Ancient Metals trade between Africa and China.

[anansi]

Origin of the mysterious Yin-Shang bronzes in China indicated by lead isotopes

Published online:
18 March 2016.

Abstract

Fine Yin-Shang bronzes containing lead with puzzlingly highly radiogenic isotopic compositions appeared suddenly in the alluvial plain of the Yellow River around 1400 BC. The Tongkuangyu copper deposit in central China is known to have lead isotopic compositions even more radiogenic and scattered than those of the Yin-Shang bronzes. Most of the Yin-Shang bronzes are tin-copper alloys with high lead contents. The low lead and tin concentrations, together with the less radiogenic lead isotopes of bronzes in an ancient smelting site nearby, however, exclude Tongkuangyu as the sole supplier of the Yin-Shang bronzes. Interestingly, tin ingots/prills and bronzes found in Africa also have highly radiogenic lead isotopes, but it remains mysterious as to how such African bronzes may have been transported to China. Nevertheless, these African bronzes are the only bronzes outside China so far reported that have lead isotopes similar to those of the Yin-Shang bronzes. All these radiogenic lead isotopes plot along ~2.0–2.5 Ga isochron lines, implying that deposits around Archean cratons are the most likely candidates for the sources. African cratons along the Nile and even micro-cratons in the Sahara desert may have similar lead signatures. These places were probably accessible by ancient civilizations, and thus are the most favorable suppliers of the bronzes.

Figure 3: Map of the Yin-Shang Kingdom.

Also shown are the distribution of tin deposits30, the Loess Plateau and places where ancient bronzes have been found in China2,24,34.

Similarity of lead isotopes between African and Yin-Shang bronzes

Recent study show that “prehistory” tin ingots/prills and slages as well as bronzes from South Africa and Zimbabwe also have highly radiogenic lead isotopes, which do plot on an isochron very similar to the Yin-Shang bronzes (Fig. 4)36. These tin and bronze samples from South Africa and Zimbabwe are located between the Archean Kaapvaal and Zimbabwe cratons (Fig. 5).

Figure 5: Sketched geologic map of Africa showing the distributions of Archean cratons, all of which have provide highly radiogenic “old” lead (2.0–2.5 Ga).

Also shown are the locations of prehistory sites of tin ingots/prills, slag and broznes36 with highly radiogenic lead isotopes. In addition to Kaapvaal and Zimbabwe cratons, Congo, Tanzania and Uganda cratons are close the Nile River and thus were more accessible to ancient people. In addition, there are micro Archean cratons in the Sahara desert, which was more accessible in ancient time.

When putting together all the observations, the most straightforward conclusion is that both the Yin-Shang and the Sanxingdui bronzes were obtained in Africa, bearing the highly radiogenic lead isotopic signatures of the Africa Archean cratons. Alternatively, some ancient people might have come to China from Africa, carrying tin and/or bronzes with them.

In any case the lead isotopic signature of the Yin-Shang bronzes suggests that the ore deposits supplying their lead were most likely located in Archean cratons. The Africa continent is made up of several large Archean cratons (Fig. 5).The Congo, Tanzania and Uganda Cratons are essentially of the same age as the Kaapvaal and Zimbabwe Cratons. They would also be expected to have lead ore deposits with Archean age lead signatures. These cratons lie much closer to the Nile, and parts of them once even belonged to ancient Egypt during its early history. Might not the Yin-Shang people have gotten bronzes and/or raw materials from these places through trade or by other means at this time? During the late Dynasties, ancient Egypt lost access to these cratonic deposits, because of its shrinking territory, such that Egyptian bronzes in the 18th Dynasty or later have less radiogenic lead isotopes (Fig. 4). The ancient Egyptian people may have also gotten lead ore from Saharan deposits. In addition to the large Archean cratons, there are several small Archean cratons within the Saharan metacraton (Fig. 5). Ore deposits–later abandoned and are now buried in the desert and having lead with Archean isochron ages–could possibly have been associated with these Saharan micro-cratons.
www.nature.com/articles/srep23304

This study certainly bolster the hyper diffusionist case for and African not just Black presence in Shang dynasty China.
special shout out to Mena and Hapsburg Agenda over at ES, where I came across the link.
www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=012390

[BlessedbyHorus]

NOW THIS is the type of info I been looking for! Good job op! I swear much focus NEEDS to be on the African involvement in the Indian Ocean trade since antiquity. Because I am of the opinion that Africans played a larger role(similar to Trans Sahara Trade) in it. This part of history is neglected besides some local East African archaeologist and few European scholars. I read somewhere that there was African figurines were found in China. This is another shatter to the myth that "Sub Saharan Africans" were isolated from the world.

Seriously, I think Africa(not just coastal East Africa but inner Southern Africa) may have had longer and more closer relations with China than thought. This is why African archaeology is a MUST!

[nebsen]

a little off topic, but still relevant .

[nebsen]

[zarahan]

Jun 27, 2017 9:32:56 GMT -5 BlessedbyHorus said:

NOW THIS is the type of info I been looking for! Good job op! I swear much focus NEEDS to be on the African involvement in the Indian Ocean trade since antiquity. Because I am of the opinion that Africans played a larger role(similar to Trans Sahara Trade) in it. This part of history is neglected besides some local East African archaeologist and few European scholars. I read somewhere that there was African figurines were found in China. This is another shatter to the myth that "Sub Saharan Africans" were isolated from the world.

Seriously, I think Africa(not just coastal East Africa but inner Southern Africa) may have had longer and more closer relations with China than thought. This is why African archaeology is a MUST!

Good info by Anansi. In general those parts of Africa open to outside water routes have
had more contact with the outside. The North African coast we know about, and the Red Sea
coast around the Horn of Africa. Later on the Swahili coast of East Africa, then finally
the west and southern tip at more recent dates in history. As far as VOLUME of outside
contact, many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa have been more isolated. Compare for example
the Guinea Coast in the West, to the Horn, in the east. Or the volume and antiquity of
outside contacts via Libya in the north, to Namibia or Capetown in the south.

I think more will turn up as scientists dig into those western, southern and eastern links.

[nebsen]

Informative video with some flaws,but still informative.

[BlessedbyHorus]

Jul 4, 2017 0:33:48 GMT -5 zarahan said:

Jun 27, 2017 9:32:56 GMT -5 BlessedbyHorus said:

NOW THIS is the type of info I been looking for! Good job op! I swear much focus NEEDS to be on the African involvement in the Indian Ocean trade since antiquity. Because I am of the opinion that Africans played a larger role(similar to Trans Sahara Trade) in it. This part of history is neglected besides some local East African archaeologist and few European scholars. I read somewhere that there was African figurines were found in China. This is another shatter to the myth that "Sub Saharan Africans" were isolated from the world.

Seriously, I think Africa(not just coastal East Africa but inner Southern Africa) may have had longer and more closer relations with China than thought. This is why African archaeology is a MUST!

Good info by Anansi. In general those parts of Africa open to outside water routes have
had more contact with the outside. The North African coast we know about, and the Red Sea
coast around the Horn of Africa. Later on the Swahili coast of East Africa, then finally
the west and southern tip at more recent dates in history. As far as VOLUME of outside
contact, many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa have been more isolated. Compare for example
the Guinea Coast in the West, to the Horn, in the east. Or the volume and antiquity of
outside contacts via Libya in the north, to Namibia or Capetown in the south.

I think more will turn up as scientists dig into those western, southern and eastern links.

Agreed and good post. 

[mindovermatter]

I simply don't think it's possible for there to have been a metals trade between Africa and China in remote very ancient times. Because the geographic distance is too big between these two regions, and there are too many geographic barriers encapsulating China to allow this to happen in remote Ancient times.

Case in point, China is surrounded by the Gobi desert to the West, it's a huge expansive desert that MADE early movement into China very to extremely difficult and stopped large migrating armies from entering China at early points in history. Any potential large armies that attempted to get through the Gobi desert would have died of attrition and thirst along the way while attempting to cross it, and arriving in the China region only to be dismantled...


To the South-South West you have the Karakaroum-Hindu Kush mountain range and the Himilayan mountain range which obviously blocked any movement from the South to the China region, it's not that hard to figure out why this would have blocked free movement to the China region from the south-West, as it is still doing today. One needs to just take a look at it and its hugeness to see how impossible it would have been for large caravans to travel through the region.

To the South-East region, you have the hill top forest regions and heavily filled impassable jungles that also blocks and would have blocked free movement to the China region from outside of China in the South East adjacent regions to the region itself. So that also rules it out.

The only open routes to China on land are by one route and one route only, and that's the Siberian/Manchurian route. This is the route where Bronze/Iron metallurgy was introduced to China from outside of China, since China was the LAST CIVILIZATION IN THE ANCIENT WORLD TO GET METALLURGY, and the Jade trade went through this area from outside of China to China.

But for this argument purposes and sake, Siberia/Manchuria too remote and far away from Africa to qualify as having a formal region where Africans had direct trade routes running through it reaching the China region.

Here is an overview map of the geographical situation of early ancient China, and it includes the physical geographical barriers encapsulating it and sorrounding it, barring it from the outside world and natural barriers that would have made land trade with China very difficult:


A correction should be made on the supposed Southern land route on the map beneath the China region, as this also could not have existed because of the massive jungles and hills/mountains covering and barring South East Asia from the China region[/I]

Looking at the map, it's obvious the only routes that reaches China from Africa is the sea routes. However even that has problems because you have to cross South East Asia and the Islands in the regions somewhat BLOCKING the South China sea from outside, and the highly turbulent Indian ocean region and Bay of Bengal to get to China, and the overall distance is still too massive and costly to travel in Ancient times, for there to have been any significant direct metals trade.



And given that China region was the LAST ancient civilization of the ancient world to get sophisticated copper, bronze and Iron working of any type and the youngest and last of the ancient civilizations of the ancient world to appear, combined with the geographical situational characteristics described above; this makes any significant ancient direct metals trade between the two regions highly unlikely.



So the only solution and answer to this, as that the source of any metals trade, that somehow connected both the China and Africa regions in Ancient times WOULD BE ANCIENT INDIAN CIVILIZATION!

Ancient India was the first civilization in Ancient times to get to bronze/iron/copper technology, they had the first industrial civilization in the entire globe in Ancient times that utilized blast furnaces/ovens and coking metals in a civilization wide scale. They achieved the iron age before everyone else on the Eurasian landmass...

They were the first people's to travel on open oceans WITHOUT COAST HUGGING USING WIND SAILS AND WIND CURRENTS and they had the world's earliest and most advanced tidal docks using gravity fed drainage to dock large shipping vessels, the only one of kind at the time; they were also the first people's to utilize wheeled vehicles and chariot technology far far before Africa region or China.



Ancient China and the general East Asia region, was the LAST REGION TO GET FORMAL SHIPPING AND NAVAL TECHNOLOGY! INFACT THIS REGION OF THE WORLD HAD ABYSMAL TO NO FORMAL NAVAL TECHNOLOGY UP UNTIL THE EURO COLONIAL ERA!

All of China's shipping technology WAS LIFTED AND COPIED FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES! Even Zheng He boats were based directly on ancient Indian ships and ships being used in the Mediterranean ocean and Arabian sea!






So the source of metallurgy and any metals trade between Africa and China involved Ancient India given basic geography and the fact SOUTH EAST ASIA WAS IN ANCIENT TIMES CONSIDERED AN EXTENSION OF INDIAN CIVILIZATION IN ITS ENTIRETY!

So the source of metallurgy and metals trade was between Africa and India and India and China and India, not directly between Africa and China given this reality.



As has been pointed out before, by the likes of Clyde winters; the Shang Dynasty "blacks" were NOT BLACK AFRICANS BUT INDIAN/SOUTH ASIAN/DRAVIDIAN PEOPLE!

Given the geographical realities and distances between China and Africa as described above, any ancient blacks that would have been in Ancient China would have been the Indian "Dravidian" type of "black" and not the African type of "black". And indeed this is what the archeological and even cultural evidence shows....

[anansi]

However what the article is saying is that the signature isotope matched those in Africa found near the Nile in the Sahara and further south in Zimbabwe.
And yes the journey would be difficult, but not impossible remember the Silk Road was created in much the same conditions as the Bronze age.
But.
New Finds Suggest Even Earlier Trade on Fabled Silk Road.

[The latest and most surprising discovery is strands of silk found in the hair of an Egyptian mummy from about 1000 B.C., long before regular traffic on the Silk Road and a good millennium before silk was previously thought to be used in Egypt. Other research may extend human activity along this route back even further, perhaps a million years to the migrations of human ancestors into eastern Asia.

The official origin of East-West commerce along the road is usually placed in the late second century B.C. ]
www.nytimes.com/1993/03/16/science/new-finds-suggest-even-earlier-trade-on-fabled-silk-road.html?pagewanted=all

By sea route?? cannot be ruled out, finally a relay system involving many diverse parties.

Ooh almost forgot the Tod Treasure , 12th Dyn kings got Lapis lazuli as tribute from as far away as Afghanistan.
www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/tod/pages/el-Tod,%20treasure.htm

Huge imperial armies marching through to China?? naaw I don't think so,but traders ?? If the incentives were right could have made it.

[mindovermatter]

Feb 11, 2018 3:40:42 GMT -5 anansi said:

However what the article is saying is that the signature isotope matched those in Africa found near the Nile in the Sahara and further south in Zimbabwe.

And again this doesn't disprove what I said. The only explanation is that Ancient Indians traded and brought items from Africa or even brought it to Africa, as they have been doing so since with things since the neolithic, and ended up shipping it to China.

Or the source of these metals was from ancient India itself, given that ancient India was on the fore front of metallurgy in Ancient times, and there has not been enough research in terms of archeology in that part of the world to confirms this as of yet, but with the clues and trailing evidence suggesting it

And yes the journey would be difficult, but not impossible remember the Silk Road was created in much the same conditions as the Bronze age.

No, like I said the fact that it was this difficult overall in that time period, to make such a journey would have made any direct metals trade unfeasible and unlikely. So the only rational explanation was that ancient India was the source of these metals for China.

Also the China region was too isolated geographically and the LAST civilization to appear in the ancient world. They had abysmal ships and technology at this period in time for there to have been any significant trade in such long distances between two different far off regions involving them.

On the otherhand, since ancient India is right next to China and encompassed South East Asia and large parts of Central Asia in Ancient times, the only regions that had any sort of early land access to ancient China, and since they were the first civilization to sail on open oceans and have gravity fed tidal docks and ships that could carry more then a hundred people that were compartmentalized.

This makes it highly probable and likely that it was ancient Indians that brought this metallurgy to China in the first place. Because they were the only ones that had the technological know how to travel such long distance trade routes on sea and land, and because they were in a geographical location where they WERE BETWEEN AFRICA AND CHINA LITERALLY!

New Finds Suggest Even Earlier Trade on Fabled Silk Road.

[The latest and most surprising discovery is strands of silk found in the hair of an Egyptian mummy from about 1000 B.C., long before regular traffic on the Silk Road and a good millennium before silk was previously thought to be used in Egypt. Other research may extend human activity along this route back even further, perhaps a million years to the migrations of human ancestors into eastern Asia.

The official origin of East-West commerce along the road is usually placed in the late second century B.C. ]
www.nytimes.com/1993/03/16/science/new-finds-suggest-even-earlier-trade-on-fabled-silk-road.html?pagewanted=all

[/bp

And yes, and guess who likely started the ancient silk road? That's right ANCIENT INDIA! Silk beads have been found in Indus Valley archeological sites, predating ones found in Ancient China and elsewhere. Also wheeled chariot miniatures and wheels have been found in IVC sites before they appear in Ancient sumer or elsewhere, even Egypt. Indus Valley was 8,000 years old and predated the Egyptian/Sumerian/Chinese civ by centuries.

Given also that Indians before the Neolithic period sailed directly from Soutern India to Australia using wind currents without coast hugging before the Neolithic and the first in the world to accomplish such a feat suggests that they would have created the sea silk roads connecting India with the rest of Asia.

Finally given the research of national geographic geneticist Spencer Wells, where he suggests an Out of India migration following out or Africa migration of the populating of the rest of Eurasia including China, it's plain obvious that it was ancient Indians that started the silk road routes, both on land and sea.

By sea route?? cannot be ruled out, finally a relay system involving many diverse parties.

Ooh almost forgot the Tod Treasure , 12th Dyn kings got Lapis lazuli as tribute from as far away as Afghanistan.
www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/tod/pages/el-Tod,%20treasure.htm

Huge imperial armies marching through to China?? naaw I don't think so,but traders ?? If the incentives were right could have made it.

False and faulty logic being used here, if such metals were found in China from Africa VIA TRADE ROUTES RUNNING THROUGH THE INDIA/SOUTH ASIA REGION, THEN WHY WOULDN'T THOSE METALLURGICAL ITEMS APPEARED IN CHINA BECAUSE OF TRADE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Given the geographical and logistical realities that I just mentioned, as well as the civilization and technological chronological realities I just mentioned. It's clear that ANCIENT INDIA WAS THE SOURCES OF THESE METALS FOR CHINA OR LIKELY BOTH OF THESE REGIONS!

[anansi]

What we know for sure is the isotopes matched those in Africa like a DNA trace not India, that's why I bough up the Tod treasure ,we can theorize on who bought it to China and silk back to Africa, I won't rule out any possibility.

[mindovermatter]

And again this doesn't refute what I just said again. Infact it PROVES WHAT I SAID! THERE can't have been a direct route running through China from Africa on land or sea because there is too many geographical barriers allowing this to happen.

Therefore this stuff was brought to China by TRADE ROUTES, TRADE ROUTES RUNNING THROUGH ANCIENT INDIA (which encompassed Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri lanka, all of South East Asia and major parts of Central Asia in Ancient times).



This means that it was ancient Indians that brought this stuff directly to China given the geographical and technological factors I just described.

Also Isotopes are not akin to DNA or DNA analysis, this is false logic.

Isotope analysis tells what kind or type of certain mineral something is, it's composition of elements or what kind of material it is.

It does not tell you WHERE SOMETHING COMES FROM BY LOCATION WITHOUT THE HUMAN ANALYZER MAKING THAT ASSUMPTION, WHICH A DNA TEST DOES WITHOUT THE INVOLVEMENT OF A HUMAN ANALYZER OR ASSUMER!

The assumption and logic is that since the material supposedly found in China but not in any significant amounts, and that it is also found sites in Africa in significant amounts, it MEANS THAT IT CAME FROM AFRICA BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF PRESENCE THERE OF SUCH MATERIAL BEING IN CHINA IN THE FIRST PLACE COMPARED TO AFRICA!



HOWEVER THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL SUCH MINERALS/MATERIALS ARE ONLY LOCATED IN AFRICA! BECAUSE GIVEN THE OBVIOUS IGNORANCE OF THE WRITERS OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE LACK OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING THIS SUBJECT MATTER ENCOMPASSING THE SOUTH ASIA REGION AND THE EAST ASIA REGION, ITS LIKELY THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH MATERIAL BEING FOUND ALSO IN ANCIENT INDIA WAS NOT CONSIDERED A POSSIBILITY! THERE IS ALSO THE POSSIBILITY OF CHINA ACTUALLY HAVING SUCH METALS SINCE THE ANCIENT CHINA REGION HAD ACCESS TO METAL RICH REGIONS SINCE ANCIENT TIMES, WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS ANALYSIS!

[anansi]

Well here is some very very recent evidence/counter claims to back what you have been saying, Here goes.

[Did China Import Metals from Africa in the Bronze Age?.
First published:
29 January 2018 Full publication history
DOI:
10.1111/arcm.12352 View/save citation
Cited by (CrossRef):]
[
Here, we investigate a recent claim that the greater part of the Shang-period metalwork was made using metals from Africa, imported together with the necessary know-how to produce tin bronze. A brief review of the current status of lead isotopic study on Shang-period bronze artefacts is provided first, clarifying a few key issues involved in this discussion. It is then shown that there is no archaeological or isotopic basis for bulk metal
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/arcm.12352/full ]
Klik the link above.
Anyways there are no sacred cows, I always keep an open mind,challenge is a good thing we all win.

[mindovermatter]

^^^^Unfortunately this topic has been examined, argued about and refuted many times. Skeptic Jason Calavito recently made a post about this subject matter, refuting and debunking a lot of the arguments you keep throwing around. Notice how he states that these researchers DO NOT, for whatever reason, INCLUDE THE INDIA REGION WHEN MAKING THIS ANALYSIS ABOUT THE SUPPOSED LINKS THAT AFRICA HAD WITH CHINA, AND GEOGRAPHICAL/LOGISTICAL FACTORS OF IT, AS WELL AS THE CONTEXT OF THE ACTUAL SUPPOSED EVIDENCE ITSELF!

www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/chinese-geochemist-claims-chinese-civilization-came-from-the-hyksos-kings-of-ancient-egypt

Chinese Geochemist Claims Chinese Civilization Came from the Hyksos Kings of Ancient Egypt

Last year, when I translated the Akhbār al-zamān, I was introduced to one of the weirded legends I have come across over the years, that of the plant-people known as the Wak-Wak: “One of the races that is most similar to man is that of the Wāḳwāḳ. These individuals hang from branches by their hair; they have breasts and sexual organs similar to those of women, and they have a ruddy complexion; they constantly shout “Wak Wak!”, and if one of these females is captured, it goes silent and falls dead.” This version of the legend is an abridgment of stories told by the Arab geographers going back to the eighth century CE, and probably derived from earlier oral tales the east.
I was delighted to read a French language article in Histoire Medievale by Roberto Del Monte (translated from an Italian original) suggesting that this odd story might have been inspired by some different species of odd flowers I had never seen before but which resemble birds in flight, monkey heads, human beings, and even decaying skulls. Del Monte compares this to the claim by Othenio Abel that the Greeks imagined Cyclopes from observation of elephant skulls. While there is no way to prove that Wak-Wak legends arose from flowers like these, even if you can’t read French, the pictures are worth a look.

Meanwhile, a reader of my blog directed me to a fascinating but disturbing article that ran this week in the distinguished magazine Foreign Policy. The piece describes a fringe history movement in China to attribute the origins of Chinese civilization to ancient Egypt. This is an odd claim, but not an unprecedented one. The eighteenth century French scholar Joseph de Guignes, for example, considered Egypt the font of civilization and therefore concluded that Chinese civilization derived from Egypt since Chinese writing resembled to him Egyptian hieroglyphics. A similar claim emerged in the late 1800s from Albert Terrien de Lacouperie, who argued that Chinese writing was a derivative of Mesopotamian cuneiform, and therefore China’s legendary early rulers were Babylonian exiles.

The new version of the claim comes from Sun Weidong (who also publishes as Wei-dong Sun), a professor of geochemistry (not to be confused with the ambassador of the same name). He argues that passages in the Records of the Grand Historian, one of oldest Chinese historical texts, show that Chinese civilization originated in the Nile Valley. Specifically, he refers to this passage:

You trace the Blackwater to Sanwei, where it enters the southern sea; you trace the Yellow river from 'Stone-pile' to 'Dragongate,' southward to the north of Mount Hua, eastward to Tich‘u, again eastward to the ford Mêng, eastward you pass the junction of the Lo river to Tapei, northward past the Chiang water to Talu, northward the stream is divided and becomes the nine rivers, reunited it forms the opposing river and flows into the sea. (Sima Qian, Records, ch. 2, trans. Herbert J. Allen)

Sun, however, claims that the Chinese references in this passage must be ignored. “There is only one major river in the world which flows northwards,” he said. This river is the Nile, which he says (currently) has nine branches at its mouth. So, even though the text explicitly identifies the river as the Yellow River, Sun discounts every part of the passage except for the words “northward” and “nine rivers,” and dismisses the further note that the nine rivers reunite before reaching the sea.

Sun wrote in a 2016 paper published in the journal Scientific Reports (from the publishers of ​Nature) that he has determined that ancient Chinese bronzes were made out of Egyptian metals rather than native Chinese ore because African and Chinese bronzes both contain unusual levels of a radioactive lead isotope. In comments on the article, Sun defended his article against charges from one of the scientists he cited that he “catastrophically” misunderstood African archaeology, though Sun conceded that he failed to consider India as a possible source for the Chinese bronze. This is rather an odd oversight since, by Sun’s own admission, he had conducted this research twenty years ago as part of his doctoral research and had been building his case ever since. His advisor at the time forbade him from publishing the results, for reasons that are not clearly explained.

Sun concluded in his lectures to the Chinese public (but not in Scientific Reports) that the bearers of civilization to China were the Hyksos, Manetho’s name for the motley crew of Western Asians who took over Egypt in the sixteenth century BCE:

And Salatis died after a reign of nineteen years; after him reigned Beon forty-four years; and he was succeeded by Apachnas, who reigned thirty-six years and seven months; after him reigned Apophis sixty-one years, and Ianias fifty years and one month. After all these reigned Assis forty-nine years and two months. These six were the first rulers amongst them, and, during all the period of their dynasty, they made war upon the Egyptians, in hope of exterminating the whole race. All this nation was styled Hyk-shos, that is, the Shepherd-Kings; for the first syllable, Hyk, according to the sacred dialect, denotes king, and sos signifies a shepherd; but this according to the vulgar tongue; and, of these two words is compounded the term Hyk-shos, whom some say were Arabians. This people, thus denominated Shepherd-Kings, and their descendants retained possession of Egypt for the space of 511 years. (Josephus, Against Apion 1.14, trans. I. P. Cory)

Sun claims that the Hyksos possessed “technologies” that the Chinese had not yet developed—metallurgy, chariots, agriculture, literacy—and therefore must have brought them to China following their expulsion from Egypt in the 1500s BCE, sailing from Egypt to China. It’s true that the Hyksos introduced new metallurgical techniques and chariots into Egypt, but they didn’t come ex nihilo, and they were already in use in the Near East and Central Asia. Sun also seems to ignore the implication of his own hypothesis, specifically that it would make Chinese civilization more “Canaanite” than “Egyptian.”

The more interesting discussion in Foreign Policy surrounds the Chinese reaction to the claim. It has touched off a nationalist discussion in China that echoes earlier Chinese attempts to revise Chinese history for political or social purposes beyond scholarship, sometimes to link China to the West, sometimes to promote China’s greater antiquity than the West. The author of the Foreign Policy article, Ricardo Lewis, dryly notes that the success or failure of Sun’s theory has less to do with the truth, whatever that might be, than with the geopolitical needs of the Chinese government in the coming years.

^^^This post right here pretty much supports and proves a lot of what I've been saying in this thread. Apart from the obvious real geographic factors, when people are making all sorts of claims in this thread a lot of missing factors and variables aren't involved, such as whether there is more trace evidence of DIRECT TRADE AND MOVEMENT, and WHETHER INDIAN CIVILIZATION WAS FACTORED IN TO THE EQUATION SINCE IT'S BETWEEN AFRICA AND CHINA and all the players and actors that would be involved in such a lucrative and wealthy trade deal between two major regions extremely far from each other and isolated from each other by massive impassable barriers.

So far none of the posts here including yours, actually captures this or takes into account all the realistic logistical geographical variables involved in subject matters like this. So it's obvious that what I've been saying in this thread has been right all along!