.A valid family tree of african languages has yet to be made in my opinion.
Back to top
Arará_Sabalú
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:11 pm Post subject:
Super car wrote:
Arara_Sabalu,
You have generated by interest in your upcoming article. How is it coming?
And I'm still looking forward to your translations on parts of Lam's work. It seems like it could be an interesting read.
I plan to publish my article on the internet around the end of the year.
Back to top
rasol
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 593
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:46 pm Post subject:
Arara_Sabalu - good answers, with regard to....
Arara_Sabalu wrote:
African egyptologists (J.C.C Gomez,Th.Obenga) published comparative studies of some west-african and kemetic writing systems,concluding that they share an common origin
What recommendations can you offer for English language translations of the works of Theophile Obenga?
Last edited by rasol on Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
AswaniAswan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 1053
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:03 pm Post subject: .....
You know there really should be some translation of studies of Francophone Africa. I have found that Africanist or African scholars in France tend to be light years above most studies published in English. Most of Obenga's articles in Pressence Africanie and some of his books are in French. Rasol, here are some books though that I found translated into English:
Obenga, Théophile. Title:
Ancient Egypt and Black Africa : a student's handbook for the study of Ancient Egypt in philosophy, linguistics, and gender relations / Th'eophile Obenga ; edited by Amon Saba Saakana. Published:
London : Karnak House, c1992. Description:
170 p. : ill. ; 22 cm. Notes:
Translated from the French. Includes bibliography. ISBN:
0907015700 :
Title:
Readings in precolonial Central Africa : texts & documents / compiled, edited and annotated by Théophile Obenga. Published:
London : Karnac House, c1995. Description:
vi, 122 p. : ill., map ; 23 cm. Notes:
Translated from the French. Bibliography: p. 121-122. ISBN:
0907015972 (pbk) Subjects, general:
Africa, Central--History--To 1884--Sources. Other author(s), etc.:
Obenga, Théophile.
African Philosophy During the Period of the Pharaohs 2780-330 bce (Paperback)
by Theophile Obenga
Paperback: 600 pages
Publisher: Karnak House Publishers (December 28, 2003)
Obenga does not limit himself to just Kmt. He produced studies about other areas of Africa as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 28, 2011 0:59:17 GMT -5
rasol
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 593
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:50 am Post subject:
thx.
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:47 pm Post subject:
Djehuti wrote:
The similarities in West African culture are due to a common African origin and nature and not because Egyptians migrated to West Africa!
I agree.
There was, presumably, a migration of Cushites only 5,000 years ago into the region. There is some minor genetic evidence of this, even in non-Touareg populations.
That said, I am more inclined to believe that these common practices are rooted in a common origin or history shared with the central Saharan population which we know spread westward and eastward across the Sudan.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:19 pm Post subject:
jazel wrote:
There was, presumably, a migration of Cushites only 5,000 years ago into the region.
Which region?
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:07 pm Post subject:
Super car wrote:
jazel wrote:
There was, presumably, a migration of Cushites only 5,000 years ago into the region.
Which region?
The western Sudan.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:32 am Post subject:
jazel wrote:
The western Sudan.
What evidence is there, for Cushitic speakers in West Africa?
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:10 am Post subject:
Super car wrote:
jazel wrote:
The western Sudan.
What evidence is there, for Cushitic speakers in West Africa?
DNA evidence, such as the presence of E3b1, M1, etc.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:30 am Post subject:
jazel wrote:
DNA evidence, such as the presence of E3b1, M1, etc.
I realize that there is both E3b2 and low frequencies found E3b1 in West Africa (per E3b1; compared to the more northerly portions of the region), e.g. small frequencies of E3b1 found in Senegal, but how does this imply that these were brought there due to Cushitic speakers? You've got to have more than just the E3b1 marker to make that statement solid. Egyptians carry E3b1, and yet indigenous Egyptians weren't Cushitic speakers. The same can be said of M1 mtDNA.
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:27 pm Post subject:
Super car wrote:
jazel wrote:
DNA evidence, such as the presence of E3b1, M1, etc.
I realize that there is both E3b2 and low frequencies found E3b1 in West Africa (per E3b1; compared to the more northerly portions of the region), e.g. small frequencies of E3b1 found in Senegal, but how does this imply that these were brought there due to Cushitic speakers? You've got to have more than just the E3b1 marker to make that statement solid. Egyptians carry E3b1, and yet indigenous Egyptians weren't Cushitic speakers. The same can be said of M1 mtDNA.
The fact that Egyptians were not Cushitic speakers doesn't discount Cushites migrating to and intermixing with their population.
I am not a proponent of the idea of mass Cushitic migration, I am telling you what researchers have concluded after finding traces of these traits in WAs.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:05 pm Post subject:
jazel wrote:
The fact that Egyptians were not Cushitic speakers doesn't discount Cushites migrating to and intermixing with their population.
The point is that, the E3b1 spread into West Africa, doesn't have to be the result of immigration of Cushitic speakers. You haven't produced the necessary evidence, that unequivocally shows that Cushitic speakers brought E3b1 into western Africa.
jazel wrote:
I am not a proponent of the idea of mass Cushitic migration, I am telling you what researchers have concluded after finding traces of these traits in WAs.
No, you haven't told me what researchers have concluded. If that is the case, then where is the evidence? On the other hand, the claim that "Cushitic" speakers migrated into west Africa, was one that I heard from you.
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:32 pm Post subject:
Super car wrote:
jazel wrote:
The fact that Egyptians were not Cushitic speakers doesn't discount Cushites migrating to and intermixing with their population.
The point is that, the E3b1 spread into West Africa, doesn't have to be the result of immigration of Cushitic speakers.
I agree.
Quote:
You haven't produced the necessary evidence, that unequivocally shows that Cushitic speakers brought E3b1 into western Africa.
What is 'necessary' is a matter of debate. There is nothing that 'unequivocally shows' anything of the kind.
Quote:
No, you haven't told me what researchers have concluded. If that is the case, then where is the evidence? On the other hand, the claim that "Cushitic" speakers migrated into west Africa, was one that I heard from you.
You heard from me, prefaced by "presumably". Rosa, et. al. has suggested that these traits "spread to western Africa with kushitic migrants", for one. Rosa A., Brehm A., Kivisild T., Metspalu E., Villems R. MtDNA profile of West Africa Guineans: Towards a better understanding of the Senegambia region. Annals of Human Genetics: 38 (part 4), 340 - 352, jul. 2004. And, there are others.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:19 pm Post subject:
jazel wrote:
What is 'necessary' is a matter of debate. There is nothing that 'unequivocally shows' anything of the kind.
Well, it is 'necessary', because you made a 'questionable' claim. Where is the evidence, that tells us that Cushitic speakers were responsible for spreading E3b1 markers into West Africa? I haven't seen it to date!
jazel wrote:
You heard from me, prefaced by "presumably".
So, in effect, you are saying that this is a personal guess?
jazel wrote:
Rosa, et. al. has suggested that these traits "spread to western Africa with kushitic migrants", for one. Rosa A., Brehm A., Kivisild T., Metspalu E., Villems R. MtDNA profile of West Africa Guineans: Towards a better understanding of the Senegambia region. Annals of Human Genetics: 38 (part 4), 340 - 352, jul. 2004. And, there are others.
Where is the specific citation and full text of the study from which that quote was taken? Moreover, what specifics do they provide, that tells us why they are under the impression that these markers had to have spread by no other than the Cushitic speakers to West Africa ?
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:01 pm Post subject:
Super car wrote:
jazel wrote:
What is 'necessary' is a matter of debate. There is nothing that 'unequivocally shows' anything of the kind.
Well, it is 'necessary', because you made a 'questionable' claim. Where is the evidence, that tells us that Cushitic speakers were responsible for spreading E3b1 markers into West Africa? I haven't seen it to date!
What is necessary (i.e. adequate, in this case) remains a matter of debate. As I stated before, presumably, Cushites migrated to WA. This presumption is evidenced by the presence of certain genetic traits in the WA population. The statement of this presumption was based on conclusions presented by researchers. What researchers? Researchers such as those responsible for the study from which I quoted which makes the claim.
Quote:
jazel wrote:
You heard from me, prefaced by "presumably".
So, in effect, you are saying that this is a personal guess?
Quite the opposite. I am saying that it is a guess on the part of those who have reached that conclusion. I use 'presumably' to hint my lack of faith in the suggestion.
Quote:
Where is the specific citation and full text of the study from which that quote was taken?
The full text is available HERE: .
Quote:
Moreover, what specifics do they provide, that tells us why they are under the impression that these markers had to have spread by no other than the Cushitic speakers to West Africa ?
They do not provide such specifics.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:33 pm Post subject:
jazel wrote:
What is necessary (i.e. adequate, in this case) remains a matter of debate. As I stated before, presumably, Cushites migrated to WA.
What is "necessary" here, isn't a subjective matter. You need to have a solid basis for your assumptions. At this point, you have shown none.
jazel wrote:
This presumption is evidenced by the presence of certain genetic traits in the WA population. The statement of this presumption was based on conclusions presented by researchers. What researchers? Researchers such as those responsible for the study from which I quoted which makes the claim.
You keep saying that researchers have claimed what you are claiming. Yet, I still haven't seen the requested corroboration. What is holding you back?
jazel wrote:
Quite the opposite. I am saying that it is a guess on the part of those who have reached that conclusion. I use 'presumably' to hint my lack of faith in the suggestion.
Jazel, again, where is the specific citation by the so-called "researchers" that claim Cushitic speakers are specifically responsible for spreading those markers, and where is the full text for their reasoning for singling out the "Cushitic" speakers? I can't ask any plainer than this!
jazel wrote:
They do not provide such specifics.
Then, such a claim is based on a shaky foundation!
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:57 pm Post subject:
Rosa et al bases it partially on
Quintino, F.
Sobrevivencias da Cultura etiopica noocidente africano.
BCG (Guine) 19, 5–35Quintion (1964)
These snippets from
Rosa et al
MtDNA Profile of West Africa Guineans: Towards a Better Understanding of the Senegambia Region
Annals of Human Genetics, Volume 68, Number 4, July 2004, pp. 340-352(13)
Quote:
The origin of the Balantas is uncertain. Some see language affinities with the Sudanese from whom they could have separated 2000 years ago with the first spread of Kushites migrations (Quintino, 1964).
Quote:
The finding of haplogroup M1 lineages of East African origin, albeit at low frequencies (3-5%) in Guinean groups with linguistic affinities to the Bak superfamily including Balanta, Baiote and Ejamat languages, supports the earlier suggestion of a Sudanese origin of the Balanta population and their spread to western Africa with Kushitic migrants approximately 2000 years ago. Obviously, thereafter they were assimilated within the local population, acquiring their language. In particular the 16185 mutation might suggest a route through North Africa.
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:23 pm Post subject:
alTakruri wrote:
Rosa et al bases it partially on
Quintino, F.
Sobrevivencias da Cultura etiopica noocidente africano.
BCG (Guine) 19, 5–35Quintion (1964)
These snippets from
Rosa et al
MtDNA Profile of West Africa Guineans: Towards a Better Understanding of the Senegambia Region
Annals of Human Genetics, Volume 68, Number 4, July 2004, pp. 340-352(13)
Quote:
The origin of the Balantas is uncertain. Some see language affinities with the Sudanese from whom they could have separated 2000 years ago with the first spread of Kushites migrations (Quintino, 1964).
Quote:
The finding of haplogroup M1 lineages of East African origin, albeit at low frequencies (3-5%) in Guinean groups with linguistic affinities to the Bak superfamily including Balanta, Baiote and Ejamat languages, supports the earlier suggestion of a Sudanese origin of the Balanta population and their spread to western Africa with Kushitic migrants approximately 2000 years ago. Obviously, thereafter they were assimilated within the local population, acquiring their language. In particular the 16185 mutation might suggest a route through North Africa.
Yes, but "Kushites" are not "Cushitic" speakers...or am I missing something here?
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 28, 2011 1:00:34 GMT -5
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:35 pm Post subject:
Super car wrote:
Yes, but "Kushites" are not "Cushitic" speakers...or am I missing something here?
I haven't read Quintino so I can't comment on Rosa's association of
Kushites with Kushitics as far as it being correct or tenuous. Can you
explain why there were no Kushitic speakers (now in Eritrea and
Ethiopia) among the Kushite empire (now Sudan) spread from the
2nd cataract clear down to what's now Khartoum? Thanks.
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:49 pm Post subject:
alTakruri wrote:
Can you
explain why there were no Kushitic speakers (now in Eritrea and
Ethiopia) among the Kushite empire (now Sudan) spread from the
2nd cataract clear down to what's now Khartoum? Thanks.
There's nothing to explain, from my standpoint. I am just not aware of "Kushites" of the ancient Sudanese culture being "Cushitic" speakers, as those in the African Horn. If you know something that I don't, in this regard, I am all ears.
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:30 am Post subject:
I said " Cushites ", and the quoted study said " Kushites ". What, exactly, is so confusing about this? Cush and Kush are the same, unless I am missing something.
<edit>
I was confused as to how the Horn made its way into this convo, but now that I have reviewed this conversation (and your prior posts) everything becomes quite clear.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:49 am Post subject:
jazel wrote:
I said " Cushites ", and the quoted study said " Kushites ". What, exactly, is so confusing about this?
You mean, you can't see the difference between the two?
jazel wrote:
Cush and Kush are the same, unless I am missing something. :lol
Yes, you are missing something. What evidence do you have to suggest that the Kushites from ancient times and "Cushitic" speakers are one and the same?
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:51 am Post subject:
Super car wrote:
Yes, you are missing something. What evidence do you have to suggest that the Kushites from ancient times and "Cushitic" speakers are one and the same?
YOU brought up "cushitic speakers", not me.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:54 am Post subject:
jazel wrote:
YOU brought up "cushitic speakers", not me.
You mean you never said "Cushitic" immigrants? What are Cushitic migrants, if they aren't supposed to be "Cushitic" speakers?
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:59 am Post subject:
Super car wrote:
jazel wrote:
YOU brought up "cushitic speakers", not me.
You mean you never said "Cushitic" immigrants? What are Cushitic migrants, if they aren't supposed to be "Cushitic" speakers?
I said Cushites. You have a thing about cushitic speakers and you just wanted to talk about it. It was all in your head.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:05 am Post subject:
jazel wrote:
I said Cushites. You have a thing about cushitic speakers and you just wanted to talk about it. It was all in your head.
You are just dancing around. What are Cushites, if they aren't supposed to be "Cushitic" speakers. Do you know what you are talking about?
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Last edited by Supercar on Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:11 am Post subject:
Super car wrote:
You just dancing around. What are Cushites, if they aren't supposed to be "Cushitic" speakers. Do you know what you are talking about?
I know exactly what I am talking about, and I know exactly what you were trying to do. Cushites are Cushites. As much as you would like to inject Horn Africans into this discussion, it concerns only Egyptians, Sudanese, and WAs.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:18 am Post subject:
jazel wrote:
I know exactly what I am talking about, and I know exactly what you were trying to do. Cushites are Cushites. As much as you would like to inject Horn Africans into this discussion, it concerns only Egyptians, Sudanese, and WAs.
Well, if you know what you are talking about, then answer the question, as to what you mean by "Cushites"? Don't spin in circles. Kushites isn't the same thing as "Cushites"; I am not sure you have grasped that yet!
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
AswaniAswan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 1053
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:22 am Post subject: ......
The name Cush comes from ancient Egyptian inscriptions written around the Middle Kingdom. The Cushic language family was actually created by Joseph Greenberg to refer to various Cushic language speakers like Beja,Somali,Afar...etc
The ancient empire of Cush around the third cataract in Northern Sudan were not Cushic speakers but Nilo-Saharan speaking groups. The modern Nubians are Nilo-Saharan also.
This is like the word Ethiopia which people often get contemporary Ethiopia confused with ancient Ethiopia which was regions south of Egypt.
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:25 am Post subject:
^^ Exactly.
Super car wrote:
Well, if you know what you are talking about, then answer the question, as to what you mean by "Cushites"? Don't spin in circles.
If you were confused by my use of the C rather than the K, you need only have asked (rather than assumed) and saved us all the trouble. In this context, quite clearly it references the Sudanese. The only one attempting to spin anything is you, as it was you who (apparently in a state of pure paranoia) brought up people who are not part of the discussion - Cushite and Kushite are interchangeable terms, so long as one is not referencing the Somalis or some other such people.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:28 am Post subject:
jazel wrote:
^^ Exactly.
If you were confused by my use of the C rather than the K, you need only have asked (rather than assumed) and saved us all the trouble.
What did you think those questions were about? Or do you not recognize a question when you see one? Obviously the confused party, was none other than yourself, as testified by your dancing around the questions.
jazel wrote:
In this context, quite clearly it references the Sudanese.
You said "Cushite" migrations. And yet when I pointed out that the Kushites weren't "Cushitic" speakers, you could have easily confessed then, that it was an error on your part, and that you meant "Kushites", who are not one and the same as Cushitic speakers of the African Horn. Don't attempt to scapegoat others for your insubordination.
jazel wrote:
The only one attempting to spin anything is you, as it was you who (apparently in a state of pure paranoia) brought up people who are not part of the discussion - Cushite and Kushite are interchangeable terms, so long as one is not referencing the Somalis or some other such people.
Even as you claim that I am spinning, you are in the very act of spinning. Jazel, I am sure you can do better.
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
rasol
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 593
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:40 am Post subject:
I think the key has to do with the differences in terminology and what is actually being referred to.
There are many ironies surrounding the use of the word Cushite.
I once discussed this with a Somali who was adamant on the distinction between the Cushites and all other Africans, and also eager to link the Cushites to ancient Kush.
So, like Ausar above, I pointed out that the term Cush applied to Somali is technically a misnomer, and that the Cushites of the Nile Valley and 25th dynasty fame were Nilo Saharans....the very people that this person was eager to distance himself as a 'cushite', from.
I wish this discussion did not take on a potentially sour tone because I think the disagreement is more semantic than substantive.
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:49 am Post subject:
Super car wrote:
You said "Cushite" migrations. And yet when I pointed out that the Kushites weren't "Cushitic" speakers, ...
You didn't 'point out' anything. You simply kept talking about 'cushitic speakers' as if Somalis, et. al. were at any point part of the discussion.
Quote:
you could have easily confessed then, that it was an error on your part, ...
I could have easily pointed out that it was an error on your part, had I been paying closer attention to the fact that you were confused. Once I realized what you were up to, however, I figured... whats the point? Even now, I wonder...
Quote:
Don't attempt to scapegoat others for your insubordination.
Insubordination? That would imply some sort of authority on your part, an authority which wouldn't exist on any day and under any circumstances in this life or the next.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 28, 2011 1:02:12 GMT -5
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:55 am Post subject:
jazel wrote:
You didn't 'point out' anything. You simply kept talking about 'cushitic speakers' as if Somalis, et. al. were at any point part of the discussion.
Take your pick, in how you want to term it, but when I started "talking" (if that makes you feel any better) about Kushites not being "cushitic" speakers, and asking questions along those lines, to get a clarified context in which you placed the word, what did I get...fooling around from you.
jazel wrote:
I could have easily pointed out that it was an error on your part, had I been paying closer attention to the fact that you were confused. Once I realized what you were up to, however, I figured... whats the point? Even now, I wonder...
Thanks for admitting about dancing around the issue.
jazel wrote:
Insubordination? That would imply some sort of authority on your part, an authority which wouldn't exist on any day and under any circumstances in this life or the next.
Well, if you dance around questions that were asked of you, what would you prefer me to call you...a troll?
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:05 am Post subject:
Super car wrote:
Take your pick, in how you want to term it, but when I started "talking" (if that makes you feel any better) about Kushites not being "cushitic" speakers, and asking questions along those lines, to get a clarified context in which you placed the word, what did I get...fooling around from you.
You were 'fooling around' by asking the question in the first place. You FIRST made an assumption, and THEN you began to argue against it. You could have asked a simple and direct question: Jazel, are you talking about Cushites in the traditional or modern sense? Straight forward and to the point. But, no...
Instead, YOU wanted to argue over whether 'cushitic speakers' had done this that or the other, as you always do. You had no basis upon which to assume what you assumed. Again, the only dancing done was that which you admit to -- asking every question but the proper one under the circumstances.
Quote:
Well, if you dance around questions that were asked of you, what would you prefer me to call you...a troll?
Is English just not your first language, or what? I answered your off the wall questions directly. Let us review:
Jazel: There was, presumably, a migration of Cushites only 5,000 years ago into the region.
Super Car: Which region?
Jazel: The western Sudan.
^^^ Was that question not asked and answered?
Super Car: What evidence is there, for Cushitic speakers in West Africa?
Jazel: DNA evidence, such as the presence of E3b1, M1, etc.
^^^ Again, asked and answered. However, at this point, I hadn't noticed that YOU were going on about 'cushitic speakers' as in Somalis, et. al.. Consequently, I remained on-topic, while you were well off course. Replace "cushitic speakers" in your question with what I actually said in my statement (the one to which you were suppose to have been responding) and you'll have the discussion which would have taken place under any ordinary reasonable and rational circumstance.
Super Car: ...how does this imply that these were brought there due to Cushitic speakers?
Jaze: I am not a proponent of the idea of mass Cushitic migration, I am telling you what researchers have concluded after finding traces of these traits in WAs.
^^^ Asked and answered. That, essentially, is what this boils down to. As I stated quite clearly, during this discussion, I don't support the idea and I don't believe that there is a foundation for it. As I said from the beginning, it is based almost entirely on small amounts of dna. Nevertheless, you asked for and I posted a direct quote which says the same thing I said they said, referencing "kushites" and " kushitic migrants" to explain the presence of these traits. What could be more clear? Only, you still wanted to talk about 'cushitic speakers',... even going so far as to claim that the issue concerning them was raised by ME when YOU are the one who brought them up!
Super car: You keep saying that researchers have claimed what you are claiming.
^^^ Now THAT is what you call spin.
Super car: where is the specific citation by the so-called "researchers" that claim Cushitic speakers are specifically responsible for spreading those markers...
Jazel: I said " Cushites ", and the quoted study said " Kushites "...
^^^ CUSHITES,... back to the beginning. You took us around in circles for no good reason, other than drama, paranoia, anti-horn agendas... whatever.
How is it that alTakruri, Aswan, and Rasol all get it, and you don't? Better yet, since you admit yourself that "Kushites" are not "Cushitic" speakers..., who told you to even bring up the matter of cushitic speakers in a discussion about Cushites?
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:32 am Post subject:
alTakruri wrote:
Mande is a language that truly does not fit Greenberg's Niger-Congo
family. To Dalby it stands outside clear classification into either
family of wider affinity and a good majority of its speakers inhabit
the fragmentation belt. I assume this makes it a good candidate
for similarites with Afrasan, Niger-Congo, and most of all
Nilo-Saharan where some have even seen fit to affiliate it.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:27 am Post subject:
jazel wrote:
You were 'fooling around' by asking the question in the first place.
Can’t even make up your mind, can you?...when you claimed here that I should have asked a question, if I wanted to get an idea of your understanding of the term in question. You aren’t simply fooling around now, you are quite blatantly, trolling!
jazel wrote:
You FIRST made an assumption, and THEN you began to argue against it.
It would be an assumption, if it weren’t a question. It’s safe to say that you wouldn‘t know a question if it ran over you, would you?
jazel wrote:
You could have asked a simple and direct question: Jazel, are you talking about Cushites in the traditional or modern sense? Straight forward and to the point. But, no...
I asked simple questions, which apparently turned out to be too difficult for you. Sorry, I simply can’t take the wrap for your reading skills inadequacies.
jazel wrote:
Again, the only dancing done was that which you admit to
Such an admission is, but a figment of your imagination.
jazel wrote:
Is English just not your first language, or what?
You just confessed to not having read a simple question properly, and you are now [quite comically] trying to project your shortcomings onto me! Nice going, but a bit too weak, and a little too late, wouldn’t you say?
But let’s go over our exchange in detail, and cut out the spin that you are engaging in now…
Jazel: There was, presumably, a migration of Cushites only 5,000 years ago into the region.
Super Car: Which region?
Jazel: The western Sudan.
And then…
Super Car: What evidence is there, for Cushitic speakers in West Africa?
Jazel: DNA evidence, such as the presence of E3b1, M1, etc.
And your recent reaction to this…
jazel wrote:
However, at this point, I hadn't noticed that YOU were going on about 'cushitic speakers' as in Somalis, et. al.. Consequently, I remained on-topic, while you were well off course.
Thanks for recognizing [if not temporarily] your incompetence for not reading the question properly, and hence, the need to use me as a scapegoat for your clowning around, which got us where we are now.
jazel wrote:
Replace "cushitic speakers" in your question with what I actually said in my statement (the one to which you were suppose to have been responding) and you'll have the discussion which would have taken place under any ordinary reasonable and rational circumstance.
Let me use that keyword again, when I said “temporarily” [see above]. You admit that you weren’t attentive enough at this point to realize where I was going with my questioning and what I was thinking about at this point. But I understand…placing blame on others for your own clumsiness, is your thing.
jazel wrote:
You were 'fooling around' by asking the question in the first place.
You FIRST made an assumption, and THEN you began to argue against it. You could have asked a simple and direct question: Jazel, are you talking about Cushites in the traditional or modern sense? Straight forward and to the point. But, no...
Hopeless crocodile tears as an attempt to scapegoat others for your own incompetence and inattentiveness, won’t get us anywhere, will it?
jazel wrote:
Instead, YOU wanted to argue over whether 'cushitic speakers' had done this that or the other, as you always do.
Bankrupt excuses; all for what?…for not being able to distinguish questioning/probing from an argument. Makes one wonder if English is your first language, huh!
Case in point:
Super Car: I realize that there is both E3b2 and low frequencies found E3b1 in West Africa (per E3b1; compared to the more northerly portions of the region), e.g. small frequencies of E3b1 found in Senegal, but how does this imply that these were brought there due to Cushitic speakers? You've got to have more than just the E3b1 marker to make that statement solid. Egyptians carry E3b1, and yet indigenous Egyptians weren't Cushitic speakers. The same can be said of M1 mtDNA.
Jazel: The fact that Egyptians were not Cushitic speakers doesn't discount Cushites migrating to and intermixing with their population...
I am not a proponent of the idea of mass Cushitic migration, I am telling you what researchers have concluded after finding traces of these traits in WAs.
Notice this is the second time I mentioned “Cushitic” speakers. Were you either too dumb to understand the implication, or was it another case of incompetence associated with your reading skills? To add to injury, is your full remark about Egyptians not speaking Cushitic, which you conveniently placed under the rug, as you did with the rest of my comment. Spinning doesn’t get any better than that!
This exchange was immediately followed by this…
Supercar: The point is that, the E3b1 spread into West Africa, doesn't have to be the result of immigration of Cushitic speakers. You haven't produced the necessary evidence, that unequivocally shows that Cushitic speakers brought E3b1 into western Africa.
Jazel: I agree.
Notice, this is yet the third time I mentioned “Cushitic” speakers, to be followed by that response of yours. But let me guess, you were still sleeping at this point, while answering my questions!
In response to this portion of my statement:
Supercar: You haven't produced the necessary evidence, that unequivocally shows that Cushitic speakers brought E3b1 into western Africa.
Jazel replied…
Jazel: What is 'necessary' is a matter of debate. There is nothing that 'unequivocally shows' anything of the kind.
jazel wrote:
Nevertheless, you asked for and I posted a direct quote which says the same thing I said they said, referencing "kushites" and " kushitic migrants". What could be more clear?
Well, if it were that clear cut, I wouldn’t have followed up on it the way I did, would I?…considering the one sentence you supposedly cited from the study, said “Kushites”, when you on the other hand, said “Cushites”!
This is the supposed direct quote which you claim to have posted:
Jazel: You heard from me, prefaced by "presumably". Rosa, et. al. has suggested that these traits "spread to western Africa with kushitic migrants", for one. Rosa A., Brehm A., Kivisild T., Metspalu E., Villems R. MtDNA profile of West Africa Guineans: Towards a better understanding of the Senegambia region. Annals of Human Genetics: 38 (part 4), 340 - 352, jul. 2004. And, there are others.
jazel wrote:
Only, you still wanted to talk about 'cushitic speakers',... even going so far as to claim that the issue concerning them was raised by ME when YOU are the one who brought them up!
Yeap. The issue wasn’t raised by you, it was raised by an invisible being, as we have amply seen.
Next I said: Well, it is 'necessary', because you made a 'questionable' claim. Where is the evidence, that tells us that Cushitic speakers were responsible for spreading E3b1 markers into West Africa? I haven't seen it to date!
Jazel’s answer: What is necessary (i.e. adequate, in this case) remains a matter of debate. As I stated before, presumably, Cushites migrated to WA. This presumption is evidenced by the presence of certain genetic traits in the WA population. The statement of this presumption was based on conclusions presented by researchers. What researchers? Researchers such as those responsible for the study from which I quoted which makes the claim.
The fourth time, “Cushitic speakers” was mentioned. By this time, you must have been in deep sleep mode , judging from your inattentive answer!
And then...
Supercar: Where is the specific citation and full text of the study from which that quote was taken? Moreover, what specifics do they provide, that tells us why they are under the impression that these markers had to have spread by no other than the Cushitic speakers to West Africa ?
Jazel. The full text is available HERE…They do not provide such specifics.
Apparently I asked you to provide the specific citation with the "full text", because I was clearly not satisfied with your initial response, when I requested such.
jazel wrote:
^^^ CUSHITES,... back to the beginning. You took us around in circles for no good reason, other than drama, paranoia, anti-horn agendas... whatever.
In light of what I just revealed, you are just blowing hot air.
jazel wrote:
How is it that alTakruri, Aswan, and Rasol all get it, and you don't? Better yet, since you admit yourself that "Kushites" are not "Cushitic" speakers..., who told you to even bring up the matter of cushitic speakers in a discussion about Cushites?
The better question is: how is it that I mentioned the same thing more than four times, before it sank in. Again, were you really that dumb, or was this just a bad case of being inattentive, and then blaming others for the consequences? I am pretty sure alTakruri knew what my questioning was about, for he asked me about what made me think that there were no Cushitic speakers among the “Kushite empire”, upon responding to…
Supercar: Yes, but "Kushites" are not "Cushitic" speakers...or am I missing something here?
And I followed up on alTakruri’s question with this:
Supercar: There's nothing to explain, from my standpoint. I am just not aware of "Kushites" of the ancient Sudanese culture being "Cushitic" speakers, as those in the African Horn. If you know something that I don't, in this regard, I am all ears.
And Jazel’s response at this point in time:
I said " Cushites ", and the quoted study said " Kushites ". What, exactly, is so confusing about this? Cush and Kush are the same, unless I am missing something…was confused as to how the Horn made its way into this convo, but now that I have reviewed this conversation (and your prior posts) everything becomes quite clear.
It appears to me, it was only after this exchange with alTakruri, were you [jazel] able to wake up and smell the coffee. I suspect alTakruri’s unwitting clarification via his question, was responsible for this sudden awakening we are witnessing here. But no, wait…
In response to your above claim, I said…
You mean, you can't see the difference between the two?
Jazel:Cush and Kush are the same, unless I am missing something
Supercar: Yes, you are missing something. What evidence do you have to suggest that the Kushites from ancient times and "Cushitic" speakers are one and the same?
Jazel: YOU brought up "cushitic speakers", not me.
And my follow up:
You mean you never said "Cushitic" immigrants? What are Cushitic migrants, if they aren't supposed to be "Cushitic" speakers?
Notice there is no argument here, other than questions for clarification purposes!
And his response:
Jazel: I said Cushites. You have a thing about cushitic speakers and you just wanted to talk about it. It was all in your head.
Supercar: You are just dancing around. What are Cushites, if they aren't supposed to be "Cushitic" speakers. Do you know what you are talking about?
At this point I accused you of dancing around, which you clearly were. Rather than simply stating that I must have thought you were referring to “Cushites” as in the folks of the African Horn instead of the ancient "Kushites" of the Sudanese region, you instead resort to trolling tactics and distract from the issue with personal attacks.
Now this is what I call a spinning troll, who only posts snippets of the full quotes of our exchanges!
Jazel; I know exactly what I am talking about, and I know exactly what you were trying to do. Cushites are Cushites. As much as you would like to inject Horn Africans into this discussion, it concerns only Egyptians, Sudanese, and WAs.
Supercar: Well, if you know what you are talking about, then answer the question, as to what you mean by "Cushites"? Don't spin in circles. Kushites isn't the same thing as "Cushites"; I am not sure you have grasped that yet!
This is when Ausar jumped in, clarifying things further, and as they say, the rest is history!
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:08 pm Post subject:
When YOU asked an unrelated question based on an ASSumption that YOU made as soon as you saw the word CUSHITE, was that trolling? When you suggested what I SHOULD have said to clear up YOUR foolishness, was that trolling? How about when you lied, was that trolling?? You should have asked the question, if you were confused as to the meaning of the term in this context. Since when did truth and common sense become trolling?
The only thing I failed to do was immediately recognize the "incompetence", "clumsiness", "inattentiveness"... or just willful ignorance on YOUR part in not reading my statement properly, in assuming that Cushites had anything to do with 'cushitic speakers', in failing to distinguish between the two, despite the obvious context, or quite simply in reading into my statement an issue that was not there?
For every time I said "Cushite", you said "Cushitic speakers" in response. How is it that I mentioned Cushites from the very beginning and throughout the conversation and, apparently, it NEVER sank in for you?? Were you "really that dumb, or was this just a bad case of being inattentive, and then blaming others for the consequences"?
Supercar wrote:
At this point I accused you of dancing around, which you clearly were. Rather than simply stating that I must have thought you were referring to “Cushites” as in the folks of the African Horn instead of the ancient "Kushites" of the Sudanese region, ...
Exactly. Rather than admitting that YOU made a mistake, YOU resorted to making false accusations to cover your hide.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:55 pm Post subject:
Super car wrote:
alTakruri wrote:
Can you
explain why there were no Kushitic speakers (now in Eritrea and
Ethiopia) among the Kushite empire (now Sudan) spread from the
2nd cataract clear down to what's now Khartoum? Thanks.
There's nothing to explain, from my standpoint. I am just not aware of "Kushites" of the ancient Sudanese culture being "Cushitic" speakers, as those in the African Horn. If you know something that I don't, in this regard, I am all ears.
Well I was hoping you'd expand on which languages were spoken in the Kushite empire.
I found out after researching it last night that the Kushites known as Beja
(presumably the Medjay of circa 2700 BCE) were and are Cushitic speakers.
According to Greenberg Beja is the only the only language of
the Northern Cushitic branch.
Isn't there supposed to be some genetic connection between the Beja
(Cushitics) and the Tuareg (Tamazights)? Historiographically speaking,
ibn Khaldun gives the "rif of Abyssinia" as the starting point of the
Tuareg. By now some Tuareg have traveled far south into the savannah
and the adjoining light forest region.
To my mind this is still far from a Kushite or Cushitic migration to West
Africa but yet may explain that small gentic pattern mentioned earlier
in the thread. And we have to remember these genetic studies speak
to current living populations and without history and anthro-archeaology
are hard to tie to ancient peoples except where the age and diversity of a
haplotype so dictates.
I hope anyone with any insights will contribute to this thread and not view
it as a personal discussion between Super car, jazel, and me.
Back to top
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:19 pm Post subject: one sorry EgyptSearch type bolero
All this ad hominem and confrontational shit needs to stop now.
It adds nothing to our understanding of the topic.
Somebody be big enough to walk away.
Let's try to treat each other like colleagues.
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: Yoro Dyâo and the Egyptian origin of Senegambian people
alTakruri wrote:
Historically, the Woloff are supposed to have crossed the Senegal from
Mauritania and not entered the region from an eastern approach (the
Hodh). Diop thinks the Lebou, a people in close association with the
Woloff as are the Serer and Pullo, possibly are migrant Lebu (ancient
Libyans).
What do you think of the dna traits which appear to be closely associated with this area? For example, L1b1 is highest in Fulani, Wolof/Serer, and Mande Senegalese peoples (Rosa, 2004); L2c is very common in Senegal and Cabo Verde, but virtually absent in eastern and southern Africans (Torroni, 2001) and (Rosa, 2004); L2d is rare everywhere, but still appears restricted to Western Sahara and Mauritania/Senegal (Rosa, 2004)... though, it is also present in the Kanuri (Torroni, 2001). Would these (along with the Saharan settlements) suggest, in your view, that Sahelian populations share a common and not too distant local origin?
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: Yoro Dyâo and the Egyptian origin of Senegambian people
jazel wrote:
alTakruri wrote:
Historically, the Woloff are supposed to have crossed the Senegal from
Mauritania and not entered the region from an eastern approach (the
Hodh). Diop thinks the Lebou, a people in close association with the
Woloff as are the Serer and Pullo, possibly are migrant Lebu (ancient
Libyans).
What do you think of the dna traits which appear to be closely associated with this area? For example, L1b1 is highest in Fulani, Wolof/Serer, and Mande Senegalese peoples (Rosa, 2004); L2c is very common in Senegal and Cabo Verde, but virtually absent in eastern and southern Africans (Torroni, 2001) and (Rosa, 2004); L2d is rare everywhere, but still appears restricted to Western Sahara and Mauritania/Senegal (Rosa, 2004)... though, it is also present in the Kanuri (Torroni, 2001). Would these (along with the Saharan settlements) suggest, in your view, that Sahelian populations share a common and not too distant local origin?
Since my hard drive crashed several months ago I no longer have access
to my genetics db, pdf's, or other studies but I'm sure the other members
who are up on all the genetic data and reports will weigh in with their own
analyses.
The Sahelians may be diverse in origin if Greenberg's linguistic hypothesis
means anything at all. Per Greenberg we have Niger-Congos (Atlantics and
Mandes), and Nilo-Saharans (Songhai)in the Sahel. I tend to favor Dalby
and his southern area of greater affinity, non-affiliated, and fragmentation
belt languages though it makes for confusion, better yet chaos, as far as
assessing Sahelian immigrant origins go.
Personally I hold to the idea of populations spilling out of the green Sahara
and into the Sahel and Lower and Mid Nile Valley but that doesn't account
for certain neolithic and earlier cultural findings pertaining to origins of
Sahel populations. Such artefacts seem to suggest some possible scattered
migration from the light forest regions northward into the savannah and so
contributing to makeup of the earliest Sahelians.
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:16 pm Post subject:
jazel wrote:
When YOU asked an unrelated question based on an ASSumption that YOU made as soon as you saw the word CUSHITE, was that trolling? When you suggested what I SHOULD have said to clear up YOUR foolishness, was that trolling? How about when you lied, was that trolling?? You should have asked the question, if you were confused as to the meaning of the term in this context. Since when did truth and common sense become trolling?
This nattering of course, has no bearings on the facts I just revealed, after your desperate attempt at grasping the straws of snippets. You couldn't even get yourself to honestly repost the exchanges between two posters, you desperate troll!
jazel wrote:
The only thing I failed to do was immediately recognize the "incompetence", "clumsiness", "inattentiveness"... or just willful ignorance on YOUR part in not reading my statement properly, in assuming that Cushites had anything to do with 'cushitic speakers', in failing to distinguish between the two, despite the obvious context, or quite simply in reading into my statement an issue that was not there?
Thanks for re-confirming my claim about having heard my use of the word [i.e., Cushitic speakers] over FOUR times, and still couldn't figure out the direction of the question being asked, and hence, acknowledging that you are indeed an incompetent babbler, who can't even tell the difference between a mere assumption and a question!
jazel wrote:
For every time I said "Cushite", you said "Cushitic speakers" in response. How is it that I mentioned Cushites from the very beginning and throughout the conversation and, apparently, it NEVER sank in for you??
... Because dummy, you went along with the line of questioning as I amply demonstrated with the recounting of the exchanges between us, and I bet, even now it won't sink in.
jazel wrote:
Were you "really that dumb, or was this just a bad case of being inattentive, and then blaming others for the consequences"?
I would say, case in point, regarding your low intellectual capacity, is the need for your unoriginal parroting of my words.
jazel wrote:
Supercar wrote:
At this point I accused you of dancing around, which you clearly were. Rather than simply stating that I must have thought you were referring to “Cushites” as in the folks of the African Horn instead of the ancient "Kushites" of the Sudanese region, ...
Exactly. Rather than admitting that YOU made a mistake, YOU resorted to making false accusations to cover your hide.
So, you are in effect confirming that you are a troll, and that you are quite aware of this...or do you just not understand what it is that you are responding to?!
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Last edited by Supercar on Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:09 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
AswaniAswan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 1053
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: No insults please
Supercar, you are resorting to name calling which does not do much to support your argument. You know the logics of debate to use them. Plus Jazel never insulted you in any responces. This is not Egyptsearch so I would appreciate if you would spare the insults and attach the arguments you feel are flawed.
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: No insults please
AswaniAswan wrote:
Supercar, you are resorting to name calling which does not do much to support your argument. You know the logics of debate to use them. Plus Jazel never insulted you in any responces. This is not Egyptsearch so I would appreciate if you would spare the insults and attach the arguments you feel are flawed.
Apologies to the administrator. I would however, say that name calling was on both sides. Nonetheless, you are quite right!
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: No insults please
Super car wrote:
AswaniAswan wrote:
Supercar, you are resorting to name calling which does not do much to support your argument. You know the logics of debate to use them. Plus Jazel never insulted you in any responces. This is not Egyptsearch so I would appreciate if you would spare the insults and attach the arguments you feel are flawed.
Apologies to the administrator. I would however, say that name calling was on both sides. Nonetheless, you are quite right!
It is all in your head, just like those imaginary "cushitic speakers". Each response after the next has been complete with lies, assumptions, accusations, and acrimony...
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
rasol
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 593
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:13 pm Post subject:
alTakruri wrote:
Super car wrote:
alTakruri wrote:
Can you
explain why there were no Kushitic speakers (now in Eritrea and
Ethiopia) among the Kushite empire (now Sudan) spread from the
2nd cataract clear down to what's now Khartoum? Thanks.
There's nothing to explain, from my standpoint. I am just not aware of "Kushites" of the ancient Sudanese culture being "Cushitic" speakers, as those in the African Horn. If you know something that I don't, in this regard, I am all ears.
Well I was hoping you'd expand on which languages were spoken in the Kushite empire.
I found out after researching it last night that the Kushites known as Beja
(presumably the Medjay of circa 2700 BCE) were and are Cushitic speakers.
According to Greenberg Beja is the only the only language of
the Northern Cushitic branch.
Isn't there supposed to be some genetic connection between the Beja
(Cushitics) and the Tuareg (Tamazights)?
Yes....
Taureg most closely related to:
a) Beja 135
b) Sudanese 240
c) Amhara 278
d) Tigri 320
e) Cushitic 352
Note, this is from Cavelli Sforza's work. He was surprised by the Beja Tuareg connection and hypothesised that the Taureg and Beja must have a common East African origin within the last 5,000 years.
The 135 distance is extremely low by African standards- it's like what you'd expect between the Zulu and Xhosa of South Africa.
African genetic distances cannot be compared to those of Europe for example - just like the physical distance between cities in Russia is not comparable to the distances between cities in Great Britain.
Africa is huge genetically.
Back to top
rasol
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 593
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:17 pm Post subject:
Now questions, on the Beja - Cushite - Egyptian connection.
I've heard it said before that Beja is the langauge closest to Ancient Egyptian, though there seems to be disagreement over it's classification. Is it a cushite language?
Also can Egyptian be considered a cushite language?
It seems odd that Egyptian is so important and influential,but is locked into an Afrasan catagory all it's own - neither cushitic nor semitic nor berber nor chadic.
Finally, weren't the Medijay, which is to say the Beja archenemies of Kush, round the time of the New Kingdom foundation?
Wasn't this legendary conflict essentially -
Kush + Hyksos vs.
Km.t + Medijay [Beja] ?
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 28, 2011 1:03:10 GMT -5
Message
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:37 pm Post subject: Re: No insults please
Super car wrote:
You couldn't even get yourself to honestly repost the exchanges between two posters, you desperate troll
Case in point...
jazel wrote:
It is all in your head, just like those imaginary "cushitic speakers". Each response after the next has been complete with lies, assumptions, accusations, and acrimony...
Try and make your useless-self more useful. Out of respect for the Administrator, I am being relatively gentil with you at the moment...but if you continue to push me, don't hold me responsible for the consequences!
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
AswaniAswan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 1053
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:53 pm Post subject: ........
Yes, some Egyptologist like Frank J Yurco and Donald Redford has suggested the 17th dyansties might have a medijay origin. Some of the names of the pharaohs have medijay connections. Redford is even more radical saying that the 18th dyansty might have been of Nubian origin.
Medijay settled all over Egypt but mainly around Gebelein in southern Egypt.
Some connect Medijay with the pan-grave culture.
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 3:22 pm Post subject:
Super car, you can only keep making a fool of yourself by refusing to admit the truth that everyone else already knows. I suggest you wake from the self-centered fantasy which got you where you are now. Or, you can continue to prove me right... whichever you prefer.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:22 pm Post subject:
jazel wrote:
Super car, you can only keep making a fool of yourself by refusing to admit the truth that everyone else already knows. I suggest you wake from the self-centered fantasy which got you where you are now. Or, you can continue to prove me right... whichever you prefer.
Administrator, are you taking note? If I start treating this "thing" as the "thing" it should be, don't single me out and ask me why I did such. You are witnessing it yourself first hand, that this "thing" here, isn't contributing anything meaningful to the thread, but still nattering about something that I don't care to discuss further with him. I had an opportunity to rebuttle the guy, and have no need to prove anything further. So, Administrator, if this "thing" goes on any further with these off-topic rants, I suggest you don't hold me responsible for how I am going to respond next!
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:29 pm Post subject:
^^^ I've contributed more to this thread in the past 72 hours than the liar, but he refuses to get over himself. He prefers instead to make excuses for his past, present, and future behavior. (Btw, I am a female, genius. )
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:01 pm Post subject:
jazel wrote:
Btw, I am a female, genius.
Then start acting like one! People are trying to move on, but with your instigations and off-topic drivel as to how you are so innocent and I'm the big bad villain, you aren't contributing much to the topic. Make no mistake, if the Administrator turns a blind eye to your instigations and personal attacks on me, I will take matters into my own hands!
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:39 am Post subject:
Super car wrote:
jazel wrote:
Btw, I am a female, genius.
Then start acting like one! People are trying to move on, but with your instigations and off-topic drivel as to how you are so innocent and I'm the big bad villain, you aren't contributing much to the topic. Make no mistake, if the Administrator turns a blind eye to your instigations and personal attacks on me, I will take matters into my own hands!
Obviously, you are not trying to move on, as you are continuing to make 'personal attacks' - against me - in each and every sentence of each and every one of your posts...
As for Aswani, he knows well enough that your 'instigations' won't go unaddressed, regardless of how you disguise them.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
AswaniAswan
Site Admin
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 1053
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 1:02 am Post subject: ....
Come on Jazel and supercar. Let's go back to discussing the topic. I believe the original topic was about the ancient Egyptian origin of many Senegalese people. Then the topic drifted off to another topic. Which is fine.
I'm going to open up a new forum called ''The Drama Chamber'' and its for personal squabbles such as the following.
The rules of this forum is at the following:
rules of the forum
Back to top
Supercar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 1:53 am Post subject: Re: ....
AswaniAswan wrote:
Let's go back to discussing the topic.
That is what I suggested earlier, but it didn't get through. Be sure to create this "Drama" room; I will not tolerate "newly" arrived drifters who have nothing better to do, and perhaps not capable of anything else, other than hanging around boards and engaging in personal attacks!
_________________
If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you!
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: ....
AswaniAswan wrote:
Come on Jazel and supercar. Let's go back to discussing the topic. I believe the original topic was about the ancient Egyptian origin of many Senegalese people. Then the topic drifted off to another topic. Which is fine.
Aswani, I did do just that ...days ago.
Quote:
I'm going to open up a new forum called ''The Drama Chamber'' and its for personal squabbles such as the following.
You know I generally avoid drama, but I also don't allow bs a free pass. If this chamber would be a place to send such nonsense so that I don't have to see it, let alone respond to it, then it may be a good idea.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
jazel
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 149
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:23 pm Post subject:
Arara_Sabalu wrote:
Quote:
Fair point and good recommendation.
Since I haven't read the book, allow me to play the devil's advocate: The Dogon language is generally classified as a Niger-Congo language. There are no Niger Congo speakers in the Nile Valley. How would you account for this discrepancy?
Being a student of african linguistics,I can say that the current classification of african languages is a joke.There are a lot of "so called Niger-Congo" languages that are much more close to Egyptian than other "Afrasian" branches like Cushitic especially on the basis of basic lexicon and sound laws,yet they are still classified out of the so-called "Afro-Asiatic" phylum.
Mande and Kordofanian, the most peripheral of the 'Niger-Congo' languages, should never have been included within that group in the first place. I have yet to see a sound basis for the associations and both groups are woefully understudied, IMO.
AswaniAswan wrote:
I am rather skeptical about Nile Valley migratants coming into Western Africa after the collapse of the dyanstic Egyptian civlization. I see a more plausible link to be a common pre-history than a back migration to western Africa. More archaeological work has to be done in this area to confirm or deny this linkage.
I agree, but I also believe more work has to be done in reforming or abandoning old linguisitc classification systems and colonial myths of origin. Otherwise, whatever archaeological discoveries are made will be viewed through a distorted lens.
_________________
Relax at The Oasis.
If only we could go back a thousand years or two...
Back to top
rasol
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 593
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject:
jazel wrote:
Arara_Sabalu wrote:
Quote:
Fair point and good recommendation.
Since I haven't read the book, allow me to play the devil's advocate: The Dogon language is generally classified as a Niger-Congo language. There are no Niger Congo speakers in the Nile Valley. How would you account for this discrepancy?
Being a student of african linguistics,I can say that the current classification of african languages is a joke.There are a lot of "so called Niger-Congo" languages that are much more close to Egyptian than other "Afrasian" branches like Cushitic especially on the basis of basic lexicon and sound laws,yet they are still classified out of the so-called "Afro-Asiatic" phylum.
Mande and Kordofanian, the most peripheral of the 'Niger-Congo' languages, should never have been included within that group in the first place. I have yet to see a sound basis for the associations and both groups are woefully understudied, IMO.
AswaniAswan wrote:
I am rather skeptical about Nile Valley migratants coming into Western Africa after the collapse of the dyanstic Egyptian civlization. I see a more plausible link to be a common pre-history than a back migration to western Africa. More archaeological work has to be done in this area to confirm or deny this linkage.
I agree, but I also believe more work has to be done in reforming or abandoning old linguisitc classification systems and colonial myths of origin. Otherwise, whatever archaeological discoveries are made will be viewed through a distorted lens.
Good point - which has been persuasively argued by other Nile Valley forum discussants as well.
Back to top
alTakruri
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 638
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: ....
Well if there's any user vote in this I'm against a drama chamber.
It's time for mature discussion and disagreement without snide
commentary. And I also suggest removal of the purely personal
posts having no relevance to the topic. I don't have to sift through
the bullshit to extract the undigested on-topic grains.
To me the validity of this forum for serious seekers of knowledge is
sullied by vendetta and makes a joke of the researched and thought
out contributions.
If I want presentations and discussions similar to that of academic
colleagues -- who diasagree all the time without tantrums -- I come
to TheNileValleyForum.
If I want drama I'll go turn on the boob tube and watch the dope operas
and Springer and the like.
AswaniAswan wrote:
Come on Jazel and supercar. Let's go back to discussing the topic. I believe the original topic was about the ancient Egyptian origin of many Senegalese people. Then the topic drifted off to another topic. Which is fine.
I'm going to open up a new forum called ''The Drama Chamber'' and its for personal squabbles such as the following.
The rules of this forum is at the following:
rules of the forum
Back to top
Wally
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 201
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:23 am Post subject:
Personal sqabbles are really a poor excuse for a lack of knowledge and/or interest in the subject being discussed. We don't really need an escape valve for this; this forum is supposed to be about the ancient Nile valley civilization - if one wants to discuss something else, well, the web is enormous!
What I would like to ask is just what is this "Cushitic" language and people stuff; define what it is you're talking about! I mean, I understand the "Romantic" languages of Europe; French, Spanish, et al. - do you mean the same thing here? or is it that you just don't know what you're talking about, hmmmm?...
Back to top
Shango
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 114
Location: USA
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:44 am Post subject:
The Haal-pular-en came from the Nile area. They traversed ths Sahara back and forth. The Rock Art depicts the proto-Peul/Fula/Fulani/Haal-Pular-en populations who were cattle breeding and cattle-worshipping people. Their philosphies are in line with those of Ancient Egypt. Thick of the "Cattle of Ra", Pharoah as Apis/Hapi, the bull.
The scepter of the Ancient Egyptians is used in West Africa by the Haal-Pular-en today. Because, they came from ancient Egypt!!!! They were also in the land of Canaan. However, most present day Haal-pular-en reject the ideas of Maurice Delafosse. Dr. A.M. Lam, the disciple of Diop is the latest authority on these subjects in an academic way.
Back to Rock Art... It was Amadou Hampate Ba who determined that the Rock Art depictions on North African frescoes show the Peul Itorii ritual and the people on the cave walls are definitely the ancestors of the Haal-pular-en.
The WesternAtlantic branch of Niger-Congo is a cross between Niger-Congo and AfroAsiatic, but the base of the people and the origianl inhabitants of the area are Bantu-like as you can tell by many bantu words in the various languages of Wolof, Serer, Peul, etc.
The capitol of Senegal is N'Dakaru not Dakar and the town of St' Louis was originally called N'Dar. The griot is called an N'guewel
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 28, 2011 1:04:30 GMT -5
Shango Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Posts: 114 Location: USA Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:04 am Post subject: The Wolof people are the children of a Mande chief who married a Peul princess and the rest is history. The origianl inhabitants of the Middle Senegal River Valley were the Serer. They built the megaliths and burial mounds which were later copied by other groups. The Haal-pular-en came into Tekrour/Tekruur (african spelling) later and mixed in with the local groups. The mtDNAs of the Mande, Wolof, Peul, Serer, etc are basically the same. All these Sahelian groups have a small amount of the Berber U6 Haplotype. Their languages reflect the mixture of cultures which is however fundamentally Black African as is Ancient Egypt. From Tekruur, the Peul stretched back into West Africa until now they are back into East Africa in Sudan, Ethiopia, and even modern day Egypt. Everyone acknowledges that the Peul are part of the Ancient Sahara, Ancient Egypt, the Pastoralist culture which includes Massai, Nuer and Nubian cattleherders and it is acknowledged that they are "East African" in origin. We would not understand the culture of the ancients including the ancient Egyptians completely without them. Remember, the Middle Eastern foreigners who visited the Senegal River in the Middle Ages looked around and thought that they were in a part of Nubia. So, they called the Senegal River the Nile. Lisez-vous mes amies......... ennedi.free.fr/peul.html www.command-com.net/agadez.org/pages_culture/peuls.htm L'origine egyptienne des les peuls et senegambiens est vrai. Back to top Relaxxx Joined: 19 Jul 2005 Posts: 72 Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:16 am Post subject: Shango wrote: The Wolof people are the children of a Mande chief who married a Peul princess and the rest is history. The origianl inhabitants of the Middle Senegal River Valley were the Serer. They built the megaliths and burial mounds which were later copied by other groups. The Haal-pular-en came into Tekrour/Tekruur (african spelling) later and mixed in with the local groups. The mtDNAs of the Mande, Wolof, Peul, Serer, etc are basically the same. All these Sahelian groups have a small amount of the Berber U6 Haplotype. Their languages reflect the mixture of cultures which is however fundamentally Black African as is Ancient Egypt. From Tekruur, the Peul stretched back into West Africa until now they are back into East Africa in Sudan, Ethiopia, and even modern day Egypt. Everyone acknowledges that the Peul are part of the Ancient Sahara, Ancient Egypt, the Pastoralist culture which includes Massai, Nuer and Nubian cattleherders and it is acknowledged that they are "East African" in origin. We would not understand the culture of the ancients including the ancient Egyptians completely without them. Remember, the Middle Eastern foreigners who visited the Senegal River in the Middle Ages looked around and thought that they were in a part of Nubia. So, they called the Senegal River the Nile. Lisez-vous mes amies......... ennedi.free.fr/peul.html www.command-com.net/agadez.org/pages_culture/peuls.htm L'origine egyptienne des les peuls et senegambiens est vrai. No offense Shango, I think the Eastern Africa origin of the Fulanis is dubious, as is the Eastern African origin of Tutsis, indeed genetics indicate that they are not linked genetically to most Eastern African except by the fact that they shared the same haplogroup more than 26K years ago, they probably split more than 20K years ago based on genetic studies. So Wollof and other Africans can claim Eastern African origin as much as the Fullani or Tutsis. Unfortunately phenotypes don't count much in genetics but counts a lot in outdated books and myths. I think both groups probably originated in Central Sahara as you indicated and it makes more sense genetically. Relaxx Back to top rasol Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 593 Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:52 am Post subject: Relaxxx wrote: Shango wrote: The Wolof people are the children of a Mande chief who married a Peul princess and the rest is history. The origianl inhabitants of the Middle Senegal River Valley were the Serer. They built the megaliths and burial mounds which were later copied by other groups. The Haal-pular-en came into Tekrour/Tekruur (african spelling) later and mixed in with the local groups. The mtDNAs of the Mande, Wolof, Peul, Serer, etc are basically the same. All these Sahelian groups have a small amount of the Berber U6 Haplotype. Their languages reflect the mixture of cultures which is however fundamentally Black African as is Ancient Egypt. From Tekruur, the Peul stretched back into West Africa until now they are back into East Africa in Sudan, Ethiopia, and even modern day Egypt. Everyone acknowledges that the Peul are part of the Ancient Sahara, Ancient Egypt, the Pastoralist culture which includes Massai, Nuer and Nubian cattleherders and it is acknowledged that they are "East African" in origin. We would not understand the culture of the ancients including the ancient Egyptians completely without them. Remember, the Middle Eastern foreigners who visited the Senegal River in the Middle Ages looked around and thought that they were in a part of Nubia. So, they called the Senegal River the Nile. Lisez-vous mes amies......... ennedi.free.fr/peul.html www.command-com.net/agadez.org/pages_culture/peuls.htm L'origine egyptienne des les peuls et senegambiens est vrai. No offense Shango, I think the Eastern Africa origin of the Fulanis is dubious, as is the Eastern African origin of Tutsis, indeed genetics indicate that they are not linked genetically to most Eastern African except by the fact that they shared the same haplogroup more than 26K years ago, they probably split more than 20K years ago based on genetic studies. So Wollof and other Africans can claim Eastern African origin as much as the Fullani or Tutsis. Unfortunately phenotypes don't count much in genetics but counts a lot in outdated books and myths. I think both groups probably originated in Central Sahara as you indicated and it makes more sense genetically. Relaxx Yes, I agree that a common holocene ear central saharan origin seems like a reasonable explanation for the general common background of East and West African - which is not to say that there haven't been more recent migration/relationships, but generally, it does not seem that most West African come from the Nile Valley within dynastic Kemitic times, as Diop hypothesised. Back to top Shango Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Posts: 114 Location: USA Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:26 am Post subject: Relaxxx wrote: No offense Shango, I think the Eastern Africa origin of the Fulanis is dubious, as is the Eastern African origin of Tutsis, indeed genetics indicate that they are not linked genetically to most Eastern African except by the fact that they shared the same haplogroup more than 26K years ago, they probably split more than 20K years ago based on genetic studies. So Wollof and other Africans can claim Eastern African origin as much as the Fullani or Tutsis. Unfortunately phenotypes don't count much in genetics but counts a lot in outdated books and myths. I think both groups probably originated in Central Sahara as you indicated and it makes more sense genetically. Relaxx Relaxx and Rasol, I did not say most West Africans came from the Nile River Valley. I said the Haal-pular-en did. You do not have all the info. As always, the African American are the last to know. I did not say Diop. I said Dr. A.M. Lam whose writings are all in French. It would take too too long to go into. He lays the case out perfectly in over 430 pages. [/img] Back to top Shango Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Posts: 114 Location: USA Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:42 am Post subject: Haven't we all seen these? www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/ahg/2004/00000068/00000004/art00005 Summary The matrilineal genetic composition of 372 samples from the Republic of Guiné-Bissau (West African coast) was studied using RFLPs and partial sequencing of the mtDNA control and coding region. The majority of the mtDNA lineages of Guineans (94%) belong to West African specific sub-clusters of L0-L3 haplogroups. A new L3 sub-cluster (L3h) that is found in both eastern and western Africa is present at moderately low frequencies in Guinean populations. A non-random distribution of haplogroups U5 in the Fula group, the U6 among the “Brame” linguistic family and M1 in the Balanta-Djola group, suggests a correlation between the genetic and linguistic affiliation of Guinean populations. The presence of M1 in Balanta populations supports the earlier suggestion of their Sudanese origin. Haplogroups U5 and U6, on the other hand, were found to be restricted to populations that are thought to represent the descendants of a southern expansion of Berbers. Particular haplotypes, found almost exclusively in East-African populations, were found in some ethnic groups with an oral tradition claiming Sudanese origin. Document Type: Research article DOI: 10.1046/j.1529-8817.2004.00100.x Affiliations: 1: Department of Evolutionary Biology, Estonian Biocenter, Tartu University, Riia 23, 51010 Tartu, Estonia dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000043.html mtDNA of Fulbe of Nigeria Source: American Journal of Human Genetics. 2002 Nov;71(5):1082-111 "the Fulbe in the mtDNA database(from Nigeria) show the presence of two West African U6 types, a U5 type (found otherwise only in Senegal) and an apparently indigenous West African subclade of Haplogroup H. The H and U lineages combined make up ~18% of the Fulbe sample and indicate an ancient Eurasian origin." dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000624.html July 11, 2004 K2 represents another migration into Africa In addition to the ancient back-migration bringing R1*-M173 and mtDNA haplogroups U6 and H into Africa, there appears to be another event during the Paleolithic which brought Eurasians into Africa. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:532-544, 2004 "K2-M70 is believed to have originated in Asia after the emergence of the K-M9 polymorphism (45–30 ky) (Underhill et al. 2001a). As deduced from the collective data (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002; present study), K2-M70 individuals, at some later point, proceeded south to Africa. These chromosomes are seen in relatively high frequencies in Egypt, Oman, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Morocco and are especially prominent in the Fulbe (18% [Scozzari et al. 1997, 1999]), the highest concentration of this haplogroup found so far." The puzzle of the formation of modern African diversity is far from solved, including the million-dollar question of the origin and dispersal of the classical Negroids. NEED MORE PROOF? Back to top Relaxxx Joined: 19 Jul 2005 Posts: 72 Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:05 am Post subject: Shango wrote: Haven't we all seen these? www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/ahg/2004/00000068/00000004/art00005 Summary The matrilineal genetic composition of 372 samples from the Republic of Guiné-Bissau (West African coast) was studied using RFLPs and partial sequencing of the mtDNA control and coding region. The majority of the mtDNA lineages of Guineans (94%) belong to West African specific sub-clusters of L0-L3 haplogroups. A new L3 sub-cluster (L3h) that is found in both eastern and western Africa is present at moderately low frequencies in Guinean populations. A non-random distribution of haplogroups U5 in the Fula group, the U6 among the “Brame” linguistic family and M1 in the Balanta-Djola group, suggests a correlation between the genetic and linguistic affiliation of Guinean populations. The presence of M1 in Balanta populations supports the earlier suggestion of their Sudanese origin. Haplogroups U5 and U6, on the other hand, were found to be restricted to populations that are thought to represent the descendants of a southern expansion of Berbers. Particular haplotypes, found almost exclusively in East-African populations, were found in some ethnic groups with an oral tradition claiming Sudanese origin. Document Type: Research article DOI: 10.1046/j.1529-8817.2004.00100.x Affiliations: 1: Department of Evolutionary Biology, Estonian Biocenter, Tartu University, Riia 23, 51010 Tartu, Estonia dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000043.html mtDNA of Fulbe of Nigeria Source: American Journal of Human Genetics. 2002 Nov;71(5):1082-111 "the Fulbe in the mtDNA database(from Nigeria) show the presence of two West African U6 types, a U5 type (found otherwise only in Senegal) and an apparently indigenous West African subclade of Haplogroup H. The H and U lineages combined make up ~18% of the Fulbe sample and indicate an ancient Eurasian origin." dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000624.html July 11, 2004 K2 represents another migration into Africa In addition to the ancient back-migration bringing R1*-M173 and mtDNA haplogroups U6 and H into Africa, there appears to be another event during the Paleolithic which brought Eurasians into Africa. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:532-544, 2004 "K2-M70 is believed to have originated in Asia after the emergence of the K-M9 polymorphism (45–30 ky) (Underhill et al. 2001a). As deduced from the collective data (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002; present study), K2-M70 individuals, at some later point, proceeded south to Africa. These chromosomes are seen in relatively high frequencies in Egypt, Oman, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Morocco and are especially prominent in the Fulbe (18% [Scozzari et al. 1997, 1999]), the highest concentration of this haplogroup found so far." The puzzle of the formation of modern African diversity is far from solved, including the million-dollar question of the origin and dispersal of the classical Negroids. NEED MORE PROOF? Shango, It seems that all those genes are found among Berber groups such as Tuaregs and others who are adjacent to Fulanis or Fulbe, and many of these groups moved in their area well before any civilization was created in Ancient Egypt. Unfortunately even if some Fulani live close to Sudan, they speak a Niger-Congo language and their genetic marker on the Y chromosome side which is more accurate than mtdna in terms of lineage and human migration is predominantly E3a which is rare in Egypt, Sudan and the Horn of Africa, although it is still found in Egypt and in the Arab Peninsula but not in the Horn of Africa. However Ancient Egyptian spoke an Afrasian language close to languages found in the Horn of Africa, they were predominantly E3b. Relaxx Back to top Relaxxx Joined: 19 Jul 2005 Posts: 72 Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:11 am Post subject: Shango wrote: Relaxx and Rasol, I said the Haal-pular-en did. You do not have all the info. As always, the African American are the last to know. [/img] Yes I know you meant Haal-pular (Fulanis), that's why I singled them out in my previous post. Your last statement is strange because many on this forum are AA and so far you haven't proved that you're at their intellectual level yet. By the way I'm not from North America and it's irrelevant to introduce someone's ancestry in that debate. Relaxx Back to top Shango Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Posts: 114 Location: USA Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:01 pm Post subject: Relax Relaxxx, I am African American and am often self critical. I am deliberately not exercising all my intellectual prowess. That's what a good tactician would do. Comprendez-vous? I've introduced the topic of francophone African studies elsewhere because like Arara Sabalu and Aurore, I think it is the key to understanding our Sahelian past. I'm sure that the Ancient Egyptians were heavily paternally of E3b Y chromosomes. However, like the Sudanese, they may also have had haplotypes A and B and E3a should be found in the Negroid very darkskinned peoples who are being hunted down the Nile as we speak. Did the geneticists really test all the men who wer exterminated in Southern Sudan? Do we know what the genetic tests of AE mummies revealed? I haven't read any reports. I read the reports of the current Egyptian/Northern Sudanese population. Centuries of slavery and anti-Black Semitic racism has wiped out many Negroes along the Nile. The Hausa-Fulani in Nigeria speak Hausa a Chadic(AfroAsiatic) language. What I should do it do a separate post on the Ful'be in East Africa. Shango, NYC Back to top jazel Joined: 05 Jul 2005 Posts: 149 Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject: Shango wrote: The Haal-pular-en came from the Nile area. I, too, am slow to join the crowd feverently in favor of the out-migration story of Egyptians into Senegal and/or Nigeria. That is not to say that it isn't possible or didn't happen to some extent, but whether it was as significant as all that... I just don't know. lol _________________ Relax at The Oasis. If only we could go back a thousand years or two... Back to top Piankhy Joined: 19 Dec 2005 Posts: 7 Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:35 am Post subject: I know that Senegalese writer Cheikh Anta Diop drew a strong case for an Egyptian presence in the Wolof populations of Senagal. Also, there have been recorded migrations from Sudan into West Africa, which, it has been stated, may have attributed to the rise of the Kingdom of Ghana, which preceded that of Mali's kingdom. Unfortunately, I don't have the dates in front of me, but I will dig up a couple of books, including Diop's, and try to lay out the facts, disputed or otherwise, in a more concrete fashion. Howver, Abdurrahman Es-Sadi, an African born in Timbuktu, wrote a book in 1964 called the Tarikh-es-Sudan (History of Sudan) that spoke a town on the banks of the Niger where Gao now stands, that was called Kaougha or Kaukau that supplied magicians to the pharoahs of Egypt. Apparently Burrum, a little town near Gao was also claimed to have been a residence of the pharoahs. These stories also have also been referenced by islamic travellers. The land of Punt has been extended as far as Somaliland and to the Atlantic. There's certainly some evidence for Egyptian and/or Nubian(Sudanese) migrations to West Africa. Piankhy Back to top Supercar Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 838 Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:57 am Post subject: Piankhy wrote: Also, there have been recorded migrations from Sudan into West Africa, which, it has been stated, may have attributed to the rise of the Kingdom of Ghana, which preceded that of Mali's kingdom. One has to be extremely cautious about demic diffusion theories that attempt to explain why West Africans were able to create highly-structured complex culture in and around the Niger River valley region. This is another euphemism for claiming that West Africans couldn't have possibly created complex cultures on their own, without ignition from an extra-regional source. This is of course absolute fabrication, since the percursors to the well known west African cultural complexes need not be sought elsewhere, but within west Africa itself. Historic movements of people from eastern Africa to west Africa have certainly been attested to. In fact, such movements are responsible for the spread of modern humans continental-wide! However, this cannot be used to justify the attribution of west African cultural complexes to east African groups, i.e., to claim that extant west African inhabitants had little to offer in the way of their progression to highly-structured complex culture, until newly arrived immigrants from east Africa came in to get them started! _________________ If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you! Back to top rasol Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 593 Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:09 am Post subject: Supercar I agree. This is one of the trickiest elements of the African discourse. Diop's double-edged sword so to speak. I am also unsure of what to make of some of the linguistic ties between East and West Africa. For example Yoruba and mdw ntr apparently have the same perjorative word for servant - Aamu. For the Km.t this was also a word for Asiatics. For the Yoruba this is a reference to wasteful persons. Ok. But does this show that the Yoruba lived in dynastic Kemet? Or is it merely a case of two distantly related languages with a similar word? Or perhaps two different languages indirectly pick up words from one another? Shared cultural traits by themselves do not demonstrate population origins. African culture impresses one the most when you examine the richness and variety of its related civilisations. Nile Valley Civilisation should be integrated into the African context without necessarily being made the be all and end all. Back to top Supercar Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 838 Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:16 pm Post subject: rasol wrote: Supercar I agree. This is one of the trickiest elements of the African discourse. Diop's double-edged sword so to speak. I am also unsure of what to make of some of the linguistic ties between East and West Africa. For example Yoruba and mdw ntr apparently have the same perjorative word for servant - Aamu. For the Km.t this was also a word for Asiatics. For the Yoruba this is a reference to wasteful persons. Ok. But does this show that the Yoruba lived in dynastic Kemet? Or is it merely a case of two distantly related languages with a similar word? Or perhaps two different languages indirectly pick up words from one another? Shared cultural traits by themselves do not demonstrate population origins. African culture impresses one the most when you examine the richness and variety of its related civilisations. Nile Valley Civilisation should be integrated into the African context without necessarily being made the be all and end all. Exploring connections between east and west, whether culturally or biologically, is not out of line. So the question raised around language similarities is not out of scholarly sphere of examining the potential ties between such elements of culture; for instance, so as to determine whether the words came from a "common source", or was borrowed from contact between populations that had already become geographically distant to a certain degree. But cultural exchanges and intermingling between populations, should not allow other available substantial evidence to be ignored, just so one can connect the Nile Valley to the rest of Africa, to the point of paranoia, i.e., suggesting that each and every cultural complex identified thereafter in Africa, is and can only be the outcome of demic diffusion from the Nile Valley. I am one who likes to see all available concrete evidence exhausted, before jumping to conclusions, and even then, such conclusions may be subject to change, according to potential accumulation of evidence! _________________ If truth offends you...then all bets are, I'll frequently offend you! Back to top jazel Joined: 05 Jul 2005 Posts: 149 Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject: Piankhy, I agree largely with what has been written here. And, I don't doubt that there were migrations from the eastern Sudan, but I do question the impact of those migrations. As for Ghana, what appears to have most attributed to its rise was the combination of important factors in its favor: the fall of the Garamantian federation, the location of its 'ports' - including its access to the deep south and coastal areas, its unique organizational structure and diverse economy, and the development of a reliable military force. _________________ Relax at The Oasis. If only we could go back a thousand years or two... Back to top Piankhy Joined: 19 Dec 2005 Posts: 7 Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:43 pm Post subject: I think you're right Jazel, it was a host of favourable factors that led to the rise of the Ghana Kingdom, eg. their geographical location that allowed them to control much of the Trans-Sahara trade for salt, gold, etc. However, when you look at the mysterious Nok civilization of Nigeria, there are some sources that state they moved from the Stone Age to the Iron Age. Some archaeologists suggests that this points to influence by another African culture, they're just not sure who. Could it have been a Nile Valley culture or possibly Ethiopia? The answer remains to be seen. In much the same way that China was historically, a great influence on many Asian countries that developed their own cultures, the Nile Valley could have had the same affect through cultural diffusion through Africa. These influences was probably focused on certain things, like the Nefer (lyre) which can be found all through Africa including West Africa which has several lyres of its own. These lyres all have their origin in the Egyptian Nefer, except maybe for the Nubians who, I think, are older than the Egyptians. The Nefer was adopted by the Persians & was known as a Barbet[/b]. From there it moved to North Russia then East to China & Japan where it was known as the Balalaika, Pipa, and Biwa, respectively. In the 5th Century, it travelled westward to the Arabian peninsula with the Persians who helped rebuild Ka'ba in Mecca. In Arabia, it was given the name Oud. With the Islamic expansion, it was transmitted to many cultures around the world. An example of cultural diffusion on a regional, national and global scale. Believe me, I think we should exercise some caution in connecting Egypt to West Africa, but there are a growing number of cultural items that seem to connect them. I'm also sure that the Egyptians were influenced culturally and otherwise by the African peoples that they did meet, if the Egyptians' reverence for the Land of Punt is any indication. Piankhy |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Apr 29, 2011 1:45:15 GMT -5
Why isit so hard to fathom that Egypt was not the center of the African universe and that if there are similarities in West Africa its because Egypt and those West Africans societies shared a common ancestor. Meaning they shared some of the same mother cultures, like say the Saharan civilization, rather than Egyptians trecking all across Africa to bring knowledge. As if people were swinging from trees until they were discovered and thought.
We know that a great deal of Egypt's culture developed in the Sahara. Just consider that when it was green there were more settlement sites in the Sahar than there were in the Nile Valley. With desertification there was a migration into the Nile Valley, but some of them also moved south into the Niger River region as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Apr 29, 2011 23:44:20 GMT -5
You might want to open yourself to other possibilities in your analysis. On one hand there is the common origin theory. However, there is evidence of trade from early dynastic and predyanstic times with central Africa. One should read the many works of anthropologist Dr. Felix Chami. Also in ancient and modern times, priests used to travel the continent, by boat and by land, just to learn from other priests. The problem with most people's analysis is they are so myopic to think that anything in life happens linearly. It is a complex tapestry that finds all of these scenarios to be true at once. I can tell you for a fact, based on my research, that there are some very noteworthy things about Egypt (in philosophy, gods, etc.) that can ONLY be explained by contacts or migrations from Kongo and the Great Lakes. There are other features of Egyptian culture that can ONLY be explained by pastoral cultures of the central Sahara. As has been noted in the discussion above, we expect people to not travel in Africa. Mansa Musa walked from West Africa to Arabia and back with hundreds of men within a year's time. Yet we expect these same feats not to occur with other Africans, to and from the Nile Valley into central and west Africa. I think researchers need to approach this question with new eyes and not as a linear computer but a spider web found in nature that sees evidence coming from many directions to support all of the above theories.
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Apr 30, 2011 2:42:04 GMT -5
You might want to open yourself to other possibilities in your analysis. On one hand there is the common origin theory. However, there is evidence of trade from early dynastic and predyanstic times with central Africa. One should read the many works of anthropologist Dr. Felix Chami. Also in ancient and modern times, priests used to travel the continent, by boat and by land, just to learn from other priests. The problem with most people's analysis is they are so myopic to think that anything in life happens linearly. It is a complex tapestry that finds all of these scenarios to be true at once. I can tell you for a fact, based on my research, that there are some very noteworthy things about Egypt (in philosophy, gods, etc.) that can ONLY be explained by contacts or migrations from Kongo and the Great Lakes. There are other features of Egyptian culture that can ONLY be explained by pastoral cultures of the central Sahara. As has been noted in the discussion above, we expect people to not travel in Africa. Mansa Musa walked from West Africa to Arabia and back with hundreds of men within a year's time. Yet we expect these same feats not to occur with other Africans, to and from the Nile Valley into central and west Africa. I think researchers need to approach this question with new eyes and not as a linear computer but a spider web found in nature that sees evidence coming from many directions to support all of the above theories. What I object to is the idea that if there is civilizationin any part of Africa outside the Nile valley then that means the Egyptians brought it there. Yes, there was trade, yes Egypt and certain other regions of Africa share similar cultural traits, but that's because they are both children of the same parent. Not that one child was smart and the other was an idiot till the smart one taught them something. I hope you understand the point I'm making. What annoys me so much is that everyone tends to focus so heavily on Egypt that the rest of the continent is ignored. Everyone wants to jump on the Egypt band wagon and prove connections or origins in Egypt rather than focusing on the local West African origins and their own home grown civilizations. Trade with someone does not = origin. If that were the case then Egyptian civilization must have come from Lebanon or Mesopotamia. They did borrow ideas from them, bnut it was incorporated into a cultural matrix that already existed and was local. Same holds true for West and Central Africa. I don't doubt that there was travel, why not. But if there was, they didn't stumble onto cultural wastelands. There was already civilizations there. I want to know more about them. I'd like to see more research about THEM. I want to know what came before Nok. Instead its always all about Egypt. Its like having a conversation with someone and they go "enough about me, lets talk about you, what do you think about me". Frustrating that I can't see anything about the history of other regions of Africa without coming back to Egypt again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again......................................................................................................................................................................... |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 1, 2011 0:28:25 GMT -5
Try the Non-Nile Valley Africa section over on TNV or ESR's own HISTORY and GENERAL STUDIES boards. Frustrating that I can't see anything about the history of other regions of Africa without coming back to Egypt again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again......................................................................................................................................................................... |
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on May 1, 2011 13:07:43 GMT -5
However, its not simply a matter of "common origin." If that was the case, we'd see the same features in the middle east. What we are talking about here are exactitudes. As a social scientists one follows the evidence where ever it may lead, not stopping simply because one has a pre-conceived notion that "this cannot be." The evidence says that there were merchants, families and priests in and out of the Nile Valley from West and Central Africa. The question isn't about how Egypt brought ideas into inner Africa. But what ideas and concepts did inner Africa bring to Egypt? As I stated, there are concepts in Ancient Egypt that are ONLY practiced in Kongo (for example) and it is there which these ideas originate which went up the Nile during dynastic times. Hell, we have archeological evidence that east African Bantus were trading with China and India during Pharaonic times. You think they never heard of Egypt? What I object to is the idea that if there is civilizationin any part of Africa outside the Nile valley then that means the Egyptians brought it there. Yes, there was trade, yes Egypt and certain other regions of Africa share similar cultural traits, but that's because they are both children of the same parent. Not that one child was smart and the other was an idiot till the smart one taught them something. I hope you understand the point I'm making. What annoys me so much is that everyone tends to focus so heavily on Egypt that the rest of the continent is ignored. Everyone wants to jump on the Egypt band wagon and prove connections or origins in Egypt rather than focusing on the local West African origins and their own home grown civilizations. Trade with someone does not = origin. If that were the case then Egyptian civilization must have come from Lebanon or Mesopotamia. They did borrow ideas from them, bnut it was incorporated into a cultural matrix that already existed and was local. Same holds true for West and Central Africa. I don't doubt that there was travel, why not. But if there was, they didn't stumble onto cultural wastelands. There was already civilizations there. I want to know more about them. I'd like to see more research about THEM. I want to know what came before Nok. Instead its always all about Egypt. Its like having a conversation with someone and they go "enough about me, lets talk about you, what do you think about me". Frustrating that I can't see anything about the history of other regions of Africa without coming back to Egypt again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again......................................................................................................................................................................... |
|
