|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on May 17, 2010 0:54:41 GMT -5
My point was not that Kemites went to other parts of Africa which they did from time to time as traders soldiers and perhaps wondering holymen. but that other Africans went to Kemet. Exactly. And that also, quite often, its ideas that get passed along the network of trade routes within the continent. It was a mixture of migrations into Egypt and disceminating ideas. Not Egypt going out. Those head rests are remarkably comfortable by the way. Have you ever tried one? |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on May 17, 2010 3:40:10 GMT -5
My point was not that Kemites went to other parts of Africa which they did from time to time as traders soldiers and perhaps wondering holymen. but that other Africans went to Kemet. Exactly. And that also, quite often, its ideas that get passed along the network of trade routes within the continent. It was a mixture of migrations into Egypt and disceminating ideas. Not Egypt going out. Those head rests are remarkably comfortable by the way. Have you ever tried one? No I haven't but it looks the opposite like I would get a cramp in my neck or something..btw the reason or one of the reasons one finds similar words in different language groups my be a testament to inter-African travel and trade networks Ie Ebony a supposedly Nilo-Saharan? to Ebny in Kemitc. So sorry about the name mix-up Truthteacher..but we have a lot of Truth-as first name..I'll do better promise... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on May 21, 2010 2:50:29 GMT -5
The Sahara is the key, the starting point, the genesis, the fundamental force - not Egypt which followed later. quote: "There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332) The Sahara was once a massive, lush greenbelt covering one-third of Africa. We know the Saharans are a main source of the population the Nile Valley. It is not inconceivable that they moved West as well. Indeed some of the main West African empires are heavily linked to the Sahara. It could thus be argued that the key factor is the Sahara, a crucial motor of African evolution, including evolution of African civilizations. From: Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa's Evolution by Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin* Radiocarbon data from 150 archaeological excavations in the now hyper-arid Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Chad reveal close links between climatic variations and prehistoric occupation during the past 12,000 years. Synoptic multiple-indicator views for major time slices demonstrate the transition from initial settlement 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.------------------------------- The "debate" question oft heard as to "Egyptian influence on the rest of Africa" should be flipped on its head. THE STARTING POINT IS ALWAYS AFRICA, NOT EGYPT. Too often it falsely claimed or alleged that those who challenge Eurocentric concepts are trying to "appropriate" the glory of Egypt as if such glories appeared out of thin air. Students of African history have nothing to "appropriate." The starting point was the Saharan zone, an African foundation and African genesis. The Nile Valley was shaped heavily by this foundation, and that shaping also extended to other parts of Africa, from the North to the West. Any "appropriation" is from the Sahara and/or Sudan to the Nile Valley. Behind that is the evolutionary thread from sub-Saharan Africa to East Africa and on to the rest of the globe. Claims that alleged 'Afrocentrists' seek "inspiration" from Egypt are bogus in this sense. The original "inspiration" was from the Saharan foundations, indigenous development on the ground, that eventually morphed into the NV TROPICAL civilization. A favorite Eurocentric dodge is to make invidious comparisons between Egyptian civ and "black" Africa. But since Egypt civ grew out of the Saharan/Sudanic roots of "black" Africa, and can be clearly seen and documented, such "comparisons" are starkly irrelevant. In any event the Sahara-gendered civilizations were tropical civilizations without the need for any "cold climate" inspiration.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on May 21, 2010 8:09:01 GMT -5
Good post Zarahan, you really did your homework.  |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on May 21, 2010 13:25:16 GMT -5
Exactly. And that also, quite often, its ideas that get passed along the network of trade routes within the continent. It was a mixture of migrations into Egypt and disceminating ideas. Not Egypt going out. Those head rests are remarkably comfortable by the way. Have you ever tried one? No I haven't but it looks the opposite like I would get a cramp in my neck or something..btw the reason or one of the reasons one finds similar words in different language groups my be a testament to inter-African travel and trade networks Ie Ebony a supposedly Nilo-Saharan? to Ebny in Kemitc. So sorry about the name mix-up Truthteacher..but we have a lot of Truth-as first name..I'll do better promise... ;D There's a replica at the Chicago museum. The head rest is actually strapped to the bed frame which is made up of a criss cross of leather strips. So when you lay down, the leather actually gives way. It was surprisingly comfortable. Okay I forgive you this time about the name mix up but next time I gwain gi yu one rass lick! |
|
|
|
Post by sttigray on Jun 26, 2010 18:21:46 GMT -5
From all evidence so far it seems that Egypt was one of many civilizations that benefited from influence that originated out of Central Africa. Egypt was not the first place that Ancient Civilizations, arose on the continent of Africa.
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jun 27, 2010 21:04:15 GMT -5
From all evidence so far it seems that Egypt was one of many civilizations that benefited from influence that originated out of Central Africa. Egypt was not the first place that Ancient Civilizations, arose on the continent of Africa. ST, you will have to define Central African more and some time frames. I lean more towards seeing the Saharan zone as the fundamental source- that zone would include big parts of the Sudan. It could also be extended to include one-third of Africa, since the Sahara covered one-third of the continent in its long greenbelt phase. The development sin the Saharan zone can be documented- from the astronomical megaliths, to the cattle culture religion, to pottery and other artifacts. The human imprint is also documented- from the movement of peoples into the Nile Valey to their tropical limb proportions. This defeats Eurocentric charges of: --"Fixation" on Egypt. There is nothing to "fixate" on since dynastic Egypt grew out of the Saharan zone into the Nile Valley. The starting point is thus Africa, not Egypt. And there is no other people on the planet more obsessed with Egypt than white people, or who have appropriated it in so many ways. I only have to pull out a dollar bill to get merely one indicator. The "fixation" charge is sheer hypocrisy. --"Neglect" of Nubia. Another nonsensical charge, since the Nubians are ethnically the closest to the Egyptians, and the Nile Valley covers both Egypt AND Nubia, etc --"Neglect" of other areas of Africa. While a lot of attention is on the Nile Valley, I don;t see the extensive "neglect" of other African areas so often alleged. Any student of African history is familiar with the Ashanti, Zimbabwe, Mansa Musa, the cavalry empires, the Zulu etc etc. Where is this purported "neglect" we keep hearing about? --'Self-esteem" projects. Another line of BS. I don't see a lot of black cats walking around dressed as King Tut, compared to the cats I see with traditional Asante/Ghana styled clothing. I dont see many blacks walking round with Egyptian style loin cloths and headdresses, even during black History month- so called. I don't see a lot of Egyptian baby names compared to that of East and West Africa. When was the last black guy you seen named "Tutenkhamen"? How many black kids facing a geometry test Tuesday are invoking the greatness of the pyramids to help them? Where is this alleged wave of "self-esteem" for Egypt among African Americans? People with serious interest in the area aren't looking for "self esteem". They are mainly concerned about (a) removing the distortions and deception in the field and getting a true picture, (b) re-centering Egypt in its African context, which has been done by credible scholarship and research and documentation. SOME people may carry on faddish gestures from this background but that is so with any group of humans, like the northern Europeans who dress up like Greeks and Romans for the most trivial reasons for example. --"Lack of "deference" to modern Egyptians: Exactly why there should be "deference" to modern Egyptians is never explained by those who make this charge on insinuation. If research data clearly shows Nubians and Egyptians clearly linked- who we gonna assign more credibility? The hard, verified research data, or some modern Egyptian guy denying that any such link exists? Too often alleged "native Egyptians" - some bogus creations of Eurocentric types - materialize to "object" to credible research in the field as if all within hearing or reading distance should bow down before them as experts simply because they are alleged or real Egyptians. And why should we credit "authenticity" to today's Egypt dominated by Arabs in terms of anything indigenous? Modern Egyptians have an opinion like everyone else and have a right to their opinions, but they are not automatically "experts" on the ancient Nile valley. Their opinions, like those of everyone else, Chinese, European, Zulu or whomever, has to be weighted against empirical evidence, without any free "authenticity" tickets being punched. |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jun 27, 2010 22:06:12 GMT -5
True^ the self esteem issue was pushed by opponents of Afrocentric movement as therapeutic or feel good history they wanted to keep criticism at bay and their own world view un-challanged see Mary Lefkowitz and others but is it true? I say yes it is true when kids see themselves reflected in the drama of history it is therapeutic but for them it is the norm.. Eurocentric world view is to them the" norm" and everything else is fringe or reduced to a foot note. See the Governor of West Virginia . A south Carolina Senetor. Texas school board. Arizona school board. Some quotes by respected men in field considered giants even I am apt to suspect the Negroes...to be naturally inferior to the White. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white.... — David Hume, European PhilosopherWhen we classify mankind by color, the only one of the primary races...which has not made a creative contribution to any of our
twenty-one civilizations is the black race. — Arnold Toynbee, HistorianA Black skin means membership in a race of men which has never created a civilization of any kind. — John Burgess, Scholar www.upto11.net/generic_wiki.php?q=afrocentrismNo scholar doubts Egyptian learning influenced classical Greek and Roman civilization. Egypt in turn was influenced by African areas further south (Ethiopia and Sudan), and by Asia, and in turn influenced the cultures of these regions. However, most serious scholars reject the idea that cultures of West Africa or of the East African lakes region were either the source of Egyptian learning, or were much influenced by classical Egyptian civilization.www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/afro-pseudo-history.htmlThe classic distortions above that was to be left in place. the Saharan dry phase migration never took place the Great Lakes region ignored rather than studied.. In this effort I appreciate folks like Asar Imhotep... and old greats like Dr Ben Dr Clark and others. |
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Jul 10, 2010 13:25:26 GMT -5
I hear what you are saying here, but I have to ask you these questions: - How many wars did Egypt have?
- How many droughts did Egypt have?
- During droughts and wars, can you cite evidence in human history that the victims of droughts and wars stay to die in masse? Or do the one's that survive move?
- Also, can you document in ancient times the Great Bantu migrations? Or the Fulani migrations? Can you inform me of the ancient newspaper that reported all of this?
- When groups move, is it necessary that they bring all of their "cultural" items with them? Especially if they are leaving in a hurry?
I have oral documentation that some tribes of the Bantu-Kongo did NOT come from Cameroon or Nigeria, but from the Sahara. For these people in the Kongo, the Sahara was called KAYINGA. According to their oral history they moved from the Kayinga, through the forests, to end up in central Kongo and the reason was because of drought. This had to be during the period when the Sahara was drying from 3500-2700 BCE. Because some great Muslim chroniclers did not jot this down, does it make it false? This testimony was recorded in like 1911 and therefore cannot be the result of some Afrocentric movement. I have never known a culture to just stay and die during wars and famine. They all move and this is the testimony of all of the groups who have in their oral records that they moved from the Nile Valley: precisely as a result of wars and famine. So look forward to your answers. There is no mass extinction or dispersion of the native Egyptian population. If there was, don't you think it'd be well documented? Whenever there is a diaspora, it is well talked about. It's not exactly lost to history and can't be hidden no matter what. I've seen a lot of Afrocentrists use this to claim they are descendants of the Egyptians and the modern population if "fake". If they've proof to back up this claim, I'd like to be the first one to see it. The Egyptians compromised with their conquerors to stay along the banks of the fertile Nile. There's a reason why they didn't want to subjugate and move away from Egypt so readily. In fact, of the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians the Egyptians would've been most likely to compromise with conquerors and stay within Egypt rather than dispersing. |
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Jul 10, 2010 17:01:29 GMT -5
truthteacher2007 you underestimate Kemet's military capabilities. Their military wasn't that good in the beginning although they did make campaigns into Nubia. They used mercenary soldiers to augment their own and as time went on improved their military technology such as the introduction of the horse and chariot. At the height of the empire territory under their domination stretched from Sudan to Syria and they had mining and raw materials operations in these areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 10, 2010 19:23:10 GMT -5
truthteacher2007 you underestimate Kemet's military capabilities. Their military wasn't that good in the beginning although they did make campaigns into Nubia. They used mercenary soldiers to augment their own and as time went on improved their military technology such as the introduction of the horse and chariot. At the height of the empire territory under their domination stretched from Sudan to Syria and they had mining and raw materials operations in these areas. This is basic knowledge, no one disputes these facts. However, I don't understand what this has to do with the focus of this thread or asnything that I said. |
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Jul 10, 2010 21:25:21 GMT -5
I hear what you are saying here, but I have to ask you these questions: - How many wars did Egypt have?
- How many droughts did Egypt have?
- During droughts and wars, can you cite evidence in human history that the victims of droughts and wars stay to die in masse? Or do the one's that survive move?
- Also, can you document in ancient times the Great Bantu migrations? Or the Fulani migrations? Can you inform me of the ancient newspaper that reported all of this?
- When groups move, is it necessary that they bring all of their "cultural" items with them? Especially if they are leaving in a hurry?
I have oral documentation that some tribes of the Bantu-Kongo did NOT come from Cameroon or Nigeria, but from the Sahara. For these people in the Kongo, the Sahara was called KAYINGA. According to their oral history they moved from the Kayinga, through the forests, to end up in central Kongo and the reason was because of drought. This had to be during the period when the Sahara was drying from 3500-2700 BCE. Because some great Muslim chroniclers did not jot this down, does it make it false? This testimony was recorded in like 1911 and therefore cannot be the result of some Afrocentric movement. I have never known a culture to just stay and die during wars and famine. They all move and this is the testimony of all of the groups who have in their oral records that they moved from the Nile Valley: precisely as a result of wars and famine. So look forward to your answers. There is no mass extinction or dispersion of the native Egyptian population. If there was, don't you think it'd be well documented? Whenever there is a diaspora, it is well talked about. It's not exactly lost to history and can't be hidden no matter what. I've seen a lot of Afrocentrists use this to claim they are descendants of the Egyptians and the modern population if "fake". If they've proof to back up this claim, I'd like to be the first one to see it. The Egyptians compromised with their conquerors to stay along the banks of the fertile Nile. There's a reason why they didn't want to subjugate and move away from Egypt so readily. In fact, of the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians the Egyptians would've been most likely to compromise with conquerors and stay within Egypt rather than dispersing. So wrong. Greeks and Romans didn't destroy Egyptian culture, they incorporated it. In fact the Greeks wanted to make Egypt the center of their empire, and used the native population to help work the land and make it such. Egypt was always bountfiul in terms of harvests which is why near people migrated to Egypt instead of Egyptians immigrating from it. Egyptians are also said to compromise with their conquerors. So because the Romans and Greeks came by the Egyptians got up and left? There is no migration from the Egyptian population to the South to escape famine, again there is no record of it. You claim you've "oral" records of Egyptians migrating south, may I see them? I think the reason you are doing this is quite simply to say the modern Egyptians aren't descendants of the ancients and those to the south are related to Egyptians which by default means that you are descendants of them. How can places with less harvests and have been conquered more, like the Assyrians, Mesopatamians and Greeks be the descendants of their ancestors whereas a land that's flat and are very protective of their territory is not? Culture is not static. It's fluid, dynamic. You've provided no proof for there is no such mass migration. Mass migrations are notable. Even Native American tribes with no sort of form of writing left their mark and are still talked about. The Egyptians had no such mark left, there is no oral tradition other than those made up by, yes, Afrocentrists. Many "Afrocentric" scholars like Ivan van Sertima do not deny that the modern Egyptians are the ancient Egyptians yet the Africanity is diluted not replaced. Egypt was a crowded civilization. It wasn't small, it was conquered but the main population stayed put. Again, I've yet to see sources. |
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jul 10, 2010 22:59:43 GMT -5
truthteacher2007 you underestimate Kemet's military capabilities. Their military wasn't that good in the beginning although they did make campaigns into Nubia. They used mercenary soldiers to augment their own and as time went on improved their military technology such as the introduction of the horse and chariot. At the height of the empire territory under their domination stretched from Sudan to Syria and they had mining and raw materials operations in these areas. I don;t know if this is necessarily the case. It is true that Egypt produced nothing like the legions of Rome or the phalanxes of Alexander, or even the fast-moving impis of the Zulu, but particularly in certain decades of the New Kingdom, it had fairly decent armed forces, comparable in quality to contemporary opponents. In that period Egypt was a strong regional power. Recruitment methods were refined. Central armories were established that issued standardized bows, quivers, shields and spears to troops. Under the Pharaoh Ahmose, well-organized and intense training was carried out, including archery practice and instruction on the proper handling and use of the chariots. Along with chariots, the more powerful and lethal composite bow was increasingly adopted. As the Dynastic civilization grew, Egyptian arms were to also expand into nearby Palestine, and Nubian and Egyptian fighting men helped establish camps and way stations in northern Sinai, and settlements in southern Palestine. Operations against the Hyskos and others show that Egyptian arms made a credible showing. So did Egyptian soldiers or those associated with Egypt. Nubian fighting men for example, not only served in Egypt, but were sought as mercenaries by various kingdoms of Southwest Asia, according to the Amarna letters. They had to be quality troops to garner that kind of employment in so many different places. |
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Jul 11, 2010 0:51:05 GMT -5
This is irrelevant to my post. I think you have a lot more studying to do. One, I didn’t mention the Romans or Greeks. They are just two of many people within a 5000 year history who has invaded Egypt. What I’m trying to get you to understand is that in a war citizens always move from the center of war. Some stay, a lot of people die, and some move. It is those who move who carry the cultural ideas with them, place names, philosophies, etc. where ever they end up. Within 5000 years there have been gradual migrations out of Egypt for various reasons. The two highest are wars and droughts. Ask the Native Americans and the Australian Aboriginals Did you even read my post? I mentioned a record, which is in Dr. Fu-Kiau’s “Healing Wisdom of Africa,” about how there are certain tribes in the Kongo who speak of their origins in the Sahara and they migrated from the Sahara to Kongo because of the drought (that same drought that gave rise to Egypt). This was given as an example of migrations of whole populations due to drought. Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. No one said anything about a “mass” migration, as in the whole country left at once. We are talking about several smaller migrations of families and communities within a 5000 year span. Hell, in 500 years you have migrations from Sudan, Ethiopia to South Africa of the Nguni-bantu tribes. You mean we can’t get that many people and more to migrate out of Egypt within 5000 years? You’re analogy with the Native Americans is a poor one, primarily because their forced migrations happened in a time of writing and the printing press. There is no mass writing in Africa during these times to “record” any migrations: there is no printing press or news papers. Again, if you study the oral traditions, or even linguistics, you’d know. You can read “De l'origine égyptienne des Peuls” by Aboubacry Moussa Lam. I beg to differ. Sertima, even Diop, discusses how the majority of persons in Egypt are Arabs, Persians and “left over” Greeks. You have African elements strong, but it is like what you see in regards to Native Americans in the U.S. No one is claiming total annihilation, only that significant groups of people have within 5000 years. Some of these people settled into already established territories (like the Fulani). Others created their own settlements (like some in the Kongo, ciLuba or the Basongye of DRC.) Also get N. Nkabamba’s Songye of the Democratic Republic of Congo. If you can read French, there is an abundance of resources at your disposal. Quit using Diop and Sertima as a bed rest, but as a stepping stone to other data.  |
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Jul 11, 2010 1:08:44 GMT -5
Again, any region deals with these issues. The Greeks, Mesopotamians and Romans all dealt with it. The flooding of the Nile allowed for Egypt to be the most fertile area in the region. There was no story of a mass drought killing many Egyptians or forcing them to move. The banks of the Nile to this day haven't run dry. There was no famine, and in fact, many nearby settlers went to Egypt since famine didn't hit Egypt as hard. You're grasping at no argument here.
As for wars, it's not like wars destroy a people. Egypt has been invaded but the populace was not exterminated nor did they abdicate their homelands. They compromised and stayed on the land. There is no way a couple of nomadic Arabs or a Greek army can display the entire population of Egypt which was quite numerous in comparison to other civilization at the time.
You simply cannot compare the Egyptians to the Native Americas or Aboriginals, it's not a good parallel. There was no mass take over of the lands or disease that wiped out the population. To compare the two is comparing apples and oranges.
Alright then your point doesn't make sense. We know Demotic is an Afro-Asiatic language, is that your point? At the time that you presume Egypt was forced to leave its homeland due to wars, famine, etc. written language was already used in North Africa and the Middle East. The Egyptians told their story well, there was no story of them having to head south even when the Hyksos invaded. They stayed put. Just because other tribes share a linguistic similarity to ancient Egyptian language does not mean those are the Ancient Egyptian themselves, it means they share a similar language. Saying oral traditions prove Egyptians migrated south is shady at best. Why didn't the Egyptians write about it? Again, you're saying they didn't need to but you've no sources to back up your claims. Only off hand accounts of some Afrocentric source that says these "oral traditions" carry some weight.
Read my quote as to why the parallel of the Ancient Egyptians to the Native Americans isn't even close.
If we look in regards to who invaded Egypt, you'll see they didn't leave much of a mark:
Persians - they only conquered Egypt but the native populace was still strong causing many uprisings. The Persians didn't settle in Egypt, only used a satrap system to control the population. There was no migration by the Persians, the native Egyptian element was still there.
Greeks - Only Alexander's men and the Ptolemaic family along with a few elite made their homes in Alexandria. Their imprint on the Egyptian population was likely very little if not felt. The Greeks wanted to become Egyptian and not the other way around, keeping Egyptian culture alive.
Arabs - So 10,000 nomadic warriors are going to become the majority in a region which likely held 2 million people? Probably not. Even to this day Egyptians distinguish themselves from Arabs.
Turks - Not even anything. The Mameleukes stayed but that's hardly the majority, they were merely soldiers.
So as you can see, the Egyptian population likely didn't change a whole lot yet the genetic diversity increased to a great degree. Most Lower Egyptians (60%) hold native African genetics despite the way they look. This alone shatters any theory you have of Egyptians traveling south, other than the Coptic migrations (which is extremely well documented) retreating to the Christian Nubian kingdoms of Upper Egypt and Sudan. Even Lower Egyptians hold 80% native African genetics.
I'm not downplaying the Eurasian element in Lower Egypt (40%) but let's not say this is a mass extermination cognoscente to that of the Native Americans that simply is not true.
|
|
