Negus (Perra/Pharaohs) of Ancient Kemet

[asante]

Mar 23, 2014 20:24:07 GMT -5 amunratheultimate said:

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

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.

I don't think that you knew what that meant..Lol if you did otherwise you probably wouldn't talk me anymore!

[amunratheultimate]

Mar 23, 2014 22:22:40 GMT -5 asante said:

Mar 23, 2014 20:24:07 GMT -5 amunratheultimate said:

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.

I don't think that you knew what that meant..Lol if you did otherwise you probably wouldn't talk me anymore!

Again with the diversionary tactics...

Your reactions keeps proving that I hurt you bad.  I may reply to you, or any other posts, but I'm talking to everybody on this forum.   If I wanted to talk to you, I would have sent you a PM.

[asante]

Mar 23, 2014 22:42:26 GMT -5 amunratheultimate said:

Again with the diversionary tactics...

"Diversion"? Figga you have contributed ish to the discussion and then you come into it and come at me wrong.....figga at this point I don't care what you gotta say lol!

[zarahan]

Asante says:
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.


Which reinforces my point below that Africa itself is the
original source of many Egyptian cultural elements. Commonalites
with Egypt could indicate the flow INTO Egypt of those elements
not Egyptian influence OUT per se.


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).

But the evidence lineup so far shows weak support for your notion of this migration flowing out from Egypt into West Africa to produce the Akan, Asante, Mande etc etc. This is the crucial point of disagreement. I have no problem with how the Latecoming Asiatics and European types assumed ascendancy later on in the Late Dynastic. As truthteacher shows West Africa already had several cultures in place, and did not need any mass migration from Egypt to populate it. Taharqa's retreat from Nubia comes millennia AFTER, and the many movements based on Saharan climate are millennia BEFORE any such reputed migrations West. Essentially you are pushing a "diffusionism" theory based on Egypt as some sort of "central headquarters" within Africa. The data does not support that. Egypt was the big dog in the Nile Valley and nearby Saharan area but not Africa as a whole. What the data does more strongly support is movement from the broad Saharan-Sudanic -Nile Valley Basin zone, not Egypt per se.

You have the direction wrong I would argue. It is not Egypt at the center, but Africa itself, based on that broad core area- Sahara-Nile Basin- Sudan- Horn- that is the key motor or generator. The religious tradition of Kemet for example springs from THE SURROUNDING AFRICAN CULTURES. The main flow is from AFRICA *to* Egypt to set up the foundations. It is from that core zone that Egypt was populated, and also other points in Africa- with movement West on into the Sahel and beyond. Were there other movements- say from deeper in East Africa, and also the old Pleistocene movements from Southern Africa as exemplified by the African innovators at Blombos Cave? YEs. These would be older movements- a first wave package so to speak, connected also with the OOA migrations. Following packages would be based on the motor of the Sahara-Nile Basin-Sudan- Horn triangle or wedge. Note this core zone would even touch on the Great Lakes region. All of this would be well BEFORE Taharqa showed up, and even BEFORE the Dynasties were founded. Egypt would be only one slice of the pie, an important slice, but only one.

You are also mixing up your dating. Tarhaqa would be a LATECOMER
compared to all these PREVIOUS movements of African peoples and
cultures. When you posit all this significant movement after Tarhaq
your theory also runs into weaknesses. What evidence do you present
that there was this mass flow of people from Egypt after the 25th
Dynasty into West Africa for example? So far you have not put much
on the table. Did Nubian style fighting forces move West into say
what is now Senegal or Chad? If so what data shows this? Did the
phraonic culture move into the Akan region? Again where is the data?
Why do the Akan kings need Egyptian influence? They don't. There was
already plenty of influence available from the core wedge zone-
Sahara-Nile Basin-Sudan-Horn. What historians show significant
movements of African groups West after the 25th Dynasty compared
to people who were already in place in the West?

The weakness of your approach is that it is too Egypt-cetric -
all these good things flowing out of Egypt. I think a better model
is the AFRICA-CENTRIC model- they flow out of Africa- "the base".
In the AFRICA-CENTRIC model , Egypt is fully a child of Africa,
an important, perhaps the most spectacular one, but it is still only
ONE child of many. It has to take its place alongside Nubia, Sudan/Kush,
the Horn and the powerful Western children - Ghana, Mali, Songhai -
who achieved fame and greatness in part based on the Saharan slice of the core area.


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.

Actually Wikipedia pages do not have to be in dispute
for them to be doctored or distorted and this area is one
in which all sorts of sleight of hand, backed by admin
cooperation goes on. In fact, several of the enemies of a
more balanced African bio-history are embedded in Wikipedia,
doctoring sources and removing data via "stealth edits."
Which is why you don't see the full range of scholarship
pro or on represented there. It has backfired on them though.
When legitimate info keeps getting removed or legit edits
keep getting sand-bagged by edit war tactics, people look
elsewhere for better representation of info- hence ES and Reloaded,
and other forums now- cross continental like Naiarland. I even
see ES and Reloaded info appearing in Thai websites of all places.
In fact, if they had let legit scholarship stay unmolested, it would have
remained obscure facts, buried on obscure pages. But now it has
spread far and wide by using alternative venues, and mirrored sites
with excellent representation in Google. Rather than success for their
"containment" and blockading tactics, the data has exploded far and wide.
Wikipedia is a second or third rank player in this field now. They ain't
nuthin- pages are only as good as the credible, verifiable info they contain.


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.

But Keita has already noted those broad features. Its not true that
"no one feels its worth mentioning."


"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

Agreed but I would not make a sweeping ABSOLUTE claim that the
Natufians were the ONLY types, circa 12,000 moving northward
into Turkey. Ricaut says sub-Saharan "elements" were represented
which is quite true, but given the vastness of the area under consideration
other hunter gatherers might have been active as well, as shown in your
previous map. You are better off qualifying by saying the tropical types
(like the Natufians, who may or may not have made the actual move) may have
been dominant or well-represented in this movement without painting yourself
into a no-retreat corner with an absolute statement on the Natufians in Turkey.


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.

Doesn;t make sense. Cattle domestication does not need any civilization
like Egypt behind it per se. In fact cattle domestication PRECEDES the
elaboration we call civilization. The people of Nabta Playa did not
need cities etc to be the cattle herders that helped shape ancient Egypt.
And do you realize your own link sorta undercuts your notion? It says people
were at Kitampo tens of thousands of years BEFORE ancient Egypt even appeared.
QUOTE FROM YOUR SOURCE:

Some think that the first inhabitants came originally from the old empire of Ghana that was located present day Mali and Burkina Faso. Others argue that they came originally from Togo and Dahomey (now Republic of Benin), or even Yoruba land in south-western Nigeria. However, according to archeological findings, people have lived in the present day Ghana as far back as the Stone Age, that from approximately 50,000 BCE. The earliest archeological evidence of settled human society in present day Ghana dates to approximately 10,000 BCE. This early human society is known as the Kintempo culture.

as your own source shows no migrations from Egypt are needed for the
people there in Ghana to have ceramics etc. And the later herding,
does not need anybody coming out of Egypt either.


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

Original homeland of the Bantu up to 1500 A.D.
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).

But that's just your problem. You are trying to link the Bantu migrations
with Tarhaqas retreat from Egypt. Its too neat. So Tarhaqa pulls out, and the
defeated remnants and "Bantus" start to stream out of Egypt, like Charlton
Heston leading out "the people" from Egypt, away from those evil Asiatics.
On the other end, hundreds of thousands of "the people" start moving Westward,
again fleeing the Asiatic hordes. The only thing wrong is that the data you have
presented does not support these putative migrations moving or "fleeing"
from Egypt- and then going on to populate the rest of Africa- bringing good things thereby.
The Bantu migrations are a long complex phenomenon in place before tarhaqa.
They were one of the mjaor movements in human history. They cannot be simplistically
reduced to alleged hordes running away from Egypt. Likewise movement West.

You think the dates all match up for this grand "march away from Egypt" -
like Chancellor Williams' old 1970 "black flight" theory. It is a dramatic picture,
but the data in support is weak. Movements South and west have been ongoing
long BEFORE Taharqa showed up. Chancellor and Diop were right that taharqa's
pullout led to some displacement, but moving a defeated army or two south does
not automatically lead to the continent-shaping "Bantu" movement, nor to Zulu
cattle herders "fleeing" south. If you tried to run this notion before knowledgeable
people you would be in trouble. There are simply too many holes. You are essentially
trying to say that very important movements of African peoples and cultures were
due to outside forces - incoming Asiatic hordes, jacking up the negroes- causing
them to "flee" south and west. This looks almost like the old "Hamitic hypothesis"
proponents- with "fleeing blacks" dodging "incoming Caucasoids."



Chancellor Williams did the best he could with available
info, much of which he could not access due to segregation
or poor black libraries back in his day. But his "fleeing negroes"
or "white on top race displacement" model circa 1970 is obsolete,
and implicitly endorses the old "Hamitic" model popular in his day.
He did not have access to full info showing Africans moving and shaping
the continent on their own terms, without need of any "incoming Caucasoids."
Williams though, did affirm the African character of Egypt, to his credit.

[zarahan]

truthseeker says
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

Indeed. Given long human settlement in West Africa, I can't see how any
incoming people fleeing from Egypt would suddenly have populated all these places.
I m open to seeing movement from the east, but not as part of any "fleeing blacks"
from Egypt, but the normal process of trade, herders looking for new grazing,
or climate change like droughts driving people and cultures to move around to
better locations. And yes, warfare by foreign invaders to the Nile Valley could disrupt
peoples and make them move, but again the data in support is weak of any mass
movement West or South due to Tarhaqa's return to the Sudan circa 650BC. There are simply
too many holes.

The Bantu expansion was one of the largest movements in human history. I just dont
see credible data that it began or was significantly influenced just because Taharqa
moved some armies south back to the Sudan. The expansion was actually underway centuries
before Taharqa even showed up.


. 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.

Fair enough. How do you propose the research would work?
Would a study of say Egyptian hegemony in Palestine clarify
Egypt's relation to other fellow African cultures? Might well be
possible- just wondering how that research would be structured.

[amunratheultimate]

Mar 24, 2014 1:06:27 GMT -5 zarahan said:

before Taharqa even showed up.


. 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.

Fair enough. How do you propose the research would work?
Would a study of say Egyptian hegemony in Palestine clarify
Egypt's relation to other fellow African cultures? Might well be
possible- just wondering how that research would be structured.

The relations between Ancient Egypt and areas outside Africa have been studied a lot of times. The relations between Ancient Egypt and areas outside Africa before dynastic time also has been studied plenty. The Ancient Egyptian civilization was determined to be an indigenous African civilization as we can see below (something I already posted on ES).  We're talking about a regional archaeological/biological continuity with some level of population movement and adaptation to new lifestyles (eg. pastoralism to farming).

The population history of the Nile (late Pleistocene to Dynastic time)

Below a nice recap of various archeological studies about the regional continuity of the Nile populations. It was taken from a study posted below.

The population history of the Nile has been of considerable recent interest and focuses on two competing hypotheses. The first suggests that the Egyptian dynasties developed in situ from the earlier Predynastic and Neolithic populations represented at sites such as el-Badari. The second scenario suggests that migration of people from western Asia led to the development of the Egyptian state (Petrie, 1920, 1939; Kantor, 1965). In general, the archaeological evidence suggests that the Egyptian state had an indigenous origin (Hassan, 1988). Two recent studies provide evidence for population dynamics in the Nile Valley throughout the Holocene. Zakrzewski (2007) demonstrates evidence for broad population continuity through time on the basis of craniometric variation, with some level of population movement . Several recent analyses of dental variation come to essentially the same conclusion (Irish, 2005, 2006; Schillaci et al., 2009). Thus, in the most general terms, there is strong evidence for population continuity along the Nile from the late Palaeolithic through the Egyptian Empire. However, the diffusion of agricultural technologies into the Nile from other regions, and the subsequent trade networks of the Egyptian empire, would have undoubtedly brought with it people and genes from other regions to varying extents through time and space.

Main points:

1 - In general, the archaeological evidence suggests that the Egyptian state had an indigenous origin
2 - Craniometry (and Dental variation) demonstrate broad population continuity through time on the basis of craniometric variation, with some level of population movement
3 - Strong evidence for population continuity along the Nile from the late Palaeolithic through the Egyptian Empire with some level of population movement
4 - Trade networks of the Egyptian empire, would have undoubtedly brought with it people and genes from other regions to varying extents through time and space.

So the main point here for us, is the STRONG evidence for population continuity in the Nile region from the late Pleistocene through the Egyptian Empire.

Taken from this study: Body Size, Skeletal Biomechanics, Mobility and Habitual Activity from the Late Palaeolithic to the Mid-Dynastic Nile Valley (2011).

Got it from here: www.pave.bioanth.cam.ac.uk/pdfs/033-Stock(2011HBTA)NileBiomechSize.pdf

We can also see it visually here:

[anansi]

Not only did Taharka's forces pulled put out they stood their ground in their home base, Tawatnami and others ,after Asphalta they set-up a new capital successfully fighting off every invasion since,Kemities,Persians,Greeks,Romans,Arabs for the next 1700yrs their excellent archers called pupil smighters kept upriver movement in check,yes they suffered a blow from the Axumite but they regained that strength and remained a powerful force not to be met head on,they were finally infiltrated by Arab tribsmen who began to intermarry with them which would explain a certain tragic situation today.

[amunratheultimate]

Mar 24, 2014 3:03:27 GMT -5 anansi said:

Not only did Taharka's forces pulled put out they stood their ground in their home base, Tawatnami and others ,after Asphalta they set-up a new capital successfully fighting off every invasion since,Kemities,Persians,Greeks,Romans,Arabs for the next 1700yrs their excellent archers called pupil smighters kept upriver movement in check,yes they suffered a blow from the Axumite but they regained that strength and remained a powerful force not to be met head on,they were finally infiltrated by Arab tribsmen who began to intermarry with them which would explain a certain tragic situation today.

Have you read the book The Rescue of Jerusalem: The Alliance of Hebrews and Africans in 701 B.C.



This book talks about how the 25th Kushite dynasty came to the rescue of Jerusalem against Assyrians (iirc) attacks.  Clearly changing the history for ever.  Certainly a fun book to read.

[anansi]

Mar 24, 2014 3:11:56 GMT -5 amunratheultimate said:

Mar 24, 2014 3:03:27 GMT -5 anansi said:

Not only did Taharka's forces pulled put out they stood their ground in their home base, Tawatnami and others ,after Asphalta they set-up a new capital successfully fighting off every invasion since,Kemities,Persians,Greeks,Romans,Arabs for the next 1700yrs their excellent archers called pupil smighters kept upriver movement in check,yes they suffered a blow from the Axumite but they regained that strength and remained a powerful force not to be met head on,they were finally infiltrated by Arab tribsmen who began to intermarry with them which would explain a certain tragic situation today.

Have you read the book The Rescue of Jerusalem: The Alliance of Hebrews and Africans in 701 B.C.



This book talks about how the 25th Kushite dynasty came to the rescue of Jerusalem against Assyrians (iirc) attacks.  Clearly changing the history for ever.  Certainly a fun book to read.

That I did an Empire stretching from the upper Nile all the way to Palestine a good read it is, this could have a power what if's moment like what if they didn't show-up when they did would the world we live in today be devoid of a Judeo/Christian/Islamic heritage? think about that for a sec.

[asante]

Mar 24, 2014 0:29:43 GMT -5 zarahan said:

Which reinforces my point below that Africa itself is the original source of many Egyptian cultural elements.

Ok, so I provide key evidence that the earliest Pre-Dynastic ancient Egyptians (Tasian and Badarian) descend from the Pleistocene Nubians ("Negroid") in Sudan (not Egypt), and I provide examples of artifacts from this more ancient Sudanese civilization which clearly show it to be the precursors to that which would later be seen in Dynastic Egypt. This to you.. is me implying that innovation on the continent sprang from ancient Egypt? You just ignore the part about me saying that Egypt came out of Nubia (which was really just a continuous civilization prior to Dynastic Egypt) and the implications that follow. You act as though I haven't pointed out the Nilotic migration from the Central Sahara which helped usher in Dynastic Egypt, when it is the basis of what I'm saying. You are interpreting every backwards apparently!

But the evidence lineup so far shows weak support for your notion of this migration flowing out from Egypt into West Africa to produce the Akan, Asante, Mande etc etc.

So again you have been misinterpreting what I'm saying! The Mande speakers went into Northwest Africa following the so called "Afro-Asiatic" migration and eventually into Northern West Africa (Mauritania). Do you understand the true context of this migration yet? The civilization that these Mande speakers formed was Dhar Tichitt (as evident by the Mande script which was there). Dhar Tichit as you can see on the map below is the lonely red dot in the far West of Africa.





Do you see it? Yes this migration did bring Niger-Congo speakers into "West Africa" early. But notice that they are in the Sahara region of "West Africa" not the lush tropical regions of West Africa that we dominate today. These people were likely those who went on to form the later ancient Ghana empire (Mali/Burkina-Fasco). Do you understand?

It is not Egypt at the center, but Africa itself,

That makes no sense to say as it doesn't go against anything that I'm saying.

based on that broad core area- Sahara-Nile Basin- Sudan- Horn- that is the key motor or generator. The religious tradition of Kemet for example springs from THE SURROUNDING AFRICAN CULTURES. The main flow is from AFRICA *to* Egypt to set up the foundations.

It's a like broken record. You aren't addressing my real points, but rather stating the obvious like it's going against what I'm saying. Are you just skipping past everything that I say about the northward expansion of the "Negroid" Pleistocene Nubians INTO Egypt from Sudan and points further? Did you read anything that I said about the Nilotes in the ancient Sahara and that I suspect that they are the innovators of pyramid building that later appeared on the Nile Valley? What have been saying about pottery coming from the ancient Sahara onto the Nile Valley? Does that sound like I'm saying that ancient Egypt was the origin of knowledge on the continent? No!

What evidence do you present that there was this mass flow of people from Egypt after the 25th Dynasty into West Africa for example?

The shift in the ancient Egyptian population has already been explained to you in my last response. If you properly interpreted what I said then you would know that the southern Egyptian population immediately went into Kush (Nubia) following Taharqa. An exodus from Kush (NOT Egypt) is want brought us into our current locations as reads in the captions of those two black in white maps that I provided. Another fact to note is that iron smelting was s major thing that they did in Kush. The likely event that triggered our migration from Kush into our contemporary locations was the move of the Capitol city from Napata further south into Meroe around 591. The first signs of the Nok civilization in Nigeria sprang up around 500 B.C. Now we have a major change that occurs in Nubia (Kush) and ironically in this same century time frame a civilization springs up in Nigeria. This civilization that suddenly springs up in Nigeria also has the new technical innovation of that seen in Kush which is iron smelting, coincidence (doubt it)?

The Nok culture of central Nigeria (Figure 1) is well known for its terracotta figurines and represents the first sculptural tradition in Sub-Saharan Africa (Willett 2002: 64). Nok plays also a prominent role in the emergence of iron technology, providing some of the earliest evidence of iron smelting in West Africa around 500 BC as demonstrated by excavations in Taruga (Fagg 1968; Tylecote 1975a & b).

Here is what ties it all together though:

The Nok culture of northern Nigeria, a civilization that existed from approximately 500 B.C. to about 500 A.D., is principally known for its terracotta figures. Relatively little is known about the purpose of these figures or the civilization that created such extraordinary sculptural representations of its people. A few of the remarkable characteristics that distinguish Nok pieces from terracottas of later cultures in Nigeria include the triangular, pierced eyes; the elaborate coiffure and beard; and the placement of the ears. This work depicts a person of high status wearing elaborate beaded jewelry, and with a crooked baton on his right arm and a hinged flail on the left. These are symbols of authority also found in ancient Egyptian depictions of the Pharaohs and the god Osiris. The Nok culture existed during the late Pharonic period

Like I said evidence clearly isn't "weak". Sometimes things call for a bit of common sense on top of evidence. Don't let the idea of the "enemy cornering you" scare you from thinking for yourself. 

Doesn;t make sense. Cattle domestication does not need any civilization like Egypt behind it per se.

Oh so you're implying that this Kintampo site was another source of indigenous African cattle domestication? In reality the Kintampo site was a break off of the Mande people (one of our groups) who had previously created the the oldest civilization in "West Africa" (Dhar Tichit/Mauritania):

It is during this period that the characteristic climatic pattern of two contrasted seasons, a more or less longer dry season and a generally shorter rainy season, appears to have developed. The later portion of the Late Holocene, particularly from 2500 BP on, was characterized by a shift toward increased aridity with successive drought episodes. These circumstances triggered the abandon-ment of the area for wetter regions in the south and east.

link

On the map below you clearly where the citation above is supported. Settlements to the south and east of Dhar Tichitt (Mande speakers) particularly around 2,500 BP.



Regardless it's retarded to imply that this little bitty break away Mande group in a rock shelter found in modern Ghana dating back to 2,500 B.C. could possibly represent the population base for all of us. Also notice that Mande speakers are still in those areas (the purple areas in far Eastern Nigeria south of Chad) which they spread to from Dhar Tichitt as explained. 



lol

You are essentially
 trying to say that very important movements of African peoples and cultures were
due to outside forces - incoming Asiatic hordes, jacking up the negroes- causing
them to "flee" south and west. This looks almost like the old "Hamitic hypothesis"
 proponents- with "fleeing blacks" dodging "incoming Caucasoids."

"Asiatic" has this not been explained to you?




^ Do you really not understand what your own quotes and graphics mean? Do you see the "Asiatic" foreign pharaohs on PAGE ONE? 

[truthteacher2007]

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

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)

And what evidence do you have that the people living there 11,400 yrs ago were Nilotics? How can you determin ethnic groups from pottery that ancient? Was there anything in the video that said they were Nilotic?

that it's the oldest form of innovation in Africa

Pottery. I was talking about pottery. However, the crafting of pottery was a technological advancement that wasn't seen anywhere else in Africa at that time. Not only is this the oldest pottery in Africa, but it's among some of the oldest examples of pottery in the world.

and that the Nile Valley civilization is the result of that innovation.

I said no such thing. I gave that as evidence to prove West Africa was inhabited at a very early time. If the pottery is 11,400yrs old, we have to infere that people had been living there for a much longer time before they developed the technology of pottery. This means the region has been inhabited for a very long time. Further investigation needs to be done to see how wide spread and how old this culture is.

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.

We will have to agree to disagree on the age of the Sphinx as there has been no conclusive evidence yet. If it is water erosionit could have been due to flooding from the river. The course of the river use to come very close to the plataue, so its possible that it either was periodically innundated or, that the water table in that area is very high and it's soaking up ground water. I've touched it several times. It's limestone, but not a very good quality, it's very soft. The temple beside it on the other hand is made out of a very hard stone. So until conclusive evidence is presented I'll stick to what I know so far. I don't doubt it could be older, thousands of years older though, I doubt it personally. But as always, I remain open to receive any changes.

In any case, the age of the Shinx is irrelivant. My point is not that the West African culture contributed to Egypt, but that the area was inhabited. What ethnic group they may or may not have belonged to is irrelivant. The relivant point is there were humans there and if we study more, we are sure to find evidence that would make the current Bantu migration theory obsolete, or at least shine more light on the peopling of the continent.
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).

Anansi already spoke to this, but I will say that the sources are not credible. If you are making an academic argument, you don't use blogs as a source. Anyone can say anything on a blog. As far as African sources Sheikh Anta Diop was an African source and he rocked everybodies world at the time. He didn't do it with hear say evidence, or comlaining about western science. He used the scholarship and science of the day, linguistics, anthropology, etc to prove his points. He showed similarities in artifacts and cultural practices to prove his point. He was so well prepaired that UNESCO had to accept that a lot of what he said was true. This is why UNESCO came out with General History of Africa 2.

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.

The problem here that you keep reading ideas into my statements that were never intended nor implied. The Sahara is a region that spans from West Africa to East Africa. Yes, a great deal of Mali is in the Sahara and Sahel region. It's also a West African nation. So Mali is West African, Saharan and Sahelian, therefore, I make perfect 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. 

Not trying to be sarcastc, (for a change), but your train of thought is often very hard to follow and the plethora of phot spam doesn't make it easier. So, seeing as how I missed the point you made earlier, can you restate your point again please.

My point is very clear. I see that West Africa, the region on the western portion of the continent which includedthe tropical, and arid zones were populated from a very early age. Therefore, I do not accept the notion that the region was empty untill it was settled by Egyptian immigrants. I dug out one of my old books General History of Africa 1 Methodology and African Prehistory, (1989). According to the chapter on West African prehistory the early stone age ended 50,000 years bc. The earliest artifacts being found in Senegal, Guinea, Muritania and Ghana.

The Middle Stone Age spans35,000 to 15, 000yrs before christ. Artifacts being found in Ghana, Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast. My point here is that the archeological evidence available at the printing of this book showed very old human habitation in that part of Africa. They had been there way before the formation of any of the cultures in Nubia or Egypt. Therefore, the population of this area cannot be explained in simple terms of an Egyptian migration.

[anansi]

The iron age may have started way earlier in central/west Africa then we previously thought it may very well be an independent invention
but the issue of Iron smelting in the region is complex If for example advanced uses of Iron came to the Nile Valley through the middle men of the Assyrians,remember the Kushite/Kemites forces lost mainly because their bronze weapons shattered against Assyrian Iron,it was only then after that crushing defeat did they truly developed a viable Iron age technology which could then be dispersed throughout Africa,however there seemed to be a glich as "some" those Africans south and to the west had an iron age industry a good 1500yrs before either Kemet or Kush, how ever the lost wax process of the Nok may well be defused technology.

É. Zangato & A.F.C. Holl
On the Iron Front: New Evidence from North-Central Africa

Abstract
The advent of copper and iron metallurgy is one of the most fascinating debate taking place in sub-Saharan Africa archaeology today. Challenging data, that may be accurate or not, are usually ignored or dismissed without serious consideration. Sustained long-term research is nonetheless changing our views on the development of iron metallurgy in sub-Saharan Africa. This paper presents new evidence from North-Central Africa, in the Djohong area in the Cameroons, and Ndio area in the Central African Republic, both situated in the northeastern part of the Adamawa Plateau. Iron production activities are documented to have taken place as early as 3000–2500 BC. It is the case in habitation sites like Balimbé, Bétumé, and Bouboun, smelting sites like Gbabiri, and forge sites like Ôboui and Gbatoro. The last two sites provide high resolution data on the spatial patterning of blacksmiths' workshops dating from 2500 to 2000 BC.

Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/582/iron-front-evidence-north-central#ixzz2wtX4JFEf

al~Takruri

[In summary, if there was no tangible proof of a North-South flow of iron industry across the Sahara,
there was various evidence, particularly archaeological, that allowed the affirmation of the invention
of an ancient iron industry in a very vast area from the Nile to Tibesti, from Chad to the west of the
lake, and going by Ennedi.

The Question of the Iron Age in Africa by Diop-Mae.
One can conclude that there was a lateral transmission from the East to the West,
not only across the southern Sahara, but also across all of the Sudan to the Nile
and Niger, the location of origin being in both cases Nubia.

However, in the absence of certain dating, not only for the beginning of the iron
age in Nubia, but also for all of the other sites mentioned in central and western
Sudan, this could also signify an immense dispersion area of iron industry, even
before population migrations began in the valley of the Nile towards the west,
south-west and the south during the 6th century B.C.


As a matter of fact, concerning the age of iron working in Nigeria, Basil Davidson
indicated in his work Africa before the whites [18] that 'four charcoal fragments
in the Nok strata were revealed to have dates between 3500, 2000, 900 B.C. and 200
A.D by carbon dating'.

The author then continues by giving the following commentary by Bernard Fagg.

'The two first dates certainly come from more ancient sediments, while the 900 B.C.
(around the time of the climate of Nakura becoming rainier) and 200 A.D. dates show
the earliest and latest dates of the statuettes belonging to the Nok civilisation


Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/245/question-iron-age-africa-diop#ixzz2wtak3IuM

[asante]

Mar 24, 2014 11:07:43 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

And what evidence do you have that the people living there 11,400 yrs ago were Nilotics?

Well for one your date of 11,400 for the first pottery is unfounded. The oldest pottery found was in Mali and is estimated to be around 9,400 years ago. Now what migration occurred in the ancient Sahara around this time?

Map of the earliest pottery (note Mali)

Recent discoveries at Ounjougou reveal that Africa has experienced one of the most ancient ceramics in the world, at the beginning of the 10th millennium BC, while recent research in context Sahara and the Nile Valley demonstrate the practice of domestication of bovines in the course of the 9th millennium BC, more than 1000 years before Greece and the Middle East.

link

That's the evidence that the earliest pottery makers were in fact the result of this Nilotic expansion INTO the ancient Sahara during the 10th millennium B.C. 

Not trying to be sarcastc, (for a change), but your train of thought is often very hard to follow and the plethora of phot spam doesn't make it easier.

lol No it isn't. It's an idea that you just don't want to accept so you are obfuscating everything (examples of your silliness are pointed out throughout this thread). You see at this point in the discussion it's clear that your hissy fit counter "arguments" (if you want to call it a argument) aren't leading to anything coherent. All you and some other people are trying do is "win a debate" not have an "intelligent discussion". In intelligent discussion you at least try to address every major relevant point that a person makes in a response. You on the other hand cut every major explanation for this out of your responses to me. That tells me and everyone watching that you are just trying to win a debate...so it all boils down to "Ego" with you and some people. If you're wrong you're wrong. You only make yourself look stupid (killing your credibility as a serious thinker) when you keep going with the debunked arguments and irrelevant side talk (advice).

[zarahan]

Original homeland of the Bantu up to 1500 A.D.
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).

So then you are no longer saying the Bantu migrations are related to Taharqas return to the Sudan? I just want to make sure of Taharqa and the Bantu link here. I have no problem with Bantu DNA linking with Egyptian DNA at various levels- as we can see via Haplogroup E lineages. But you say directly above that it all narrows down to Africans MIGRATING FROM ANCIENT EGYPT. That is the point of contention. Clarify here: What groups are you claiming migrated out when from Egypt? What time frames?
1) Pre dynastic?
2) Early Dynastic?
3) Middle Dynas?
4) Hyksos era?
5) Tarhaqua's return to Sudan?
6) Final end of dynsties

This is where I seek clarification. If you are saying there was ancient Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan or Afro-Asiatic movement West I have no problem with that per se. It's these migrations FROM Egypt as you say above, that I am trying to pin down. Of the 6 time periods above- WHO was migrating out from Egypt, and where did they go? We are in agreement with certain points, but this migration out is unclear.


But notice that they are in the Sahara region of "West Africa" not the lush tropical regions of West Africa that we dominate today. These people were likely those who went on to form the later ancient Ghana empire (Mali/Burkina-Fasco).

Fair enough.

re you just skipping past everything that I say about the northward expansion of the "Negroid" Pleistocene Nubians INTO Egypt from Sudan and points further? Did you read anything that I said about the Nilotes in the ancient Sahara and that I suspect that they are the innovators of pyramid building that later appeared on the Nile Valley?

These were never at issue.


you would know that the southern Egyptian population immediately went into Kush (Nubia) following Taharqa. An exodus from Kush (NOT Egypt) is want brought us into our current locations as reads in the captions of those two black in white maps that I provided. Another fact to note is that iron smelting was s major thing that they did in Kush. The likely event that triggered our migration from Kush into our contemporary locations was the move of the Capitol city from Napata further south into Meroe around 591. The first signs of the Nok civilization in Nigeria sprang up around 500 B.C. Now we have a major change that occurs in Nubia (Kush) and ironically in this same century time frame a civilization springs up in Nigeria. This civilization that suddenly springs up in Nigeria also has the new technical innovation of that seen in Kush which is iron smelting, coincidence (doubt it)?

OK but now you have shifted from your original premise of MIGRATIONS FROM EGYPT,
that laid the basis for Nok etc etc.. OK, so you are now saying that migrations from Nubia
created the advanced cultures of West Africa (Mali, Ghana- lets say,) and one key proof of
that is seen in the movement of Meriotic iron-working technology that shows up further West? I have no problem with this scenario per se, just looking at the chain of evidence and logic.

Alright- how would the move of the capital south trigger than migration into West Africa? Seems to me too pat a reason. Can you bolster this angle with additional evidence? Can you pull into some info from a few books on West African history for example to help build your chain? For example in some books I see claims that certain types of sickle cell patterns suggest movement from the East (dont know how true- Google Mande and sickle cell), or that speak of the influence of the Mande speakers in the Empire of Mali.


In reality the Kintampo site was a break off of the Mande people (one of our groups) who had previously created the the oldest civilization in "West Africa" (Dhar Tichit/Mauritania):

OK but you have shifted from first suggesting West Africa was virtually uninhabited prior to 2000BC, which is what also caused Truthseeker to question the scenario. Do you have more to bolster the notion of the Mande creating the oldest civilization at Dhar Tichit? Why the Mande speakers and not someone else?

Your revised scenario has some merit but needs bolstering. Can you pull in language evidence to support your proposed chain of movement? Mande root words suggesting expansion south and west to Mali for example? Pottery styles indicating movement or trade with Saharan sources, and so on?
What about radiation out from Tichit?? Were there other centers of diffusion?


Keep on accruing new data and sharing it as you build your theory.

[zarahan]

Asant said:
You see at this point in the discussion it's clear that your hissy fit counter "arguments" (if you want to call it a argument) aren't leading to anything coherent. All you and some other people are trying do is "win a debate" not have an "intelligent discussion". In intelligent discussion you at least try to address every major relevant point that a person makes in a response. You on the other hand cut every major explanation for this out of your responses to me. That tells me and everyone watching that you are just trying to win a debate...so it all boils down to "Ego" with you and some people. If you're wrong you're wrong. You only make yourself look stupid (killing your credibility as a serious thinker) when you keep going with the debunked arguments and irrelevant side talk (advice).

I don't see this per se with truthseeker. Lets hold down the personal
jibes and stick to the info. I think the question of the "uninhabited"
West Africa needed serious clarification, for something like it
was/is used by Carelton Coon and followers to allege some sort of
"recent appearance of the negro race"- which of course neatly and
conveniently allocates all good things prior in Africa to NON "negroes."
No good student of African history would let something like that pass unchallenged.
But even aside from that, the notion just doesn't make sense given
the archaeology of West Africa. It needed clarification, as do other matters.
Carry on!