Negus (Perra/Pharaohs) of Ancient Kemet

[zarahan]

They say that they came from ancient Egypt...What is the problem with accepting this truth!? Some of y'all treat this explanation like blasphemy or something.

No, not at all. Just that you have to provide better proof of your theory. We have such data as regards the broader East Africa area, but you make a specific claim about Egypt that is not strongly supported. I have no problem at all with the Asante etc etc being from Egypt, but just would like to see more credible proof to bolster the claim. See last point below for how Diop handled the problem.


Why are the linguistic affinities between ancient Egyptian and Niger-Congo languages blatantly lied about by leading Western linguist?

Perhaps but we now know that ancient Egyptian has numerous connections with the Chadic languages (Ehret 2002 et al), for example.


And the Indo-Aryan migrations were not out of the Caucasus.
What you have done is produce a picture map from somewhere, but where is the credible scholarship in support of this Indo-Aryan origin from the Caucasus? COuld be, but so far your supporting evidence is weak. I see more about central Asia here and there, but if you have more on Caucasus by all means bring it forward.



These people according to consistent anthropological evidence (much provided by you) were in fact broad featured "Negroid" African types.

Indeed the Natufians had a clear link with broad sub-Saharan African features, but I am not so sure they ALL looked like say Louis Armstrong in terms of broad features. It is safer to say they had a range of features including broad ones, and certainly that range is well within the range of other tropical Africans, or tropical African hybrids (which would pick up any Asiatic material). As for the Natufians being the FIRST to settle Anatolia I think that is too SPECIFIC a claim to make with current knowledge. With data out there on this particular matter so fragmentary- absolute, unequivocal statements can backfire on you. In such cases, you have to construct your theory like a boxing ring- with ropes flexible enough to absorb punishment and setbacks thrown at you, while allowing space for a hard-hitting counterattack- like Ali's classic "rope a dope" strategy.

You are better off saying that the Natufian culture was influential (many scholars agree, and that doesnt mean the influence has to be super earth-shattering) and their pioneering culture influenced others populations, including their successors that expanded out of and within the Levant. You have to build enough flexibility in there to accommodate possible Asiatic types, mixes, and other migrations, while preserving the core of your theory. As for Anatolia the data out there is mixed. We don't have a super clear picture. Certainly some cranial evidence shows tropical African elements there as well, but again, avoiding absolute sweeping, "paint myself in a corner" statements, in the absence of a good proof or at least solid stuff on the table to defend your thesis.
See:
egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/641/charlie-bass-refuted-on-natufians




The hunters and gatherers shown in the map below however could likely represent an earlier split in the dual "Niger-Congo/"Afro-Asiatic" migration with the Ethiopic Africans (who already stayed closer along the red sea) proceeding the migration into Europe and parts of the Middle East.:

They "could" but then again, the other hunter-gatherers on the map could be contemporary Asiatic types. Which his why I say a sweeping absolute statement that the Natufians were the FIRST to inhabit Anatolia can be picked apart. Successors who looked in part like tropical Africans (who have a wide range of features) could just as well fit the bill.


This is the statement that so many people on ES have used to justify their rejection of the reliance of ancient Egyptian artwork to help with the discussion. Like I said for some strange reason the chain of "negroid" statuary seen on page one is never noted by scholars, and instead those who are not knowing are mislead to assume that most of the art depicts the gracile populations which characterizes the Horn of Africa.

I haven't seen that. Keita in that statement is rather criticizing the enemies of a balanced African bio-history and their misuse of pictures. If anything, many in ES get into picture swap battles rather than putting better evidence on the table. Keita doesn't reject pictures but notes how unreliable they can be at times. Pictures are a valid part of the evidence mix and can get a point across quickly, but don't rely on them. They need OTHER types of evidence to back them up for best results. Its a combined arms package.


You cannot let them do all of the thinking for us! You are giving Western scientist (not all have bad intentions) entirely too much power over this discussion.

Not really. I am skeptical of Western scientists and know they can be proven false. But they have to be confronted.
The constant claim of the opponents of a balanced African bio-history is that they are the experts, with the accurate facts, while the "crazy Afrocentrists" are making stuff up or misinterpreting things. These opponents have to be met and defeated on the same factual ground, and their posture as more virtuous and objective experts or fact-finders debunked. This means careful qualification of statements so they can be supported by data, or at least enough credible data to put forward a decent argument. Lets take that "the came from ancient Egypt" approach which has several weaknesses that opponents that pick apart.

Said opponents argue that, once again, the "crazies and cranks" like Diop are wrong, making things up with little proof. But as I pointed out to one of these critics- Diop never insisted that all his proposed movement was from Egypt specifically. Opponents build a strawman. Note in the discussion below how Diop QUALIFIED his approach- saying NOT Egypt per se, but "approximately in the Nile Valley" - a much broader zone to work with in building his notion. He also mentions the "Nile Valley Basin" - a zone that extends all the way into Ethiopia. See the difference? Diop knew a direct connection was difficult with current data so he broadened his framework into something more defensible. With that broader framework, modern scholarship lends support to many of his arguments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

FROM ONE OF MY POSTS ELSEWHERE

1) Diop did not place heavy emphasis on "Inner Africa" and visible links with Dynastic Egypt, but in any event his concept of the movement of peoples from the general Nile Valley zone having an impact across the continent is not unreasonable in broader context, and is so supported by modern scholarship. In fact Macdonald quotes Diop:

"The idea that a central dispersal located approximately in the Nile Valley is worth consideration. In all likelihood.. [until ca 7000 BC].. Black mankind first lived in branches in the Nile basin before swarming out in successive spurts towards the interior of the continent."
----

Hardly earth-shattering stuff to "refute". Diop thought the idea was worthy of consideration, but placed little central emphasis on it. It is curious that Macdonald focuses on such a tangential issue while ignoring the core central themes of Diop's work- on Egypt IN Africa. And Diop first introduced the idea in 1955- repeated in 1974's Civilization or Barbarism. Diop at this time did not have access to the huge amount of scholarship on the Sahara and the Nile Valley that came after the early 1970s. But even so his dating is not that far off from modern scholars like Frank Yurco who noted that the Sahara acted as a "climatic pump"- alternatively pushing and pulling people into and out if the Nile Valley and larger region, or from 2006- Kruper and Kropelin's "Climate Controlled Holocene Occupation of the Sahara". In fact Kruper and Kropelin 2006 show- QUOTE:

"after the sudden onset of humid conditions at 8500 B.C.E. to the exodus resulting from gradual desiccation since 5300 B.C.E. Southward shifting of the desert margin helped trigger the emergence of pharaonic civilization along the Nile, influenced the spread of pastoralism throughout the continent, and affects sub-Saharan Africa to the present day."
--Kruper and Kropelin 2006. Climate Controlled Holocene Occupation of the Sahara.

Diop was not active in the field to access late 1980s data - having died in 1986 and much of his published work being earlier reprints, but modern scholarship does indeed show that the Nile Valley zone, including the overall Saharan zone incorporating parts of the Nile Valley, is part of the climatic process that helped shape the African continent, including dispersal of peoples. Thus in broader context it could be said that Diop is not that far off from modern scholarship's findings. Yoruba tribes do not have to be shown moving from Memphis to Ghana to establish the movement of peoples West from the all-important Sahara, including pastoralists, circa Diop's Nilo-Saharan zone 7000BC. Note that Diop places the radiator of movement "approximately in the Nile Valley" - this would incorporate somewhat the broad Saharan zone adjacent to, surrounding or overlapping said Nile Valley. Modern studies have refined this to the broad Saharan belt that included the Nile Valley but Diop's general ranging is not greatly off the mark.

END EXCERPT
----------------------------------------------------------------




As you can see Diop built enough qualifications and flexibility into the concept to absorb new knowledge, findings and attacks. This is how you have to construct your arguments. On relatively friendly forums like Reloaded it is not so critical, but in other harsher venues, where you must hammer through and defend against numerous attackers and critics, many playing the "we are the experts" card, careful construction pays dividends in meeting all contendas. Diop by the way was wrong on some things because we now have better info than he had 40 years ago. But it could be well argued that some of his general concepts have been WELL supported.

[asante]

Mar 22, 2014 18:23:50 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

It's been my opinion that West Africa had long been inhabited before this time. Archeology seems to back this up.

Yes, but not too many seem to want to add context explaining who these Africans were. This is the situation that we currently have to work with in regards to this ancient African archaeology. The settlements below seen in West Africa (Ghana-Mali/Burkina Faso) are the descendants of the Mande (Niger-Congo speakers) people (along that same Afro-Asiatic migration which ended around Northern West Africa) who settled Dhar Tichitt in Mauritania. These people migrated further south creating ancient Ghana (Mali/Burkina Fasco) which many say is a lot older than tradition sources detail. The Kintampo rock shelter found in the modern country of Ghana was likely a small group of wanderers who broke off from the ancient Ghana empire, and reason why I (on top of it being the leading theory as shown in the link) infer that they were from that ancient civilization is because cattle domestication was evident in that site.



This migration explains how those early groups of Niger-Congo speakers (Mande) migrated to that area of West Africa from their original East African (Sudan) homeland. The so-called "Afro-Asiatic" migration (note Dar Tichitt in Mauritania/The far West):






But when this migration is put into proper context (African)

The most successful of these were speakers of Proto-Afro-Asiatic language from the African rift valley. Going through the savannah, the Chadic speakers reached Lake Chad while the Berbers, the Maghreb and the Proto-Egyptians arrived in Upper Egypt. However Martin Bernal did not consider speakers of Proto-Bantu in his analysis. It is the author’s contention, from the linguistic contents, that speakers of Proto-Bantu played an active part at the time of the expansion of Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Rift Valley of East Africa. These Proto-Bantu speakers going through the savannah formed part of the migration to Egypt. The Bantu languages together with other indigenous languages fused together and became embedded to form the Proto-Egyptian language. It is for this reason that the Ancient Egyptian language contains a substantial amount of Proto-Bantu or Bantu roots.

However Guthrie speculated that before the Proto-Bantu expansion from Zaire, there had been several pre-Bantu stages, at which time the Bantu ancestors lived far to the north around Lake Chad. One group from this area made its way to Zaire and became the Proto-Bantu. The Proto-Bantu speakers and Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers lived along side each other. They traded together, shared and exchanged common vocabularies of words.

The reference to "Bantu" can and has been applied to the broader Niger-Congo languages. As far the Nilotic Nilo-Saharan situation observe the maps below







Nilotic-Nilo-Saharan migration into Lake Chad and eventually the ancient Sahara.:



You wish to believe that somewhere in this mix of the archaeological sites in West Africa above is the evidence for the East to West migration of M2 lineage carrying, Niger Congo speakers into tropical West Africa that Western scholars like Christopher Ehret have been putting out:

The initial warming of climate in the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, 12,700-10,900 BCE, brought increased rainfall and warmer conditions in many African regions. Three sets of peoples, speaking languages of the three language families that predominate across the continent today, probably began their early expansions in this period. Nilo-Saharan peoples spread out in the areas around and east of the middle Nile River in what is today the country of Sudan. Peoples of a second family, Niger-Kordofanian (EDIT: to which Niger-Congo and Bantu are offshoots) , spread across an emerging east-west belt of savanna vegetation from the eastern Sudan to the western Atlantic coast of Africa. In the same era, communities speaking languages of the Erythraic branch of the Afrasian (Afroasiatic) family expanded beyond their origin areas in the Horn of Africa, northward to modern-day Egypt. - Excerpt from : Africa in History by Christopher Ehret

Do you see any evidence of an East to West migration of Niger-Congo speakers around 12,000 years ago indicated anywhere on that map? Now after reviewing all of those maps and reading what Christopher Ehret said is it not clear that his version of events is not substantiated with the evidence? 

 

The Bantu migration above is in accordance with Western scholarship. This migration as you can see is NOT supported by the archaeological (or any evidence really) evidence shown above. It makes no sense when you really analyze it, hence this is an indoctrinated lie (notice this map is obviously from a school book). 

[asante]

Mar 22, 2014 20:48:12 GMT -5 anansi said:

You your self posted this pic of a broad featured Nilo Saharan compare her with the aquiline features of the Bantu lady above,thus making my point you can't go around claiming that anyone feature is unique to any group of Africans.

Man...so basically you just really will not accept the biological fact that Nilotic Africans do in fact have their own distinctive phenetic traits (and genetic), which has been validated in anthropological analysis? You are really having a difficult time when I say that I can easily distinguish a Dinka or Nuer from a Yoruba or Ibo individual (save the picture spam).. Ok cool whatever....

Not implying anything Iam saying it as a fact.

So not only will you not accept that Nilotes have a distinctive phenotype, but you also claim that you (an African American presumably) don't descend from the groups shown in the lime green below but rather the Nilotic Africans shown in the Orange:



Transatlantic slave trade:



... Ok (Phew).

[anansi]

Asante

Man...so basically you just really will not accept the biological fact that Nilotic Africans do in fact have their own distinctive phenetic traits (and genetic), which has been validated in anthropological analysis? You are really having a difficult time when I say that I can easily distinguish a Dinka or Nuer from a Yoruba or Ibo individual (save the picture spam).. Ok cool whatever....

Yes I really will not accept the above because it is bunk!
The picture spam you bought up and it hurts your case whenever I respond to them don't deal with it fine by me.. do the head in the sand thingy.

o not only will you not accept that Nilotes have a distinctive phenotype, but you also claim that you (an African American presumably) don't descend from the groups shown in the lime green below but rather the Nilotic Africans shown in the Orange:

Red herring tactic I said no such thing,the orange and other areas of your map did include captives bound for the Americas including the yellow,as a ship load of them landed in Jamaica which they escaped en-mass to the mountains shortly after their landing to form their own Maroon community, later to be absorbed by the mainly Akan group,also your map did not tell you that Mai Idris Alooma of Kanem-Bornu routinely enslaved folks from the upper Nile including migrant Arabs sending them to the coast for export to the Americas,and the lite Green part of your map in no way explain Estevanico and others enslaved from as far north as Morocco,and ended his days in Arizona, and he was not alone,at best your maps is a generalization of where the main body of captives came not but the total.

[truthteacher2007]

Mar 22, 2014 21:18:04 GMT -5 asante said:

Mar 22, 2014 18:23:50 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

It's been my opinion that West Africa had long been inhabited before this time. Archeology seems to back this up.

Yes, but not too many seem to want to add context explaining who these Africans were. This is the situation that we currently have to work with in regards to this ancient African archaeology. The settlements below seen in West Africa (Ghana-Mali/Burkina Faso) are the descendants of the Mande (Niger-Congo speakers) people (along that same Afro-Asiatic migration which ended around Northern West Africa) who settled Dhar Tichitt in Mauritania. These people migrated further south creating ancient Ghana (Mali/Burkina Fasco) which many say is a lot older than tradition sources detail. The Kintampo rock shelter found in the modern country of Ghana was likely a small group of wanderers who broke off from the ancient Ghana empire, and reason why I (on top of it being the leading theory as shown in the link) infer that they were from that ancient civilization is because cattle domestication was evident in that site.



This migration explains how those early groups of Niger-Congo speakers (Mande) migrated to that area of West Africa from their original East African (Sudan) homeland. The so-called "Afro-Asiatic" migration (note Dar Tichitt in Mauritania/The far West):






But when this migration is put into proper context (African)

The most successful of these were speakers of Proto-Afro-Asiatic language from the African rift valley. Going through the savannah, the Chadic speakers reached Lake Chad while the Berbers, the Maghreb and the Proto-Egyptians arrived in Upper Egypt. However Martin Bernal did not consider speakers of Proto-Bantu in his analysis. It is the author’s contention, from the linguistic contents, that speakers of Proto-Bantu played an active part at the time of the expansion of Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Rift Valley of East Africa. These Proto-Bantu speakers going through the savannah formed part of the migration to Egypt. The Bantu languages together with other indigenous languages fused together and became embedded to form the Proto-Egyptian language. It is for this reason that the Ancient Egyptian language contains a substantial amount of Proto-Bantu or Bantu roots.

However Guthrie speculated that before the Proto-Bantu expansion from Zaire, there had been several pre-Bantu stages, at which time the Bantu ancestors lived far to the north around Lake Chad. One group from this area made its way to Zaire and became the Proto-Bantu. The Proto-Bantu speakers and Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers lived along side each other. They traded together, shared and exchanged common vocabularies of words.

The reference to "Bantu" can and has been applied to the broader Niger-Congo languages. As far the Nilotic Nilo-Saharan situation observe the maps below







Nilotic-Nilo-Saharan migration into Lake Chad and eventually the ancient Sahara.:



You wish to believe that somewhere in this mix of the archaeological sites in West Africa above is the evidence for the East to West migration of M2 lineage carrying, Niger Congo speakers into tropical West Africa that Western scholars like Christopher Ehret have been putting out:

The initial warming of climate in the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, 12,700-10,900 BCE, brought increased rainfall and warmer conditions in many African regions. Three sets of peoples, speaking languages of the three language families that predominate across the continent today, probably began their early expansions in this period. Nilo-Saharan peoples spread out in the areas around and east of the middle Nile River in what is today the country of Sudan. Peoples of a second family, Niger-Kordofanian (EDIT: to which Niger-Congo and Bantu are offshoots) , spread across an emerging east-west belt of savanna vegetation from the eastern Sudan to the western Atlantic coast of Africa. In the same era, communities speaking languages of the Erythraic branch of the Afrasian (Afroasiatic) family expanded beyond their origin areas in the Horn of Africa, northward to modern-day Egypt. - Excerpt from : Africa in History by Christopher Ehret

Do you see any evidence of an East to West migration of Niger-Congo speakers around 12,000 years ago indicated anywhere on that map? Now after reviewing all of those maps and reading what Christopher Ehret said is it not clear that his version of events is not substantiated with the evidence? 

 

The Bantu migration above is in accordance with Western scholarship. This migration as you can see is NOT supported by the archaeological (or any evidence really) evidence shown above. It makes no sense when you really analyze it, hence this is an indoctrinated lie (notice this map is obviously from a school book). 

My mistake. I gave the wrong dates. The video stated that the pottery was carbon dated to be 11,400yrs old. That is 2,000 years older than anything else in Africa including the Nile Valley. In other words, contrary to the belief that West Africa was unpopulated, tangable archological evidence shows that thousands of years before there was a Nubia or an Egypt, West Africa was inhabited by a people who had a technology that was much more advanced than anything anywhere in Africa. Therefore, we're talking about a society that far predates anything being discussed in the maps you provided.

It's because of this type of evidence and others like it, for example, the Oshungbo Bone, that I maintain that Egypt was not the mother of African civilization, but one of many children belonging to a much, much older mother. Therefore, it's not surprising to see cultural traits shared all over Africa, including Egypt. It only goes to reinforce my certainty that Egypt was an Africa civilization.

I'm not ruling out the possability that there may have been contact between the Nile Valley and West Africa. Large scale migration and settlement though, I doubt it. HOWEVER, I remain open minded. It's just that I need irrefutable evidence before I buy it. Zarahan is actually giving you some very sound advise on how to be an impecable scholar. A point I was trying to get across to you earlier is that when you create an argument, you have to look at it from the perspective of your opponent. In effect, you have to do what lawyers do in order to win a case. Look at your position objectively and see where your weaknesses are. Posting broad featured pictures can be countered by pictures of narrow featured lighter skinned people. Legends of Yorubas claiming to come from Egypt are contradicted by the creation legends of the original native beliefs of Ifa which state that the world itself and human life began at Ile Ife. Way before there was Islam or Christian influences in Yorubaland, this is what people believed. Therefore, this isn't a strong argument. You have to look for any possible way your argument can be contradicted and then, either support it with stronger material, or change your position.

In my poinion, the fact that Egypt was a native African civilization is undeniable. The wealth of evidence from mainstream scholarship far outweighs those who would seek to deny it. Egypt was a product of Africa, but in order to understand it fully in its African context, we have to do more research into the areas of Africa outside its boarders. Then and only then will we know the full story of how it was related to its relatives.

[asante]

Mar 22, 2014 21:07:58 GMT -5 zarahan said:

Just that you have to provide better proof of your theory.

In what forms? We have anthropology supporting an early (Pre-Dynastic) prominence of "Negroid" (broad featured Africans) Africans in ancient Egypt, and all evidence supports that this "Negroid" Egyptian population are the result of a northward expansion of "Negroid" Sudanese populations (Pleistocene Nubians). What is also supported by this line of evidence is a radical change in the Egyptian population during the Late Period. This change lead to a switch in affinities from "Negroid" since Pre-Dynastic times to a "Mediterranean" (mulatto) affinity. This put into historical context is in perfect concordats with Taharqa's retreat into Nubia which brought the population of Southern Egypt (which is where the vast majority of the ancient Egypt's population resided since Pre-Dynastic times) with him (since Northern Egypt was controlled by the Assyrians). Wouldn't this also explain the sudden and uncontested shift of population distribution, power and importance from Southern Egypt to Northern Egypt, which ironically also occurred during this third intermediate-Late Period? Here more is evidence for that southern Egyptian kinship and irrefutable affinity with contemporary "negroid" populations:

Fertility Dolls





On the top, is an ancient Egyptian "paddle" doll, courtesy of the British Museum; in the middle, we have Ashanti examples of the fertility doll, and third image is yet another example of fertility dolls common amongst the Akan.

Fertility dolls are a fairly common theme in Africa, from the Akan speaking groups of Ghana to the Donguena, Evale, Hakawama, Himba, Humbe, Kwanyama, Mukubal, Mwila, Ndimba, Ngambwe, Ovambo and Zemba people of the semi-desert areas of Angola for example, and it appear that the ancient Egyptians were no different in this aspect.

A little trivia on the Egyptian "paddle doll"...

Such dolls are usually found in Upper Egypt and Nubia. When complete they have faces and hair of clay. Hair may also be of faience beads. This one is missing its hair. A number have been found dating to the second half of the 11th Dynasty from tombs in the neighbourhood of Deir el Bahri and are common at Thebes. However, at least two have been found in earlier tombs at Beni Hasan and one at Rifeh. Another was found beneath the Ramesseum at Thebes dating to the 13th Dynasty (Bourriau 1988, 126-127). Most are of 11th Dynasty to Middle Kingdom.

The marks on the body are thought to be tattoos or scarification and the end of the paddle, it has been suggested is an exaggerated pubic area. That such dolls are found mainly in female graves has led Egyptologists to suggest that these are fertility figurines put in graves to ensure fertility in the afterlife. - Courtesy of SWANSEA UNIVERSITY.

---

Look at "Upper Egypt and Nubia" region on these maps:

Original homeland of the Bantu up to 1500 A.D
Dark shading: Possible ultimate origin of the Bantu
Cross shading: Area of Bantu expansion into Egypt




The people in the region below are characterized by the M2 lineage, the Niger-Congo languages and almost (save some slight variation in mixed intra African groups like Tutsi and Fulani) universally "Negroid" (broad featured) phenetic traits:



Putting 2 and 2 together.

The M2 lineage which characterizes today's West-Central-South Niger Congo speakers is also shown to have originated in or very close to Sudan. So far three different sources have validated that every native Egyptian pharaoh (9 so far) has been characterized by M2 lineages, hence why everytime the closest world matches for DNAtribes are Southern Africa, The Great Lakes (heavily Nilotic influenced), and of course West Africa (not the Horn nor the Sahel). Thanks to "off brand" (non Western) researchers we now (at least to me) have quite a stock pile of irrefutable cultural and linguistic parallels which can ONLY be explained through this explanation of these Africans having migrating from ancient Egypt (as they say that they did).

I'am strongly under the impression that by "better proof" you're really expecting for me to provide you and everyone else with some gold citation from Oxford "validating" the common sense above. I'm telling people to put two and two together and you're promoting that they just stick with a "safe" argument. If that is the case then we are on two completely different planes.

Perhaps but we now know that ancient Egyptian has numerous connections with the Chadic languages (Ehret 2002 et al), for example.

I asked you why leading Western linguist and scholars like Christopher Ehret have obscured the irrefutably close relationship that the ancient Egyptian language has with Niger-Congo languages? Why does it seem like Christopher pushes so hard for this Afro-Asiatic term when most African scholars have debunked the existence of that language grouping? He sounds like a snake to me!

Christopher Ehret


Theophile Obenga


Obenga as an African scholar (linguist is one title) who actually speaks African languages knows more than Christopher Ehret...Ehret could not refute him (his original calling on according to Mario Beatty) on his categorization of African languages above and had to stand down. Obenga discusses this below. He calls "AFRO-ASIATIC A FAKE LANGUAGE FAMILY (start point added):

What you have done is produce a picture map from somewhere, but where is the credible scholarship in support of this Indo-Aryan origin from the Caucasus?

"The Caucus"....Come on man! One map came from Wikipedia and it's not a disputed page. This is common knowledge and you're still asking for a golden citation from oxford or somewhere. Do you see how much power this way of thinking gives Western scholarship over common sense?

Indeed the Natufians had a clear link with broad sub-Saharan African features, but I am not so sure they ALL looked like say Louis Armstrong in terms of broad features.

Well according to Ricaut's interpretation of research it certainly is implying that "Louis Armstrong"'s "broad featured" characterized the Natufian population:

"This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations" -- Ricaut et al 2008. Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Popion Hum Bio 80:5 535-64

Is it not? Apparently this is also concordant with an earlier anthropologist description of the "Natufians" as perceived "Negroid Cannibals" (cannibal part debunked). Therefore broad featured black African migrant farmers in the Middle East is what the Natufians were.

They "could" but then again, the other hunter-gatherers on the map could be contemporary Asiatic types.

You keep this word "Asiatic" as though it has any real biological and ethnic meaning. There is no substance or evidence behind your use of this word, but instead just baseless assumptions. When the "Negroid" Natufians migrated into the Levant and made it home then those "Negroid" migrants became "Asiatics" did they not?

On the Hunters and Gatherers in the region of the Levant they were certainly apart of that earlier migration of Ethiopic E1b1 carrying Africans along that same route. Who else could they have been in the Levant along that route? The negroid Grimaldi man (the very first "Europeans") were likely still in up in Europe (their range stretched to Siberia) when the Ethiopic Africans migrated there however.

I haven't seen that. Keita in that statement is rather criticizing the enemies of a balanced African bio-history and their misuse of pictures.

But why doesn't Keita himself mention the fact that is on the first page of this thread? The statuary of these pharonic Egyptians show the vast majority of them to be broad featured ("Negroid") Africans. Why is this fact never mentioned or no one feels that it's worth mentioning? Only the narrow features shown in some paintings are hinted at. Just like only Egypt's "Afro-Asiatic" (which doesn't really exist) origins are hinted. Just like how even though over a third of the Dynastic Egyptian populace was "Negroid", but Keita at the Cambridge lecture describes the Egyptians as "Somali like" (no mention at all of the "Negroid" element). We have been accepting his BS more likely because he has come off to many of us as a "well to do" black face on this racist issue, but really he's just their puppet of obscurity of our history.   

You must ask yourself how does a black man end up being the face of this discussion which is being in part sponsored by the racist National Geographic?

[asante]

Mar 23, 2014 2:12:53 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

My mistake. I gave the wrong dates. The video stated that the pottery was carbon dated to be 11,400yrs old. That is 2,000 years older than anything else in Africa including the Nile Valley.

By "anything" I'm assuming that you mean signs of innovation and not just pottery. If that is what you mean then you are incorrect:

"extreme erosion on the body of the Sphinx could not be the result of wind and sand, as has been universally assumed, but rather was the result of water. Geologists agree that in the distant past Egypt was subjected to severe flooding. This period coincides with the melting of the ice from the last Ice Age (13,000-10,000 BC). Wind erosion cannot take place when the body of the Sphinx is covered by sand, and it can be proved that the Sphinx has been in this condition for nearly all of the last five thousand years - since the alleged time of its 4th Dynasty construction. Furthermore, if wind-blown sand had indeed caused the deep erosion of the Sphinx, we would expect to find evidence of such erosion on other Egyptian monuments built of similar materials and exposed to the wind for a similar length of time. Yet the fact of the matter is, that even on structures that have had more exposure to the wind-blown sand, there are minimal effects of erosion, the sand having done little more than scour clean the surface of the dressed stones. Quite simply, this means the Sphinx was carved before Egypt was inundated with the waters of the great Ice Age floods, and that those waters caused the unique erosion patterns on the Sphinx."

Most people put to age of the Sphinx (a Lion's body) to around 12,000 B.C. in correspondents with the star constellation of Leo in which it faces. As far as pottery making however that was a Nilotic Nilo-Saharan innovation that was brought onto the Nile Valley after the last dry phase of the Sahara.

In other words, contrary to the belief that West Africa was unpopulated, tangable archological evidence shows that thousands of years before there was a Nubia or an Egypt, West Africa was inhabited by a people who had a technology that was much more advanced than anything anywhere in Africa.

What I get from this statement is that you seem like you are moreso enchanted with the geographical concept of West Africa moreso than caring about who the actual people were. This has already been explained to you, but for some odd reason you chose to ignore the any aspect of that explanation in this response (I should have learned the first time). 

It's because of this type of evidence and others like it, for example, the Oshungbo Bone, that I maintain that Egypt was not the mother of African civilization, but one of many children belonging to a much, much older mother.

I also linked the Ishango bone to my argument as well remember? The northward migration of this knowledge and technology likely represented our (and our M-35 Ethiopic brothers) branching off from our E-PN2 ancestors. The M2 lineage followed the Nile into Sudan and the M-35 (Ethiopic Africans) eventually trekked into Horn (see the first phases of the "Afro-Asiatic" map). 

[truthteacher2007]

Mar 23, 2014 16:04:25 GMT -5 asante said:

Mar 23, 2014 2:12:53 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

My mistake. I gave the wrong dates. The video stated that the pottery was carbon dated to be 11,400yrs old. That is 2,000 years older than anything else in Africa including the Nile Valley.

By "anything" I'm assuming that you mean signs of innovation and not just pottery. If that is what you mean then you are incorrect:

"extreme erosion on the body of the Sphinx could not be the result of wind and sand, as has been universally assumed, but rather was the result of water. Geologists agree that in the distant past Egypt was subjected to severe flooding. This period coincides with the melting of the ice from the last Ice Age (13,000-10,000 BC). Wind erosion cannot take place when the body of the Sphinx is covered by sand, and it can be proved that the Sphinx has been in this condition for nearly all of the last five thousand years - since the alleged time of its 4th Dynasty construction. Furthermore, if wind-blown sand had indeed caused the deep erosion of the Sphinx, we would expect to find evidence of such erosion on other Egyptian monuments built of similar materials and exposed to the wind for a similar length of time. Yet the fact of the matter is, that even on structures that have had more exposure to the wind-blown sand, there are minimal effects of erosion, the sand having done little more than scour clean the surface of the dressed stones. Quite simply, this means the Sphinx was carved before Egypt was inundated with the waters of the great Ice Age floods, and that those waters caused the unique erosion patterns on the Sphinx."

Most people put to age of the Sphinx (a Lion's body) to around 12,000 B.C. in correspondents with the star constellation of Leo in which it faces. As far as pottery making however that was a Nilotic Nilo-Saharan innovation that was brought onto the Nile Valley after the last dry phase of the Sahara.

Oookaay. Not sure what the Sphinx has to do with the population of West Africa. But the pottery found in West Africa predates the pottery from the Saharan culture. That means that people had already been living in West Africa before the Sahara dried up.

In other words, contrary to the belief that West Africa was unpopulated, tangable archological evidence shows that thousands of years before there was a Nubia or an Egypt, West Africa was inhabited by a people who had a technology that was much more advanced than anything anywhere in Africa.

What I get from this statement is that you seem like you are moreso enchanted with the geographical concept of West Africa moreso than caring about who the actual people were. This has already been explained to you, but for some odd reason you chose to ignore the any aspect of that explanation in this response (I should have learned the first time). 

You made a statement that West Africa was unihabited until the late period of Pharaonic civilization when people migrated there from the Nile Valley. I've just provided a video clip that gave visible tangible evidence that this was not the case. There were already people living there thousands of years before, so I don't see what worrying about who they were has to do with anything. They were native Africans. There's no way to know at that early a date what language group they belonged to, nor can we know what they looked like until we find physical remains. That's why we need to do more research in that area so we can learn more about them and their society.

It's because of this type of evidence and others like it, for example, the Oshungbo Bone, that I maintain that Egypt was not the mother of African civilization, but one of many children belonging to a much, much older mother.

I also linked the Ishango bone to my argument as well remember? The northward migration of this knowledge and technology likely represented our (and our M-35 Ethiopic brothers) branching off from our E-PN2 ancestors. The M2 lineage followed the Nile into Sudan and the M-35 (Ethiopic Africans) eventually trekked into Horn (see the first phases of the "Afro-Asiatic" map). 

So why is it so hard to accept what I've been saying all along. There was an older culture that gave birth to the younger ones. With regards to the old theory of the "Bantu migration", I think that as more evidence comes to light we will have to reevaluate those old theories. This is why more archeological work has to be done in the rest of Africa outside of Egypt. No one had expected to find any prehistoric material in West Africa. The finding of that pottery has caused people to reevaluate everything they thought they knew.

[amunratheultimate]

Mar 19, 2014 11:43:03 GMT -5 zarahan said:

Contrary to the racist lies seen on the National Geographic and History Channel all of the native ancient Egyptian Pharaohs were black, and by black I mean almost all of them were thick lipped and wide nosed (don't know where the "they were mostly "Horner" looking" nonsense came from).

Incorrect, and seems like a troll bait statement, or a bogus strawman set
up to demonstrate "refuting the Afrocentrists." No, "almost all" the ancient
Egyptian Pharoahs were NOT "thick lipped and wide nosed." They varied, especially
near the later dynastic era, or when foreign influence was dominant as in
the Hyskos era. And Diop never made any such claim as that opening above.
African people also vary in features, for Africa has the highest phenotypic diversity
as credible scholars show.

There is no need to claim almost all pharaohs looked like Louis Armstrong or Mike Tyson.
That's a strawman statement. They didn't, and common sense should tell you that. Common
sense also shows that not all Africans look alike, and they don;t have to look alike to
be "authentically African."

Just as those who push the simplistic "Horner looking" meme are dubious, so we
too should not fall into that easy trap, & need to be careful to keep with the data and not make
sweeping statements the enemies of a balanced African bio-history are all too ready
to seize on, exploit and distort. Your roundup of images is good but they themselves
show that not all Pharaohs stereotypically looked like Louis Armstrong or Tyson.
Which is fine, because Africans too, do not "all look alike."



PS: I think I deleted some original pics trying to get the URLS, please restore if missing.

Very true. To be considered African, Ancient Egyptians must cluster autosomally with other African populations more than they do with Eurasian populations.

In term of Y-DNA they would mostly be from the African haplogroups A, B and E. On the mtDNA side, haplogroups L. There's no doubt that there's other haplogroups than those in AE, since some outsiders (migrants, prisoners of war, etc) also used to live in AE but they would be a minority (probably non-royal).

Ramses III has already been determined to be from the E haplogroups (E1b1a/M2). Microsatellites DNA obtained from AE mummies also seem to be more prevalent in modern African populations than Eurasians populations.

This is of course on top of many other historic, archaeological, linguistic, cultural and biological arguments linking AE with other African people like Igbo, Yoruba, Wolof, Afar, Somali, Dinka, Kongo, Zulu, etc.

[asante]

Mar 23, 2014 17:32:04 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

Oookaay. Not sure what the Sphinx has to do with the population of West Africa.

If I wasn't mistaking you tried to insinuate through the fact that the oldest pottery (which was Nilotic) is found in Mali (West Africa) that it's the oldest form of innovation in Africa and that the Nile Valley civilization is the result of that innovation. I provided the facts pointing to the true age of the Sphinx in ancient Egypt to dispel that implication, as it proves that a highly advanced civilization with sophisticated culture created by the Anu (our ancestors) had thrived on the Nile Valley for over 10,000 years. On the flip side I've seen quite a bit of evidence that suggest that the innovators of pyramid building were in fact those earlier Nilotic Saharans. I say this because of the earliest pyramids being found in Niger and Mali (unsure of this date however):

Mali (date unknown by me)



Zinger, Niger (found like 3 years ago)

Article (of course only African outlets and a few blogs even report this recent findings).

But the pottery found in West Africa predates the pottery from the Saharan culture. That means that people had already been living in West Africa before the Sahara dried up.

You keep saying "West Africa" and attaching no context to whatever it is that you are trying to prove. You said that Mali was West Africa not the Sahara, implying that West Africa and the Sahara desert are mutually exclusive categories....



...^^ You therefore make no sense.

You made a statement that West Africa was unihabited until the late period of Pharaonic civilization when people migrated there from the Nile Valley.

Yes "West Africa" and I several times I've specified specifically "tropical" Africa (referring to the fertile areas of West Africa where most of us are today). Do you remember what I said about those isolated settlements in this region? I ask because you sure didn't respond to that explanation (here), but you keep trying to come with these silly responses like this stuff hasn't been explained to you already. 

[amunratheultimate]

Mar 23, 2014 19:44:14 GMT -5 asante said:

You babble a lot, but the bottom line is simple. Ancient Egyptians were Africans not Eurasians. 

In every sense, they are closer to ancient and modern African populations than they are to Eurasians populations.  Which is another way to say Ancient Egyptians were Africans not Eurasians, the same way Ancient Greece was European not African.

Considering the evidences thus far, African descendants (like African-Americans for example) can consider AE an African civilizations the same way British and French people consider Ancient Greece an European civilizations.   One among many.

[asante]

Mar 23, 2014 20:03:19 GMT -5 amunratheultimate said:

You babble a lot

lol break ya knees for me!

[amunratheultimate]

Mar 23, 2014 20:05:05 GMT -5 asante said:

Mar 23, 2014 20:03:19 GMT -5 amunratheultimate said:

You babble a lot

lol break ya knees for me!

Still, the bottom line is simple. Ancient Egyptians were Africans not Eurasians.

In every sense (historic, cultural, archaeology, genetics, etc), they are closer to ancient and modern African populations than they are to Eurasians populations. Which is another way to say Ancient Egyptians were Africans not Eurasians, the same way Ancient Greece was European not African.

Considering the evidences thus far, African descendants (like African-Americans for example) can consider AE an African civilizations the same way British and French people consider Ancient Greece an European civilizations. One among many.

[anansi]

Asante

If I wasn't mistaking you tried to insinuate through the fact that the oldest pottery (which was Nilotic) is found in Mali (West Africa) that it's the oldest form of innovation in Africa and that the Nile Valley civilization is the result of that innovation. I provided the facts pointing to the true age of the Sphinx in ancient Egypt to dispel that implication, as it proves that a highly advanced civilization with sophisticated culture created by the Anu (our ancestors) had thrived on the Nile Valley for over 10,000 years. On the flip side I've seen quite a bit of evidence that suggest that the innovators of pyramid building were in fact those earlier Nilotic Saharans. I say this because of the earliest pyramids being found in Niger and Mali (unsure of this date however):

Mali (date unknown by me)

I am not sure if you know that this is not Mali but the Nuer pyramid goes back to a 19th century Nuer holy man.

I heard of this before but have scant data to go on except from a single source repeated on other blogs, example no pics of the 40,000 gold objects,look this should be considered a major find perhaps the most important since 2012 but zilch,it seem to be in the same dubious league as the Bosnian pyramid and how does he know that it contains 40,000 gold artifacts when it was not even opened,did he used ground penetrating radar?

And if you acknowledged the ancient Anu as "our" people then you do know that they are Nilotic today as they still exist.

[anansi]

Guys lets not go with the name calling keep it civil agree to disagree and keep it like that.