- The African origins of Egyptian civilisation lie in an important cultural horizon, the ‘primary pastoral community’, which emerged in both the Egyptian and Sudanese parts of the Nile Valley in the fifth millennium BC.
- The aim of the present article is to define an important horizon of cultural change, belonging to the fifth millennium BC, linking Egypt’s early development firmly to that of its southern neighbours in Nubia and central Sudan.
- This cultural horizon is situated between the green Sahara (early-mid holocene) period (Wavy Line pottery culture) and Badarian/Naqada period. All in the 5th Millennium BC. The Sahara was in the process of desertification. Most population were still mobile but maintained a certain cultural uniformity across the Nile and surrounding desert areas (Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, Kharthoum, etc).
- ...the characteristic features of the ‘primary pastoral community’ may appear slightly earlier in the Sudanese than in the Egyptian part of the valley, suggesting a possible spread from south to north during the course of the fifth millennium.
- Neolithic of the Nile Valley constitutes a cultural phenomenon of impressive coherence, scale and duration.
- It is during this period [edit:5th Millennium BC] that burial grounds of varying size—but rarely exceeding a hundred individuals within a single cemetery—become a widely visible feature in the archaeological record of this region.
- ...the sites have a broadly similar character along both its Egyptian and Sudanese courses
- These developments are echoed in the changing location of herding and fishing camps along the margins of the floodplain. Seasonally occupied sites of this kind constitute our main evidence for the nature of human habitation along the Nile Valley during the fifth millennium BC. Comprising loose configurations of post-holes, dung deposits, hearths and thin ash-middens, the sites have a broadly similar character along both its Egyptian and Sudanese courses (e.g. Welsby 2000; Hendrickx et al. 2001; Honegger 2001; Sadig 2010) and are best understood as the remains of seasonal encampments, reflecting high levels of residential mobility among herder-fisher-forager populations (cf. Butzer 1976: 14; Trigger 1983: 28; Caneva 1991; Midant-Reynes 2000: 160)
- Indicators of sustained investment in cereal farming and sedentary life—such as durable architecture, heavy plant processing equipment, and high proportions of cereal grains in botanical samples—make their first appearance in the Egyptian Nile Valley only later, in the early fourth millennium BC (Midant-Reynes & Buchez 2002: 485–99; Wengrow 2006: 33, 76–82, with further references).
- The overall patterning of the archaeological record in Middle-Upper Egypt suggests, instead, that low-level cereal farming on the floodplain was practiced within the context of a seasonal herding, fishing and foraging economy.
- Recent discoveries at the Neolithic cemetery of el-Barga, in the Kerma region of northern Sudan, raise the further possibility that this ritual-territorial system, and its sophisticated modes of body decoration, extend back in time beyond the fifth millennium BC
- Shared features of Neolithic burial across the Nile Valley (aka aspect of cultural uniformity):
> Treatment and ornamentation of the corpse (see text and below) > Deposition of functionally similar artefacts within graves (see text and below)
- Throughout the Nile Valley, and into the neighbouring deserts, treatments of the body in death became remarkably uniform in this period
I will continue on later with more about the main aspect of this article, the shared cultural horizon between the Sudanese Nile Valley (later Nubia), the Egyptian Nile Valley, and the neighboring deserts (Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah) which later on gave birth the Ancient Egyptian civilization.
The important point for us is that it's another recent study clearly showing an African origins for the Ancient Egyptian civilization. This cultural horizon is part of the indigenous transition of African people from their common origin in Eastern Africa, to the Wavy line pottery green Sahara culture extending across the African Saharan belt for about 3000 years, to the Ancient Egyptian civilization confined along the Nile Valley (forced to become more territorial due to lack of land, adopt agriculture (to survive, helped by the Nile flood irrigation), and laying the foundation for state formation).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
This following study, already posted before, show us the effects on the body of ancient specimen along the Nile region of this transition from hunter-gatherers, to pastoralism to agriculture:
Body Size, Skeletal Biomechanics, Mobility and Habitual Activity from the Late Palaeolithic to the Mid-Dynastic Nile Valley . Got it from here: (www.) pave.bioanth.cam.ac.uk/pdfs/033-Stock(2011HBTA)NileBiomechSize.pdf (you need to add the www. to the address, the forum doesn't allow me to post the full address)
posted
So the west reconfirming what Egyptians said of themselves, that their fathers came from the south. Reconfirming what Herodotus said, that the "Ethiopians" ie Kushites were the parent civilization that gave rise to Ancient Egypt.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amun Ra do you think that "Nilotic" and "Bantu" are significantly different gentetically and if so how do these term apply to what is known so far about ancient Egyptian DNA?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
What can be stated is that Free Thinkers are EVERYWHERE and they are the ones tired of the lies of the status quo who want to caress there egos around their lies.
I hope this continues....Never bend the truth to serve biasism, Racism and egoism, Egyptology is FILLED with it
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very good thread. Osiris is simply a continuation of ancient African vegetation spirits and festivals seen across Africa where they have actors who dress up in vegetation, are given gifts, who play mimes and are associated with palm wine, palm effigies and other symbols of regeneration. This form of nature worship then evolved to into the god of the grain, symbolized as a stack of harvested crops (think of a haystack effigy) that incorporated all the symbols of life, death, the soil and nourishment. And, particularly in the Sahara and along the Nile, this same symbolism then incorporated the life giving waters of the earth, both running above ground in the river and the waters under the earth in aquifers which were crucial to survival in desert environments. In that symbolic aspect, Osiris is the life giving water of the earth. And along with all of that, specifically in Nabta playa and other locations in Upper Egypt, the Sahara and Southern Sudan, came rituals involving solar observation and tracking with calendar stones and the evolution of solar deities. Easter is the celebration of the rebirth of spring and palm Sunday owes homage to the ancient African vegetation festivals and deities associated with green palm leaves and solar deities.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Very good thread. Osiris is simply a continuation of ancient African vegetation spirits and festivals seen across Africa where they have actors who dress up in vegetation, are given gifts, who play mimes and are associated with palm wine, palm effigies and other symbols of regeneration. This form of nature worship then evolved to into the god of the grain, symbolized as a stack of harvested crops (think of a haystack effigy) that incorporated all the symbols of life, death, the soil and nourishment. And, particularly in the Sahara and along the Nile, this same symbolism then incorporated the life giving waters of the earth, both running above ground in the river and the waters under the earth in aquifers which were crucial to survival in desert environments. And along with all of that, specificially in Nabta playa and other locations in Upper Egypt, the Sahara and Southern Sudan, came rituals involving solar observation and tracking with calendar stones and the evolution of solar deities. Easter is the celebration of the rebirth of spring and palm Sunday owes homage to the ancient African vegetation festivals and deities associated with green palm leaves and solar deities.
posted
Not to be mean but is this not like the most basic **** that's been proven on this site for the last decade? Why is this even worth mentioning if not for the fact that the feet dragging Western scholars are stating the obvious? If that circle of academics is just now getting around to doing this then should we really give a damn what they have to say on this subject? It's not like we don't know that many of them are closet (or overt in the case of Hawass) anti black racist. Stop giving THEM power over this subject by not lunging at the dog bones that they throw us every few years. How about we move past THEM and look at alternative African scholarly sources?
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: Not to be mean but is this not like the most basic **** that's been proven on this site for the last decade? Why is this even worth mentioning if not for the fact that the feet dragging Western scholars are stating the obvious? If that circle of academics is just now getting around to doing this then should we really give a damn what they have to say on this subject? It's not like we don't know that many of them are closet (or overt in the case of Hawass) anti black racist. Stop giving THEM power over this subject by not lunging at the dog bones that they throw us every few years. How about we move past THEM and look at alternative African scholarly sources?
Agreed. Africans should be the primary scholars on African history and culture.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
None of that has ANYTHING to do with nature worship. Africans worship ONE God just as the so called "major" religious do. However, they recognize his "aspects". These 'masquerades' also have esoteric meanings that are meant to teach certain truths to their initiates. You should research Poro or Komo. There are plenty of old books on them.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
None of that has ANYTHING to do with nature worship. Africans worship ONE God just as the so called "major" religious do. However, they recognize his "aspects". These 'masquerades' also have esoteric meanings that are meant to teach certain truths to their initiates. You should research Poro or Komo. There are plenty of old books on them.
It is not nature worship in the sense of believing that a tree is "god". It is "nature worship" in the sense of seeing nature as a manifestation of gods divine presence in the universe and thus is the basis of initiation. And all the deities of ancient Egypt were likewise symbolic aspects of the "one" god as you put it with deeper mysteries veiled to the uninitiated, which is no different than any religion. Even Christianity has similar secret meanings and this goes all the way back to the gnostics, which is merely a vestige of the ancient African system. And my only point is that that whole pattern of associating nature with god in any shape or form is ultimately African in origin. But then again, going back in time, it was really nature worship as the god concept evolved over time.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And my only point is that that whole pattern of associating nature with god in any shape or form is ultimately African in origin.
It's true but it's also human in origin. Associating nature with god is something universal which can be seen in many different cultures on earth. Many ancestral religions (like Ancient Greeks, Roman, Shinto, African religions, Kemet, Kush, etc) are similar in many fundamental aspects without being directly related (beside through humanity).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
None of that has ANYTHING to do with nature worship. Africans worship ONE God just as the so called "major" religious do. However, they recognize his "aspects". These 'masquerades' also have esoteric meanings that are meant to teach certain truths to their initiates. You should research Poro or Komo. There are plenty of old books on them.
It is not nature worship in the sense of believing that a tree is "god". It is "nature worship" in the sense of seeing nature as a manifestation of gods divine presence in the universe and thus is the basis of initiation. And all the deities of ancient Egypt were likewise symbolic aspects of the "one" god as you put it with deeper mysteries veiled to the uninitiated, which is no different than any religion. Even Christianity has similar secret meanings and this goes all the way back to the gnostics, which is merely a vestige of the ancient African system. And my only point is that that whole pattern of associating nature with god in any shape or form is ultimately African in origin. But then again, going back in time, it was really nature worship as the god concept evolved over time.
Indeed sir, you and I are in 100% agreement. Sometimes language can cause barriers in understanding but I understand you position and you and I on the same page. Except I don't think it evolved over time. I think they always understood it as aspects of the Divine creator. At least as far back as any religion in Africa is concerned, Africans have always been monotheistic.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
None of that has ANYTHING to do with nature worship. Africans worship ONE God just as the so called "major" religious do. However, they recognize his "aspects". These 'masquerades' also have esoteric meanings that are meant to teach certain truths to their initiates. You should research Poro or Komo. There are plenty of old books on them.
It is not nature worship in the sense of believing that a tree is "god". It is "nature worship" in the sense of seeing nature as a manifestation of gods divine presence in the universe and thus is the basis of initiation. And all the deities of ancient Egypt were likewise symbolic aspects of the "one" god as you put it with deeper mysteries veiled to the uninitiated, which is no different than any religion. Even Christianity has similar secret meanings and this goes all the way back to the gnostics, which is merely a vestige of the ancient African system. And my only point is that that whole pattern of associating nature with god in any shape or form is ultimately African in origin. But then again, going back in time, it was really nature worship as the god concept evolved over time.
Indeed sir, you and I are in 100% agreement. Sometimes language can cause barriers in understanding but I understand you position and you and I on the same page. Except I don't think it evolved over time. I think they always understood it as aspects of the Divine creator. At least as far back as any religion in Africa is concerned, Africans have always been monotheistic.
I think that humans originally worshiped nature as a "mysterious power" that they didn't understand and from that there were many different forms or aspects of "god conscious" that developed, along with many rites and traditions and the root of most religious rituals we see in the world today. African traditional religions are considered as "animistic" and no scholar would even begin to call them "monotheistic". Animism believes that all things have a "spirit" or "soul", whether that is considered god or not is a different matter. Monotheism and Pantheism are but two sides of the same coin in that there is one ultimate "deity" but either it has many aspects or shades, as in pantheism or there is simply one singular aspect, as in monotheism. Actually, most people don't understand what pantheism really is in the first place, but that has nothing to do with my point that most aspects of religious worship and the concept of "gods" came from Africa. The gods in most cultures, whether monotheistic or pantheistic are symbolized by forces in nature. The point being that god = life force. The sun itself is a prime example of this. Jesus = the sun. Buddha = the sun (the son and rebirth of the life force, soul or spirit) and so on and so on. It represents the life force since the sun itself is fundamental to life on earth. Those are simply latter day versions of ancient solar religions that were in reality part of the animist tradition. Therefore, the sun, not only possesses an "essence" or "spirit" but it also symbolizes the life force or "spirit" within all things. This advanced, deep, multifaceted symbolism, with various layers of meaning evolved over time. And really even in monotheistic religions the belief in "spirits" or "souls" still exists which again is only a carry over from more ancient animist traditions.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And my only point is that that whole pattern of associating nature with god in any shape or form is ultimately African in origin.
It's true but it's also human in origin. Associating nature with god is something universal which can be seen in many different cultures on earth. Many ancestral religions (like Ancient Greeks, Roman, Shinto, African religions, Kemet, Kush, etc) are similar in many fundamental aspects without being directly related (beside through humanity).
That's true, but also Africans are the first humans so the point still stands that those universal human traditions started in Africa.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: Not to be mean but is this not like the most basic **** that's been proven on this site for the last decade? Why is this even worth mentioning if not for the fact that the feet dragging Western scholars are stating the obvious? If that circle of academics is just now getting around to doing this then should we really give a damn what they have to say on this subject? It's not like we don't know that many of them are closet (or overt in the case of Hawass) anti black racist. Stop giving THEM power over this subject by not lunging at the dog bones that they throw us every few years. How about we move past THEM and look at alternative African scholarly sources?
The point is not that it is basic information. All the old hands already know it. The point is EXTENDING and DEEPENING the distribution and analysis of that information. As such, this 2014 piece is newer and fits the bill. This field is not static- modifications happen. This is an ongoing need, and can be seen in numerous Black History Month venues where some people have not moved beyond National Geographic's skewed approach, or Diop circa 1974. If anything there needs to be even MORE of the above put on the floor for all to benefit.
And there are also some who congratulate themselves as being "in the know" - circulating info among themselves in closed little cliques. This is all fine and dandy for the clique, but does little to meet the need for wide distribution of credible data on African bio-history. The enemies of that bio-history have deep networks of distortion and denial- whether it be Wikipedia edit blockading or "HBD" web rings. Data like this on the floor, out in the open, is an end-run that defeats all that.
As for "throwing us bones" - hardly. There can no longer be "bones". What we have is a flood that can't be stopped, thanks is part to places like ES. That flood needs to continue. Africana scholars? Sure. We have Keita, and others like Mario Beatty. More will appear on the continent and Diaspora.
Curiously, you produce nothing on the "alternative African scholarly sources." WHat or who might those sources be, and how up to date and relevant? Give some specifics.
Yah, we already know. You will disappear from the thread without giving any coherent answers..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
None of that has ANYTHING to do with nature worship. Africans worship ONE God just as the so called "major" religious do. However, they recognize his "aspects". These 'masquerades' also have esoteric meanings that are meant to teach certain truths to their initiates. You should research Poro or Komo. There are plenty of old books on them.
It is not nature worship in the sense of believing that a tree is "god". It is "nature worship" in the sense of seeing nature as a manifestation of gods divine presence in the universe and thus is the basis of initiation. And all the deities of ancient Egypt were likewise symbolic aspects of the "one" god as you put it with deeper mysteries veiled to the uninitiated, which is no different than any religion. Even Christianity has similar secret meanings and this goes all the way back to the gnostics, which is merely a vestige of the ancient African system. And my only point is that that whole pattern of associating nature with god in any shape or form is ultimately African in origin. But then again, going back in time, it was really nature worship as the god concept evolved over time.
Indeed sir, you and I are in 100% agreement. Sometimes language can cause barriers in understanding but I understand you position and you and I on the same page. Except I don't think it evolved over time. I think they always understood it as aspects of the Divine creator. At least as far back as any religion in Africa is concerned, Africans have always been monotheistic.
I think that humans originally worshiped nature as a "mysterious power" that they didn't understand and from that there were many different forms or aspects of "god conscious" that developed, along with many rites and traditions and the root of most religious rituals we see in the world today. African traditional religions are considered as "animistic" and no scholar would even begin to call them "monotheistic". Animism believes that all things have a "spirit" or "soul", whether that is considered god or not is a different matter. Monotheism and Pantheism are but two sides of the same coin in that there is one ultimate "deity" but either it has many aspects or shades, as in pantheism or there is simply one singular aspect, as in monotheism. Actually, most people don't understand what pantheism really is in the first place, but that has nothing to do with my point that most aspects of religious worship and the concept of "gods" came from Africa. The gods in most cultures, whether monotheistic or pantheistic are symbolized by forces in nature. The point being that god = life force. The sun itself is a prime example of this. Jesus = the sun. Buddha = the sun (the son and rebirth of the life force, soul or spirit) and so on and so on. It represents the life force since the sun itself is fundamental to life on earth. Those are simply latter day versions of ancient solar religions that were in reality part of the animist tradition. Therefore, the sun, not only possesses an "essence" or "spirit" but it also symbolizes the life force or "spirit" within all things. This advanced, deep, multifaceted symbolism, with various layers of meaning evolved over time. And really even in monotheistic religions the belief in "spirits" or "souls" still exists which again is only a carry over from more ancient animist traditions.
I have no problem with most of what you are saying. Though I think you are interpreting the facts in a more eurocentric interpretation on history. The eurocentric interpretation of history is something I am not willing to accept personally. I personally don't buy the whole "humans were ignorant and uncivilized in the beginning and then progressed". I think that's European nonsense to explain their late development.
We go as far back in Nile valley history as we want and we see these developed beliefs. they are not "developing" but fully developed. We go into the Sahara (which is the origin of Mande and Nile Valley peoples) and we still see them (beliefs) there, fully developed. I would even venture to say that one day they will probably uncover a civilization the likes of which we have never seen under the Sahara.
I believe when you see backward civilizations, it is most likely because their main civilization fell and they then went backward. That or its some splinter group that left the main group for whatever reason. People can most definitely "devolve". Think about Aztecs. These people built pyramids and very complex civilizations. Now if you look at aztecs, they live in third world conditions and can no longer read their own language. There are external forces that can cause civilizations to fall. Once your leaders are gone and the thinkers in society are gone, things go down hell from there.
Think about the West. Imagine if someone were to take out EVERY government leader, every engineer and every other person we need to build up western civilization. What do you think is going to happen?
But besides that, Africans have always known that God created this world using his emanations or attributes. It is the attributes that underlay how existence works. You see this same teaching in Islam, except in Islam it is the 99 names of God. In Christianity its the 72 names of God. Hindus who are monotheistic as well also have the same concept. It is just that they have created statues and worship the names directly and they engender them. Where as Islam and at least in Mande religion the names are not engendered as such.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
None of that has ANYTHING to do with nature worship. Africans worship ONE God just as the so called "major" religious do.
What s the name of God in ancient Egyptian religon?
They didn't give Him a name. They said He was omnipotent, without partner, without equal, he always was, He was unknowable etc. etc. Wallace Budge wrote about that in his book "The Gods of the Egyptians" if I remember right. He also gives references to about 5 other Egyptologist of his time that talk about the monotheistic nature of Egyptian beliefs. Martin Barnal also had a VERY small section on the monotheism of Ancient Egypt, though I don't remember if he mentions any sources. There are other books that mention this aspect of their beliefs, but the names escape me right now. I also remember a story that Isis tried to get God to tell her his name and he wouldn't. You might be able to find that story in Budge's writing.
Nun, Amon, Atum, Ra, Shu, Tephnet etc are just aspects of the Creator.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Nun, Amon, Atum, Ra, Shu, Tephnet etc are just aspects of the Creator.
Without considering spiritual or syncretic consideration, I don't consider the different names of God in Ancient Egypt as different aspects of one person. There is many names for the unique creator god in Ancient Egypt. Each have their own story of creation mythologies (for example).
Each names for god in Ancient Egypt represent the name of the unique creator god for different lineages, clans, ethnic groups scattered around AE along the Nile. One of them taking prominence when a different family/dynasty takes power in AE.
Of course for Ancient Egyptians (beside Amenhotep IV), as well as non-Abrahamic religions like in modern Africa, Ancient Greece, modern Japan (Shinto), etc, there's no problem if there's many different names, ceremonies and traditions for the unique creator god. Nobody is considered pagans or infidels.
Around the world there's probably thousands of different names for god. Thousand of different traditions and religious ceremonies.
This human diversity of culture, religions, personalities (individuals) is what enrich the world. It's the basic practice of freedom at an individual or collective level. It should only be limited when it limit the liberty of others.
In nature, the diversity (of genes, lifestyles, etc) is a basic survival strategy and a motor for evolution. Evolution, in every sense, is always done in continuity with the past.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Akachi is right there is nothing new in this paper that was not presented by M.A. Hoffman. in Egypt before the Pharaohs. Most contributors here are not original thinkers. The science they practice is called: "Science by Authority". People who practice science by authority believe that any research done by a European--no matter who they are, or done by Black researchers found acceptable by Europeans in the academy, e.g., Gates, Mboli and Keita is recognized as correct while they ignore research from "alternative African scholarly sources." not recognized by "mainstream" i.e., "Europeans".
A coconut is brown on the outside and white on the inside.
A coconut represents Blacks who are confused about their identity and need someone white to verify they are thinking correct and scholarly.These people spend their time citing any white scholar that happens to claim that Blacks have contributed anything to history.
The best example of this is references to Bernal's Black Athena-- which was promoting a Semitic-centric [Hyksos] origin for the Egyptian influence on ancient Greece--as an "Afro-Centric text".
These pseudo-coconuts they are pseudo-coconuts because they don't don't consiously see themselves as uncle TOMS because they support their views by citing any European who promotes an idea they feel illustrates a contribution of Blacks to world history. They don't realize that they continue to practice the old Afro-American saying, "If you're "white you're right.If you're black get back. If you're brown [or acceptable to whites] stick around.
The "alternative African scholarly sources." would represent the heroes of the Afrocentric Social Sciences: DuBois, J.A. Rogers, Diop, John Jackson and etc.
In the 1990's, the media in articles published by Newsweek, the New York Times, and Time magazine, was able to show that Ivan van Sertima and Hunter Adams were Charlatan
quote:
A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.
Ivan was shown to be a Charlatan because he could not back-up what he had wrote in the books he edited in the 1980's.Hunter, pretended to be a scientist working at Argon National Laboratory when he was really a Janitor.
This was pure deception on the part of conservatives. The attacks on Ivan were unfounded because Ivan, as the editor of the books only wrote about the upcoming chapters in the books you were about to read. Hunter, was wrong to pretend he was a scientist. At the time Hunter was employed by the University of Chicago and could have got his degree through the University--but he refused to do eventhough I advise him to do so as early as 1979.
Young researchers who write on this site accept that Afrocentrism lacks any foundation because of the media attacks on Ivan and Hunter. These young people have an inferiority complex, and seek out any white/European authority to support their work.
They do this out of ignorance. They don't know that Hunter and Ivan were not Afrocentists. Ivan was not an Afrocentrist's, he made a name for himself popularizing the work of others.
As a result, eventhough no one has falsified the research of DuBois, John Jackson, J.A. Rogers Diop , and the other heroes of the Afrocentric Social Science, young people here spend all their time citing anything written by "whites" that show some sort of contribution of Blacks to ancient history.This is sad.
I have taught research methods at the Graduate school level for years. One of the things we teach Graduate students is to become expert consumers of research literature. They become expert comsumers by understanding the foundations and theories of learning and pedagogy.Using this as the knowledge base you crtically analyze eucational research based on these theories.
Young researchers here don't know the roots of Afrocentrism or they read this literature with a jaundice eye, colored by Europeans who hate Afrocentrism because it shows history has been white washed--to white out African people from history. This is a sad situation because we have a 200 year tradition of the Afrocentric Social Science that was mianly contructed by Afro-American scholars who held Phds and MAs, most from Harverd, e.g.,Carter G. Woodson, DuBois and Hansberry.
Because of the tradition of an Afrocentric Social Science, young researchers should base their understanding of the African origin of Egypt, based on the research of Afrocentric social science like DuBois and Diop. But instead of doing this the young researchers here seek out any white authority or Black recognized by these whites, to support the African origin of Egypt.
This is not the way research should be done. Good research should cite the original research done by the heroes of Afrocentric research, and then cite the recent research that confirms the original findings of the Afrocentric researchers. This would promote the continuity of research, instead of acting like every "new" publication on the African origin of Egypt is so significant or outstanding.
The research of Marc and Mike is a good example of confirmation studies, that is the major occupation of professional researchers. They have confirmed the theory of J.A. Rogers that the families of many European elites were of African origin. They also created a new hypothesis: Many early Americans were Black Europeans who immigrated to America from Europe. This was an important hypothesis, which Mike confirmed, because it added more evidence to the fact that all Afro-Americans were not slaves.
You can find out more on the Structure of the Afrocentric Social Science at:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Akachi is right there is noyhing new in this paper that was not presented by M.A. Hoffman. in Egypt before the Pharaohs. Most contributors here are not original thinkers. The science they practice is called: "Science by Authority". People who practice science by authority believe that any research done by a European--no matter who they are, or done by Black researchers found acceptable by Europeans in the academy, e.g., Gates, Mboli and Keita is recognized as correct while they ignore research from "alternative African scholarly sources." not recognized by "mainstream" i.e., "Europeans".
Still, we can't ignore research done by mainstream egyptology just because it was done by Europeans!!
We must take into account all sources of information from mainstream egyptology as well as less mainstream egyptology/history such as Diop, Obenga, Williams, etc. There's bigots around the world, but also professional people. Each source must be judged by its own value.
Even yourself in your papers use European scholars as sources of information.
This is all very positive both in term of the information it provides (the cultural uniformity between the Egyptian Nile, the Nubian Nile and the neighboring deserts (funeral practices, ornamentation of body, etc)) as well as the acknowledgment of the fundamental African origins of Ancient Egyptians by mainstream egyptology.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
as well as John Mbiti and other sources and Doug and typeZeis quote
I am Mende, you know the problem with these books is, they can only capture but so much. Many African beliefs are only explained in education societies like Poro, Komo etc. So while these books give you SOME background on the subject, they will never fully capture the essence of what it is Africans believe.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Nun, Amon, Atum, Ra, Shu, Tephnet etc are just aspects of the Creator.
Without considering spiritual or syncretic consideration, I don't consider the different names of God in Ancient Egypt as different aspects of one person. There is many names for the unique creator god in Ancient Egypt. Each have their own story of creation mythologies (for example).
Each names for god in Ancient Egypt represent the name of the unique creator god for different lineages, clans, ethnic groups scattered around AE along the Nile. One of them taking prominence when a different family/dynasty takes power in AE.
Of course for Ancient Egyptians (beside Amenhotep IV), as well as non-Abrahamic religions like in modern Africa, Ancient Greece, modern Japan (Shinto), etc, there's no problem if there's many different names, ceremonies and traditions for the unique creator god. Nobody is considered pagans or infidels.
Around the world there's probably thousands of different names for god. Thousand of different traditions and religious ceremonies.
This human diversity of culture, religions, personalities (individuals) is what enrich the world. It's the basic practice of freedom at an individual or collective level. It should only be limited when it limit the liberty of others.
In nature, the diversity (of genes, lifestyles, etc) is a basis survival strategy and a motor for evolution. Evolution, in every sense, is always done in continuity with the past.
Your interpretation is completely incorrect.
All of Egypt believed in ONE God. there were three main theological centers in Egypt, each with a different set of Neteru and varying, yet similar creation stories. Some claim these schools were vastly different, but other research says no, it was esoteric in meaning and these school were related and a initiate would pass from one school to the next. there are facts, and the problem is the interpretation of those facts. And one is always going to go wrong when interpreting Africa from a European perspective.
And NO, they NEVER named the Supreme Being. The thing they named is the first name/aspect/emanation to appear in THIS physical world of ours. It is not, however the name of the Divine Essence. As I said, Egyptian literature is replete with instances of them saying God is unknowable, without name, likeness etc. They did not depict Him in any physical image, nor did they give him a name.
As to the different enneads being used in the theological institutions around Egypt/Kemet, it is no different than a Jew saying YHWH and a Muslim saying Allah or a Frenchmen saying Dieu. It is all the same. There are NO polytheist in Africa, you can search high and low, you wont find them.
You should learn more about Africa, before adopting eurocentric beliefs about a continent they are 100% dissociated from.
The problem with most Europeans who write about Africa is this. They attempt to explain concepts that are foreign to them, by way of their own beliefs. It is like trying to explain a fish by a bird. They are the antithesis of each other.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAfricaTNSY: Bejas and Nubians are discriminated in Egypt, they live in the south, in their own villages, repeating the same "they stole our land".
They are discriminated, and we know why. Cairo is an Ottoman city, just like Ottoman is the architecture and a great part of the culture.
Egyptians know that, Bejas and Nubians know that.
there are black Egyptians ALL over Egypt, not just in the south. The problem with the so called Nubians is this. Many of them have argued for a independent or autonomous section for themselves. Why is that a problem? Well if they get strong enough, they could one day challenge those in power and maybe even take their land back, entirely. This is what all this crap comes down to.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: Not to be mean but is this not like the most basic **** that's been proven on this site for the last decade? Why is this even worth mentioning if not for the fact that the feet dragging Western scholars are stating the obvious? If that circle of academics is just now getting around to doing this then should we really give a damn what they have to say on this subject? It's not like we don't know that many of them are closet (or overt in the case of Hawass) anti black racist. Stop giving THEM power over this subject by not lunging at the dog bones that they throw us every few years. How about we move past THEM and look at alternative African scholarly sources?
The point is not that it is basic information. All the old hands already know it. The point is EXTENDING and DEEPENING the distribution and analysis of that information. As such, this 2014 piece is newer and fits the bill. This field is not static- modifications happen. This is an ongoing need, and can be seen in numerous Black History Month venues where some people have not moved beyond National Geographic's skewed approach, or Diop circa 1974. If anything there needs to be even MORE of the above put on the floor for all to benefit.
And there are also some who congratulate themselves as being "in the know" - circulating info among themselves in closed little cliques. This is all fine and dandy for the clique, but does little to meet the need for wide distribution of credible data on African bio-history. The enemies of that bio-history have deep networks of distortion and denial- whether it be Wikipedia edit blockading or "HBD" web rings. Data like this on the floor, out in the open, is an end-run that defeats all that.
As for "throwing us bones" - hardly. There can no longer be "bones". What we have is a flood that can't be stopped, thanks is part to places like ES. That flood needs to continue. Africana scholars? Sure. We have Keita, and others like Mario Beatty. More will appear on the continent and Diaspora.
Curiously, you produce nothing on the "alternative African scholarly sources." WHat or who might those sources be, and how up to date and relevant? Give some specifics.
Yah, we already know. You will disappear from the thread without giving any coherent answers..
Agreed 100% with this.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Nun, Amon, Atum, Ra, Shu, Tephnet etc are just aspects of the Creator.
Without considering spiritual or syncretic consideration, I don't consider the different names of God in Ancient Egypt as different aspects of one person. There is many names for the unique creator god in Ancient Egypt. Each have their own story of creation mythologies (for example).
Each names for god in Ancient Egypt represent the name of the unique creator god for different lineages, clans, ethnic groups scattered around AE along the Nile. One of them taking prominence when a different family/dynasty takes power in AE.
Of course for Ancient Egyptians (beside Amenhotep IV), as well as non-Abrahamic religions like in modern Africa, Ancient Greece, modern Japan (Shinto), etc, there's no problem if there's many different names, ceremonies and traditions for the unique creator god. Nobody is considered pagans or infidels.
Around the world there's probably thousands of different names for god. Thousand of different traditions and religious ceremonies.
This human diversity of culture, religions, personalities (individuals) is what enrich the world. It's the basic practice of freedom at an individual or collective level. It should only be limited when it limit the liberty of others.
In nature, the diversity (of genes, lifestyles, etc) is a basis survival strategy and a motor for evolution. Evolution, in every sense, is always done in continuity with the past.
Your interpretation is completely incorrect.
Let's agree to disagree on that one. Ultimately all those religious analysis must be backed by sources in Ancient Egyptian literature (or archaeology). The different "creation myths" we see in AE literature for example for each unique creator god have some similarities but they also have some differences. It's very interesting to analyse the differences and similarities between the various creation myths in Ancient Egypt. Around the world there's thousands of different unique creator god in traditional customs. Beside for spiritual consideration, they are not different aspect of the same god. Each religious tradition around the world have their own unique customs, creation myths, ceremonies and traditions which do have many similarities but are not exactly similar.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can agree with it but what are people going to do about it. The creation of that closed "clique" was just to weed out trolls. I can only think of 2 individuals that would not have been invited. The only request was that you PM the user that created the group with you email address to be added to the group.
As for ES, it is STAGNANT. Nothing happens here. You can data mine and harvest all you want but the seed with sit in the storehouse and rot if we dont to anything with it. Even when an idea comes of for folks to contribute its like CRICKETS. Turst me.
As for Clyde going on about nonsense. Nobody wants to constantly study the works of a bunch of folks who are DEAD. Dead people do not produce NEW works. If there are groups of people.....mostly white....out in Egypt and Sudan working in the field and doing research then guess what.....their DATA is what we are left with to discuss, interpretation be damned. Clyde. There is a difference between someone being an uncle tom and someone telling you you don't know what the hell you are talking about because you do sloppy/shity work.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
CLyde: There are many Pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers here at ES. They spend their time attacking each other. The pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers are of two schools. One group accepts anything written by a "European Authority" as valid and reliable and will fight to the death supporting this research witout, reservation e.g., the white Berbers are native to Africa.
The second group supports Europeans who write any piece supporting Black contributionism to ancient history i.e., Black Athena, and Black Genesis.
Most contributors here are not original thinkers. The science they practice is called: "Science by Authority". People who practice science by authority believe that any research done by a European--no matter who they are, or done by Black researchers found acceptable by Europeans in the academy, e.g., Gates, Mboli and Keita is recognized as correct while they ignore research from "alternative African scholarly sources." not recognized by "mainstream" i.e., "Europeans".
One strange thing about you Clyde is that you yourself, alleged paragon of "consciousness", make most of your citations and arguments from white scholars. Your "Black Olmec" thing for example is based on the pre-Columbian diffusionism of white writers. The only difference is that you have slapped a blackface on it. Likewise you have no problem citing white scholars to support your other claims. Your standard excuse is that you are "interpreting" things differently, but often it is only a blackface version. If you are such a paragon of "blackness" why do you continue to cite and use the works of white "EUropean authorities?" If you was truly "down with da people" you should confine yourself to citing only black authorities.
As regards "alternative African sources" you have a penchant for using outdated stuff from the 1920s , 1950s or 1970s. The field has moved on. Chancellor Williams 1970, or Van Sertima 1976 are fair background, but that was over or almost 40 years ago. They made a fair contribution based on the data available at the time, and are good background but that was 4 decades ago. Furthermore "alternative African sources" also have to past the test of accuracy and consistency. They don't get a free pass simply because they are black.
And who says you are an "original thinker"? Nothing in your work (some of which is discredited) suggests that at all. On top of that your work is often sloppy. There are numerous holes in your "Black Olmec" notion for example, which you fail to satisfactorily cover- often merely using repetition as a substitute for substantial argument. And when you presume to tackle the work of serious scientists in the field you continually embarrass yourself and undermine your own argument. For example when you tackled Stephen Oppenheimer your argument was weak and filled with errors making it easy to dismiss. You continually misread cited sources, and continually use outdated work. Here is what Oppenheimer has to say about some of your work: -------------------------------------------------
Finally, there are is a string of misunderstandings mistakes and misquotes in Winters' letter listed below, which detract from, rather than supporting, his overall argument:
Para 1, sentence 2:
42 kya refers presumably to the earliest carbon dates in Timor, not those much earlier luminescence dates given, in my review [1], for Australia.
Para 2, sentence 1: 'Oppenheimer dates L3 (M,N) to 83 kya'
Comment: I did not do so in this review [1]. As explained in the text I chose throughout to cite lineage ages from the key mtDNA recalibration paper of Soares et al. (2009) [5]. This was both for consistency, and to use the latest, most comprehensive and, hopefully, least inaccurate method, rather than pick and choose results from older, phylogenetically less-resolved publications, which might perhaps have suited my own preference for a pre-Toba exit better.
Para 3 (whole para): Comment: No published evidence/reference given for these assertions.
Para 4, sentence 1: 'The most recent common ancestor (TMRC) of AMH carrying LOd according to Gonder et al. dates to 106kya.'.
Comment: 'LOd' is not 'TMRC of AMH' (nor is L0d).
Para 4, sentence 1: 'A haplotype of LOd is AF-24...'
Comment: No it is not - on the evidence given in the citation. Gonder et al. (2007) [6] do not even mention haplotype AF-24 as such. The claim, if it were true, would simply reinforce the impression of ambiguity. AF-24 is however mentioned by Winters' other cited reference (published in 2000 and not based on complete sequences): Chen et al. (2000) [7] shown as belonging to L3a; but those authors acknowledge this particular phylogenetic assignment to be poorly resolved:
'Haplotype AF24, which is aligned with Asian macrohaplogroup M, is indicated by a double section symbol...subclusters AF19-AF21/AF24 and AF80-AF84 were not resolved at bootstrap values >50%...' [7]
They further emphasize the ambiguity of its phylogenetic/geographic assignment:
'...it is also possible that this particular haplotype [AF-24] is present in Africa because of back-migration [of M] from Asia.'... and: 'Alternatively, AF24 may have been introduced from Asia into Africa more recently.' [7]
Para 4, sentence 3: Winters continues to mis-cite Chen et al. (2000) [7]:
'Chen et al. maintain that Haplotype AF-24 (DQ112852) is at the base of the M Haplogroup [4].', Comment: Where? - unless it is in their reference to back-migration (above).
Para 5 appears to be further argument based on phylogenetic ambiguity.
Para 6, sentence 1: 'Gonder et al. has dated L3 to 100kya (5).'
Comment: No, they do not, according to Gonder's Table 2 [6].
Para 6, sentence 3: 'The presence of L3 (M,N) in West Africa and haplotype AF- 24 suggest an ancient demic diffusion of L3 (M,N) to West Africa prior to 70kya, and support Soares et al.'s (2) and Gonder et al.'s (5) dating of L3 between 80-100kya.'
Comment: The above inference, based on a single poorly-resolved haplotype, is unsound and Soares et al. (2009) [5] are mis-cited as far as the date is concerned.
Paras 7 and 8: Varied, inadequately-cited references to the presence of the 'Sangoan tool kit' in West Africa are used by Winters to infer the movement and spread of 'L3 (M,N)' in West Africa.
Comment: This is an unwarranted inference using as it does, hypothetical links (for which no evidence is given) between an Early Stone Age cultural phase and an ambiguous single modern genetic haplotype (AF-24). While dated archaeological evidence of human presence can, occasionally, be used to infer first-ever human arrival in a previously uninhabited region e.g. Polynesia or the Canary Islands and this kind of evidence be used to cross -check calibration of the mtDNA clock on unique and specific local founding lineages in those places [5], the sort of "stones and genes" type of inferences Winters makes for the spread of 'L3 (M,N)' in West Africa are completely unwarranted.
^^In short, you keep flooding the zone with weak, sloppy work. Many people here wanted to agree with your opening argument but then you ruin it with sloppiness. Your reply to Oppenheimer is more of the same repetition, rather than a clear, concise, systematic rebuttal that strengthens your case and qualifies unwarranted claims. People on ES for years have advised you on how to avoid such mistakes, how to accurately read sources, how to tighten your arguments and qualify them to make them more defensible. But no, you keep charging ahead, repeating the same weak stuff, with the same outdated sources, giving the enemies of African bio-history easy pickings.
Because of the tradition of an Afrocentric Social Science, young researchers should base their understanding of the African origin of Egypt, based on the research of Afrocentric social science like DuBois and Diop. But instead of doing this the young researchers here seek out any white authority or Black recognized by these whites, to support the African origin of Egypt.
This is not the way research should be done. Good research should cite the original research done by the heroes of Afrocentric research, and then cite the recent research that confirms the original findings of the Afrocentric researchers.
^^You are calling here for blind propagation of dated works some of which have been proven wrong by new data. Actually this is precisely the way research should NOT be done. You do not seem to grasp the fact that some of the older works may be proven wrong. This is nothing unusual, it is a fact of life in the field. But you would have people blindly keep repeating erroneous, or disproved work. And in fact, much of the new data coming on-stream supports the classic works of Diop, et al. When Raxter and Ruff 2008 for example show the limb proportion data that supports Diop. But to you, such people should not be cited because they are "European authorities."
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: You can agree with it but what are people going to do about it. The creation of that closed "clique" was just to weed out trolls. I can only think of 2 individuals that would not have been invited. The only request was that you PM the user that created the group with you email address to be added to the group.
As for ES, it is STAGNANT. Nothing happens here. You can data mine and harvest all you want but the seed with sit in the storehouse and rot if we dont to anything with it. Even when an idea comes of for folks to contribute its like CRICKETS. Turst me.
As for Clyde going on about nonsense. Nobody wants to constantly study the works of a bunch of folks who are DEAD. Dead people do not produce NEW works. If there are groups of people.....mostly white....out in Egypt and Sudan working in the field and doing research then guess what.....their DATA is what we are left with to discuss, interpretation be damned. Clyde. There is a difference between someone being an uncle tom and someone telling you you don't know what the hell you are talking about because you do sloppy/shity work.
Also agreed 100% with this too.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Nun, Amon, Atum, Ra, Shu, Tephnet etc are just aspects of the Creator.
Without considering spiritual or syncretic consideration, I don't consider the different names of God in Ancient Egypt as different aspects of one person. There is many names for the unique creator god in Ancient Egypt. Each have their own story of creation mythologies (for example).
Each names for god in Ancient Egypt represent the name of the unique creator god for different lineages, clans, ethnic groups scattered around AE along the Nile. One of them taking prominence when a different family/dynasty takes power in AE.
Of course for Ancient Egyptians (beside Amenhotep IV), as well as non-Abrahamic religions like in modern Africa, Ancient Greece, modern Japan (Shinto), etc, there's no problem if there's many different names, ceremonies and traditions for the unique creator god. Nobody is considered pagans or infidels.
Around the world there's probably thousands of different names for god. Thousand of different traditions and religious ceremonies.
This human diversity of culture, religions, personalities (individuals) is what enrich the world. It's the basic practice of freedom at an individual or collective level. It should only be limited when it limit the liberty of others.
In nature, the diversity (of genes, lifestyles, etc) is a basis survival strategy and a motor for evolution. Evolution, in every sense, is always done in continuity with the past.
Your interpretation is completely incorrect.
Let's agree to disagree on that one. Ultimately all those religious analysis must be backed by sources in Ancient Egyptian literature (or archaeology). The different "creation myths" we see in AE literature for example for each unique creator god have some similarities but they also have some differences. It's very interesting to analyse the differences and similarities between the various creation myths in Ancient Egypt. Around the world there's thousands of different unique creator god in traditional customs. Beside for spiritual consideration, they are not different aspect of the same god. Each religious tradition around the world have their own unique customs, creation myths, ceremonies and traditions which do have many similarities but are not exactly similar.
Not sure how what you said concerning the different groups around their world and their religious beliefs have anything to do with Egypt and their AFRICAN beliefs. As to proofs, I provided sources when I replied to Lioness. So I wholeheartedly agree, we can't go around just making stuff up to suit our own desires. I mean to say, we can go about making up stuff, but then we leave the realm of reality and enter the realm of fantasy, something I am uninterested in. Opinions are only as good as the facts upon which they are based. I have already provided sources for my comments, you have provided none Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: You can agree with it but what are people going to do about it. The creation of that closed "clique" was just to weed out trolls. I can only think of 2 individuals that would not have been invited. The only request was that you PM the user that created the group with you email address to be added to the group.
As for ES, it is STAGNANT. Nothing happens here. You can data mine and harvest all you want but the seed with sit in the storehouse and rot if we dont to anything with it. Even when an idea comes of for folks to contribute its like CRICKETS. Turst me.
As for Clyde going on about nonsense. Nobody wants to constantly study the works of a bunch of folks who are DEAD. Dead people do not produce NEW works. If there are groups of people.....mostly white....out in Egypt and Sudan working in the field and doing research then guess what.....their DATA is what we are left with to discuss, interpretation be damned. Clyde. There is a difference between someone being an uncle tom and someone telling you you don't know what the hell you are talking about because you do sloppy/shity work.
Indeed,
I think the issue is, are we taking the FACTS that researchers present (be they white or not) and using those facts to extrapolate sound conclusions? This is opposed to taking eurocentric extrapolations of the facts and just running wild with them. We have to base our opinions on facts that's how we arrive at truth and understanding. In the absence of fact based opinions, we are left with fantasy. Aint no body got time for that.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
And because of Clyde Winters using outdated studies and gaining some followers, hardcore Afrocentrics repeat his work on different sites. As a result they get their asses kicked by Eurocentrics because of it. They don't adapt at all...While the Eurocentrics(most) due adapt to newer studies, but the "twist" it. Eurocentrics new code word for Caucasoids is "Eurasian".
Clyde Winters and his followers do not adapt. I've seen argument for Ancient Egypt where the people debating for a black Egypt should have easily demolished their opponents, but due to relying on CW old ways of thinking and relying of Diop, they get their asses kicked badly.
And all I do is *face/palm*
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Not sure how what you said concerning the different groups around their world and their religious beliefs have anything to do with Egypt and their AFRICAN beliefs.
The principle is the same. There's many different populations around the world with their own traditional customs, creation myths, ceremonies etc. The principle is the same for any region of Africa including Ancient Egypt. There's obviously many different traditional customs, creation myths and ceremonies in Africa even if they do share many similarities.
quote: As to proofs, I provided sources when I replied to Lioness. So I wholeheartedly agree, we can't go around just making stuff up to suit our own desires. I mean to say, we can go about making up stuff, but then we leave the realm of reality and enter the realm of fantasy, something I am uninterested in. Opinions are only as good as the facts upon which they are based. I have already provided sources for my comments, you have provided none
I said source in AE literature or archaeology. The different creation myths in Ancient Egyptian are the source I use. They are well known and easy to gather. You can't ignore or dismiss the differences between the various creation myths, nor the similarities. They are both important for a complete analysis. Systematic analysis of those differences and similarities is a very interesting subject.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: And because of Clyde Winters using outdated studies and gaining some followers, hardcore Afrocentrics repeat his work on different sites. As a result they get their asses kicked by Eurocentrics because of it. They don't adapt at all...While the Eurocentrics(most) due adapt to newer studies, but the "twist" it. Eurocentrics new code word for Caucasoids is "Eurasian".
Clyde Winters and his followers do not adapt. I've seen argument for Ancient Egypt where the people debating for a black Egypt should have easily demolished their opponents, but due to relying on CW old ways of thinking and relying of Diop, they get their asses kicked badly.
And all I do is *face/palm*
This..... we dont even have to bring up mountains of the moon,. some crappy subjective artwork in some burried tomb or the reports of what some Greeks said 2500 years ago. There are fossils, data, and ancient DNA that we can be talking about. Nobody want to hear old arguments from the 80's and 90's. Clyde is mad because nobody is sourcing 100+ year old works from dead people. Then what is produced is extremely sloppy. Its no even "captian obvious" in the way that would tie nile valley remains to the ancient migration of Africans to Europe in ref to M78 and M123!
Clyde your work is not Afrocentric at all.....because its not really about Africa. You are too busy looking for the non-existant presence of the long termed (40-70kya) adaptation of African inside Eurasia....and wondering why "African" lineages like R2 are missing from Africa........and dont even have the terminology down. Face-palms abound. But I get it, you are going through Alzheimers and still trying to write.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: And because of Clyde Winters using outdated studies and gaining some followers, hardcore Afrocentrics repeat his work on different sites. As a result they get their asses kicked by Eurocentrics because of it. They don't adapt at all...While the Eurocentrics(most) due adapt to newer studies, but the "twist" it. Eurocentrics new code word for Caucasoids is "Eurasian".
Clyde Winters and his followers do not adapt. I've seen argument for Ancient Egypt where the people debating for a black Egypt should have easily demolished their opponents, but due to relying on CW old ways of thinking and relying of Diop, they get their asses kicked badly.
And all I do is *face/palm*
This..... we dont even have to bring up mountains of the moon,. some crappy subjective artwork in some burried tomb or the reports of what some Greeks said 2500 years ago. There are fossils, data, and ancient DNA that we can be talking about. Nobody want to hear old arguments from the 80's and 90's. Clyde is mad because nobody is sourcing 100+ year old works from dead people. Then what is produced is extremely sloppy. Its no even "captian obvious" in the way that would tie nile valley remains to the ancient migration of Africans to Europe in ref to M78 and M123!
Clyde your work is not Afrocentric at all.....because its not really about Africa. You are too busy looking for the non-existant presence of the long termed (40-70kya) adaptation of African inside Eurasia....and wondering why "African" lineages like R2 are missing from Africa........and dont even have the terminology down. Face-palms abound. But I get it, you are going through Alzheimers and still trying to write.
Agreed.
But the thing that scares me most about Clyde Winters is that he gains followers around the net who believe in his sloppy work and they repeat it around the net. They are relying out sloppy and outdated work.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people like to broadcast information to the public in A blog or forum-like setting and be the center of attention. Others like to post in online communities where there is a healthy ratio of people who contribute and where there is emphasis on active and serious interaction and analysis. I can't see why anyone would dismiss the latter out of hand as "clicking up" or "posting from ivory towers" unless they had some self-serving bias against didactic settings where there is little opportunity to be in the spotlight every day and bathe in praise from the public. If the information is really as widespread and easily accessible as you keep repeating every other post, there shouldn't be a need for every ES member to be hands on deck every day and follow your bombard-them-to-death-with-barrages-of-old-data philosophy. Other than the aforementioned reason of craving attention, the only other reason I can see someone dismiss the facebook group out of hand, is if that person has a tendency to leech and rely on others to do most of the posting that actually makes a difference. Speaking of leeching and relying on others to do the hard work, when was the last time you posted something big (and by big I don't mean pictures of ass and titties or tediously tall walls of text)?
The bottom line is you guys are dinosaurs. Fossils. Almost every anthropology blog has scoops before you do. There is little reason for serious people to visit ES, except maybe as an after-thought or nostalgia. When Evergreen and them left (people who truly understood the value of bringing in new, or previously unseen data) the forum was left with a bunch of leeches and people who like to bask in fossilized data. 'Scuse me for wanting to create a community where emphasis is on collective sharing and that early ES sense of staying on top of recent developments. Silly me. What was I thinking?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Not sure how what you said concerning the different groups around their world and their religious beliefs have anything to do with Egypt and their AFRICAN beliefs.
The principle is the same. There's many different populations around the world with their own traditional customs, creation myths, ceremonies etc. The principle is the same for any region of Africa including Ancient Egypt. There's obviously many different traditional customs, creation myths and ceremonies in Africa even if they do share many similarities.
quote: As to proofs, I provided sources when I replied to Lioness. So I wholeheartedly agree, we can't go around just making stuff up to suit our own desires. I mean to say, we can go about making up stuff, but then we leave the realm of reality and enter the realm of fantasy, something I am uninterested in. Opinions are only as good as the facts upon which they are based. I have already provided sources for my comments, you have provided none
I said source in AE literature or archaeology. The different creation myths in Ancient Egyptian are the source I use. They are well known and easy to gather. You can't ignore or dismiss the differences between the various creation myths, nor the similarities. They are both important for a complete analysis. Systematic analysis of those differences and similarities is a very interesting subject.
Again, I provided sources and the sources I provided give exact examples from mtu ntr stating the Kemetic beliefs. You stating something on a forum doesn't make anything a fact, nor does it provide proof.
couple this with the fact you don't seem to be very well versed in African beliefs. Egypt was and is in Africa. Anciently it was run by black Africans with black African beliefs. It did not happen in a vacuum. As such we can look to African belief systems today to try and understand the context of the Ancient Egyptian beliefs. That is how you do sensible analysis. You don't just make things up and pull out opinions based on what your fantasy tells you, nor does it work by using "people from around the world" as we are talking about AFRICANS with AFRICAN beliefs.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Not sure how what you said concerning the different groups around their world and their religious beliefs have anything to do with Egypt and their AFRICAN beliefs.
The principle is the same. There's many different populations around the world with their own traditional customs, creation myths, ceremonies etc. The principle is the same for any region of Africa including Ancient Egypt. There's obviously many different traditional customs, creation myths and ceremonies in Africa even if they do share many similarities.
quote: As to proofs, I provided sources when I replied to Lioness. So I wholeheartedly agree, we can't go around just making stuff up to suit our own desires. I mean to say, we can go about making up stuff, but then we leave the realm of reality and enter the realm of fantasy, something I am uninterested in. Opinions are only as good as the facts upon which they are based. I have already provided sources for my comments, you have provided none
I said source in AE literature or archaeology. The different creation myths in Ancient Egyptian are the source I use. They are well known and easy to gather. You can't ignore or dismiss the differences between the various creation myths, nor the similarities. They are both important for a complete analysis. Systematic analysis of those differences and similarities is a very interesting subject.
Again, I provided sources and the sources I provided give exact examples from mtu ntr stating the Kemetic beliefs. You stating something on a forum doesn't make anything a fact, nor does it provide proof.
couple this with the fact you don't seem to be very well versed in African beliefs. Egypt was and is in Africa. Anciently it was run by black Africans with black African beliefs. It did not happen in a vacuum. As such we can look to African belief systems today to try and understand the context of the Ancient Egyptian beliefs. That is how you do sensible analysis. You don't just make things up and pull out opinions based on what your fantasy tells you, nor does it work by using "people from around the world" as we are talking about AFRICANS with AFRICAN beliefs.
Get off your high horse.
You wont tell me what I know and don't know or how should I do analysis. You should look at your posts in a mirror from time to time. This fluff, insults and bs is beside the point I was making. I made my points above and if you don't want to address them directly, we can agree to disagree and people will make their own opinion. Relax a bit, it will do you good.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Not sure how what you said concerning the different groups around their world and their religious beliefs have anything to do with Egypt and their AFRICAN beliefs.
The principle is the same. There's many different populations around the world with their own traditional customs, creation myths, ceremonies etc. The principle is the same for any region of Africa including Ancient Egypt. There's obviously many different traditional customs, creation myths and ceremonies in Africa even if they do share many similarities.
quote: As to proofs, I provided sources when I replied to Lioness. So I wholeheartedly agree, we can't go around just making stuff up to suit our own desires. I mean to say, we can go about making up stuff, but then we leave the realm of reality and enter the realm of fantasy, something I am uninterested in. Opinions are only as good as the facts upon which they are based. I have already provided sources for my comments, you have provided none
I said source in AE literature or archaeology. The different creation myths in Ancient Egyptian are the source I use. They are well known and easy to gather. You can't ignore or dismiss the differences between the various creation myths, nor the similarities. They are both important for a complete analysis. Systematic analysis of those differences and similarities is a very interesting subject.
Again, I provided sources and the sources I provided give exact examples from mtu ntr stating the Kemetic beliefs. You stating something on a forum doesn't make anything a fact, nor does it provide proof.
couple this with the fact you don't seem to be very well versed in African beliefs. Egypt was and is in Africa. Anciently it was run by black Africans with black African beliefs. It did not happen in a vacuum. As such we can look to African belief systems today to try and understand the context of the Ancient Egyptian beliefs. That is how you do sensible analysis. You don't just make things up and pull out opinions based on what your fantasy tells you, nor does it work by using "people from around the world" as we are talking about AFRICANS with AFRICAN beliefs.
Get off your high horse.
You wont tell me what I know and don't know or how should I do analysis. You should look at your posts in a mirror from time to time. This fluff, insults and bs is beside the point I was making. I made my points above and if you don't want to address them directly, we can agree to disagree and people will make their own opinion. Relax a bit, it will do you good.
Well yeah, I can tell you what you do or don't know, when you show a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter. Thats not rocket science. If i tell someone that I believe motorcycles have four wheels, well, that shows I clearly have no real understanding of the subject matter. For you to say that the Egyptians didn't believe in one God is silly, given the fact they said it themselves. That's a fact, that's not a interpretation, a analysis, a dream, a fantasy, its a fact. i have given the sources for that info. Again all you have given is a statement based on your opinion, do you see the difference? saying "I said source in AE literature or archaeology" doesn't mean anything. Can you show us the literature or archeology that clearly shows the Ancient Egyptians didn't believe in one God? If you can do that, then fine give us the names of the things your relating to, so I can go read it and see for myself. You just saying that though doesn't mean anything. So as it stands, there is nothing to analyze, as you have only given me, what appears to be, uneducated opinion. I gave you three books to read, wallace budge's books are in two volumes and then the barnel book black athena.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Well yeah, I can tell you what you do or don't know, when you show a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter. Thats not rocket science. If i tell someone that I believe motorcycles have four wheels, well, that shows I clearly have no real understanding of the subject matter. For you to say that the Egyptians didn't believe in one God is silly, given the fact they said it themselves. That's a fact, that's not a interpretation, a analysis, a dream, a fantasy, its a fact. i have given the sources for that info. Again all you have given is a statement based on your opinion, do you see the difference? saying "I said source in AE literature or archaeology" doesn't mean anything. Can you show us the literature or archeology that clearly shows the Ancient Egyptians didn't believe in one God? If you can do that, then fine give us the names of the things your relating to, so I can go read it and see for myself. You just saying that though doesn't mean anything. So as it stands, there is nothing to analyze, as you have only given me, what appears to be, uneducated opinion. I gave you three books to read, wallace budge's books are in two volumes and then the barnel book black athena.
You're a funny one but you're beginning to be ridiculous.
The only thing I agree with you is to disagree. You didn't convince me. I didn't convince you either, but it's ok. You really need to relax. Grab a beer. Take some fresh air.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people like to broadcast information to the public in A blog or forum-like setting and be the center of attention. Others like to post in online communities where there is a healthy ratio of people who contribute and where there is emphasis on active and serious interaction and analysis. I can't see why anyone would dismiss the latter out of hand as "clicking up" or "posting from ivory towers" unless they had some self-serving bias against didactic settings where there is little opportunity to be in the spotlight every day and bathe in praise from the public. If the information is really as widespread and easily accessible as you keep repeating every other post, there shouldn't be a need for every ES member to be hands on deck every day and follow your bombard-them-to-death-with-barrages-of-old-data philosophy.
Swenet I have no beef with you or the Facebook thing. I only object to how you and some folks keep dismissing legitimate extensions of, and new elaboration to existing knowledge on ES as valueless or "unneeded."
Then of course the question arises as to why y'all still hang around ES since all is supposedly dying and only fit for alleged "old news." As for the information being widespread, it is widespread and accessible precisely because of the accurate cites and summation in existence, and the new extensions and analysis are being distributed almost every week "on deck" rather than circulated mainly in a closed venue. Information is not a static entity- but a living changing thing.
Other than the aforementioned reason of craving attention, the only other reason I can see someone dismiss the facebook group out of hand, is if that person has a tendency to leech and rely on others to do most of the posting that actually makes a difference.
Actually the Facebook group was not dismissed out of hand, just the posture that everything posted on ES is supposedly old news that some people already know. In fact, I commended Beyoku for doing what she does on her side of the aisle, in view of the common cause. I never had a problem with Facebook side, just the notion that everything on ES is so terrible and old, and that only a certain select group is worth anything. You yourself have exhibited this attitude multiple times, and do so again, below.
Speaking of leeching and relying on others to do the hard work, when was the last time you posted something big (and by big I don't mean pictures of ass and titties or tediously tall walls of text)?
^^What is supposed to be something "big" by your definition? And ask yourself the same question- what have you posted lately that's "big" and that hasn't been leeched from somewhere else? What original research have you done on your styled pristine Facebook forum? And when have you had time to do all these "big things"? In fact you yourself have spent multiple threads arguing over allegedly "fossilized" information on ES, including multiple threads arguing with people like The Explorer over "fossil" minutiae.
As for the tall walls of text, they have come in pretty handy, and have done excellent service, as the multiple forum forays of Slugger, Morpheus, Asante, and others demonstrate. The accurate citations therein have time and time again proven their worth in debate and exchange across the web, by serious people. And that body of text has time and time again put information on the floor, across the web, end-running he blockades of Wikipedia moles and sandbaggers. Tall text? Hell, make the most of it.
The bottom line is you guys are dinosaurs. Fossils. Almost every anthropology blog has scoops before you do.
See here is where you prove what I am saying above, how you breezily dismiss the valid information being put out here on ES, including new data and extensions to existing knowledge. If ES is for fossils and dinosaurs, how come you keep posting here and arguing with people, rather than pursuing alleged path-breaking purity in your new Facebook group? And of course anthropology blogs, some of which are run by academics- dedicated solely to the subject- will SOMETIMES scoop ES. So what? ES is sometimes ahead of the game with information THEY have not posted. And even in alleged days of glory, said blogs time and time again broke information which ES members picked up and reposted for discussion and critique. That has not changed. And there is nothing sacred about other anthro blogs. In fact they are often full of distortion as the examples of Matilda, Dinekes and others demonstrate. Nothing sacred about what they "scoop" at all. And you yourself have numerous times reposted info from other blogs, web sources and PDFs on here, or churned away for numerous threads on such reposts.
There is little reason for serious people to visit ES, except maybe as an after-thought or nostalgia. When Evergreen and them left (people who truly understood the value of bringing in new, or previously unseen data) the forum was left with a bunch of leeches and people who like to bask in fossilized data.
Dubious as noted above. But the question arises, if you are one of these select, oh so serious people, how come you are still around here visiting then? Shouldn't you be off "pioneering" on Facebook with the selectively serious?? And even in would-be glory days, ES was always beset by trolls, ideologues, etc etc and long time members battled with them on months-long, multiple flame threads on end, as the history of "Hammer", Akoben, et al well demonstrates. ES was never any pristine atmosphere of pure knowledge.
'Scuse me for wanting to create a community where emphasis is on collective sharing and that early ES sense of staying on top of recent developments. Silly me. What was I thinking?
I have no beef with your Facebook endeavour, and if you think you can create your community of collective sharing- go for it. But keep in mind that ES is a valid part of the common body of collective Africana knowledge, even now. As noted elsewhere on this same general topic, ES has its part to play, even if only as an initial content dump and setup point for wider distribution. But it is not only that. New information and extensions in their own right appear here every almost week. There is plenty of room for everyone to work their side of the street- whether it be Facebook, ES, private blogs, or web-based forums. Like I say I have no beef with that in the larger context of pushing that knowledge forward. We all are aiming ultimately for the same thing. Peace.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
None of that has ANYTHING to do with nature worship. Africans worship ONE God just as the so called "major" religious do. However, they recognize his "aspects". These 'masquerades' also have esoteric meanings that are meant to teach certain truths to their initiates. You should research Poro or Komo. There are plenty of old books on them.
It is not nature worship in the sense of believing that a tree is "god". It is "nature worship" in the sense of seeing nature as a manifestation of gods divine presence in the universe and thus is the basis of initiation. And all the deities of ancient Egypt were likewise symbolic aspects of the "one" god as you put it with deeper mysteries veiled to the uninitiated, which is no different than any religion. Even Christianity has similar secret meanings and this goes all the way back to the gnostics, which is merely a vestige of the ancient African system. And my only point is that that whole pattern of associating nature with god in any shape or form is ultimately African in origin. But then again, going back in time, it was really nature worship as the god concept evolved over time.
Indeed sir, you and I are in 100% agreement. Sometimes language can cause barriers in understanding but I understand you position and you and I on the same page. Except I don't think it evolved over time. I think they always understood it as aspects of the Divine creator. At least as far back as any religion in Africa is concerned, Africans have always been monotheistic.
I think that humans originally worshiped nature as a "mysterious power" that they didn't understand and from that there were many different forms or aspects of "god conscious" that developed, along with many rites and traditions and the root of most religious rituals we see in the world today. African traditional religions are considered as "animistic" and no scholar would even begin to call them "monotheistic". Animism believes that all things have a "spirit" or "soul", whether that is considered god or not is a different matter. Monotheism and Pantheism are but two sides of the same coin in that there is one ultimate "deity" but either it has many aspects or shades, as in pantheism or there is simply one singular aspect, as in monotheism. Actually, most people don't understand what pantheism really is in the first place, but that has nothing to do with my point that most aspects of religious worship and the concept of "gods" came from Africa. The gods in most cultures, whether monotheistic or pantheistic are symbolized by forces in nature. The point being that god = life force. The sun itself is a prime example of this. Jesus = the sun. Buddha = the sun (the son and rebirth of the life force, soul or spirit) and so on and so on. It represents the life force since the sun itself is fundamental to life on earth. Those are simply latter day versions of ancient solar religions that were in reality part of the animist tradition. Therefore, the sun, not only possesses an "essence" or "spirit" but it also symbolizes the life force or "spirit" within all things. This advanced, deep, multifaceted symbolism, with various layers of meaning evolved over time. And really even in monotheistic religions the belief in "spirits" or "souls" still exists which again is only a carry over from more ancient animist traditions.
I have no problem with most of what you are saying. Though I think you are interpreting the facts in a more eurocentric interpretation on history. The eurocentric interpretation of history is something I am not willing to accept personally. I personally don't buy the whole "humans were ignorant and uncivilized in the beginning and then progressed". I think that's European nonsense to explain their late development.
We go as far back in Nile valley history as we want and we see these developed beliefs. they are not "developing" but fully developed. We go into the Sahara (which is the origin of Mande and Nile Valley peoples) and we still see them (beliefs) there, fully developed. I would even venture to say that one day they will probably uncover a civilization the likes of which we have never seen under the Sahara.
I believe when you see backward civilizations, it is most likely because their main civilization fell and they then went backward. That or its some splinter group that left the main group for whatever reason. People can most definitely "devolve". Think about Aztecs. These people built pyramids and very complex civilizations. Now if you look at aztecs, they live in third world conditions and can no longer read their own language. There are external forces that can cause civilizations to fall. Once your leaders are gone and the thinkers in society are gone, things go down hell from there.
Think about the West. Imagine if someone were to take out EVERY government leader, every engineer and every other person we need to build up western civilization. What do you think is going to happen?
But besides that, Africans have always known that God created this world using his emanations or attributes. It is the attributes that underlay how existence works. You see this same teaching in Islam, except in Islam it is the 99 names of God. In Christianity its the 72 names of God. Hindus who are monotheistic as well also have the same concept. It is just that they have created statues and worship the names directly and they engender them. Where as Islam and at least in Mande religion the names are not engendered as such.
Evolution is not Eurocentric. That is giving them too much credit. I certainly do not think that humans in Africa 300,000 years ago had the conception of a god and universe the same way they did 10,000 years ago. I said that all religions in the world today have their roots in Africa and the belief in 'nature spirits'. That is the core of all African traditions to this day whether they believe in one god or 100. I don't understand what you are even debating as this is easily proven by studying and reading any document you like on African traditional religions. Also, I think you are confused by what a deity is. A deity is simply another term for a supernatural being. Therefore, Orishas in West Africa are examples of deities. Nature spitits or "neteru" are deities. The concept of a supreme 'god' or many 'gods' is just another variation on the belief in deities, in other words supernatural forces and spirits. In fact the word supernatural belies the fact that the concepts it embodies originate in the observation and experience of nature and the power of natural forces.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: And when you presume to tackle the work of serious scientists in the field you continually embarrass yourself and undermine your own argument. For example when you tackled Stephen Oppenheimer your argument was weak and filled with errors making it easy to dismiss. You continually misread cited sources, and continually use outdated work. Here is what Oppenheimer has to say about some of your work:
-------------------------------------------------
Finally, there are is a string of misunderstandings mistakes and misquotes in Winters' letter listed below, which detract from, rather than supporting, his overall argument:
Para 1, sentence 2:
42 kya refers presumably to the earliest carbon dates in Timor, not those much earlier luminescence dates given, in my review [1], for Australia.
Para 2, sentence 1: 'Oppenheimer dates L3 (M,N) to 83 kya'
Comment: I did not do so in this review [1]. As explained in the text I chose throughout to cite lineage ages from the key mtDNA recalibration paper of Soares et al. (2009) [5]. This was both for consistency, and to use the latest, most comprehensive and, hopefully, least inaccurate method, rather than pick and choose results from older, phylogenetically less-resolved publications, which might perhaps have suited my own preference for a pre-Toba exit better.
Para 3 (whole para): Comment: No published evidence/reference given for these assertions.
Para 4, sentence 1: 'The most recent common ancestor (TMRC) of AMH carrying LOd according to Gonder et al. dates to 106kya.'.
Comment: 'LOd' is not 'TMRC of AMH' (nor is L0d).
Para 4, sentence 1: 'A haplotype of LOd is AF-24...'
Comment: No it is not - on the evidence given in the citation. Gonder et al. (2007) [6] do not even mention haplotype AF-24 as such. The claim, if it were true, would simply reinforce the impression of ambiguity. AF-24 is however mentioned by Winters' other cited reference (published in 2000 and not based on complete sequences): Chen et al. (2000) [7] shown as belonging to L3a; but those authors acknowledge this particular phylogenetic assignment to be poorly resolved:
'Haplotype AF24, which is aligned with Asian macrohaplogroup M, is indicated by a double section symbol...subclusters AF19-AF21/AF24 and AF80-AF84 were not resolved at bootstrap values >50%...' [7]
They further emphasize the ambiguity of its phylogenetic/geographic assignment:
'...it is also possible that this particular haplotype [AF-24] is present in Africa because of back-migration [of M] from Asia.'... and: 'Alternatively, AF24 may have been introduced from Asia into Africa more recently.' [7]
Para 4, sentence 3: Winters continues to mis-cite Chen et al. (2000) [7]:
'Chen et al. maintain that Haplotype AF-24 (DQ112852) is at the base of the M Haplogroup [4].', Comment: Where? - unless it is in their reference to back-migration (above).
Para 5 appears to be further argument based on phylogenetic ambiguity.
Para 6, sentence 1: 'Gonder et al. has dated L3 to 100kya (5).'
Comment: No, they do not, according to Gonder's Table 2 [6].
Para 6, sentence 3: 'The presence of L3 (M,N) in West Africa and haplotype AF- 24 suggest an ancient demic diffusion of L3 (M,N) to West Africa prior to 70kya, and support Soares et al.'s (2) and Gonder et al.'s (5) dating of L3 between 80-100kya.'
Comment: The above inference, based on a single poorly-resolved haplotype, is unsound and Soares et al. (2009) [5] are mis-cited as far as the date is concerned.
Paras 7 and 8: Varied, inadequately-cited references to the presence of the 'Sangoan tool kit' in West Africa are used by Winters to infer the movement and spread of 'L3 (M,N)' in West Africa.
Comment: This is an unwarranted inference using as it does, hypothetical links (for which no evidence is given) between an Early Stone Age cultural phase and an ambiguous single modern genetic haplotype (AF-24). While dated archaeological evidence of human presence can, occasionally, be used to infer first-ever human arrival in a previously uninhabited region e.g. Polynesia or the Canary Islands and this kind of evidence be used to cross -check calibration of the mtDNA clock on unique and specific local founding lineages in those places [5], the sort of "stones and genes" type of inferences Winters makes for the spread of 'L3 (M,N)' in West Africa are completely unwarranted.
--Openheimer 2012 Reply to Winters..
[/qb]
LOL. This was not my complete reply to Oppenheimer. I was not allowed to respond to Oppenheimer's response to my criticism of his original article. Here is my response to the above.
Monday, June 11, 2012 Response by Oppenheimer to Winters'(2012)
Haplogroup L3(M,N) probably spread across Africa before the Out of Africa Event Dr. Oppenheimer (2012b) implies that L3(M,N) originated in Asia. This is false. We know that L3 originated long before the OoA event. He does not present any evidence falsifying my conclusion. His entire argument is that M1 is ‘rare’ in Asia.
Haplotypes with HVSI transitions defining 16129-16223-16249-16278-16311-16362; and 16129-16223-16234-16249-16211-16362 have been found in Thailand and among the Han Chinese (Fucharoen et al., 2001; Yao et al., 2002) and these were originally thought to be members of Haplogroup M1. However, on the basis of currently available FGS sequences, carriers of these markers have been found to be in the D4a branch of Haplogroup D, the most widespread branch of M 1 in East Asia (Fucharoen et al., 2001; Yao et al., 2002). The transitions 16129, 16189, 16249 and 16311 are known to be recurrent in various branches of Haplogroup M, especially M1 and D4.
Dr. Oppenheimer (2012b)claims that there are a string of mistakes and misquotes in my response to his article which are not substantiated by the literature. For example, Dr. Oppenheimer claims that LOd is not the TMRC for AMH. This is false. I claim that LOd is older than L3, this is not contradicted by Soares.
Atkinson et al (2009) makes it clear that L3 is the youngest African haplogroup and LO is the oldest. As a result, when Dr. Oppenheimer claims that LOd is not the TMRC of AMH, he is false. LO is the oldest haplogroup, since LOd is dated to 106kya and one of the LO clades it. Atkinson et al (2009) observed that “Haplogroups L0 and L1 (figure 2b,c, respectively) show slow constant growth over the last 100–200 kyr (TMRCAs: L0, 124–172 kyr ago; L1, 87–139 kyr ago; L0 and L1 combined, 156–213 kyr ago; 95% HPDs)”. This makes it clear that haplogroup LO is the oldest mtDNA haplogroup in Africa.
Dr. Oppenheimer also claims that haplotype AF-24 is “ poorly resolved”. This is false, Chen et al make it clear that” The samples included complete haplotypes of 62 Senegalese (AF01–AF24, AF26–AF36, AF45–AF59, AF64–AF65, and AF70–AF79)”. As a result, how can he make the claim AF-24 is poorly resolved when Chen et al (2002) make it clear that he used “complete haplotypes of 62 Senegalese” samples that include AF-24.
Chen et al makes it clear that AF-24 could be of either Asian or African origin”Similarly, L3a was found to have a close affinity to haplotype AF24, a mtDNA that has the DdeI np-10394 and AluI np-10397 site gains characteristic of Asian macrohaplogroup M (figs.(figs.22 andand3).3). Therefore, it is possible that subhaplogroup L3a was the progenitor of Asian mtDNAs belonging to M. Although the age of subhaplogroup L3a is somewhat less than our estimate for the age of Asian haplogroup M (Torroni et al. 1994b; Chen et al. 1995), the differences could be due to the limited number of L3a mtDNAs in our African sample. Alternatively, AF24 may have been introduced from Asia into Africa more recently.” The fact that Atkinson et al (2009) makes it clear that AF-24 is a haplotype of LO, make it unlikely that AF-24 originated in Asia, since it was already in existence prior to the OoA event.
Finally, Oppenheimer claims that you can not infer population movements relating to the expansion of the ancient tool kits. This is a false statement since the demic expansion of LO(d) and L3 from East Africa to West Africa is cross referenced with specific founding lineage which is assumed to have originated in the East. This assumption is just as valid as Oppenheimer’s view relating to the Tonga event’s impact on the OoA.
In summary, it is obvious that Dr. Oppenheimer has little knowledge of the expansion of haplogroups in Africa. I am surprised the he didn’t know that the GenBank Accession number for Haplotype AF-24 is DQ112852, this suggest that he is not keeping up with the literature. Moreover, the earliest examples of L3(N) come from Iberia, not East Asia. Since this area was first occupied by Neanderthals until the expansion of the Aurignacian culture which had to have crossed the Straits of Gibraltar from Africa (Winters,2012). No where in Dr. Oppenhiemer’s response dose he present textual evidence supporting his conclusions. He only provides his opinions—not evidence.
Chen Y-S., Olckers A., Schurr T.G., Kogelnik A.M., Huoponen K., Wallace D.C. 2000 mtDNA variation in the South African Kung and Khwe - and their genetic relationships to other African populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66, 1362-1383
Fucharoen, G., S. Fucharoen and S. Horai, 2001. Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism in Thailand. J.Hum. Genet., 46: 115-125.
Gonder M.K., Mortensen H.M., Reed F.A., de Sousa A., Tishkoff S.A. 2007 Whole mtDNA genome sequence analysis of ancient African lineages. Mol. Biol. Evol., 24, 757-768. (doi: 10.1093/molbev/msl209).
Oppenheimer S. 2012 Out-of-Africa, the peopling of continents and islands: tracing uniparental gene trees across the map. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 367, 770-784. (doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0306
Soares P., Ermini L., Thomson, N., Mormina M., Rito T., Rohl A., Salas A., Oppenheimer S., Macaulay V., Richards M.B. 2009 Correcting for purifying selection: an improved human mitochondrial molecular clock. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 84, 740-759. (doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.05.001)
Yao, Y.G., Q.P. Kong, H.J. Bandelt, T. Kivisild and Y.P.Zhang, 2002. Phylogeographic differentiation of mitochondrial DNA in Han chinese. Am. J. Hum.Genet., 70: 635-651.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:And who says you are an "original thinker"? Nothing in your work (some of which is discredited) suggests that at all. On top of that your work is often sloppy. There are numerous holes in your "Black Olmec" notion for example, which you fail to satisfactorily cover- often merely using repetition as a substitute for substantial argument. [/QB]
LOL. You talk about the holes in my Black Olmec hypothesis. Please cite the papers and articles where my views have been disputed. Include in your discussion the contentions made by the researchers and the archaeological evidence they cite.
Also cite the holes in my research, and the counter evidence that falsifies my findings.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: And because of Clyde Winters using outdated studies and gaining some followers, hardcore Afrocentrics repeat his work on different sites. As a result they get their asses kicked by Eurocentrics because of it. They don't adapt at all...While the Eurocentrics(most) due adapt to newer studies, but the "twist" it. Eurocentrics new code word for Caucasoids is "Eurasian".
Clyde Winters and his followers do not adapt. I've seen argument for Ancient Egypt where the people debating for a black Egypt should have easily demolished their opponents, but due to relying on CW old ways of thinking and relying of Diop, they get their asses kicked badly.
And all I do is *face/palm*
You're a liar. I am not egyptocentric so I can not imagine someone using my research in a debate about Egypt.
Also I do not use only old sources. Below is a list of some of my recent publications. Anyone can check them out and they will discover that the references are for the most part current.
Linguistics ___________2007. Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays, 27(5): 497-498.
___________2007b. High Levels of Genetic Divergence across Indian Populations. PloS Genetics. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.plosgenetics.
_____________2010b. 9bp and the Relationship Between African and Dravidian Speakers. Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences 2(4): 229-231. http://maxwellsci.com/print/crjbs/v2-229-231.pdf
___________.2010d. The Kushite Spread of Haplogroup R1*-M173 from Africa to Eurasia. Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences 2(4): 294-299. http://maxwellsci.com/print/crjbs/v2-294-299.pdf
____________.2010e. Paper Advantageous Alleles, Parallel Adaptation, Geographic Location andSickle Cell Anemia among Africans Advances in Bioresearch,1(2):69-71. http://www.soeagra.com/abr/vol2/12.pdf
_______________ 2011a. The Demic Diffussion of the M-Haplogroup from East Africa to the Senegambia. BioResearch Bulletin ,4:51-54. Retrieved 9/23/2011 at http://bioresonline.com/Documents/AA000168.pdf
_______________.2011c. Is Native American R Y-Chromosome of African Origin? Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences. Vol. 3 , (6): 555-558. http://maxwellsci.com/print/crjbs/v3-555-558.pdf
_______________,2011d. Olmec (Mande) Loan Words in the Mayan, Mixe-Zoque and Taino Languages . Current Research Journal of Social Science Year: 2011 Vol: 3 Issue: 3 Pages/record No.: 152-179. http://maxwellsci.com/print/crjss/v3-152-179.pdf
______________.2011e. The Ancient Indian Populations Were Not Homogenous . Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences Year: 2011 Vol: 3 Issue: 2 Pages/record No.: 129-131
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Ultimately all those religious analysis must be backed by sources in Ancient Egyptian literature (or archaeology). The different "creation myths" we see in AE literature for example for each unique creator god have some similarities but they also have some differences. It's very interesting to analyse the differences and similarities between the various creation myths in Ancient Egypt. Around the world there's thousands of different unique creator god in traditional customs. Beside for spiritual consideration, they are not different aspect of the same god. Each religious tradition around the world have their own unique customs, creation myths, ceremonies and traditions which do have many similarities but are not exactly similar.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic