Oxford Encyc of Ancient Egypt - African foundation

[zarahan]

Conservative mainstream Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt shows
ancient Egypt derived from an African cultural sub-stratum

[QUOTE:]

"The evidence also points to linkages to
other northeast African peoples, not
coincidentally approximating the modern
range of languages closely related to
Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group
(formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These
linguistic similarities place ancient
Egyptian in a close relationship with
languages spoken today as far west as
Chad, and as far south as Somalia.
Archaeological evidence also strongly
supports an African origin. A widespread
northeastern African cultural assemblage,
including distinctive multiple barbed
harpoons and pottery decorated with
dotted wavy line patterns, appears during
the early Neolithic (also known as the
Aqualithic, a reference to the mild
climate of the Sahara at this time).

Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this
time resembles early Egyptian
iconography. Strong connections
between Nubian (Sudanese) and
Egyptian material culture continue in
later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper
Egypt. Similarities include black-topped
wares, vessels with characteristic
ripple-burnished surfaces, a special
tulip-shaped vessel with incised and
white-filled decoration, palettes, and
harpoons...

Other ancient Egyptian practices show
strong similarities to modern African
cultures including divine kingship, the
use of headrests, body art, circumcision,
and male coming-of-age rituals, all
suggesting an African substratum or
foundation for Egyptian civilization
(rather than diffusion from sub-Saharan
Africa, as claimed by some Afrocentric
scholars.)"

[endquote]
Source: The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt,
2001. Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 28
Donald Redford (2001)ed


Review:
The article's use of the
term “sub-Saharan” is curious. the
Sahara fluctuated its boundaries
numerous times over history - at one
point it covered one-third of Africa -
said boundaries are not where they
are now. So exactly from what point the
alleged “diffusion” claimed by
“Afrocentrists” is taking place remains a
mystery.

And if ancient Egypt civilization rests on
an African substratum as freely admitted
by the conservative mainstream authors,
doesn’t that include “sub-Saharan”
Africa?

And isn't Somalia below the Sahara, as well as large parts of Chad and
the Sudan from which the African cultural assemblages also derive?
And who are these mysterious "Afrocentrists" spoken of?

nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/04/blog-post_7661.html

[zarahan]

Some have been disturbed by the conservative encyclopedia noting that the languages spoken
by the ancient Egyptians are related to languages spoken as far away as Chad and Somalia.
As evidence of a "racial" divide, they proffer the notion that the "Nubians" spoke a Nilo-Saharan
language, and the" Egyptians" Afrasan languages. So there must be some kind of race divide then.
This of course is complete nonsense for 4 reasons:



1) The Nilo-Saharan language extends
into parts of Upper Egypt, (Adams 1982)
not simply the Sudan/Nubia. This
undermines the bogus picture they paint
of a neat "Racial" divide between the
Sudan and Egypt. In fact the Nubians
and Egyptians were ethnically the closest
people. Some spoke Nilo-Saharan, and
some Egyptian, Nothing at all unusual
about that as a common pattern of
human existence.


2) Different groups of Nubians are well
documented in the literature, even ancient
literature. The notion that there was this
monolithic group of "Nubians" all speaking the
same Nilo-Saharan languages, in "racial"
separation from Egypt is rubbish.

There were different groups of Egytians (oasis
dwellers etc for example) and different groups of
Nubians. They are one continuity though. For
example the annals of Weni the elder states:

"When his majesty took action against
the Asiatic sand-dwellers, his majesty
made an army of many tens of thousands
from all of Upper Egypt: ...; from Lower
Egypt: ...; and from Irtjet-Nubians,
Medja-Nubians, Yam-Nubians,
Wawat-Nubians, Kaau-Nubians; and
from Tjemeh-land."



3) There is an element of racist hypocrisy
in their 'Aryan language model". In
Europe, the white Basques speak a
language that is not the Indo-European
languages spoken by most other white
people in Europe. Yet they fully accept
that Basques are white Europeans. But
when the same situation rises in the African Nile
valley - well oh no! Can't have that. There
must be some weird "racial" hierarchy or
"wandering Caucasoids" involved to
"explain" that situation. See, the
hypocrites have no problem with
European diversity, but when in comes to
Africa they want to impose all sorts of
biased double standards.


4) Finally, different groups of people
living together with different language
families is nothing at all unusual on earth.
The Basques are an example in Europe,
but in India they have been doing it for
millennia. Speakers of the Dravidian
languages live in the same nation with
speakers of the
Indo-European/Indo-Aryan languages
for thousands of years. They live side by
side and are classified as Asiatics.
Few thinking people would find that
unusual, It is only in Africa that the
biased racial hypocrites apply a different
standard.



side by side and they are all Asiatics. But
when it comes to Africa a racist double standard
reigns…

[anansi]

quote
1) The Nilo-Saharan language extends
into parts of Upper Egypt, (Adams 1982)
not simply the Sudan/Nubia. This
undermines the bogus picture they paint
of a neat "Racial" divide between the
Sudan and Egypt. In fact the Nubians
and Egyptians were ethnically the closest
people. Some spoke Nilo-Saharan, and
some Egyptian, Nothing at all unusual
about that as a common pattern of
human existence.


2) Different groups of Nubians are well
documented in the literature, even ancient
literature. The notion that there was this
monolithic group of "Nubians" all speaking the
same Nilo-Saharan languages, in "racial"
separation from Egypt is rubbish.

There were different groups of Egytians (oasis
dwellers etc for example) and different groups of
Nubians. They are one continuity though. For
example the annals of Weni the elder states:

"When his majesty took action against
the Asiatic sand-dwellers, his majesty
made an army of many tens of thousands
from all of Upper Egypt: ...; from Lower
Egypt: ...; and from Irtjet-Nubians,
Medja-Nubians, Yam-Nubians,
Wawat-Nubians, Kaau-Nubians; and
from Tjemeh-land."


That's why I am against the use of the term" Nubian"as a catch-all..discussed below.
egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bag&action=display&thread=495

[truthteacher2007]

Nov 18, 2010 17:49:13 GMT -5 anansi said:

quote
1) The Nilo-Saharan language extends
into parts of Upper Egypt, (Adams 1982)
not simply the Sudan/Nubia. This
undermines the bogus picture they paint
of a neat "Racial" divide between the
Sudan and Egypt. In fact the Nubians
and Egyptians were ethnically the closest
people. Some spoke Nilo-Saharan, and
some Egyptian, Nothing at all unusual
about that as a common pattern of
human existence.


2) Different groups of Nubians are well
documented in the literature, even ancient
literature. The notion that there was this
monolithic group of "Nubians" all speaking the
same Nilo-Saharan languages, in "racial"
separation from Egypt is rubbish.

There were different groups of Egytians (oasis
dwellers etc for example) and different groups of
Nubians. They are one continuity though. For
example the annals of Weni the elder states:

"When his majesty took action against
the Asiatic sand-dwellers, his majesty
made an army of many tens of thousands
from all of Upper Egypt: ...; from Lower
Egypt: ...; and from Irtjet-Nubians,
Medja-Nubians, Yam-Nubians,
Wawat-Nubians, Kaau-Nubians; and
from Tjemeh-land."


That's why I am against the use of the term" Nubian"as a catch-all..discussed below.
egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bag&action=display&thread=495

I fully agree. I'd also say the same thing for the term "berber". They are such a culturally diverse people and yet they are put into one big binas if they are all he same and interchangable.

[sundiata]

side by side and they are all Asiatics. But
when it comes to Africa a racist double standard
reigns…

Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=egyto&action=display&thread=643#ixzz16bG72kkR

Point well taken. But could it not be argued that India perhaps WAS the recipient of legitimate invasions of people with Indo-European speaking background, which would be the cause of displacement and language shift? Surely Indus Valley civilization is not an Indo-European legacy. It can also be argued, and has been pretty convincingly by Rowan, that the Kushite languages were Afro-asiatic. This is also the case with the Medjaw, or today's Beja (not Kushite, but considered "Nubian"). Though Ehret points out Nilo-Saharan loan words in the earliest ancient Egyptian so it is beyond clear that Nilo-Saharan and ancient Egyptians co-existed since the beginning of recorded history and even language genesis.

I guess the most confusing thing here to consider is the word "Nubian"..

[Dawn2Earth]

^Based on Kemetian language, Kemetian history and modern genetics my mind is programmed like this:

Nubian = Pure Dynastic Creed

and that's a simplification of this:

Nubian = a word possibly based on Upper Egyptian and Sudanese gold exporting cities and miners as the word Nub = gold in Kemetian. Today Nubian refers to the area of the Sudanese-Egyptian border -- not only did the state start out there but the almost entire Ancient Kemetian and classical Saharan paternal lines.

So i just equate the word with most authentic line of Phaoronic Kemetian decent. This may contrast with those of you who accept the non-"Egyptian" interpretation.

[sundiata]

Dawn2earth, isn't that just creating a definition for an already fictitious concept? Doesn't seem necessary.

[Dawn2Earth]

No, it's looking at whom the term, which still used ethnically today, refers to and so what it actually means with respect to Kem.t-Nw.t which can be gleaned both from anthropology and from the history those very people will tell to you.

What i am saying is i don't parrot the constructs of an ancient Nubia-Egypt dichotomy -- two words that refer to regions today and have no ethnic meaning in ancient times (the former vocational, the latter religious). Maybe in the future facetiously, only in revealing how the word changed or something. Might i use the term to denote an area it actually refers to today among others who know what it is? You betcha.