>The Shang Dynasty was not started by Africans. I have never
>heard anything of the sort and more importantly any evidence
>to back it up.

from the website...

http://www.geocities.com/olmec982000/blshang2.htm

"In accordance with the oral traditions of China, the founders of Chinese civilization were Huangdi and Fu Xi. These legendary rulers like Dai Hao, were all buried in zhiu (burial mounds). The presence of this mound culture in China supports the traditions of burial of elects in mound tombs.

The skeletal remains from southern China are predominately negroid. (Chang 1964, p.370) The people practiced single burials.

In northern China the blacks founded many civilizations. The three major empires of China were the Xia Dynasty (c.2205-1766 B.C), Shang/ Yin Dynasty (c.1700-1050 B.C) and the Zhou Dynasty.The Zhou dynasty was the first dynasty founded by the Mongoloid people in China called Hua (Who-aa).

The founders of Xia and Shang came from the Fertile African Crescent by way of Iran. According to Chinese legends the first man Pan Gu, used a hammer 18,000 years ago to make man.

The Chinese legends designate various culture heroes as the inventors of various aspects of Chinese civilization. The Chinese term for emperor is Di. Huang Di (Yellow Emperor), is the Chinese culture hero credited with introducing boats, carts 'chariots, the bow and arrow, ceramics, wooded houses and writing."

there's more. it may be all complete reverse revisionist (ha!) bollocks, but the traditional western anthropological stance has been marred by racism and prejudice, making it equally untrustworthy. maybe it's all feel good nonsense. or maybe, it's true, whatever it is it's fun to speculate...

again, i believe that we were previously intercontinental. all peoples come from africa originally and then we traded with each other. the first civilizations were african and thus could be said to have inspired either directly or indirectly the concept of civilization itself. and still do to this date.

Much later dynasties, I believe the Song (but
>don't quote me) had contact with Africans. There's this one
>painting by a Song artist that depicts a foreign convoy
>bringing gifts to the Chinese emperor and there are Africans
>with exotic goods depicted. Is it really that hard to believe,
>the Chinese founded their own culture, that Egyptians founded
>their own culture, and that Sumerians and Akkadians founded
>their own culture?
>Cultures have been interacting since the beginning of human
>culture and the process is not one sided.

that's what i'm saying. but there has been a concerted effort to erase and remove black history, confine it to slavery and discredit any thing else we have done. i don't want to over compensate. the big hole where we should have been leave the game wide open to speculation. again, the first people were african. we're all african... in a way or originally, unless were created by shapeshifting giant aliens.

>Can you link me to the study that says 80% of Chinese have
>African DNA. You do realize that we all have African DNA
>therefore telling me that 80% of the Chinese population has
>African DNA is meaningless. That is the concept behind the
>whole mitochondrial Eve. All present day populations can be
>linked back to an African woman 150,000 years ago.
>As far as the cocaine in the pharoah's tomb, you do realize
>that those tombs have been looted for thousands of years and
>there is much contamination in them, meainig the cocaine found
>does not mean that it was deposited at the time of the
>pharoah. This is where archaeology and dating methods can be
>very useful, because they may be able to date that cocaine, or
>at the very least identify what species of plant it comes from
>and what are its components. As I'm sure you know there is a
>big different between how the natives of America used coca
>leaf, they chewed it with the aide of limestone versus the
>current practice of using cocaine. To this day I have not seen
>a study on what exactly this cocaine was and if it has been
>dated and broken down. Therefore I find it more likely it was
>the result of contamination by looters. I'd also like to point
>out there is no depiction of cocaine use in Egyptian art.

i hadn't thought about that. coked out looters does seem a lot more plausible. but check this out...

http://www.plu.edu/~ryandp/RAX.html

thor heyerdahl sailed a reed built boat across the atlantic ocean based off of designs found in an egyptian tomb. so there still exists the distinct possibility of intercontinental trade amongst cultures. the maori of new zealand had a full blown trading company, but that may have only come after contact with europeans, but they were cruising around the pacific trading fighting and cross breeding with each other for hundreds of years if not more.

did you read anything about abubakari's voyage? i don't know if that discredits the olmec and the maya's achievements, but it does hint to a distinct african influence on the world. like i said in my intro post, i don't want to over estimate this. i'll open with huge blanket statements and then strip it back to what i hope is the truth based off of this discussion and my reading/study through out my life and then some.

>I've heard about the theories surrounding the Olmec - African
>connection and it is still speculation. There is no hardcore
>evidence that can support this.

check out that site and some of the work of the african centered anthropologists and scholars, if not just for balance and a different view. i would say that the majority of known and 'official' anthropologists and scholars are going to, by default, subscribe to what i believe is a byassed, at least prejudiced and at the most racist 'phrenology' creating system of science that preceeds them.

check out that book black athena. and thank you.

lastly, i am still trying to discredit the creation of man kind and or white people by aliens, and not africans. the african eve theory is one that i like!

ok.