This is topic New Study 2014: The African origins of Egyptian civilisation (mainstream egyptology) in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008903

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 


DOWNLOAD LINK (online view too)


Main aspects (citation in bold):

- 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).
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
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)

Discussed in this thread:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008815
 

---

Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
 
HOLY SH*T!
 

---

Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
 
Interesting.
 

---

Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Good effort.

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
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4apM0051RPk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK3aqwrVASQ

Bedik nature spirit Senegal. The Bedik are a tribe in Senegal who have maintained their "animist" traditions and resisted Islamization.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/kabopro/2587426388/


https://www.flickr.com/photos/kabopro/5858540785/

http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Africa/photo631877.htm

Osiris:

 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4apM0051RPk

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
Doug M

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
Doug M

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
[QB] Doug M

None of that has ANYTHING to do with nature worship. Africans worship ONE God just as the so called "major" religious do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
Doug M

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

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).

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
Doug M

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
[QB] Doug M

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.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


I have a large section from this 1923 book by Wallace Budge book

in the other thread

AFRICAN TRADITIONAL RELIGION

as well as John Mbiti and other sources
and Doug and typeZeis quote



 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:


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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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.

---

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".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


I have a large section from this 1923 book by Wallace Budge book

in the other thread

AFRICAN TRADITIONAL RELIGION

as well as John Mbiti and other sources
and Doug and typeZeis quote

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:


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.

---

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.

---

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..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:


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.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
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.

--Openheimer 2012 Reply to Winters..

----------------------------------------------------------

^^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."
 

---

Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:


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
 

---

Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
Doug M

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.

---

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]

---

• 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.
  
  References:
  
  Atkinson Q D, Gray R D, Drummond A J. 2009. Bayesian coalescent inference of major human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup expansions in Africa. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1655/367.full
  
  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
  
  Oppenheimer, S. 2012b .Response to Winters (2012) 'Haplogroup L3 (M,N) probably spread across Africa before the Out of Africa event'. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1590/770.full/reply#royptb_el_319
  
  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)
  
  
  Winters C. The Gibraltar Out of Africa Exit for Anatomically Modern Humans . WebmedCentral BIOLOGY 2011;2(10):WMC002319. http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/2319
  
  
  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]

---

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*

---

• 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.
  
  ____________2008. Can parallel mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M Haplogroups. Int J Hum Genet, 13(3): 93-96.
  http://www.ijhg.com/article.asp?issn=0971-6866;year=2007;volume=13;issue=3;spage=93;epage=96;aulast=Winters
  
  ______________2008b. African millets taken to India by Dravidians. Ann of Bot, http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/eletters/100/5/903#49
  
  _______________2008. ARE DRAVIDIANS OF AFRICAN ORIGIN
  http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/IJHG/IJHG-08-0-000-000-2008-Web/IJHG-08-4-317-368-2008-Abst-PDF/IJHG-08-4-325-08-362-Winder-C/IJHG-08-4-325-08-362-Winder-C-Tt.pdf
  ________________Aurignacian Culture:Evidence of Western Exit for Anatomically Modern Humans, South Asian Antropologist, (2008) 8(1) pp.79-81.
  _____________2009. Literacy Existed in the Indus Valley .Science Magazine. E-Letter. (2June 2009) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/324/5931/1165
  
  Archaeogenetics
  
  ___________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.
  
  ____________2008a. Can parallel mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M Haplogroups. Int J Hum Genet, 13(3): 93-96.
  http://www.ijhg.com/article.asp?issn=0971-6866;year=2007;volume=13;issue=3;spage=93;epage=96;aulast=Winters
  
  
  _______________2008b. ARE DRAVIDIANS OF AFRICAN ORIGIN
  http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/IJHG/IJHG-08-0-000-000-2008-Web/IJHG-08-4-317-368-2008-Abst-PDF/IJHG-08-4-325-08-362-Winder-C/IJHG-08-4-325-08-362-Winder-C-Tt.pdf
  ___________.2010. Y-Chromosome evidence of an African origin of Dravidian agriculture. International Journal of Genetics and Molecular Biology, 2(3): 030 – 033. http://www.academicjournals.org/IJGMB/abstracts/abstracts/abstracts2010/Mar/Winters.htm
  
  _____________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
  
  
  ______________2010c. The Fulani are not from the Middle East. PNAS .
  http://govst.academia.edu/documents/0174/1497/Fulani.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
  
  
  ____________.2011b. Munda Speakers are the Oldest Population in India. The Internet Journal of Biological Anthropology. 4 (2) Retrieved 9/21/2011 http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_biological_anthropology/volume_4_number_2_61/article/munda-speakers-are-the-oldest-population-in-india.html
  
  _______________.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
  
  ______________.2012. Comparison of Fulani and Nadar HLA. Indian J Hum Genet [serial online] 2012 [cited 2012 Jul 1];18:137-8. Available from: http://www.ijhg.com/text.asp?2012/18/1/137/96686
  
  _______________. 2011.The Gibraltar Out of Africa Exit for Anatomically Modern Humans. WebmedCentral BIOLOGY. http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/2311
  ________________.2012. Haplogroup L3 (M,N) probably spread across Africa before the Out of Africa event. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1590/770/reply
  
  _________________.2011. Haplogroup M23 is probably not Asian in origin. Hg M23 is of Africa. http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/2237
  _____________A Sub-Saharan Origin for European Farmers http://olmec98.net/BlkFarmers.pdf
  
  _____________There has been a Continous Indigenous Sub-Saharan Presence in North Africe for 30ky http://olmec98.net/ContinuousEurope.pdf
  
  __________________.2012. First Europran Farmers were Sub-Saharan Africans http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1730/884.abstract/reply

quote:

---

Originally posted by mena7:


The Haitian Vodou worshipers represent the Loa with pictures of Saints and Veves symbols. they do not represent the Vodu God call Bon Dieu (Good god in French). They don't have a name for that Good God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

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.

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
What s the name of God in ancient Egyptian religon?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

...Nun, Amon, Atum, Ra, Shu, Tephnet etc are just aspects of the Creator

---

quote:

---

Deity:


1.
a. The estate or rank of a god; godhood; the personality of a god; godship; esp. with poss. pron.

b. The divine quality, character, or nature of God; Godhood, divinity; the divine nature and attributes, the Godhead.

c. The condition or state in which the Divine Being exists. Obs.

2.
a. concr. A divinity, a divine being, a god; one of the gods worshipped by a people or tribe.

b. fig. An object of worship; a thing or person deified.

3. (with capital) A supreme being as creator of the universe; the Deity, the Supreme Being, God. (Especially as a term of Natural Theology, and without explicit predication of personality.)

---

quote:

---

Supernatural:
1.
a. Belonging to a realm or system that transcends nature, as that of divine, magical, or ghostly beings; attributed to or thought to reveal some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; occult, paranormal.

b. Relating to, dealing with, or characterized by such a realm, system, or force.

2. More than what is natural or ordinary; unnaturally or extraordinarily great; abnormal, extraordinary.

3. Of, relating to, or dealing with metaphysics. Obs.

B. n.
1. In pl. Metaphysics; a treatise on this, esp. that written by Aristotle. Obs.

2. With the. That which is supernatural.

3.
a. In pl. Supernatural things or occurrences; supernatural causes, effects, or agencies. Now rare.
b. A supernatural being.

---

quote:

---

Divinity:
1. The character or quality of being divine; divineness, godhood; divine nature; Deity, Godhead.

2.
a. concr. A divine being; a god, a deity. the Divinity n. the Deity, the Supreme Being, God.

b. fig. An object of adoration, an adorable being.

3. Divine quality, virtue, or power; god-likeness, divineness.

4.
a. The science of divine things; the science that deals with the nature and attributes of God, His relations with mankind, etc.; theology; the theological faculty in Universities. (The earliest sense in English.)

b. Applied also to the theological systems of heathen nations or philosophers.

5. = divination n. 1. Obs. rare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mena7:


The Haitian Vodou worshipers represent the Loa with pictures of Saints and Veves symbols. they do not represent the Vodu God call Bon Dieu (Good god in French). They don't have a name for that Good God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

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.

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
What s the name of God in ancient Egyptian religon?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

...Nun, Amon, Atum, Ra, Shu, Tephnet etc are just aspects of the Creator

---

In Christianity God is considered to have created man in his own image but due to his granting man free will mankind is considered to be only partially an aspect of the Creator, people make their own decisions to follow God's wishes or not to follow them
The Devil is another example.

So what about Osiris and Set?

Set killed Osiris

I thought these were aspects of the Creator that carried out different jobs in the Creator's plan
-So why would they come into conflict?

Is the Creator unsure of herself?
Self-conflicted ?

---

Well, first let’s start with the defining God as "herself". God has no gender, He is above such designations. I use the word He because in Arabic there is no word for "it", meaning to describe something, if you get my meaning? For example if I want to say my heart is beautiful, and in the conversation it is understood I am referring to my heart, I would say huwa jameel which is literally he is beautiful, but it would be translated as “it” is beautiful because English has the word “it”.

To your question, I will refer to the Neteru as the "names" to keep things simple, ok? By names I mean God's names or attributes.

So the names are masculine and feminine in nature. Meaning some things are of action and doing and others are passive in nature. Also the names are in pairs. So male and female pairs, of masculine and feminine nature. Meaning one is of action or doing and others are passive in their effects.

Example: The All Merciful One and The Avenger (two of the names attributed to God in Islam).

The explanation goes that these names are sometimes in conflict, hence this world of ours is full of tumult, because of the contradictory nature of some of the names. Think of an Atom, you have a proton (positive/masculine) and an electron (negative/feminine force) and then you need a third to reconcile the two, so they work together in harmony ie the neutron. Sometimes those forces though, when unmitigated, can cause upheavals so to speak. This is what you see with Ausar (Osiris) and Sutekh (Set). These stores are meant to describe certain spiritual realities. If the idea is to master one's self, then you have to understand what is at work within you and how those things interact. Then you can become the mitigating force, with God's mercy, to bring these forces within you, into harmony. God Himself is not in conflict internally. He, in His essences, is the mitigating force which brings all these realities into harmony.

Now, you mention Adam being created in the "image of God". That too deals with the Divine Names. Man is the only creation in which all the Names or their effects are brought together in one being in this reality of ours. It is he alone, when he perfects himself that can be the reflection of all those Divine realities. This is the idea when God says he taught Adam the names of all the things before he was sent here to the physical world.

In Africa when you enter the classical school systems ie Poro, Dyow (for Bambara) etc this is when you are introduced to all these concepts. There are women schools as well, like Sande in Sierra Leone. This is a huge assumption, but, I would imagine Christianity, at least the African variety, as found in Kush and Egypt, would have been similarly constructed, before the Romans neutered the system, and before the Arabs destroyed the Christian kingdoms in Kush. In Islam, Sufism serves this purpose and for Judaism Qabalah does the same. I believe I read St. Paul studied a “mystery” school for Christians in Arabia, so a similar system was in place at one time in Christianity.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
This criticism of today's ES pre-exists and is independant of
the Facebook group, in the sense that the latter did not and
does not motivate the former. There is really no reason for
you to entangle the two, unless you have some sort of bias
towards the latter and you feel its now your golden
opportunity to vent.

Beyoku (a he, not a she) told you in particular this, years
ago, before there was any facebook group. You were told
that you have a tendency to latch onto and get emotionally
attached to old data--at the expense of new developments--
and you called his bluff, asking what him what he's done
lately. You didn't want to listen, and you don't want to listen
today.

Even now you're bagatalizing the problem whenever its
brought up and you lash out impulsively to things
immaterial to the matter at hand (i.e. the facebook group, as
you've just admitted). There is a lack of introspection. Have
you ever wondered why long gone ES vets haven't been
replaced with new ES vets since the ending years of the
previous decade?

All this place does is it deters vets and attract more well-
intentioned newbies, eccentric cuckoos and trolls, to the
detriment of the once balanced ratio of vets vs non-vets. ES
doesn't attract new high caliber posters and the reason why
is painstakingly obvious to everyone, except to you.

In your view, all this misfortune can be accounted for in a
credible explanation that doesn't involve the criticisms you
reject? Yeah right. As for my own contributions, I'm not
going to sit here and and toot my own horn--that's just
corny. But I will say this: it doesn't take much to out-post
you in terms of big Africana developments because 90% of
the time you're make double posts or posts concerning race
apologetics.

In the months before I put ES on the back burner I made
posts in the area of Fezzan aDNA, Bekada 2013, Cerezo
2012, Zheng et al 2012 and two years ago Nekth Ankh's as of
yet undisclosed mtDNA sequence. I also posted
DNAconsultant.com's analysis of the Amarna family's genetic
material and Nikita et al's analysis where Fezzan clustered
with neolithic SSA non-metrically. Two years ago Charlie
Bass posted DNA Tribes analysis of Hawass 2010. A year ago
Beyoku posted Ramses III's haplogroup, a huge thesis on
Wadi Howar and some time before that Hassan's aDNA
report concerning Sudan. Amun Ra has this very thread
under his belt. Tukuler broke Pennarun et al 2012, Price et al
2009 amongst other things and manually confirmed DNA
Tribes analysis for the first time, using STR tools. Evergreen,
though usually absent, made a wave by posting Fernandez et
al 2005(?).

These were all scoops, at least as far as ES is concerned.
Some of them went on to define ES thought. Where have you
been in the midst of all that? I don't mean put you on the
spot, as there is no reason to keep tabs on who does what,
but it drives the point home. I never stopped there either,
but its clear ES is still trying milking these cows ad nauseum.
Several times per week someone still randomly mentions
Hawass 2010 or 2012, for no apparent reason other than to
bask in it. Any idea how corny that is?

There also have been a lot of developments and discussions
in the blogosphere involving genome-wide data and its
many aspects (e.g. how it relates to haplogroup ancestry),
where you and the forum in general have been conspicuously
absent. There is no one here (including myself) who can run
published genomes using the STRUCTURE and other tools.
No one here is proficient in mutation rates and people barely
grasp what CRS and HVS are. ES cannot compete with other
blogs and fora in these crucial departments. Next generation
sequencing is around the corner and this forum shows no
signs of being able to comprehending any significant post-
2006 development. It's embarrassing.

In an environment where its easy for people to become
complacent and get comfortable with leeching off of others'
efforts, its no wonder why the facebook group prefers to
open its door mostly to those who share. Its not an
unreasonable thing to ask and has nothing to do with
"clicking up". I came to ES, learned here and gave back;
others can, as well, even if the contributions in terms of
sharing academic developments, are relatively small.

That you and certain others find reciprocation a strange
concept is partly why ES is in the poor state that it's in
today. If you want to be in the service of some ill-defined,
anonymous group of people who are too lazy to actively
leverage the information age we live in, fine. I've never
signed up for the idea of being the information repetition
guru you style yourself as and so you can hardly expect me
to go along with your filosophy of basing my internet
presence on whether someone I don't even know is comfy
and spoon-fed.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
This criticism of today's ES pre-exists and is independant of
the Facebook group, in the sense that the latter did not and
does not motivate the former. There is really no reason for
you to entangle the two, unless you have some sort of bias
towards the latter which you feel is now your golden
opportunity to vent.

^Whether it is independent or not, you act as if this "golden age"
will once more return via your Facebook restoration project. If you feel so,
go for it.


Beyoku (a he, not a she) told you, in
particular, this years ago, before there was any facebook
group. You were told that you have a tendency to latch onto
and get emotionally attached to old data--at the expense of
new developments--and you didn't want to listen, and you
don't want to listen today. Even now you're bagatalizing the
problem whenever its brought up and you lash out
impulsively to things immaterial to the matter at hand (i.e.
the facebook group, as you've just admitted).

^^Nope not at all impulsively, and what I bring up is quite relevant.
And I am not "emotionally attached" to old data. You don't know what
you are talking about. And you both seem to have this conception that data
is static. It is not. It has changed over time and has been so reflected in
things that I have posted for years. And in fact And both you and Beyoku
have time and time again rehashed "old data" both here and on the assorted
"biodiversity" forums where "he" seems to spend most of his time.
That is interesting. Someone spends most of their time there
then come to ES complaining about how the place is dying. If said HBD
forums are where you hang out, what are you doing on the allegedly dying ES?
Shouldn't y'all be off somewhere pioneering bold "new" stuff among the
serious people?


There is a lack
of introspection. Have you ever wondered why long gone ES
vets haven't been replaced with new ES vets since the ending
years of the previous decade? All this place does is it deters
vets and attract more well-intentioned newbies, eccentric
cuckoos and trolls, to the detriment of the once balanced
ratio of vets vs non-vets. ES doesn't attract new high caliber
posters and the reason why is painstakingly obvious to
everyone, except to you.

lol.. you contradict yourself. If ES is such a bad place why have
you logged so many recent posts? AND just last year when the
vets had already long thinned out you spent a massive number of posts
in vicious argument with "The Explorer" over alleged "fossilized"
data. You speak of introspection? Check yoself..

In your view, all this misfortune can
be accounted for in a credible explanation that doesn't
involve the criticisms you reject? Yeah right. As for my own
contributions, I'm not going to sit here and and toot my own
horn--that's just corny.

Right.. but then you go ahead and toot it anyway..


But I will say this: it doesn't take
much to out-post you in terms of big developments because
99% of the time you're make double posts or posts
concerning race apologetics. In the months before I put ES
on the back burner I made posts in the area of Fezzan aDNA,
Bekada 2013 and Cerezo 2012, Zheng et al 2012 and two
years ago Nekth Ankh's aDNA. Two years ago Charlie Bass
posted DNA Tribes analysis. A year ago Beyoku posted
Ramses III's haplogroup, and some time before that
Hassan's aDNA report concerning Sudan. Amun Ra has this
very thread under his belt. These were all scoops, at least as
far as ES is concerned.

OK, but some these so called "scoops" people bring have been leached from the
anthropology blogs you mention, like Dinekes, and then reposted
on ES. This is a normal part of the game. And yes you have posted
"in the area" of various things, but so have many other people. They
are not going around clamoring for credit. And you yourself often have not
mined or harvested the info but have replied to assorted posts, in the area"
of whatever. So I don't see what pioneering, "ground breaking" allegedly
"big" ticket items you speak of. You have added new info not yet seen
on ES, indeed, but so have other people, as have I- from limb proportion data,
to new data on human evolution (Stringer 2013), to floodplain agriculture,
to Egyptian medicine and more. And No "99%" of what I post is not race
apologetics. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

Furthermore previous data is always being expanded, changed and modified.
This very thread illustrates it- how Wengrow emphasizes the cultural
drivers in the Nile Valley in contrast to the heavy emphasis on environment
and climate of other scholars. This is a normal part of knowledge. It is not static
it changes and is added to. Posting a new DNA abstract is all fine and dandy
but such "new" studies themselves build on previous data and in fact, one of
the best ways to critique "new" studies is how consistent it is with "old" ones.
And simply because Dinekes posts some new abstract and it is sometimes copied
over- what? People supposed to drop everything and only read that?

Furthermore "old" data is being mined and harvested all the time. Why is it
supposedly "old"? I have mined a lot from Google Books and pDFs directly myself
and transferred it over, but look at the incisive "old" info Tukler brings to light, as has
Truthcentric, as has The Bass, etc. Why is what they find prior to say 2013, supposedly
"old"? Since when does knowledge only consist of the latest copy over from someone on
Forum Biodiversity, Dinekes, or Academia.edu?


In an environment where its easy for
people to become complacent and get comfortable with
leeching off of others, its no wonder why the facebook group
prefers to open its door mostly to those who share. Its not
an unreasonable thing to ask and has nothing to do with
"clicking up". I came to ES, learned here and gave back.

Sure you gave back, as have I as have other people. Its a normal part of
the game. Don't know why you are clamoring credit or talking bout
"outposting" pwople. And I have never failed to give ES members credit-
whereas you seldom have a word of thanks or encouragement for the work
they have done with your "guru on da hill/restorer of the faith" posture. In fact
you spend a lot of time in battle with, or criticizing other members of ES.
You are so often on here battling with somebody. Amun-Ra is only the latest.
Again if this is a dying forum, how come you spend so much time here
fighting with this and that person?


That you and certain others find reciprocation a strange concept
is partly why ES is in the poor state that it's in today. If you
want to be in the service of some ill-defined, anonymous
group of people who are too lazy to actively leverage the
information age we live in, fine. I've never signed up for the
idea of being the information repetition guru you style
yourself as and so you can hardly expect me to go along
with your filosophy of basing my internet presence on
whether they're comfy and spoon-fed.

Never asked you to go along with anything, and there has been
plenty of reciprocation and knowledge sharing here on ES. And I
don't see how you are supposedly doing such pioneering work,
supposedly "actively leverage the information age we live in."
Yes some people want to be spoon fed, but that's everywhere.
Bottom line brotha- I have no problem with your Facebook
venture. There is plenty of room ion the street- all can work their
corners. We are after the same thing ultimately.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Your arguments fall flat. I'm not demonizing the use of old
data. Of course, when it naturally comes up, you use it. Key
phrase: when the situation that calls for it naturally comes
up. When one uses it in debates, there is no sense of double
posting or basking in it. There is no sense of celebrating old
data. There is no detrimental effect on the rest of my studies
to the point where I'm trapped in some sort of rabbid
conviction that old data cannot be moved on from until I've
shoved it in the face of every soul in the universe and make
sure they have been reminded of it ten times. This, is where
I and old-data-baskers like yourself and Amun Ra differ.
Again, nowhere have I said that old data is inherently bad.

As for my presence on ES, I keep my ear to sites where
developments surface, which includes ES (even if the rate at
which developments happens here has come to a screeching
halt). You reference my posting history here. What you,
again, conveniently fail to mention is the context in which I
made those posts. It certainly wasn't to acknowledge that I
think of ES as having anything more than a zombie-like,
lethargic future until someone pulls the plug. My posting in
those instances only confirms what I'm saying: that ES is a
festering heap of pseudo-science.

People come out of the woodwork and go full-fledged ape,
making claims about the African origin of mtDNA H and NRY
R and generally making sh!t up. The only time you can cite
me jumping in and making posts is when the forum has
stooped to such a low that it can't even self-police its own
pseudo-scientific claims? Really? How does my doing what
the forum epically fails to do itself, advance your claim that
there is a contradiction in saying that this forum is on its last
legs? Even IF I posted for other reasons, how exactly
would posting in this sinking ship make this forum, well.. not
a sinking ship? You'll have to help me out with that one.

The rest of your arguments are strawmen or fabrications.
I've never said I want to supplant ES with the facebook
group. I'm not after credit; kind of counter-productive
posting in a secluded group if credit is what I'm after, no?
Of course I give credit to what people do, that's why I
mentioned everyone's contributions and generally repost
others' contributions with their name anchored in the quoted
section. I have no idea where that fabrication came from.
And no, I'm not saying that I'm unique in posting scoops, as
indicated by the fact that I listed others in that segment as
well as by my statement that other blogs consistently beat
ES to the punch. Actually, that's giving ES too much credit, as
that would imply some sort of collective sense of urgency to
stay updated. What I DID say is that you're conspicuously
often not the OP when notable Africana scoops are posted,
which is true, and harkens back to your fixation with old
data.

Only thing you're right about is that I've had words with ES
members; big deal. And even this is just your attempt to
obfuscate things because it has nothing to do with the
matter at hand, whatsoever, other than it's a reflex of the
sensitive snare I apparently plucked. It just confirms that
you tend to get defensive and lash out impulsively when you
you're criticized, like when you dismissed the facebook
group (which you've never even seen) out of hand as some
nepotistic "click".
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
I have to agree with Swenet that this forum is falling into its death throes. Maybe new data arrives here every now and then, but nonetheless the quality of scholarship is indisputably higher in the Facebook group. Honestly the only thing the old ES has going for it is accessibility to laypeople who don't have Facebook accounts, and even then they'll have to dig deep into the forum's past to uncover anything of value.

Besides, the lioness, Clyde, and the rest grow really obnoxious after a while.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
I will have to third the view.I dont see ES producing anything. I dont think the members of ES even have the will. Some of this has to do with laziness and being comfortable with the fact that it is acceptable to be among a group of people preaching to the choir....old sermons at that.

Perfect example.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008893

and this is coming at the tail end of this thread:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008622;p=9

embarrassingly pitiful.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Egypt has already been proven to be 'black"

there is nothing else to be done
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
WHether you think the arguments fall flat- makes little difference to me.
Suit youself. And there are circumstances to repeat data- as xyz noted on one-
whether it be to educate newer users, or to provide fresh exposure of that data so it
doesn't quickly disappear in the archives but can be used in an immediate debate elsewhere,
to hammer troublesome trolls like Cassi, or to end-run the blockades of Wikipedia moles.
It has proven its value- both in Google representation, the better understanding expressed
by users who have learned from a summary, and in the use of that info in debates far and
wide across the web.


As for old data again, actually there has been plenty of new info/value added.
Extension and adjustment is going on all the time. And you yourself have repeatedly
wallowed in "old data" when it suits you, for multiple pages, on multiple threads.

You keep moaning and groaning about how ES is going to the dogs.
OK, but how come you are on here arguing with almost everyone,
or engaging in multiple threads and flame wars using "Old data"? I
don't get the double standard. If you are gonna be building this
pristine Facebook golden age restorationist project, what are you
doing on this allegedly "fossilized" forum?

And you yourself are unimpressive when it comes to breaking ground
with new info added to ES. Your "scoop metric" of OPs is equally unimpressive.
Sure you have added commentary- but so have a lot of people, and they aren't
going around clamoring for credit about "big" posts. And you say you quote
people when you reply. Whoa.. break out the bubbly.. Doesn't everyone here?
You seldom give people on here any word of thanks or encouragement for their
work- rather you seem rather busy to the contrary, looking down your nose
at the "dying natives" - as if you so much better than everyone else here.
And when various OP copy-overs from Dinekes or Forum Biodiversity happen- what?
Everybody supposed to drop everything and run up a flag because of that?

I don't get it. You have this pristine new venue that you control- you da man.
You have attained power. On ES you just another contributor. But now, you
are the big boss of the new group you control. You no longer have to deal
with "the natives" on a fossilized site- you are above everyone else- on top.

So why are you back here picking on Amun-Ra just cuz he summarizes
and recaps what he sees, or understands? And he has not only done that
but he has added a genuine extension on the matter of culture, just as I have
mined and harvested new extensions from Google Books and peer studies.
Yes on your new forum, you will lock out such extensions as "old data" and you
will have full power over such. So again why are you back here on this
dying forum, when you the big man on the FB group, and can, supposedly,
do so much better?


Finally you talk about lashing out or being impulsive. This is exactly what
you are doing. Check yoself. As I have stated repeatedly, I have no problem
with the Facebook group. In fact I said over a week ago that it could be part
of the package of knowledge At issue is rather a seeming arrogant approach- as if you
so much better than everyone else around here, and the claim that
the only thing existing is "old data" when in fact there are extensions
and adjustments all the time, and why someone with new power and
a new group, who can do so much better, is still coming back to battle
and spend time in this terrible, allegedly "dying" venue.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

So why are you back here picking on Amun-Ra just cuz he summarizes
and recaps what he sees, or understands? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
This forum is not the type of forum many people post in everyday with tons of new info. It's not like a football forum with new scores and stories everyday. One new thread a day, a week and even a month is a normal rhythm. People should post for fun and their passion for Ancient Egyptian history.

Good point. Beyoku is a molecular biologist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
DougM

I have never bothered to look up the terms Deity and Supernatural Being. So you are right, at the time I was speaking from a place of confusion, because I didn’t know the true meaning of the word Deity. So I have done so, using the Oxford English Dictionary. I used the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) because when you do research at a major university, it is standard source for defining words. I believe finding the true meanings of words is important to this conversation because we can be sure we are using the actual meanings of the words, and not what we want them to mean. Because otherwise we would never come to an understanding. If you are using one definition (which may not be accurate) and I am using a definition (which also may not be accurate), then we would be essentially speaking two different languages. So here we go.

quote:

---

Deity:


1.
a. The estate or rank of a god; godhood; the personality of a god; godship; esp. with poss. pron.

b. The divine quality, character, or nature of God; Godhood, divinity; the divine nature and attributes, the Godhead.

c. The condition or state in which the Divine Being exists. Obs.

2.
a. concr. A divinity, a divine being, a god; one of the gods worshipped by a people or tribe.

b. fig. An object of worship; a thing or person deified.

3. (with capital) A supreme being as creator of the universe; the Deity, the Supreme Being, God. (Especially as a term of Natural Theology, and without explicit predication of personality.)

---

With these definitions in place, and with my current understanding of Ancient Egyptian religion and contemporary African religions, I firmly reject the idea that the neteru were Deities. They were God’s emanations, yes, and His emanations are the forces which underlay existence, but Deities in and of themselves, no. In my estimation, they would be a part of Him, but not Him. For example, your arm is a part of you, but it doesn’t make you, you. Or a better example is, you may be a student, this is an attribute that describes you in a particular capacity, but is it you in your totality? No.

quote:

---

Supernatural:
1.
a. Belonging to a realm or system that transcends nature, as that of divine, magical, or ghostly beings; attributed to or thought to reveal some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; occult, paranormal.

b. Relating to, dealing with, or characterized by such a realm, system, or force.

2. More than what is natural or ordinary; unnaturally or extraordinarily great; abnormal, extraordinary.

3. Of, relating to, or dealing with metaphysics. Obs.

B. n.
1. In pl. Metaphysics; a treatise on this, esp. that written by Aristotle. Obs.

2. With the. That which is supernatural.

3.
a. In pl. Supernatural things or occurrences; supernatural causes, effects, or agencies. Now rare.
b. A supernatural being.

---

I agree with you here, that Neteru or Orisha would fall under this definition of supernatural beings, specifically in terms of “a. In pl. Supernatural things or occurrences; supernatural causes, effects, or agencies. Now rare.”. So here I see them as those supernatural, non material things, which are unseen in themselves, but their effects are made known here in the material world.

I think the best definition I have found to describe Neteru or Orisha or any such African belief systems, wherein you have a quality that derives from the Supreme Being, but is not Him in and of itself is Divinity.

quote:

---

Divinity:
1. The character or quality of being divine; divineness, godhood; divine nature; Deity, Godhead.

2.
a. concr. A divine being; a god, a deity. the Divinity n. the Deity, the Supreme Being, God.

b. fig. An object of adoration, an adorable being.

3. Divine quality, virtue, or power; god-likeness, divineness.

4.
a. The science of divine things; the science that deals with the nature and attributes of God, His relations with mankind, etc.; theology; the theological faculty in Universities. (The earliest sense in English.)

b. Applied also to the theological systems of heathen nations or philosophers.

5. = divination n. 1. Obs. rare.

---

Here I think this definition of divinity best describes the African belief in terms of neteru/orisha etc “The science of divine things; the science that deals with the nature and attributes of God, His relations with mankind, etc.; theology; the theological faculty in Universities. (The earliest sense in English.)” Though here they use it to describe a scholastic pursuit. I apply it to the science of African religion itself, as it deals with the Divine emanations.

Well I don't know where the idea of evolution comes from. I always thought it was Darwin after a 30 day stint in the Galapagos Islands.

Never the less, in my estimation it is silly, still unproven and nothing that any African has ever espoused prior to contact with Europeans. On this point, we can definitely agree to disagree, in terms of the validity of that theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
typeZeiss, do you speak an Africnan language?

---

two
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
which ones

Also please speak on evil spirits in the forest, how people can become possessed by them (similarly demonic possession in Christianity) and the role of the Sangoma.
If they manifetations of God then God has side both good and evil in it's character
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
Let me clear some thing up.

First of all I post on Dienekes for a specific reason. If you read my posts you will see why that is the case.

Secondly I dont "post as Astenb". I AM Astenb. I changed my name HERE only after I couldn't have my name associated with the nonsense that goes on here. I don't want people in the field seeing my name associated with this site. This was years ago and I am sure you understand why.

I am NOT molecular biologist. Those are labels set by the site that I left to default. Also the FB page is private that is the whole point. It will not come up by searching. When Swenet created the thread he requested that those interested send him their Facebook name or email address for an invite. I particularly remember people protesting on the fact that it was closed and declining participation. Not only that, he opened up multiple threads asking folks to jump on board. Nothing.....

The 1300 page document I was speaking of recently is the same one I uploaded here OVER A YEAR AGO!

And that brings me to my point. Lack of participation in the thread. Look at that thread...Which was one of the last I created both here and at ABF.
AMun ra you derail the thread going on and on about stuff you dont even understand. That "Rebel" individual is acting a lot like you. he is going on and on about Lactose persistence and has NO CLUE what he is talking about.....just googling stuff and posting it. You are so wrong that you think you are right....putting your self in the same ideological position as the Euroclowns thinking All Africans have a "close genetic distance" and low diversity.

That is the same reason I posted the aDNA article there instead of here......or brought up the issue with the up and coming King tut Mtdna publication. Lack of participation. You jack the post, post it here...yet dont contribute. I then talk about contributing to ES by ALL ES members editing a wiki...........You Poo Poo the idea and then JACK the post, open a different thread about altering Wiki pages......and then you disappear and dont even contribute to your own thread.

What a joke.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
All Africans have a "close genetic distance" and low diversity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
which ones

Also please speak on evil spirits in the forest, how people can become possessed by them (similarly demonic possession in Christianity) and the role of the Sangoma.
If they manifetations of God then God has side both good and evil in it's character

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
All this place does is it deters vets and attract more well-
intentioned newbies, eccentric cuckoos and trolls, to the
detriment of the once balanced ratio of vets vs non-vets. ES
doesn't attract new high caliber posters and the reason why
is painstakingly obvious to everyone, except to you. In your
view, all this misfortune can be accounted for in a credible
explanation that doesn't involve the criticisms you reject?
Yeah right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
There also have been a lot of developments and
discussions in the blogosphere involving genome-wide data
and its many aspects (e.g. how it relates to haplogroup
ancestry), where you and the forum in general have been
conspicuously absent. There is no one here (including myself)
who can run published genomes using the STRUCTURE and
other tools. No one here is proficient in mutation rates and
people barely grasp what CRS and HVS are. ES cannot
compete with otherblogs and fora in these crucial
departments. Next generation sequencing is around the
corner and this forum shows no signs of being able to
comprehend any significant post-2006 development. It's
embarrassing.

---

quote:

---

posted 30 March, 2013 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Now, now, Swenet. Even if Amun-Ra was ignorant about some things, it's best to educate and elevate our fellow posters instead of putting them down. I'd rather have folks like Amun-Ra than Euronut clowns like Castrated or Afronut clowns like Clyde Winters who refuse to learn and still cling to their outdated notions of race and absurd linguistics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
The opponent charges Beyok with using old data from
Mattingly? Mittingly?

---

You know what is sad but funny. I was trying to prove a point. The only reason he called the source old is because I called the Keita video he linked "Old".

I brought up the video being 5 years old to tell him to ask the Up-loader since he knew about that data 5 years ago. Way before he thought about studying or testing his DNA. He persisted to clown.

So in the End we have this jackass.....in the thread trying to tell ME...the video would help ME!
The situation is sad because I am the uploader of the video in the first place.

This is what we are dealing with and this type of behavior is mirrored here too. You have people, trying to school you on old theories you conjured up 2-6 years ago!
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beyoku:
When Swenet created the thread he requested that those interested send him their Facebook name or email address for an invite. I particularly remember people protesting on the fact that it was closed and declining participation. 

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

quote:

---

posted 30 March, 2013 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Now, now, Swenet. Even if Amun-Ra was ignorant about some things, it's best to educate and elevate our fellow posters instead of putting them down. I'd rather have folks like Amun-Ra than Euronut clowns like Castrated or Afronut clowns like Clyde Winters who refuse to learn and still cling to their outdated notions of race and absurd linguistics.

---

Amun Ra, like I was saying, here's Djehuti saying something similar.

---

Don't worry, if you're ignorant about things, like you have shown in this thread Zaharan, I will help you too!! (hopefully you get my drift here, that's patronizing)

You thought Beyoku was a molecular biologist so I will be my own judge of character! As you should for yourself of course while I continue to call cats, cats. People should just keep their eyes open.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
^^Whatever...


------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
The opponent charges Beyok with using old data from
Mattingly? Mittingly?

---

You know what is sad but funny. I was trying to prove a point. The only reason he called the source old is because I called the Keita video he linked "Old".

I brought up the video being 5 years old to tell him to ask the Up-loader since he knew about that data 5 years ago. Way before he thought about studying or testing his DNA. He persisted to clown.

So in the End we have this jackass.....in the thread trying to tell ME...the video would help ME!
The situation is sad because I am the uploader of the video in the first place.

This is what we are dealing with and this type of behavior is mirrored here too. You have people, trying to school you on old theories you conjured up 2-6 years ago!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
Doug M,

At no time ANYWHERE in my statement did I say "Africans worship nature". Nor do we worship nature and never have we worshiped nature. You are taking a very Eurocentric approach. It is the European mind that only looks at the physical and doesn't understand the spiritual that manifest the physical. Africans worship GOD and approach Him by way of His Names/Attributes/Emanations. The physical world is not His Names/Emanations/Attributes, those are only the EFFECTS of the Names, not the Names Themselves. My voice is a affect created by my speaking, yet it isn't me. I punch a wall and make a hole, is that hole me? I throw a rock in water and create ripples, are the ripples me? I scream at my friend out of anger and make her sad, is that sadness me, is that anger me, is the argument me? The argument may have been caused because of a part of my personality ie my hot temper, lets say.

I personally know Babalawos and they do not understand what they are doing in the way you are attempting to interpret their beliefs. I know initiates of Poro in Sierra Leone and of Dyow in Mali and they too do not, nor would they ever espouse such a European interpretation. What I am saying is not from my opinion, I am telling you what they have told me themselves. This is why reading books, especially those written by Europeans or those with European minds can be a problem when understanding Africa.

As far as African beliefs "evolving" or "changing", you don't know that. Or should I say you don't know HOW they are evolved in terms of their interpretations. You were not there 6,000 years ago, so you have no idea how they interpreted their beliefs back then, NONE. You are, again, relying on some European or European minded person to draw some unsustainable conclusion.

When you look at Kemet and you read what was said about their beliefs, they had the same beliefs that Africans across the continent have today. In fact, in the beginning of Tarikh al Sudan, the European translator makes the comment of Mande religious beliefs that "they are the inheritors of the Ancient Egyptian belief system". That is silly, as there was nothing uniquely Egyptian about the beliefs, they were African beliefs shared by All Africans. My point is we can look to African beliefs today, to understand classical African beliefs. And again, they NEVER worshiped Nature. You will NEVER be able to prove such a opinion, as there is nothing on the ground to sustain it. Even if you find a neteru in the form of a cow, sun, hippo or whatever, so what. its called SYMBOLISM. Africans use images to help initiates and practitioners understand the spiritual. Humans use images and mental pictures to understand things. So trying to understand spiritual matters, which in this physical world are abstractions, can be very difficult. Hence the use of iconography. Doesn't mean they were literally worshiping those things in that sense.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Believe what you like.

---

quote:

---

Chukwu's incarnations in the world (Igbo: uwa) are the Alusi. The Alusi, who are also known as Arushi, Anusi or Arusi in differing dialects all spring from Ala the earth goddess who embodies the workings of the world. There are lesser deities in Odinani, each of whom are responsible for a specific aspect of nature or abstract concept. According to Igbo lore, these lesser Alusi, as elements of Chukwu, have their own specific purpose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

Even if you find a neteru in the form of a cow, sun, hippo or whatever, so what. its called SYMBOLISM. Africans use images to help initiates and practitioners understand the spiritual. Humans use images and mental pictures to understand things. So trying to understand spiritual matters, which in this physical world are abstractions, can be very difficult. Hence the use of iconography. Doesn't mean they were literally worshiping those things in that sense.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Believe what you like.

---

quote:

---

Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.73 The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. - Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation (Kemp, 2005, p.54)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I already posted the 2011 study called Body Size, Skeletal Biomechanics, Mobility and Habitual Activity from the Late Palaeolithic to the Mid-Dynastic Nile Valley earlier in this thread (first page).

To add to that, it seems even lower egyptians before the first dynasty (before the upper egyptians took over to unify egypt and found the AEian state) cluster more with Africans than with West Asians:

quote:

---

Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.73 The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. - Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation (Kemp, 2005, p.54)

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:


quote: Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.73 The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. - Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation (Kemp, 2005, p.54) [/b]

This has already been noted on ES and the quote
logged and cited in full about 3-4 years ago.


I already pulled the PDF and posted a detailed cite and
quote from the actual notes about 3 years ago. See
the basic database of compilations and summaries.


A repeat if nothing else might add a new circulation
loop to continue defeating the Wikipedia moles
who think they have removed or whitewashed such data. [/QB]

---

^^^ here is where you cut off the beginning of the sentence:

Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time.


but anyway, I am asking for the primary source that Kemp uses for that statement, the footnote reference # 73 and 74 for this I think the notes for the first chapter

It's probably an article, maybe in German only, called:

Maadi IV: The Predynastic Cementeries of Maadi and Wadi Digla. [Gebundene Ausgabe] 1990
Ibrahim/ Seeher, Jürgen Rizkana (Autor)
Geben Sie die erste Bewertung für diesen Artikel ab

does anybody have access to it?
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I already posted the 2011 study called Body Size, Skeletal Biomechanics, Mobility and Habitual Activity from the Late Palaeolithic to the Mid-Dynastic Nile Valley earlier in this thread (first page).

To add to that, it seems even lower egyptians before the first dynasty (before the upper egyptians took over to unify egypt and found the AEian state) cluster more with Africans than with West Asians:

quote:

---

Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.73 The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. - Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation (Kemp, 2005, p.54)

---

---

can you provide the footnote reference 73 and 74 for this chapter's quote above please, thanks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
This has already been noted on ES and the quote
logged and cited in full about 3-4 years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
can you provide the footnote reference 73 and 74 for this chapter's quote above please, thanks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

73 P.Smith, ‘The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE’, in E.C.M.van den Brink and T.E.Levy, eds, Egypt and the Levant; interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE, London and New York, 2002, 118–28.
74 E.-M. Winkler and H.Wilfing, Tell el-Dabea VI, Vienna, 1991.

---

thank you

I actually had an old thread about it I forgot about:

Topic:
did anybody read this book Enrique mentioned?
in forum Ancient Egypt at EgyptSearch Forums.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=15;t=004426



2001
575 pages

1 new from $575.00


"Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity."
-- Smith, P.(2002) . [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

73 P.Smith, ‘The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE’, in E.C.M.van den Brink and T.E.Levy, eds, Egypt and the Levant; interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE, London and New York, 2002, 118–28.

---

It's interesting that this Kemp quote is talking about a very small sample mentioned in Smith's 2001 book having relatively more African limb afffinities while the chapter of the book is called

...evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE’

I haven't read this book but they are talking about evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in predynastic or early dynastic times.
Has anybody read the whole chapter?
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
^^ Since Kemp is not crazy, clearly 'evidence' can mean 'lack of' or be very minimal. Other study like Stock(2011), I posted above, also have similar results.

I have read it quickly, like Kemp said, it seems even lower egyptians before the 1st Dynasty were "significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos" and had closer biological link with Africans.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I think Kemp is just relating what is said in the earlier book eidted by E.C.M.van den Brink and T.E.Levy called Egypt and the Levant, and if I'm not mistaken a chapter by Patricia Smith.
So it's better to quote that, as I have in my previous post because that is primary research or closer to it than Kemp.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Another book of interest:

Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Oriental Institute Museum Publications)
by Emily Teeter
$39.95




Publication Date: March 28, 2011 | ISBN-10: 1885923821 | ISBN-13: 978-1885923820
This catalogue for an exhibit at Chicago's Oriental Institute Museum presents the newest research on the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods in a lavishly illustrated format. Essays on the rise of the state, contact with the Levant and Nubia, crafts, writing, iconography and evidence from Abydos, Tell el-Farkha, Hierakonpolis and the Delta were contributed by leading scholars in the field. The catalogue features 129 Predynastic and Early Dynastic objects, most from the Oriental Institute's collection, that illustrate the environmental setting, Predynastic and Early Dynastic culture, religion and the royal burials at Abydos. This volume will be a standard reference and a staple for classroom use.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I think Kemp is just relating what is said in the earlier book eidted by E.C.M.van den Brink and T.E.Levy called Egypt and the Levant, and if I'm not mistaken a chapter by Patricia Smith.
So it's better to quote that, as I have in my previous post because that is primary research or closer to it than Kemp.

---

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?

---

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. 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4apM0051RPk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK3aqwrVASQ

Bedik nature spirit Senegal. The Bedik are a tribe in Senegal who have maintained their "animist" traditions and resisted Islamization.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/kabopro/2587426388/


https://www.flickr.com/photos/kabopro/5858540785/

http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Africa/photo631877.htm

Osiris:

---

Just a slight correction, but I believe Ausar (Osiris) is the spirit of the land itself, and not simply vegetation. Ausar is never represented as a plant but as a man or man-like being who as ruler of Egypt is tied to the land. In many mythologies, there are gods who are rulers of land and connected to the land. Perhaps a striking parallel would be the Semitic deity Tammuz who dies and is resurrected. Even in Egyptian belief, the pharaoh is is the god manifest is believed to have powers over the land.

As far as vegetation or tree spirits, the Egyptians definitely had that and I find it interesting that West African portrayals of such spirits are strikingly similar to those of Egypt.

Egyptians being blessed by tree spirits






The Egyptian believed every living thing had a spirit. Trees for example were venerated by the Egyptians and certain trees were especially sacred such as the acacia which the Egyptians call 'the tree of life' perhaps because it was a hardy species that could survive dry months in the savannah or deserts if near a water source. Egyptians believed that even disembodied spirits could hide in inanimate objects like stones which is why the Egyptians believed by making statues of the gods, the spirit of the god could dwell inside it.

I never liked the term 'animist' or rather its biased use. Why is not Egyptian religion called 'animist' when it meets that criteria, or even the Greek and Roman religions?? Greeks and Romans thought a spirit dwelt in every tree, river, spring, and meadow. 'Animist' has become a catchphrase for "primitive" spiritual beliefs outside of the 'official' world religions.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
What is important to understand from this thread (the OP) and many other scientific studies is that African people and Ancient Egyptians don't just share a common skin color or geographical location, but they share a common origin, history, archaeological continuity, culture, religion, etc.

For example, most Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Congo speakers are carrier of the E-P2/PN2 Y-DNA haplogroup, and thus share a common origin (after the OOA). At that time, they spoke one common language. The language spoken by their common E-P2 ancestor (maybe Obenga's Negro-Egyptian).

Here below we can see most African languages like Yoruba, Somali, Afar, Dogon, Wolof, Zulu, Dinka, etc have their common origin in the same region in (north) Eastern Africa (post dating the OOA migration of non-Africans of course):
[img src="http://www.ephotobay.com/image/geo-origin-of-african-languages-chap-12-reconstr.jpg" style="max-width:100%;"]
Reconstructing Ancient Kinship in Africa by Christopher Ehret (From Early Human Kinship, Chap 12)

There also have been a lot of admixture between African population throughout history.

We can also see it genetically (autosomal DNA):


- From The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans (2009)

Link to bigger and clearer image

From the graph above for example, you can see Yoruba are much closer genetically to lets say Kikuyu than Palestinians. My contentious is that Ancient Egyptians in general would be closer to African populations than to non-African populations, especially at the formative stage (because there's been a lot of invasions and immigration afterwards even in dynastic time).

This is supported by some mainstream sources too:

quote:

---

Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography. -From Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (1999) pp 328-332

---

• 
  We conclude by emphasising that our definition of a ‘primary pastoral community’ in
  the Nile Valley is a holistic one, giving equal weight to empirically observable uniformities
  in ritual practice, material culture and ecology. As such it stands in contrast to the recent
  and narrower focus on environmental stress as a long-term driver of cultural change in
  north-east Africa. It seems important to insist on this methodological distinction, not least
  because such recent catastrophes as the genocide in Darfur have been linked to what are
  supposedly millennia-old cycles of climate-driven demographic change (Kuper & Kroepelin
  2006: 807). From an archaeological point of view we hope, at the very least, to have
  demonstrated that alternative interpretations of Africa’s deep past—and hence of its more
  immediate future—are not only possible, but also plausible.
  
  
  David Wengrow
  Michael Dee
  Sarah Foster
  Alice Stevenson
  Christopher Bronk Ramsey
  Cultural convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley:
  a prehistoric perspectiveon Egypt’s place in Africa
  ANTIQUITY 88 (2014): 95–111 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/088/ant0880095.htm

quote:

---

True, Wengrow et al (2014) only use
black to describe a bowl, yet there's
no denying in ascribing cultural origins
as from Upper Nubia (Dongola down to 3rd
cataract) they mean it came from a black
phenotype folk.

Wengrow is honest in accepting critical
precisions to some of his earlier works
and another good thing is revitalization
of Up Nile movement in the face of popular
Saharan Pump western Desert to Nile Valley
only movement for AE population origins.

---

quote:

---

"The Museum’s interpretive approach is, as you would expect, to acknowledge that Egypt lies in Africa: it is part of the land mass that goes by this modern name. The curatorial position is that ancient Egypt’s complex and rich culture reflects its location on the border of two continents, and a long history of migration and cultural exchanges between different peoples. Although part of the African continent, Egyptian culture had much in common with the cultures of the Near East. The Sahara’s desertification isolated Egypt from most of the African continent, well before the dawn of pharaonic civilisation. As a result, the rise of Egypt in late Pre- and Early Dynastic times (around 3,500–3,000 BC) was predominantly conditioned by close and easy contact with the ancient Near East, rather than up the Nile cataracts. This is shown by the simultaneous emergence in both Egypt and Mesopotamia of highly centralised states, their shared invention of writing, and the striking affinities between the art and iconography of early Egypt and those of Sumer. Pharaonic Egypt clearly arose, and continued to grow, in a cultural zone that straddled two continents."

---

Is there anything in this^?
It read to me like a colonial hangover - the idea that the Sahara (and Nile cataracts as I heard at a lecture) hindered migration from tropical Africa into Egypt, and that contact with the Near East was the more culturally formative.

At the lecture, the academic used the analogy of trying to get Niagara through a hose to describe why the Nile wasn't an easy route for northwards gene flow as might be supposed.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
Here's a map of the Green Saharan wavy-line pottery culture extending from the Atlantic to the Nile Valley for more than 3000 years prior to the foundation of Ancient Egypt.



From Ancient watercourses and biogeography of the Sahara explain the peopling of the desert (Supporting Figures)
 

---

Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
Nevertheless, those 2 studies and the thread (LINK) I pointed out to you are pretty informative about the subject of the peopling of Ancient Egypt before and after the Green Saharan period.

Ancient Egypt was populated by people coming from the south.


Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa’s Evolution

Ancient watercourses and biogeography of the Sahara explain the peopling of the desert
 

---

Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
Look, I'm sorry if I got annoyed with you, but I don't understand how you could even begin to think I'm acting as a spokesman for these people or making it up. I'm bringing to light what they think privately and how it informs their 'conclusions'. I don't want to name sources because the correspondence with them is on going and I don't want them alerted to the fact that I'm tapping them. When the communication is over, I'll then be in a better position to name names.

I've already read the studies you've posted, but I'm trying to find out whether the idea that the Sahara was a barrier to population migration to the Nile valley is a relic of outdated, racist-subtext scholarship.

I understand if it's difficult for people to accept that the views I'm relaying here are still held by academics, especially after all the hard work put in to driving awareness across the internet. You, amun-ra, and Zarahan aren't the first to be disappointed - as well as other ES posters, even supportive academics were initially in disbelief.

But I don't think it does any good to stick heads in the sand. It's necessary to have a realistic sense of the opposition that exists.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Tropicals said:
I'm bringing to light what they think privately and how it informs their 'conclusions'. I don't want to name sources because the correspondence with them is on going and I don't want them alerted to the fact that I'm tapping them. When the communication is over, I'll then be in a better position to name names.

Fair enough, why cut off the comm channel? Makes sense.
But anyhow, sure there is still opposition, distortion,
and the skewed racist or racialist assumptions and mindset.
There is still ongoing conflict as Kamiguisha
says. And Keita 2005 himself notes that inappropriate r
ace concepts keep cropping up in studies of the
Nile Valley. Its a problem noted in the scholarly
literature. He criticizes Cavalli Sforza for example
of playing a double game, speaking the language of
race neutralism, while reintroducing or still using
the same old race concepts. (Keita Kittles 1999).
So the struggle is not over. Keita says as much in
the Cambridge and Manchester videos posted here on ES.

But would you not say there has been improvement over
the last decade or so? Compare now to say 15 years ago.
Academia has come some distance- and it has some to go yet.
And what about future convergences? In the late 1990s
there was some movement. Yurco for example was engaging
the prominent "Afrocentrics"- skeptically at times
but respectfully. In the blurb below he even praises
Molefi Asante. Maybe such things set the stage for
the grudging but clear progress in many areas, and
in more supportive academics speaking up, and more
venues opening up such as Keita at Manchester etc,
or Sally Ann Rushtn's venue, or the other academics
now taking a broader, more balanced view of things.

Back in the 1990s collaboration, even some like Asa Hilliard
praised Yurco and other organizers of Celenko's
'Egypt in Africa" Exhibit, along with other
organizers for a display that was one of the
first to include 'black' or African phenotypes to
represent the Egyptians rather than the usual
"white" imagery. In fact said Yurco back then:

"On the other hand, there are people like
Molefi Kete Asante at Temple University, who is
very solidly based academic. Asante I can respect
as a scholar. At the same time, I think more
academic Afrocentrists have been awakened to the
fact that there isn't a monolithic viewpoint
standing in opposition to them. In fact some
people have been more open-minded."
--Yurco in "TOWARDS A NEW EGYPTOLOGY"

http://srufaculty.sru.edu/m.matambanadzo/readings/toward_a_new_egyptology_the_nefertiti_doll.pdf


There is still a ways to go and old games are still
being played to be sure, despite the above though.

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 is another interesting thing about info in
the link above. In it Roth or some Egyptologists claim that they
would have been initially more supportive were it
not for the opposition of MODERN EGYPTIANS to a
more balanced picture. The Egyptians they held
were a main stumbling block, and they had to be
cautious because they were dependent on the Egyptians
for access and so on. In short, they suggest the
modern Egyptians are just as racialist/racist as anyone
in the West and bitterly oppose the mention of
anything "black" lest it "taint" their supposedly "pristine" past,
where black people don;t appear unless dey be in Nubia someplace.

The link also tells of how the Egyptian regime banned
the film 'Sadat" which had black American actor Lou
Gossett portraying Anwar Sadat. Apparently it was
"traumatic" for these Egyptians that a black American
got the role. It was not merely a matter of wanting
an Egyptian actor, the primary problem was that Lou
Gossett is black. Can't have that... My own take is
that any "trauma" re "negro blood" is irrelevant.
We have the hard data on hand. We don't need them,
nor do we need their stamp of validation or approval.
Let they cry. It is too late in the day to erase
out Egyptian its African context, like the pharaohs
erased out old inscriptions to build their propaganda.

Are the Egyptologoists just attempting to shift
blame- a cop put, or true? Anyone have any more
on this?


^^A whita shade of pale...
 

---

Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 

quote:

---

But would you not say there has been improvement over the last decade or so?

---

quote:

---

"No, I don't think so. I can't think of a single Egyptologist today who would even hesitate to call ancient Egyptians "black". I think what Tyson Smith was saying is that even among black folks there are differences in skin colour, from lighter North Africans to really dark skinned folks from further south in Africa."

---

quote:

---

Roth or some Egyptologists claim that they would have been initially more supportive were it not for the opposition of MODERN EGYPTIANS to a more balanced picture. The Egyptians they held were a main stumbling block, and they had to be cautious because they were dependent on the Egyptians for access and so on.

---

quote:

---

Are the Egyptologoists just attempting to shift blame- a cop put, or true? Anyone have any more on this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tropicals redacted:


I've already read the studies you've posted, but I'm trying to find out whether the idea that the Sahara was a barrier to population migration to the Nile valley is a relic of outdated, racist-subtext scholarship.

---

quote:

---

1)The Sahara wasn't a desert thousands of years ago. It supported wildlife.
2) The Nile river cuts through the eastern part of the present day Sahara. The Nile river begins in Lake Victoria in present day Uganda and Kenya. You could simply follow the river north.

Why would you think the present day Sahara desert is a barrier for black people?
Especially with a river cutting through it.

You wonder if that is a relic of outdated and racist scholarship?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
Thanks.
I take it the idea the cataracts served as a hindrance to northward population movement is also BS?

Along with the Niagara through a hose analogy?

---

quote:

---

Is that what you are trying to say?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tropicals redacted:

quote:

---

Is that what you are trying to say?

---

I take it you think I'm the person making and endorsing these comments?

---

quote:

---

I instinctively registered those points, but want to see them detailed in a study. I want to read a named academic who has dismantled the argument. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Translation:
I want to keep believing black people aren't capable until I see it in writing by someone I want to believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
Thanks.
I take it the idea the cataracts served as a hindrance to northward population movement is also BS?

Along with the Niagara through a hose analogy?

---

So, I take it that black people can't get through rapids (cataracts) or go around a waterfall and meet the river down stream, but other people can.

Is that what you are trying to say?

---

quote:

---

It's a stupid argument anyway. Even if you discounted the whole "Saharan wet phase" thing in the early to middle Holocene, only a total ignoramus on ancient Egyptian history wouldn't be aware that people did pass by those cataracts (which are actually rapids rather than waterfalls as the word "cataract" originally implied). How else would the ancient Egyptians and Nubians have even known of each other's existence, much less traded, fought, and conquered each other? And since the main obstacle to traveling through any desert is the absence of fresh water, having a river right next to you, especially one with fertile floodplains and an abundance of fish and wildlife in it, would address that problem with or without cataracts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
I agree with zaharan's suggestion that modern Egyptians' reluctance to embrace a Black African origin for their country's pre-Islamic civilization is one of the major obstacles to our case that's still in place. Even in the case of more progressive Egyptologists, you still have to take into account that Arabs are still one of those "people of color" who suffer from discrimination in the Western world, especially after 9/11. Whichever position you take on the issue, someone is going to perceive you as stepping on a marginalized racial group's toes.

In addition to those pressures, along with the good ol' anti-black racism that I'm sure still influences certain Western Egyptologists' opinions, I sense that the discipline as a whole has grown defensive towards views that they perceive as unorthodox or outside mainstream consensus. And you can't completely fault them for that. We all know that the larger subject of ancient Egypt attracts all manner of quackery and pseudo-scholarship that makes our position seem mild by comparison (Ancient Aliens, anyone?). If your discipline gets bombarded by genuine woo on a constant basis, you'll probably build your wall so strong that it ends up blocking out even the most harmless outside-the-box perspectives.

And let's not pretend like our side of the debate doesn't have its own dirty laundry to clean up. If anything, the straight-out black supremacists, hyper-diffusionists like Clyde Winters, and pan-Africanists who exaggerate Black African people's cultural and physical homogeneity are our loudest and most aggressive bedfellows, at least if Internet experience is anything to go by. For all their extremist zealotry, they've done more harm than good to our cause by reinforcing its "fringe" appearance.

---

what have I exaggerated?Nothing. There is nothing fringe about what I write. In fact much of my work appears in peer reviewed journals. Granted I don't publish in PLoS and etc., because you have to pay between $2-3000 per article, but my work is peer reviewed by other scientists.

Everything I write about I support with archaeological and or linguistic evidence. You're full of bs. If I was writing falsehood don't you think academics would publically attack me? They don't because I might find a way to comment on what ever they write.

Your problem is that you don't have the literature base to understand what I write about. Even though what I write about is easy to understand your white supremist mind you can't handle the truth.Yea I said it, you are a false flag liberal pretending you seriously want to know the truth, when in reality you want to maintain the status quo.

.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Truthcentric says:
who exaggerate Black African people's cultural and physical homogeneity are our loudest and most aggressive bedfellows, at least if Internet experience is anything to go by. For all their extremist zealotry, they've done more harm than good to our cause by reinforcing its "fringe" appearance.

I would agree. Part of the problem is misguided "Afro
enthusiasts" who are not grounded in facts, or hew to
dogma, regardless of the facts, or insist on outmoded and
obsolete ideas and data. On one hand are the racist
/racialist types. On the other are the fringe elements. And on
top of that you have those academics distorting and skewing
the picture. Thankfully we have some more balanced ideas
now coming to the fore, but these problems are not going
away soon.

Though on the other hand, you do have to wonder why the North Sudanese, even after adopting the Arabic language and Islamic culture, still retain more indigenous African ancestry than Egyptians. What kept the Arabs, Greco-Romans, et cetera from colonizing Nubia to the extent they did Egypt?

Anyone have any other ideas? My take is that the Egyptians
expo/erienced more outside gene flow compared to say the
less productive reasons of Sudan. In Greco/Roman times Egypt
was the granary of the Medit. It had a good strategic location
and fed the ROman empire. It was rich and productive. Hyskos,
PErsians, Assyrians, Romans, Greeks and most of all Arabs (who
havent left yet) swarmed in. The native population did not
totally disappear but all these influences made significant changes-
demographically, culturally, economically, etc etc

Nubia and Kush did not have the hugely productive Nile stretch and
strategic Medit/Middle Eastern location, like Egypt. It is amazing that they
did what they did, with only a fraction of the resources, land and population,
from their own writing system, to good ironworks, to renowned warriors
employed throughout the middle east. And they were not merely copies of
Egypt- heck in fact they may have pioneered aspects of Egypt's kingship
system. If I remember didnt they hold off or at least stalemate Rome, as well
as fight off Persians and Arabs for centuries?


Tukler says:
Who needs Simon Says
we got raw data all else
is worth no more than
opinion which everybody's
got one.

Exactly. One interesting thing about this discussion is how the Egyptolgists,
who used to be the central gatekeepers, no longer are. They have been
overshadowed some by more nimble modern sciences and approaches.
DNA researchers or anthropologists using computer processing to analyze
limb proportions, crania etc etc, climatologists and enviro scientists etc etc.
all have opened up new vistas in studying the ancient Nile Valley. Egyptologists
uses these tools too but people have moved ahead of the curve. Egyptologists
influence, but no longer control the conservation. As for whining (if any)
modern Egyptians, too bad, so sad. We don't need any of their validation.
They can bluster all they want about the "taint" of "blackness" We don't need
their approval. We have the hard data and scholarship on hand that blows
away all of that whining.


^Yeah that's right. It was the black dude who
pulled off "The Crossing" and the subsequent peace.

His father, Anwar Mohammed El Sadat was an Upper
Egyptian, and his mother, Sit Al-Berain, was a Sudanese
from her father. Thus, he faced insults
by his opponents in Egypt for not looking "Egyptian
enough" and "Nasser's black poodle." But who got
the job done against the Israelis?

Ref: Khalid, Sunni M. (February 7, 2011). "The
Root: Race And Racism Divide Egypt". npr.org.
Retrieved March 3, 2011.
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/07/133562448/the-root-egypts-race-problem
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
The Last Pharaoh had the parentage as in Ancient Egypt.


Shem Hham & Yapheth


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Truthcentric says:
who exaggerate Black African people's cultural and physical homogeneity are our loudest and most aggressive bedfellows, at least if Internet experience is anything to go by. For all their extremist zealotry, they've done more harm than good to our cause by reinforcing its "fringe" appearance.

I would agree. Part of the problem is misguided "Afro
enthusiasts" who are not grounded in facts, or hew to
dogma, regardless of the facts, or insist on outmoded and
obsolete ideas and data. On one hand are the racist
/racialist types. On the other are the fringe elements. And on
top of that you have those academics distorting and skewing
the picture. Thankfully we have some more balanced ideas
now coming to the fore, but these problems are not going
away soon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

Though on the other hand, you do have to wonder why the North Sudanese, even after adopting the Arabic language and Islamic culture, still retain more indigenous African ancestry than Egyptians. What kept the Arabs, Greco-Romans, et cetera from colonizing Nubia to the extent they did Egypt?

Anyone have any other ideas? My take is that the Egyptians
expo/erienced more outside gene flow compared to say the
less productive reasons of Sudan. In Greco/Roman times Egypt
was the granary of the Medit. It had a good strategic location
and fed the ROman empire. It was rich and productive. Hyskos,
PErsians, Assyrians, Romans, Greeks and most of all Arabs (who
havent left yet) swarmed in. The native population did not
totally disappear but all these influences made significant changes-
demographically, culturally, economically, etc etc

---

quote:

---

Instead of focusing on old school
reinvigorations bound to fail (again)
why not devour all the articles
reports and reviews fully backed
with data that allows us to know
AEs were black and AEs were African
and the precursors of Dyn 0 through
Dyn 6 results from a broad culture
originating at and extending from
the Upper Nile up to near where the
Delta begins?

Who needs Simon Says
we got raw data all else
is worth no more than
opinion which everybody's
got one.

---

quote:

---

I just want to say many of my posts were deleted by ardo/tukuler in regards to the fake email tropicals posted yet again in this thread and try to pass on as scholarship and my reply to them using actual scholarship with the sources cited.

I'll come back to it later on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tropicals redacted:

quote:

---

I just want to say many of my posts were deleted by ardo/tukuler in regards to the fake email tropicals posted yet again in this thread and try to pass on as scholarship and my reply to them using actual scholarship with the sources cited.

I'll come back to it later on.

---

I just don't know what to do with this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Really?

There's nothing more to say on the topic of the OP subject header?

Why do so many threads change topic left and right?

Wouldn't the offtopic stuff be intuitively accessable in a like named thread?

---

I just made a thread discussing some of those issues and I included a reply to tropical's post above:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009153

I hope other people do the same too. It could generate some lively and interesting discussions.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
You have made this claim before. Its time you support this statement with facts.

Please answer these questions:

1)Who are these fringe "Afros"?

2)what fringe theories have they produced?

3) Why are their ideas fringe based on archaeology, history and linguistics?

I look forward to hearing your answers soon.

-----------------------------------------------------

Clyde, I can;t retype all that old text. Check
those previous threads you mention. For example
in the link below, Rasol, Mystery Solver et al
criticized your claims in detail and they were
found wanting.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004578;p=1

--------------------------------------------------------

Next, Quetzalcoatl debunked numerous claims re your
"Black Olmecs" reputedly swarming up the beaches
of the Yucatan (so to speak)..
You did not refute any of his detailed arguments,
but simply kept spamming the same debunked points.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=009487;p=1#000031

On top of that he showed numerous claims re your
publications were in fact questionable.

----------------------------------------------------

Next, this "Uthman Dan fodio Institute" you keep
tacking on to your credentials, turns out to be
the address of a house someplace in Chicago.
It may have been a small Afrocentric school but
per various web article in the above Olmec thread
it has been long defunct- a house with a few kids
and one teacher. It has no affiliation with the
University of Chicago.

PICTURE OF THE REPUTED RESEARCH INSTITUTE
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.683828,-87.6454049,3a,90y,46.9h,89.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szROaMI3OeJGBQA2Y8Uffew!2e0

-----------------------------------------------------------

Next, rather than refine and strengthen your arguments
with credible data you keep embarrassing yourself
going up against credible scholars, as you did against Oppenheimer. You write letters to these people
and they debunk them, then you claim credit for
"publishing" something in the particular journal
where the letter appeared. Time and time again,
people have advised you to use more credible
interpretations and analyses so you can actually
do credible combat. But no..

--------------------------------------------------
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".


A coconut is brown on the outside and white on the inside.

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.

--Openheimer 2012 Reply to Winters..

----------------------------------------------------------

^^In short, you keep flooding the zone with weak,
sloppy work.
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.



--------------------------------------------------------------


And finally, yes we all know what your predictable
response will be. You will say you are a cool Afrocentric
guy, and that others and not "down". You will refer
to your many "publications", which Quetzcoatl has
already shown are shaky, as is the alleged "research
institute." You will say people are stooges of
"white scholars" while you yourself quote the same
"white scholars." You will then close with a predictable
flood of spam from said "published" material, adding
no new analysis, or credible synthesis. Go ahead, on cue..
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
PS: others have complained that Clyde paraphrases
too much in a misleading way- and the paraphrasing
sometimes does not accurately reflect what the original
authors are saying. That is why direct quotations are
so important on ES. They represent quickly verifiable
scholarship. Direct quotes have time and time again
exposed Eurocentric or "biodiversity" distortion of the data.

The above being said, I think Clyde has done good work in several areas,
particularly in confronting assorting Eurocentric assumptions,
and stimulating people to take a different look
at the info, and reexamine easy assumptions He has
shown that on some counts and levels, Afrocentrism
can be a valid frame of reference. Strength of data
and argument is the key. And to his credit, he
has been on the front lines a long time.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
. 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..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
PS: others have complained that Clyde paraphrases
too much in a misleading way- and the paraphrasing
sometimes does not accurately reflect what the original
authors are saying. That is why direct quotations are
so important on ES. They represent quickly verifiable
scholarship. Direct quotes have time and time again
exposed Eurocentric or "biodiversity" distortion of the data.

The above being said, I think Clyde has done good work in several areas,
particularly in confronting assorting Eurocentric assumptions,
and stimulating people to take a different look
at the info, and reexamine easy assumptions He has
shown that on some counts and levels, Afrocentrism
can be a valid frame of reference. Strength of data
and argument is the key. And to his credit, he
has been on the front lines a long time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
You have made this claim before. Its time you support this statement with facts.

Please answer these questions:

1)Who are these fringe "Afros"?

2)what fringe theories have they produced?

3) Why are their ideas fringe based on archaeology, history and linguistics?

I look forward to hearing your answers soon.

-----------------------------------------------------

Clyde, I can;t retype all that old text. Check
those previous threads you mention. For example
in the link below, Rasol, Mystery Solver et al
criticized your claims in detail and they were
found wanting.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004578;p=1

--------------------------------------------------------

Next, Quetzalcoatl debunked numerous claims re your
"Black Olmecs" reputedly swarming up the beaches
of the Yucatan (so to speak)..
You did not refute any of his detailed arguments,
but simply kept spamming the same debunked points.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=009487;p=1#000031

On top of that he showed numerous claims re your
publications were in fact questionable.

----------------------------------------------------

Next, this "Uthman Dan fodio Institute" you keep
tacking on to your credentials, turns out to be
the address of a house someplace in Chicago.
It may have been a small Afrocentric school but
per various web article in the above Olmec thread
it has been long defunct- a house with a few kids
and one teacher. It has no affiliation with the
University of Chicago.

PICTURE OF THE REPUTED RESEARCH INSTITUTE
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.683828,-87.6454049,3a,90y,46.9h,89.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szROaMI3OeJGBQA2Y8Uffew!2e0

-----------------------------------------------------------

Next, rather than refine and strengthen your arguments
with credible data you keep embarrassing yourself
going up against credible scholars, as you did against Oppenheimer. You write letters to these people
and they debunk them, then you claim credit for
"publishing" something in the particular journal
where the letter appeared. Time and time again,
people have advised you to use more credible
interpretations and analyses so you can actually
do credible combat. But no..

--------------------------------------------------
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".


A coconut is brown on the outside and white on the inside.

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.

--Openheimer 2012 Reply to Winters..

----------------------------------------------------------

^^In short, you keep flooding the zone with weak,
sloppy work.
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.



--------------------------------------------------------------


And finally, yes we all know what your predictable
response will be. You will say you are a cool Afrocentric
guy, and that others and not "down". You will refer
to your many "publications", which Quetzcoatl has
already shown are shaky, as is the alleged "research
institute." You will say people are stooges of
"white scholars" while you yourself quote the same
"white scholars." You will then close with a predictable
flood of spam from said "published" material, adding
no new analysis, or credible synthesis. Go ahead, on cue..

---

LOL. You are very jealous. No one has ever debunked my research into the Olmec being African. This is especially true Quetzalcoatl , I just recently showed how weak his arguments are on ES last month, See:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=009487

In 1997 I presented my research at the Central States Conference before many of the major researchers of Meso-American studies. They have had over 20 years to attack my work but none have. If my work was so weak I am sure an article would have been published by now showing its weaknesses. Below is my presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6TuODS64AY&feature=em-upload_owner


Also I have never claimed UdFI was a major research Institute like the Oriental Institute or that we grant degrees. See:

http://olmec98.net/UdFI.htm

You claim my references are old and outdated this is false. The only old work I constantly cite is Leo Wiener's Africa and the Discovery of America. I cite this work because it is the foundation of the evidence that the Olmec art (the Tuxtla statuette), writing and Calendar are of Mande origin. My research is just confirming his original research. My research has confirmed much of his research and extended the reach of his conclusions. See:

http://maxwellsci.com/print/crjss/v3-152-179.pdf

and my latest book:



http://www.amazon.com/Olmec-Language-Literature-Clyde-Winters/dp/1507587244

.

The size of a research center does not determine what the researcher distributes to the public.It is only small minded people who think every institution must be supported by a University, or European money.

Finally, just because someone disagrees with another researchers work does not mean it is trivial, it just means that they disagree. The measure of any piece of research literature is the references cited in the work. I stand behind everything I have published and will defend it with the most powerful literature available.

Now having said this, why don't you publish some of your work. Oh yea..... I forgot, you're just a coward.

.
 

---

Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Really?

There's nothing more to say on the topic of the OP subject header?

Why do so many threads change topic left and right?

Wouldn't the offtopic stuff be intuitively accessable in a like named thread?

---

I just made a thread discussing some of those issues and I included a reply to tropical's post above:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009153

I hope other people do the same too. It could generate some lively and interesting discussions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss: 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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss: Doug M 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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Below we can an text extract talking about the common African origin of Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Kushites:


From Cultural entanglement at the dawn of the Egyptian history: a View from the Nile First Cataract Region (2014)


CONCLUSIONS

The distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity is something connected to the rise of the Naqada culture in the first half of the fourth millennium BCE. During the previous millennium such a distinction would have not made sense. As previously stated, the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt have strong ties with rhe Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition, as can be inferred, for instance, by the very similar pottery, economy and settlement pattern and by the latest findings in the deserts surrounding the Egyptian Nile valley (Gatto 2011b, 2012a, b, 2013).

---

Good point- this relates to the very early period.
The same too could be said of some times in the New Kingdom.
At certain times, Nubians and Egyptians become indistinguishable
in the archaeological record (Bianchi 2004). They 2 peoples are
distinctive but at the same time, closely related as even Yurco way
back noted. They conquered one another and exchanged genes,
technology, people and ideas. There were several pharaohs of
Nubian origin BEFORE the 25th Dynasty, a point some people
still find "surprising" or try to deny/downplay. And of course,
BOTH are African peoples.



 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Which Egyptian pharoahs before the 25th dyn were of Nubian origin?
 

---

Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
 
Aw new, not the **** again?

=-=-=-=
Originally posted 29 August, 2008
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000582#000018
12th Dynasty a "Nubian" dynasty
[...]Among others too numerous to list

• Zanakht of dynatsy 3 was a Nehasi
• the 4th dynasty queen Khentkaues was of Ta Seti and she birthed the
  first two kings of the 5th dynasty
• the Uakha family established the 12th dynasty
• Senwosret or Sesostris was a common Uakha name
• the name Amenhotep or Amememhet shows the Uakha connection to Amun and Gebel Barkal
• Amenemhet I was vizier for Mentuhotep IV of the preceding 11th dynasty, his ancestry of and marrige in the Uakha family legitimized his natural right to the throne
• the 14th dyanastys second ruler was actually named Nehesi and honored his mother Peret incorporating her name in his cartouche
• Piye and the succeeding 25th dynasty are too famous to detail
• the 25th dynasty was ultra orthodox reviving tradition throughout T3 Akht
• in truth pharoanic Kmt ended with the 25th dynasty from Napata/Gebel Barkal

quote:

---

[i]... the Egyptian pharaohs of Dynasty 18 had recognized Gebel Barkal as
an ancient source of Egyptian kingship and had themselves crowned there
to affirm their rule, ...

... the first to recognize
the religious significance of Gebel Barkal had been the Pharoah Thutmose
III (ca. 1479-1425 BC)[.]

. . . .

[....]

---

quote:

---

... long before the Egyptians had set eyes on Gebel Barkal, the Nubians,
too, had held it sacred. Although no pre-Egyptian settlement or cultic
remains have yet been found there, unstratified Nubian pottery has been
recovered, dating from the Neolithic, Pre-Kerma, and Kerma periods. This
indicates that the site must have been occupied at least since the fourth
millennium BC. The discovery on the summit of Gebel Barkal of
thousands of chipped stone wasters, made of types of stones that can
only be found on the desert floor, suggests that people brought stones to
the summit to work them, a practice that implies a religious motivation.
Likewise, the similarity between the sanctuary at Barkal, as it appeared in
the Egyptian and Kushite periods, and that of Kerma, as it appeared at
the end of the Classic Kerma phase, may suggest that there was a pre-
Egyptian cultic connection between Gebel Barkal and the "Western
Deffufa" at Kerma. There exists at least the possibility that the latter, a
rectangular, brick built, mountain-like platform 19 m high, may have been
built at Kerma as a magical substitute or "double" of Gebel Barkal. After
all, complexes of temples were built in front of each, and each was
conceived as the dwelling place of a powerful god.

There is no doubt that the Egyptians, and probably, too, the earlier
Nubians, attached sacred significance to Gebel Barkal because of its
bizarre form. Not only was the hill isolated on a flat desert plain and
possessed of a spectacular cliff, 90 m high and 200 m long, its
southwestern corner was marked by an enormous free-standing pinnacle,
nearly 75 m high (fig.5). This monolith had all the appearance of a statue,
but without precise form, and it could be imagined in many ways
simultaneously. On the one hand, it could be seen as the figure of a
standing king or god, wearing the White Crown. It could be seen as an
erect phallus. It could also be seen as a rearing cobra (uraeus), wearing
the White Crown. Ancient documents, both written and pictorial, reveal
that the rock was imagined as all these things at once and was thus
venerated as the source of the divine power of all the various things it
represented. As a crowned human figure, it would have represented the
living king or the ultimate royal ancestor, or the god himself. As a phallus,
it would have represented Amun as father and procreator. As uraeus, it
would have represented each and every goddess and all female creative
power. It was thus father, mother, and royal child combined as one -
which was apparently the very meaning of "Kamutef." Gebel Barkal, by
means of the phallic-shaped pinnacle, not only confirmed the presence of
Amun, it also had precisely the form of the Primeval Hill of Egyptian
tradition, on which the Creator was thought to have appeared at the
beginning of time and generated the first gods through an act of
masturbation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Which Egyptian pharoahs before the 25th dyn were of Nubian origin?

---

Technically they are all of Kushite and Nubian origin since they all share a common neolithic origin (Nabta Playa, Tasians, Badarian, etc) in the region we now call Kush around Sudan and Southern Egypt.

But of course after the Naqada period they grew up to be distinct people with their own languages, customs, etc. Some of those shared between each others of course. The 12th Dynasty seem to be from a southern Kushite (Ta-Seti) origin (probably egyptianized Kushites) according to the Prophecy of Neferti.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
The 12th Dynasty seem to be from a southern Kushite (Ta-Seti) origin (probably egyptianized Kushites) according to the Prophecy of Neferti.

Yes, and even then we don't need the prophecy. Archaeological evidence
makes the case, as Egyptologists like Yurco have long noted.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
The whole culture of Egypt originated in the areas to the South of Egypt: Kingship, deities, architecture, art and the people themselves. This is reinforced by multiple lines of evidence. The only people creating a fake racial distinction between the AE and the rest of Africa are the Europeans of course.

As others have noted the key points are:
1) The oldest evidence of cultural development and social formation occurs in the Upper Nile between the 2nd and 5th cataracts along the Nile in the Mesolithic and beyond.
2) These cultures interacted with cultures who lived in the Sahara during the last wet phase who also introduced pottery styles, art and even mummification prior to the rise of Egypt.
3) As a result of the drying of the Sahara the populations moved towards the Nile and settled in a large wet area between the 1st and 2nd cataracts combining with earlier Nile Valley populations.
4)From this group came the kingdom of Ta Seti (land of the bow) and the royal cemetery at Qustul from which the earliest evidence of Egyptian royal iconography has been identified.
5) The first development of the Ancient Egyptian state occurred in Upper Egypt in and around the town called Naqada today but called Nubt by the Egyptians, meaning "city of gold" or Golden.
6) Ta Seti is the first Nome of Egypt indicating that it was the first "county" of the Egyptian state indicating its age and identity as the origin of ancient Egyptian culture.
7) Herodatus says that the Egyptians said the first king of Egypt was Min. Min is a deity shown as a mummified male with an erect penis and depicted with jet black skin. This iconagraphy undeniably has many meanings including black people as the seed and basis of ancient Egyptian culture, tied to the periodic renewal of the Nile both in terms of soil and population.
8) Archaeologists equate Min with Menes which is a corruption of the word Min.
9) Neithhotep is one of the earliest identified queens of Egypt whose serekh is of crossed arrows, again signifying descent from Ta Seti (land of the bows) and Nubt. She is buried in the royal cemetery of Nubt. Her association with Ta Seti is said to be the reason for her being treated as "foremost of women" and the "great consort" again reflecting Southern traditions associated with the celestial cow and great mother. (Note how the archaeologists will arbitrarily associate Neith with Libya and Lower Egypt when the earliest evidence for this occurs in Ta Seti Upper Egypt during the protodynastic which is the land of the bows.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neith

https://oi.uchicago.edu/museum-exhibits/special-exhibits/nubia-salvage-project-1

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/Herodmin.html

http://www.ancient-egypt.org/who-is-who/n/neithhotep.html

Heiroglyph for city or town (crossroads):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/quadralectics/4350465759/
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Do you have any other reference to Neith-hotep besides Wikipedia Doug?
Here is a detailed mainstream book on the subject:
--------------------------------------


"The commonest form of female rule was that of regency, wherein a king's mother ruled on behalf of her son until he matured sufficiently. The earliest example, however, was not of a mother ruling in place of her son. Early in the First Dynasty, Neith-hotep, the (probably) wife of Aha, is considered to have served as regent for Djer, possibly her nephew. This queen, whose name is known from tomb objects in both Nagada and Abydos, was buried in her own enormous niched mud-brick tomb at the site of Nagada, one of Egypt's most ancient centers. The name of Aha, one of the first kings of Dynasty 1, occurs with hers; objects naming her also stem from the royal tomb complex of Djer, ruler in the mid-First Dynasty.

Although the titles of queen ship were not yet expressed by "King's Wife" or "King's Mother," Neith-hotep's importance may be assumed from a seal with her own name placed with a palace-facade hieroglyph (fig. 3). The emblem of her namesake goddess Neith was carved above the palace facade. This iconographic distinction was reserved, with only one other known exception, to the god whom the king embodied- in all but two instances Horus alone... Neith-hotep's use of the palace facade for her name signals her importance and sometimes has been interpreted as indication of a dynastic union between Lower Egypt's Neith and Upper Egypt 's (in Aha's) Horus."
-- Anne K. Capel; Glenn E. Markoe. ed. 1997. Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Do you have any other reference to Neith-hotep besides Wikipedia Doug?
Here is a detailed mainstream book on the subject:
--------------------------------------


"The commonest form of female rule was that of regency, wherein a king's mother ruled on behalf of her son until he matured sufficiently. The earliest example, however, was not of a mother ruling in place of her son. Early in the First Dynasty, Neith-hotep, the (probably) wife of Aha, is considered to have served as regent for Djer, possibly her nephew. This queen, whose name is known from tomb objects in both Nagada and Abydos, was buried in her own enormous niched mud-brick tomb at the site of Nagada, one of Egypt's most ancient centers. The name of Aha, one of the first kings of Dynasty 1, occurs with hers; objects naming her also stem from the royal tomb complex of Djer, ruler in the mid-First Dynasty.

Although the titles of queen ship were not yet expressed by "King's Wife" or "King's Mother," Neith-hotep's importance may be assumed from a seal with her own name placed with a palace-facade hieroglyph (fig. 3). The emblem of her namesake goddess Neith was carved above the palace facade. This iconographic distinction was reserved, with only one other known exception, to the god whom the king embodied- in all but two instances Horus alone... Neith-hotep's use of the palace facade for her name signals her importance and sometimes has been interpreted as indication of a dynastic union between Lower Egypt's Neith and Upper Egypt 's (in Aha's) Horus."
-- Anne K. Capel; Glenn E. Markoe. ed. 1997. Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt

---

quote:

---

In this respect, it is important to bring to light which aspects of their social life (corresponding to symbolic principles) are hybrid elements and which are elements of the two original identities. Several studies of frontiers emphasize the need for both macro- and micro-scale analyses, as well as the availability of funerary, domestic and ritual sites. Thus, three types of site are here described: a settlement found at Nag el-Qarmila, a small valley to the north of Kubbaniya; its associated cemetery and an isolated tumulus found in the desert east of Kom Ombo; and a ritual site with rock art found in Wadi Abu Subeira.

---

quote:

---

Prehistoric sites were first found in the area of the First Cataract of the Nile more than
a century ago (Weigall 1907; Reisner 1910; Junker 1919). These sites were assigned to the
A-Group culture (Reisner 1910) because of the Nubian elements indentified in their material
remains. A Nubian cultural affiliation was expected since the sites were located in the region of Aswan, positioned at the border between Egypt and Nubia. However, a review of the
available data has shown that, in the area surrounding Aswan and southward to Metardul, the
percentage of Nubian material is always extremely low compared to the Egyptian component,
thus suggesting that the sites in this region should be affiliated with the Naqada culture rather than the Nubian A-Group (atto and Tiraterra 1996; Gatto 1997; 1998; 2000; 2006a; 2006b).
This revised cultural affiliation, however, does not answer the question of how the Nubian
and Egyptian components are related
.
Before this relationship can be assessed, two questions
must be addressed:
1) What is a frontier, and so how should we define the Egyptian-Nubian frontier?
2) What are the cultural consequences resulting from the interaction of two human groups in
their boundary zone, and how can this be detected in the archaeological record?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] It is an article in an academic publication by Maria Carmela Gatto who specializes in the history of the areas around the 1st cataract between the 5th and 3rd millenium BC.



From her page on the British Museum Website....



Now just to show how absurd their narratives are and the wordplay being used to reinforce old misconceptions and distortions, look at the following:

quote:

---

Prehistoric sites were first found in the area of the First Cataract of the Nile more than
a century ago (Weigall 1907; Reisner 1910; Junker 1919). These sites were assigned to the
A-Group culture (Reisner 1910) because of the Nubian elements indentified in their material
remains. A Nubian cultural affiliation was expected since the sites were located in the region of Aswan, positioned at the border between Egypt and Nubia. However, a review of the
available data has shown that, in the area surrounding Aswan and southward to Metardul, the
percentage of Nubian material is always extremely low compared to the Egyptian component,
thus suggesting that the sites in this region should be affiliated with the Naqada culture rather than the Nubian A-Group (atto and Tiraterra 1996; Gatto 1997; 1998; 2000; 2006a; 2006b).
This revised cultural affiliation, however, does not answer the question of how the Nubian
and Egyptian components are related
.
Before this relationship can be assessed, two questions
must be addressed:
1) What is a frontier, and so how should we define the Egyptian-Nubian frontier?
2) What are the cultural consequences resulting from the interaction of two human groups in
their boundary zone, and how can this be detected in the archaeological record?

---

First, how can one speak of Egyptians versus Nubians if there was no Egyptian state? Egypt was the first nation state on earth. Before the first dynasty there was no Egypt and therefore no Egyptians. But here they keep trying to reinforce this "racial" distinction based on a national entity that didn't even exist yet. The whole point is to downplay and ignore the fact that ALL of the elements of Egyptian culture came from the South to begin with, so there was no real distinction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


But this whole paper is trying to maintain a fake distinction between a non existent Nubia and Egypt even before Egypt even existed, claiming interconnection but avoiding stating the fact that the cultural traditions originated in the South.

---

http://www.kerma.ch/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41

The Kingdom of Kerma, a Nubian culture that emerged late in the fourth millennium B.C., will dominate Upper Nubia for almost a thousand years. Egyptian texts refer to it as Kush.

Based on ceramic materials discovered in the cemeteries on Sai Island and at Kerma, three chronological periods can be distinguished: Early Kerma (circa 2450-2050 B.C.), Middle Kerma (circa 2050-1750 B.C.) and Classic Kerma (circa 1750-1480 B.C.). A fourth period, called Final Kerma, denotes the transition between the end of the kingdom and the Egyptian occupation (circa 1480-1450 B.C.).

Classic Kerma is the most glorious period the kingdom has known. The influence of its rulers spreads even to Lower Nubia and an alliance proposed by a Hyksos king of the Fifteenth Dynasty, around 1580 B.C., corroborates the kingdom’s importance on the political scene. Monumental and large-scale works are undertaken in the city and the necropolis. The western deffufa now resembles an Egyptian temple and a port is established south of the city. Two large temples of more than 40 m tall are erected in the necropolis, where the last royal tumuli clearly demonstrate the power of the kings. The kingdom’s collapse is undoubtedly hastened by this conspicuous display of wealth, coveted by northern neighbours, as well as the overexploitation of soils and an increased desertification.


The Egyptian conquest of the Kingdom of Kush is carried out by one of the most illustrious New Kingdom pharaohs, Thutmosis I (1496-1483 B.C.). After having recaptured the forts of Lower Nubia and seized Kerma, he establishes a new city one kilometre north of the latter, at the site of Dukki Gel. Egyptian influence over this region south of the Third Cataract is not truly felt until the reign of Thutmosis III (1479-1424 B.C.).

The Nubians must leave their homes, often burnt during the conquest. Several settle at Soleb, Sesebi, Tabo, Kawa or at the foot of Gebel Barkal. Our understanding of the transition from the Kerma cultures to the Egyptian occupation is made difficult due to numerous conflicts between indigenous populations and the new settlers. The administration of the country is given to a viceroy, who bears the title “King’s Son of Kush,” although a certain authority is left to the local elite. Indeed, a policy of Egyptianisation is quickly launched. The children of the defeated chiefs are thus sent to Egypt in order to be educated in Pharaoh’s court.

Today, the city of Dukki Gel is partially buried under a palm grove, which makes impossible an exhaustive study of its development. Available landmarks, however, allow a comparison of its proportions to other Egyptian cities in Nubia. Interpretation of the religious quarter proves complex; our understanding of early buildings is complicated by restorations and constructions dated to the later Napatan or Meroitic periods. Projects commissioned by pharaohs of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth dynasties are evidenced by the various foundation deposits discovered at temples within the precinct. One of these temples was dedicated to the god Amun.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
This is not the first time we have discussed the false dichotomy between "Egypt" and "Nubia". Egypt as a reference to dynastic KMT was a unified nation consisting of various nomes or provinces. "Nubia" is a nonexistent entity made up entirely by white archaeologists to imply a unified collection of populations and cultures south of Egypt that does not and never did exist. In fact as stated over and over again on this forum, the populations most accurately called "Nubians" in the predynastic and early dynastic period are the Egyptians themselves. Those are the populations centered around the ancient town of Nubt, which is called Naqada by Egyptologists and the name used for a phase of the predynastic. This same population had its roots in what the ancient Egyptians called Ta Seti which was an area corresponding to the region between Nubt and South of Aswan as the first nome or first province of Dynastic KMT, kind of equivalent to 'plymouth rock" in the American context. There was no "other" competing nation state in the Nile Valley that was a collection of various provinces and towns on the scale of Dynastic Egypt called "Nubia". Yet Egyptologists keep using this term as if to imply all these people are lumped together as if sharing a common bond of culture, nationality, ethnicity and religion when no such thing existed. Just like in Sudan today, you have many different ethnic groups and many different cultures and beliefs along that stretch of the Nile valley.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=008031;p=1

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006480;p=1


http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007435;p=1

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=008073;p=1

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003916;p=1

When most Egyptologists talk about "Nubia" they are really talking about Ta Seti, the region around the Aswan and the immediate south, which was the birthplace of many of the elements that became dynastic Egypt. But Ta Seti, was incorporated into Egypt as the first nome of the country, those people cannot be considered foreigners.. These people had a close association with other ethnic groups to the South of Egypt who were called on regularly for support in periods of chaos. Those were distinct ethnic groups who while not directly part of the Egyptian state were considered as 'bretheren' or kinsfolk who could be called on for support. That is why these Egyptologists spend so much time trying to mantain this fake distinction when no such thing existed.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
So what about the Kushites that are recorded and named in Egyptian texts and in art as a distinct national group, some might say that they are depicted sometimes as looking different as well (other times not) who at various points of time had military conflicts with the Egyptians?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Sudanese ethnic groups:

Sudanese muslim:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sudan_Meroe_Pyramids_15jan2005.jpg

Dinka

https://www.flickr.com/photos/africarlo/3179288982/in/album-72157611778675437/

Nuer:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstecher/20905737949/

Shilluk

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rietje/3138395635/

Nuba

https://www.flickr.com/photos/steveriley2008/2374036029/

Ababda People (beja sub group)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/geo-boy/2101597646/

So called Nubian from Bayuda Desert (near Khartoum)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carsten_tb/16317590521/

Beja from Kassala

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25936994@N00/8723359807/
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Egyptians at luxor:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/deydodoe/5003405729/

Egyptian fruit sellers Cairo:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/melibeo/13230072023/

Soleb Temple Sudan

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25936994@N00/8698591370/sizes/l/

Meroe Pyramids:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/azani_manaf/317913813/

Nubian Children Sudan:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carsten_tb/15800136361/

Sudanese man in Kassala:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstecher/19701616753/

Nubian girl Sudan:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotravel/3872823854/
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Thank you for showcasing all the people of Greater Sudan instead of just the people of the North. The people of the South [despite their independence] are an integral part of Sudan and its history. The Dinka only started leaving the Gezira [just South of Khartoum] at the end of the 13th Century and completed their migration to modern day South Sudan in the 17th Century.

I mention this because Yonis once claimed that South Sudanese and North Sudanese didn't even know each other before the British introduced them and forced them together - which is false.

The Nilotic tribes lived in the Gezira for thousands of years, and would undoubtedly have interacted with Northern tribes and civilizations throughout that period.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
The East African Nilotic culture evolved 2, 000 years ago in the Gezira, the land between the Blue and White Niles in present day Sudan. Over time the Nilotes migrated southwards in clans and currently reside in southern Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania.

The Western Nilotes, the greatest population of Nilotes people in Sudan, include the Dinka, Shilluk, Anuak, Nuer, Luo, Atwot, Acholi, and Burun (and numerous smaller groups). The Burun remain in the Gezira and the others reside in southern Sudan or on the Sudanese/Ethiopian border (Anuak) and Ugandan/Sudanese border (Acholi). [B][/B] (Encyclopedia of Africa, Volume 2)
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
The homeland of these African Nilotic Sudanese was at one time in Central Sudan, specifically in the Gezira, and the last of them to leave, according to their traditions of migration, were the Dinka (in their own language the Jiang of Moinjiang) some time in the fifteenth century who pushed the Luo, who had gone before them, further into southern Sudan. (A History of Modern Sudan, Robert O. Collins)


Linguisic studies such as those by Ehret suggest that the cradleland of all Nilotic languages lies north of the Ethiopian border between the Blue and White Niles in the Sudanese Gezira, specifically in the present-day home-land of the Burun. Nicholas David adds that a dialect chain of western, eastern, and southern branches of Nilotic languages diversify from a more northerly part of the Gezira in a southerly direction suggesting the language began in what is now the central Sudan and then spread south. Clarifying the puzzle, William Y. Adams argues that the original homeland of any language family emanates from that area where the various member languages have the widest diversity; in this case the country of the Burun west of the Ethiopian highlands in the Gezira. Thus, the cradleland of all Nilotic people, according to linguistics, was the Gezira. (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)


Adding further evidence and looking back at the ancient linguistic history of the Nilotes, Ehret suggests the material culture of the Nilotes in the Gezira took shape during the Aquatic period around 9000-6000 B.C.E. The ancestral Nilotes took on a distinct identity from 6500 to 550 B.C.E. approximately, and as the Sudd shrank to modern proportions from 2000 to 1000 B.C.E. at the end of the Saharan wet phase, some of the Nilotes expanded southwards as far as Lake Turkana. (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)


In the meantime the ancestors of the Dinka remained in the old homelands Around 1400 A.D. the Dinka began their expansion out of the Gezira while the modern Luo speakers of all descriptions were pushed southwards to various peripheries. Within South Sudan today there are only Western and Eastern-speaking peoples. As the former are the numerically dominant, much of this volume is devoted to their histories in the region. Other recent scholarship also shows that the Dinka language has a close connection to classical Nubian of central Sudan. (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)


Bender lists Nilotic and Nubian as Eastern Sudanic languages and linguistic studies conducted by Robin Thelwall suggest an unexpected degree of similarity in vocabulary between Dinka and the modern linguistic descendant of classical Nubian, Nobiin. Thelwall compared Daju, Nubian and Dinka and wrote: "The inter Daju-Nubian comparisons give a spread of ten to twenty-five percent...However, the check of Dinka gives one comparison (with Nobiin [the classical language of Nubia] of twenty-seven percent... and this stronger link to Dinka than to Daju implies that it was in close contact with Dinka." In his first interpretation of this linguistic evidence, Thelwall attributed these similarities to a loaning process of historical interraction between speakers of classical Nubian and their Dinka contemporaries. The plausibility of this interpretation has more recently been enhanced by the demonstration that numbers of modern Arabic-speaking peoples of the central Nile valley Sudan previously spoke a Nubian language more closely related to Nobiin than to the modern-day Nubian language of Kenzi-Dongolawi. In the recent past Nubian speakers were widely distributed extending up the Nile as far as modern-day Khartoum and over much of the Gezira. The far southern Nubian kingdom was Alwa and, if the subjects of this kingdom spoke classical Nubian, as seems likely, they had at least a millenium in which to interract linguistically with the Dinka who claim to have resided in the same region. Archaelogy also supports the Dinka claims of a central Sudanese homeland. (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

...Abialang Dinka Musa Ajak Liol states: "We chased the Funj [the former residents of the Nile/Sobat junction] all the way up to Omutholwi, east of Renk, then up to Parmi now called Gospami, and then chased them all the way to the Ethiopian border, called Jebel Toktok and left them there." It has been fairly well established that during the Nubian period (c. 300-1300 A.D.) a people called the Funj resided near the junction of the Nile and Sobat rivers as well as throughout the Gezira; indeed the Sultanate of the same name emerged in the sixteenth century. Dinka oral histories recount meeting the "Fung" people as they forged south up the Nile. Abialang Dinka Musa Ajak Liol states: "We found Funj in our areas and we fought with them and defeated them."In their travels south the Dinka remember many wars with the Funj which are noted in detail in the next chapter. A number of written accounts suggest the Dinka are closely related to the Nubians. They are derived from the precolonial and colonial Sudanese periods and, at the very least, suggest that the Dinka resided in central Sudan. Early in the eighteenth century two manuscripts (one which claims to date back to 1738 and another by the Northern Sudanese writer Muhammed Walad Dolib the younger, both quote the thesis of the fourteenth-century North African traveller Ibn Khaldun that the Dinka were ancestrally connected to the Danagla (Nubians). (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)


This chapter suggests that the original homeland of the East African Nilotes is the central Sudan between the Blue and White Niles in the Gezira. The largest of the Western Nilotic peoples in the Sudan today, the Dinka recount histories of migrations from north and south of the confluence of the Blue and White Niles, the modern-day capital of Khartoum, southwards into their present homelands in South Sudan. Thus, evidently, around the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries they were the last Nilotes to leave central Sudan. Emperical evidence in the form of linguistics and archaelogy in both central and Southern Sudan and historical accounts further support the above data. This includes Arab and Nubian geographers and travellers accounts of the eleventh to the thirteenth-century Nubian period along with more recent Northern Sudanese manuscripts and oral histories from the Gezira. As the forefathers of the Dinka migrated out of the central Sudan into their new homelands further south and southwest, however, they faced an onslaught of military resistance. (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Western historians are still wedded to the project of extricating ancient Egypt from its African context and roots.

Books like 'White Athena: A Critique of Afrocentrist Claims, Volume 2' [2015] still argue that the ancient Egyptians were identical to modern day Egyptians and that the only people that could be considered black in ancient Egypt were the Nubians, and that the Nubians were just slaves, soldiers, musicians and concubines. This is really annoying.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
Before the Naqada period Ancient Egyptians and Kushites came from the same regions in Southern Egypt, Northern Sudan (adding eventually people from the surrounding deserts like Nabta Playa, Cave of Swimmers, who may also have an earlier origin in Sudan). It's only after the Naqada period that those people began to develop their own identity and their own divergent but interrelated history.

From Cultural entanglement at the dawn of the Egyptian history: a View from the Nile First Cataract Region (2014)


CONCLUSIONS

The distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity is something connected to the rise of the Naqada culture in the first half of the fourth millennium BCE. During the previous millennium such a distinction would have not made sense. As previously stated, the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt have strong ties with rhe Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition, as can be inferred, for instance, by the very similar pottery, economy and settlement pattern and by the latest findings in the deserts surrounding the Egyptian Nile valley (Gatto 2011b, 2012a, b, 2013).


We have some neolithic ancient DNA from the Kadruka location in Northern Sudan through the Meroitic era up to the christian era. It's clear from the ancient DNA at Kadruka those people were indigenous Africans not migrants from Eurasia. Eurasians start to appear in significant numbers only in the christian era.


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Western historians are still wedded to the project of extricating ancient Egypt from its African context and roots.

Books like 'White Athena: A Critique of Afrocentrist Claims, Volume 2' [2015] still argue that the ancient Egyptians were identical to modern day Egyptians and that the only people that could be considered black in ancient Egypt were the Nubians, and that the Nubians were just slaves, soldiers, musicians and concubines. This is really annoying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Before the Naqada period Ancient Egyptians and Kushites came from the same regions in Southern Egypt, Northern Sudan (adding eventually people from the surrounding deserts like Nabta Playa, Cave of Swimmers, who may also have an earlier origin in Sudan). It's only after the Naqada period that those people began to develop their own identity and their own divergent but interrelated history.

From Cultural entanglement at the dawn of the Egyptian history: a View from the Nile First Cataract Region (2014)


CONCLUSIONS

The distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity is something connected to the rise of the Naqada culture in the first half of the fourth millennium BCE. During the previous millennium such a distinction would have not made sense. As previously stated, the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt have strong ties with rhe Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition, as can be inferred, for instance, by the very similar pottery, economy and settlement pattern and by the latest findings in the deserts surrounding the Egyptian Nile valley (Gatto 2011b, 2012a, b, 2013).


We have some neolithic ancient DNA from the Kadruka location in Northern Sudan through the Meroitic era up to the christian era. It's clear from the ancient DNA at Kadruka those people were indigenous Africans not migrants from Eurasia. Eurasians start to appear in significant numbers only in the christian era.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Of course, in fact Naqada in the Egyptian language is Nubt, which means "Nubia" (place of gold), which makes the Naqadans literally Nubians and that is what these people called themselves. But European Egyptologists play word games with labels to obscure these facts, including "A-Group", "C-Group", "Nubia" etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Of course, in fact Naqada in the Egyptian language is Nubt, which means "Nubia" (place of gold), which makes the Naqadans literally Nubians and that is what these people called themselves. But European Egyptologists play word games with labels to obscure these facts, including "A-Group", "C-Group", "Nubia" etc.

---

Actually, while Naqada was called Nubt and Nub means gold, Nubia was a never a term used by Ancient Egyptians to refer to Kushite people or their territory. It never appeared in any Ancient Egyptian or Kushite text.


Ancient Egyptians used to refer to the Kushite territory and people as Ta-Seti (Land of the Bow) since the Old Kingdom. During the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty), the word Kush began to be used alongside Ta-Seti. Nubia, a term often used by modern egyptologists, was first used to refer to people and territory by Strabo a Greek geographer and has no relation to Kush or Ta-Seti. Kush is also a word Kushites used for themselves. King Kashta, of the 25th Kushite Dynasty, is an example (in Africa kings often goes by various names).

---

quote:

---

His Majesty has commanded to raise a great stela in granite for the great name of his fathers, in order to raise the name of the father of his fathers ( and for ) his father the King Men-Ma'at-Re, son of Re, Seti Mer-ne-Ptah lasting for eternity, like Re every day.

Year 400, the fourth month of the season of Shammu, the fourth day of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Seth-Great-of-valor, son of Re whom he loves, Nubti [11], beloved by Re-Hor-akhty, may he live for ever.[b]
....
[b]The Regent came, the mayor of the town, the vizier, the fanbearer on the right hand of the King [7], the leader of the bowmen, the chief of the archers, the governor of the fortress of Tjarw [8], the great of Medjay [9], the royal scribe, the administrative officer of the chariotry the lord master of the ceremonies of the Feast of the He-goat [10], the master of Smendes, the first prophet of Seth, the lector-priest of Wadjet-Opet-Tawy, the head of all priests of all the gods, Seti, right of voice, son of the Prince regent, the mayor of the town, the vizier, the chief of the archers, the governor of the fortress of Tjarw, the royal scribe, the administrative officer of the chariotry, Paramesse [12], right of voice, born from the mistress of the house, the songstress of Re, Tiw, right of voice, he says :

---

quote:

---

The temple on the spur of the desert, marked NUBT on Pl. I A, proved to be of Set, from which he was known as Set Nubti. The other town of Nubt, or Ombos, was sacred to Hor-ur and Sebek-ra, and not to Set. Hence it is evident that Set Nubti must rather belong to the Nubt where the figures of Set are found.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Thanks for your answers, Doug and Amun-Ra The Ultimate.

Does anybody know what percentage of native Egyptian dynasties came from the South [Upper Egypt]? I know that the majority of Egypt's dynasties came from the South and that Upper Egypt was dominant; the Egyptian State was put together from the South and the majority of the population was concentrated between Aswan and Luxor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Of course, in fact Naqada in the Egyptian language is Nubt, which means "Nubia" (place of gold), which makes the Naqadans literally Nubians and that is what these people called themselves. But European Egyptologists play word games with labels to obscure these facts, including "A-Group", "C-Group", "Nubia" etc.

---

Actually, while Naqada was called Nubt and Nub means gold, Nubia was a never a term used by Ancient Egyptians to refer to Kushite people or their territory. It never appeared in any Ancient Egyptian or Kushite text.


Ancient Egyptians used to refer to the Kushite territory and people as Ta-Seti (Land of the Bow) since the Old Kingdom. During the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty), the word Kush began to be used alongside Ta-Seti. Nubia, a term often used by modern egyptologists, was first used to refer to people and territory by Strabo a Greek geographer and has no relation to Kush or Ta-Seti. Kush is also a word Kushites used for themselves. King Kashta, of the 25th Kushite Dynasty, is an example (in Africa kings often goes by various names).

---

You are exactly right. However, if you do look at the ancient Egyptian language there was a place called Nubt which was called the city of gold, which would make those people "Nubians". That gold came from Upper Egypt and Sudan in the first place among the populations who lived there who became part of the early nation in KMT.. The Ancient Egyptian deity Set was also called "the Nubti" in the various stele that have been found, as in the case of the year 400 stela from the Ramessid period. Again this evidence points to the Ancient nation of KMT being an extension of ancient black populations in the area coming out of the Sahara and what is now Sudan. Gold was sacred within ancient Egyptian culture and therefore using the word for gold as a reference to foreigners, especially so called 'hated blacks' makes no sense. The point I am making is this is another blow to the fake chronology of Egypt created by Egyptologists and they use word games to cover up the true relationships and facts. In the ancient Egyptian language the Nubians, called the Naqadans by Egyptologists, were basically the same people who founded Ta Seti. Note the Ramessid dynasty is founded by a person named Seti from Nubt who worshipped the Deity Set and was called "Nebty" (meaning from Nubt or Nubian in our language). And he is leading an army of bowmen from Ta Seti. Again, Europeans play games with facts and would tell you that the Ramessids were red heads from Eurasia worshiping Set as a foreign deity.

quote:

---

His Majesty has commanded to raise a great stela in granite for the great name of his fathers, in order to raise the name of the father of his fathers ( and for ) his father the King Men-Ma'at-Re, son of Re, Seti Mer-ne-Ptah lasting for eternity, like Re every day.

Year 400, the fourth month of the season of Shammu, the fourth day of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Seth-Great-of-valor, son of Re whom he loves, Nubti [11], beloved by Re-Hor-akhty, may he live for ever.[b]
....
[b]The Regent came, the mayor of the town, the vizier, the fanbearer on the right hand of the King [7], the leader of the bowmen, the chief of the archers, the governor of the fortress of Tjarw [8], the great of Medjay [9], the royal scribe, the administrative officer of the chariotry the lord master of the ceremonies of the Feast of the He-goat [10], the master of Smendes, the first prophet of Seth, the lector-priest of Wadjet-Opet-Tawy, the head of all priests of all the gods, Seti, right of voice, son of the Prince regent, the mayor of the town, the vizier, the chief of the archers, the governor of the fortress of Tjarw, the royal scribe, the administrative officer of the chariotry, Paramesse [12], right of voice, born from the mistress of the house, the songstress of Re, Tiw, right of voice, he says :

---

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/400_year_stela.htm

Petrie was one of the first to discover the Set temple in Nubt:

quote:

---

The temple on the spur of the desert, marked NUBT on Pl. I A, proved to be of Set, from which he was known as Set Nubti. The other town of Nubt, or Ombos, was sacred to Hor-ur and Sebek-ra, and not to Set. Hence it is evident that Set Nubti must rather belong to the Nubt where the figures of Set are found.

---

https://books.google.com/books?id=nTcWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=naquada+nubt&source=bl&ots=fYeDs24ATF&sig=kzmqO8tJRVfCJ9YINyFgV2HwbqM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjv5JSU3MTJAhVLTSYKHW7 pCcQQ6AEIRzAG#v=onepage&q=naquada%20nubt&f=false

---

Also, look at this map of the Ancient Egyptian provinces/nomes. The key provinces of predynastic Egypt are all very close to Aswan....

From Aswan to Edfu (nekhen) is 100 miles.
Aswan to luxor is 140 miles.
Aswan to Abydos is 200 miles.

That 200 mile area between Aswan and Abydos is where Egypt started at.



 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
^^^This is a good point known to most people here interested into the origin of Ancient Egypt. While trading with the outside world was and became very important for the Ancient Egyptian state, we can see the foundation of Ancient Egypt is from the South. Their roots don't lie in the Delta as you would expect from non-indigenous people coming from outside Africa from West Asia. Their roots lies in the Sudan/Egyptian border and surrounding deserts (Nabta Playa, Cave of Swimmers, Cave of the Beasts). Christopher Ehret in "Africa in History" goes even further and says southern Upper Egypt itself was a northern outlier of a wider indigenous African complex which included Kush. Of course the same thing is said by Wengrow, the very subject of this thread as well as many other studies. Kush and Egypt was one culture until just before the foundation of the Ancient Egyptian state. Up until Naqada.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Introduction to Research at Naqada Region

The Naqada region is located to the north of Luxor in Upper Egypt. The settlement of Nubt-South Town is located on the west bank of the Nile halfway between the modern towns of Kom Billal and el-Zawayda and is the most famous and largest settlement in the Naqada region, which consists of a cluster of sites of differing sizes and types (see Fig. 1). Together with Hierakonpolis and Abydos, Nubt-South Town is one of the most important sites for understanding the socio-economic developments that occurred during the Predynastic (Naqada I-II, 3,900-3,300 BC) to Protodynastic (Naqada IIIA-B, 3,300-3,060 BC) periods, and represents one of the primary political centres of early Egypt. As such, it was a major player in the process of state formation (Wilkinson 2000). As the funerary remains cover the entire Predynastic and Protodynastic periods, it is enormously important for both chronological and bioarchaeological studies (Hendrickx 1986).


Petrie uncovered a huge cemetery (N or the Great New Race Cemetery), along with other smaller cemeteries (B and T) and several structures (South Town area) as well as finding indications of Predynastic occupation around the temple area (Nubt area). Subsequent investigations by Kaiser (1961) have identified settlement remains dating to the Predynastic and later along the floodplain edge north of the South Town spur and in front of the Temple spur. He also identified a Predynastic cemetery located just to the north of the temple spur. Re-analyse of Cemetery N, primarily by Bard (1987; 1989; 1994) has allowed for a better understanding of the distribution of early remains at Nubt-South Town (van Wetering & Tassie in press).

---