Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #30351

Subject: "the sumerians/the akkadians/the egyptians/the africans..." This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
urthanheaven
Charter member
626 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 02:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"the sumerians/the akkadians/the egyptians/the africans..."


  

          

who came first? is african civilization really the first civilization? are we trying to claim things that aren't ours?

lately this question has become a sort of what came first the chicken or the egg for me. my initial attitude and what has characterised a fair bit of my investigation may have been reactionary. i know that black people are being and have been written out of history. however, is a blanket claiming of everything out there on the face of the planet as african accurate? did all people really come from africa? does all civilization come from africa? is the middle east really african?

i would appreciate a discussion to back or discredit the argument for african primacy... or rather, who came first?

other questions, if black people didn't come first, where did we come from? where do white people come from?

ultimately we're all human (except for shape shifting lizards... but i'm trying real hard to leave that alone!) and we all are born from a set of parents older than us. and if you go back far enough we should all have a common ancestor, hence the 'african eve' theory. we all can breed together, regardless of 'race' which means that we are all in the same species...

i'm trying to discredit those damn shape shifting giant aliens who 'created' seperate types of humans. i've seen how isolation environment and time affect a species producing different sub groups like preying mantis and beetles tailored to their surroundings, this i can verify through logic and reading, it seems the same with the human race.

help! i may have hit a dead end and could use some different oppinions and perspectives on the origin of the species.

ok.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 27th 2005
1
RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 27th 2005
4
RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 27th 2005
11
      RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 27th 2005
15
           RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 27th 2005
16
                ops, i left out your question about the fertile crescent
Apr 28th 2005
17
                RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 28th 2005
30
                     RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 29th 2005
33
How do explain eskimoes in near "artic" areas then
Apr 28th 2005
19
      can you clarify what you mean?
Apr 28th 2005
21
           what I mean is the "iceman" theory is wrong
Apr 28th 2005
26
                RE: what I mean is the "iceman" theory is wrong
Apr 28th 2005
27
                     the exceptions I pointed out relate to eugenics as opposed to climate
Apr 29th 2005
34
                          do you know what eugenics is?
Apr 29th 2005
37
                               my point was, they aren't white people (chinese/asians)
Apr 29th 2005
38
                                    what about the Ainu people of northern Japan?
Apr 29th 2005
39
                                         the Ainu people are NOT WHITE PEOPLE, that's my whole point
Apr 29th 2005
41
                                         they have physical traits associated with "white people"
Apr 30th 2005
43
                                         a link about the propoganda you are promoting
Apr 29th 2005
42
^^^Someone's been reading their Diop.....
Apr 27th 2005
2
actually...
Apr 27th 2005
3
      RE: actually...
Apr 27th 2005
5
           RE: actually...
Apr 27th 2005
13
Well Kemet/egypt is a African civilization
Apr 27th 2005
6
RE: Well Kemet/egypt is a African civilization
Apr 27th 2005
7
RE: Well Kemet/egypt is a African civilization
Apr 27th 2005
10
      when was the shephardic dynasty?
Apr 27th 2005
12
           shephardic dynasties were 13 to 17
Apr 27th 2005
14
Post Over although I disagree with the terminology "African"
Apr 28th 2005
18
      Do you disagree with the term "Chinese" when refering to
Apr 28th 2005
20
      here's the thing though, the word Chin comes from those people
Apr 28th 2005
22
           RE: here's the thing though, the word Chin comes from those people
Apr 28th 2005
23
           but you call it "Asia"
Apr 28th 2005
24
                Wst
Apr 28th 2005
25
                     Wassat?
Apr 28th 2005
28
      Okay Alkebulan
Apr 28th 2005
32
           I want to know how Dr. Ben developed that word
Apr 29th 2005
35
                He says it is the oldest know name used for
Apr 29th 2005
40
                     what are his sources for THAT WORD?
Apr 30th 2005
44
                          i've wondered that myself
May 04th 2005
50
{quote} "I think it would be a good idea."
Apr 27th 2005
8
RE: the sumerians/the akkadians/the egyptians/the africans...
Apr 27th 2005
9
c'mon...everyone knows Anglo-Saxons were the first....j/k
Apr 28th 2005
29
RE: c'mon...everyone knows Anglo-Saxons were the first....j/k
Apr 28th 2005
31
      they taught you about that in school too?
Apr 29th 2005
36
You're all over the place...
May 02nd 2005
45
RE: You're all over the place...
May 03rd 2005
46
      RE: You're all over the place...
May 03rd 2005
47
           RE: You're all over the place...
May 03rd 2005
48
                Yeah I'm aware of all that...
May 03rd 2005
49
.
May 04th 2005
51

Harmonia
Charter member
14560 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 06:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
1. "depends upon your definition of civilization...."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

meaning whether you are classifying in terms of empire, kingdom, city-state, territoy, etc.
You could back even further than the civilizations you mentioned to the time when agriculture first took place in the Fertile Crescent. To me, that is what dramatically changed the human experience, because up until that point we were hunter-gatherers living a nomadic lifestyle.

The Sumerians weren't an empire, but more like a centralized state. Sumerian civilization dates are approxmiately 2900 - 2350 BC. After Sumer, King Sargon established what many feel was technically the first empire. The dates for the Akkadian Empire are from 2334 - 2230 BC.
Egypt didn't become an empire until the new kingdom in which it expanded its territory into Nubia and the Levant, however the dynastic period of Egypt meaning when we can clearly idenity Egyptian pharaohs began around 3000 BC when King Narmer unified upper and lower Egypt.
I'm not sure which African civlizations you are talking about, so you're gonna have to be more specific.

As far as where black, whites, etc came from...we are all the same species originating from east Africa 150,000 years ago. When Homo sapiens left Africa, they adapted to various climates which explains why such variations in appearance took place. However, we are all very similar genetically. And yes Africans are the oldest populations because there is more genetic diversity within the continent of Africa than outside of it, meaning Africans have been around the longest and have had more time to diversify.

***************************************

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
urthanheaven
Charter member
626 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 04:15 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "RE: depends upon your definition of civilization...."
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

>meaning whether you are classifying in terms of empire,
>kingdom, city-state, territoy, etc.
>You could back even further than the civilizations you
>mentioned to the time when agriculture first took place in the
>Fertile Crescent. To me, that is what dramatically changed the
>human experience, because up until that point we were
>hunter-gatherers living a nomadic lifestyle.

good point. i'm trying to back up the theory that all civilization, and it's tenets including architechture, astrology, astronomy, religion, government, science and mathematics come from africa and not from sumer's patron giant aliens.

>
>The Sumerians weren't an empire, but more like a centralized
>state. Sumerian civilization dates are approxmiately 2900 -
>2350 BC. After Sumer, King Sargon established what many feel
>was technically the first empire. The dates for the Akkadian
>Empire are from 2334 - 2230 BC.
>Egypt didn't become an empire until the new kingdom in which
>it expanded its territory into Nubia and the Levant, however
>the dynastic period of Egypt meaning when we can clearly
>idenity Egyptian pharaohs began around 3000 BC when King
>Narmer unified upper and lower Egypt.
>I'm not sure which African civlizations you are talking about,
>so you're gonna have to be more specific.

it seems like there were several main ones. west africa's mali empire, when did that start? kemet and nubia, i don't offhand know the names of some of the apparently very complex south and central african civilizations, and there is rumor that nubia, which begat khemet was inspired by the twa(?) people who are supposedly the ancestors of modern bushmen.

europe's claim to a non african (or rather not looking like an african civilization) is the babylonians, the akkadians, the summerians and the assyrians from what i can tell. i'm not even writing my sources as much as looking for sources to defeat that argument or frame it in the desperate attempts by europe to reframe and revise history to suit their imperial ideals and validate thier accomplishments outside of the role of theft, the out right robbery of africas people land resources and knowledge which backed their exploits.

>
>As far as where black, whites, etc came from...we are all the
>same species originating from east Africa 150,000 years ago.
>When Homo sapiens left Africa, they adapted to various
>climates which explains why such variations in appearance took
>place. However, we are all very similar genetically. And yes
>Africans are the oldest populations because there is more
>genetic diversity within the continent of Africa than outside
>of it, meaning Africans have been around the longest and have
>had more time to diversify.

ok so how is this for a theory. once upon a time there was one people born in the fertile lands of africa. as they began to spread out and migrate, a group got caught behind an ice age that changed their appearance and demeanor from one in relation to abundance to one in relation to an over all lack of resources. survival tactics neccessary to exist in such inhospitable climates became enculturated behaviors. eventually this group was reunited with the main body of human kind, but found as they had spent so much time and effort on their survival that they were technologically and civilizationally (not a real word...) behind the rest of human kind. they were taught by proximity and direct intervention the tools of existance in this realm, but thier prevailing attitudes in reference to limited resources made them harsh and war like, troublesome and selfish, putting them in instant conflict with their african counterpart. flash forward 2-5000 years and now you have the current social and geo political climate in which europeans push their advantage almost like they've got some type of long time grudge against africans doing their own thing, or for that matter anyone else.

could this be accurate? could this be why any lighter skinned race, like the arabs of old are so historically vicious to africans? these are all byast blanket statements, and i would like to either be able to back them up or put them to rest.

the struggle continues.

ok

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Harmonia
Charter member
14560 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 06:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
11. "RE: depends upon your definition of civilization...."
In response to Reply # 4


  

          


>good point. i'm trying to back up the theory that all
>civilization, and it's tenets including architechture,
>astrology, astronomy, religion, government, science and
>mathematics come from africa and not from sumer's patron giant
>aliens.

Well, let me ask you, do you believe the civilizations in the New World, most notably the Inca, Aztec, Maya, Chavin, Chimu, Moche, Toltec, Olmec, Zapotec, etc are derived from Africa as well? These places evolved independently from the Old World, but they had all of those features you mentioned above. Basically what I'm trying to say that proving where the origins are civilization comes from is problematic because how exactly would you prove that? How can you show which came first and that there was direct contact and influence? Better yet, why can't there be multiple origins of civilization? There were major developments in Afria, the Middle East, and East Asia that have their own origins.
But like I mentioned before, agriculture in the Old World is first evident in the Fertile Crescent, not the continent of Africa and agriculture is what lead to sedintary villages, accumalation of access food, which then lead to unequal social positions.


>it seems like there were several main ones. west africa's mali
>empire, when did that start? kemet and nubia, i don't offhand
>know the names of some of the apparently very complex south
>and central african civilizations, and there is rumor that
>nubia, which begat khemet was inspired by the twa(?) people
>who are supposedly the ancestors of modern bushmen.

I can't think of the dates off hand to the places you mentioned. I'm sure someone else can fill you in.

>europe's claim to a non african (or rather not looking like an
>african civilization) is the babylonians, the akkadians, the
>summerians and the assyrians from what i can tell. i'm not
>even writing my sources as much as looking for sources to
>defeat that argument or frame it in the desperate attempts by
>europe to reframe and revise history to suit their imperial
>ideals and validate thier accomplishments outside of the role
>of theft, the out right robbery of africas people land
>resources and knowledge which backed their exploits.

Which civilization are you talking about now that you say Europe claims is non African?
Europe has done much over the year to discredit African influence, I'm just not sure that by negating Mesopotamian influence rights the situation.


>ok so how is this for a theory. once upon a time there was one
>people born in the fertile lands of africa. as they began to
>spread out and migrate, a group got caught behind an ice age
>that changed their appearance and demeanor from one in
>relation to abundance to one in relation to an over all lack
>of resources. survival tactics neccessary to exist in such
>inhospitable climates became enculturated behaviors.
>eventually this group was reunited with the main body of human
>kind, but found as they had spent so much time and effort on
>their survival that they were technologically and
>civilizationally (not a real word...) behind the rest of human
>kind. they were taught by proximity and direct intervention
>the tools of existance in this realm, but thier prevailing
>attitudes in reference to limited resources made them harsh
>and war like, troublesome and selfish, putting them in instant
>conflict with their african counterpart. flash forward 2-5000
>years and now you have the current social and geo political
>climate in which europeans push their advantage almost like
>they've got some type of long time grudge against africans
>doing their own thing, or for that matter anyone else.
>
>could this be accurate? could this be why any lighter skinned
>race, like the arabs of old are so historically vicious to
>africans? these are all byast blanket statements, and i would
>like to either be able to back them up or put them to rest.

I think you may be over generalizing in the sense that you make it seem that all Europeans are the aggressors and all Africans are the victims and I can't cosign on that. Things are much more complex than that. Also, be careful when you align environmental conditions and physical appearance to personality. Europeans did this same thing to Africans, especially African slaves. They justified their dominance over Africans by saying Africans were lazy due to their environmental conditions. They even went as far as to name bogus medical conditions to explain the behavior of Africans (I can't remember the names of these bogus medical conditions but it was a so called doctor from the U.S. South that had done this and his beliefs were widely accepted).

***************************************

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
urthanheaven
Charter member
626 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 07:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "RE: depends upon your definition of civilization...."
In response to Reply # 11


  

          

>
>>good point. i'm trying to back up the theory that all
>>civilization, and it's tenets including architechture,
>>astrology, astronomy, religion, government, science and
>>mathematics come from africa and not from sumer's patron
>giant
>>aliens.
>
>Well, let me ask you, do you believe the civilizations in the
>New World, most notably the Inca, Aztec, Maya, Chavin, Chimu,
>Moche, Toltec, Olmec, Zapotec, etc are derived from Africa as
>well? These places evolved independently from the Old World,
>but they had all of those features you mentioned above.
>Basically what I'm trying to say that proving where the
>origins are civilization comes from is problematic because how
>exactly would you prove that? How can you show which came
>first and that there was direct contact and influence? Better
>yet, why can't there be multiple origins of civilization?
>There were major developments in Afria, the Middle East, and
>East Asia that have their own origins.
>But like I mentioned before, agriculture in the Old World is
>first evident in the Fertile Crescent, not the continent of
>Africa and agriculture is what lead to sedintary villages,
>accumalation of access food, which then lead to unequal social
>positions.
>

ok, i had heard that the shang dynasty of china was started by africans and that 80% of chinese people have african dna. what of the african connection through abubakari to the olmecs and evidence of previous african contact with those civilizations, such as cocaine in the pharoe's tomb? i'm not trying to discredit anyone elses achievement. personally i believe we're all african, except for those of us in denial who believe in aliens. i'm more inclined to believe that before we all were discovered we were in constant contact through inter continental trade. so we all came from africa originally and were in commerce and contact with each other while we developed separate racial characteristics over time. i don't want to over compensate in my theories, so i appreciate this discussion.

would you consider the fertile crescent a part of africa? and when did things get started in western and southern africa?

>
>>it seems like there were several main ones. west africa's
>mali
>>empire, when did that start? kemet and nubia, i don't
>offhand
>>know the names of some of the apparently very complex south
>>and central african civilizations, and there is rumor that
>>nubia, which begat khemet was inspired by the twa(?) people
>>who are supposedly the ancestors of modern bushmen.
>
>I can't think of the dates off hand to the places you
>mentioned. I'm sure someone else can fill you in.
>
>>europe's claim to a non african (or rather not looking like
>an
>>african civilization) is the babylonians, the akkadians, the
>>summerians and the assyrians from what i can tell. i'm not
>>even writing my sources as much as looking for sources to
>>defeat that argument or frame it in the desperate attempts
>by
>>europe to reframe and revise history to suit their imperial
>>ideals and validate thier accomplishments outside of the
>role
>>of theft, the out right robbery of africas people land
>>resources and knowledge which backed their exploits.
>
>Which civilization are you talking about now that you say
>Europe claims is non African?

greece. there is a book out called black athena by martin bernal that speaks of greece as the father of modern civilization. now it seems to me that there is a push for a replacement greece, like babylon or sumer.

>Europe has done much over the year to discredit African
>influence, I'm just not sure that by negating Mesopotamian
>influence rights the situation.

again, this is the nature of this post. i'm trying to find the limits to where the revision of history ends. because of misinformation and prejudice it's hard to tell where to begin and who to trust. for the most part i take it all with a grain of salt. but this is what is beginning to form in my head as a picture of the past and africa's place in it all as being a serious motivator and having primacy in the whole thing. not aliens.



>
>
>>ok so how is this for a theory. once upon a time there was
>one
>>people born in the fertile lands of africa. as they began to
>>spread out and migrate, a group got caught behind an ice age
>>that changed their appearance and demeanor from one in
>>relation to abundance to one in relation to an over all lack
>>of resources. survival tactics neccessary to exist in such
>>inhospitable climates became enculturated behaviors.
>>eventually this group was reunited with the main body of
>human
>>kind, but found as they had spent so much time and effort on
>>their survival that they were technologically and
>>civilizationally (not a real word...) behind the rest of
>human
>>kind. they were taught by proximity and direct intervention
>>the tools of existance in this realm, but thier prevailing
>>attitudes in reference to limited resources made them harsh
>>and war like, troublesome and selfish, putting them in
>instant
>>conflict with their african counterpart. flash forward
>2-5000
>>years and now you have the current social and geo political
>>climate in which europeans push their advantage almost like
>>they've got some type of long time grudge against africans
>>doing their own thing, or for that matter anyone else.
>>
>>could this be accurate? could this be why any lighter
>skinned
>>race, like the arabs of old are so historically vicious to
>>africans? these are all byast blanket statements, and i
>would
>>like to either be able to back them up or put them to rest.
>
>I think you may be over generalizing in the sense that you
>make it seem that all Europeans are the aggressors and all
>Africans are the victims and I can't cosign on that. Things
>are much more complex than that. Also, be careful when you
>align environmental conditions and physical appearance to
>personality. Europeans did this same thing to Africans,
>especially African slaves. They justified their dominance over
>Africans by saying Africans were lazy due to their
>environmental conditions. They even went as far as to name
>bogus medical conditions to explain the behavior of Africans
>(I can't remember the names of these bogus medical conditions
>but it was a so called doctor from the U.S. South that had
>done this and his beliefs were widely accepted).
>

again, this is the nature of this post. i'm trying to find the limits to where the revision of history ends. because of misinformation and prejudice it's hard to tell where to begin and who to trust. for the most part i take it all with a grain of salt. but this is what is beginning to form in my head as a picture of the past and africa's place in it all as being a serious motivator and having primacy in the whole thing. not aliens.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Harmonia
Charter member
14560 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 09:52 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
16. "RE: depends upon your definition of civilization...."
In response to Reply # 15


  

          


>ok, i had heard that the shang dynasty of china was started by
>africans and that 80% of chinese people have african dna. what
>of the african connection through abubakari to the olmecs and
>evidence of previous african contact with those civilizations,
>such as cocaine in the pharoe's tomb? i'm not trying to
>discredit anyone elses achievement. personally i believe we're
>all african, except for those of us in denial who believe in
>aliens. i'm more inclined to believe that before we all were
>discovered we were in constant contact through inter
>continental trade. so we all came from africa originally and
>were in commerce and contact with each other while we
>developed separate racial characteristics over time. i don't
>want to over compensate in my theories, so i appreciate this
>discussion.
>
>would you consider the fertile crescent a part of africa? and
>when did things get started in western and southern africa?
>

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

***************************************

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Harmonia
Charter member
14560 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 08:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
17. "ops, i left out your question about the fertile crescent"
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

here's a photo:

http://cc.owu.edu/~rdfusch/fertile_crescent.jpg

and an excerpt from wikipedia:

"The Fertile Crescent is a region in the Middle East incorporating present-day Israel, West Bank, and Lebanon and parts of Jordan, Syria, Iraq and south-eastern Turkey. The term "Fertile Crescent" was coined by University of Chicago archeologist James Henry Breasted.

Watered by the Jordan, Euphrates and Tigris rivers and covering some 400-500,000 square kilometers with a population of 40-50 million, the region extends from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea around the north of the Syrian Desert and through the Jazirah and Mesopotamia to the Persian Gulf.

The Fertile Crescent has an impressive record of past human activity. As well as possessing many sites with the skeletal and cultural remains of both pre-modern and early modern humans (e.g. at Kebara Cave in Israel), later Pleistocene hunter-gatherers and Epipalaeolithic semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers (the Natufians), this area is most famous for its sites related to the origins of agriculture. The western zone around the Jordan and upper Euphrates rivers gave rise to the first known Neolithic farming settlements (referred to as Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)), which date to around 9,000 BC (and includes sites such as Jericho). This region, alongside Mesopotamia (which lies to the east of the Fertile Crescent, between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates), also saw the emergence of early complex societies during the succeeding Bronze Age. There is also early evidence from this region for writing, and the formation of state-level societies. This has earned the region the nickname "The Cradle of Civilization."

Since the Bronze Age, the region's natural fertility has been greatly extended by irrigation works, upon which much of its agricultural production continues to depend. The last two millennia have seen repeated cycles of decline and recovery as past works have fallen into disrepair through the replacement of states, to be replaced under their successors. Another ongoing problem has been salination - the seepage of salt water into irrigated farmland.

As crucial as rivers were to the rise of civilization in the Fertile Crescent, they were not the only factor in the area's precocity. The Fertile Crescent had a climate which encouraged the evolution of many annual plants, which produce more edible seeds than perennials, and the region's dramatic variety of elevation gave rise to many species of edible plants for early experiments in cultivation. Most importantly, the Fertile Crescent possessed the wild progenitors of the eight Neolithic founder crops important in early agriculture (i.e. wild progenitors to emmer, einkorn, barley, flax, chick pea, pea, lentil, bitter vetch), and four of the five most important species of domesticated animals - cows, goats, sheep, and pigs - and the fifth species, the horse, lived nearby."

***************************************

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
urthanheaven
Charter member
626 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 10:45 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "RE: depends upon your definition of civilization...."
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

>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.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Harmonia
Charter member
14560 posts
Fri Apr-29-05 06:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
33. "RE: depends upon your definition of civilization...."
In response to Reply # 30


  

          

>"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.


The first mistake of this website, "negroid" features on skeletal remains. And moreso, this is quoted from a 1964 source. I'm not sure if I have enough time, space, and energy to explain the history of biological anthropology and where it's at now. You should take some courses on the subject because I'll think you find it every interesting and it will aide you in understanding the biological evolution of the human race. But I will tell you that there are no biological races and modern day genetics has shown this. That whole Negroid, Caucosoid, Mongoloid business with started by outright racist white folks who wanted a hierarchy of sub-human races. And you can guess where they put so called Negroid people... at the bottom. Look up Carleton Coon who is the grandaddy of this racist, very eurocentric notion. Most modern day biological anthropologists have dismissed these absurd classifications and with the aide of genetics they are better able to tell which populations are more closely related to eachother. Despite what shows like CSI may tell you, you can't look at an ancient skull and then fit it into modern socially constructed races. You may be able to look at some features which can lead you in the right direction. So if you're purpose is out to dismiss racist, eurocentric notions of the world, quoting a 1964 source that uses the term negroid goes against your goal.
The rest of this is very speculative. China like India is really a subcontinent with a very diverse people. Some of the dynasties have been outsiders, mostly Mongols and other central Asians. This website really makes no clear picture of how Africans founded Chinese civlizations. The author can't make up his mind whether or not he knows how old Chinese is pronounced. First he says that the old Chinese pronounciation of a name sounds like an African language (such compelling evidence!), but then he later says that he doesn't know how old Chinese is pronounced. Also the Harappan script no one has yet to figure out, but yet he uses it in his line of evidence. He also can't make up his mind if its African of Indian people who founded the Shang dynasty because his evidence leads him in both directions. The rest of his evidence is on oral tradition which he has interpreted to fit his African trajectory.

>
>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.

The painting I'm referring to is a well known one and was taught to me in an introductory Chinese art history class. I don't know why you keep going back to this alien thing. I can't think of any anthropologists who say we were created by aliens. They all mostly follow the Darwinian school of evolution by natural selection.


>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.

I know which reed boat you're talking about and the Egyptians had magnificent technology. But just because someone later was able to use an Egyptian boat to sail across the Atlantic doesn't mean the Egyptians did. That's really a stretch. Also, we have the benefit of a decipherable written language for the ancient Egyptians and they loved to talk about conquering foreign people and hyped up battles. If the Egyptians went to the Americas, why did they not write about it?

>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.
>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.

Good luck and try to use as much scientific information as possible. Meaning recent genetics studies, analysis of botanical and microbotanical remains, etc.



>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.

Again, please take some courses on biological anthropology. I think you'll find them most usefull in understanding the evolution of hominids.

***************************************

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 12:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
19. "How do explain eskimoes in near "artic" areas then"
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

the difference are not just from climate.
There was some selective breeding and eugenics going on too.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Harmonia
Charter member
14560 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 02:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
21. "can you clarify what you mean?"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

They are Inuit people, not Eskimo.

***************************************

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 06:49 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
26. "what I mean is the "iceman" theory is wrong"
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

I know you are not advocating the EXTREME iceman theory per
say, but this whole "cold weather turns original people
into white people" thing that some take away from that is
WRONG. Peace.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Harmonia
Charter member
14560 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 07:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
27. "RE: what I mean is the "iceman" theory is wrong"
In response to Reply # 26


  

          

>I know you are not advocating the EXTREME iceman theory per
>say, but this whole "cold weather turns original people
>into white people" thing that some take away from that is
>WRONG. Peace.

Are you referring to the idea that Europeans are recessive or something like that?
No, I don't believe in that.
Adaptation to the environment happens through random genetic mutations in which some mutations perpetuate in climates that favor it. If there weren't genetic mutations, all humans would still look the same, but even moreso, new species couldn't evolve. There is a general pattern between cold climates with less sunlight and populations with light skin. I'm sure you know about the Vitamin D/rickets theory behind this. There are still many variations in appearance that haven't been explained yet, but one would assume it's related to adaptation of the environment.
The Inuit were the very last of the migrations that populated the New World. This explains why the Inuit look much different from the rest of the native populations and more closely resemble their Asian ancestors. Most native peoples of the Americas are from much older migrations 15,000 years ago. The Inuit are more recent ( I can't remember the exact dates), and up until recently the Inuit were still travelling back and forth between the Arctic and Siberia.

Also, careful when using the word eugenics.
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

***************************************

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Fri Apr-29-05 08:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
34. "the exceptions I pointed out relate to eugenics as opposed to climate"
In response to Reply # 27


  

          

notice the epicentre of growth of WHITE people is just in
Northern "Europe". Where are the white people in "northern china"?
hmmmmmmmmmm

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Harmonia
Charter member
14560 posts
Fri Apr-29-05 01:47 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
37. "do you know what eugenics is?"
In response to Reply # 34


  

          

i hope you at least glanced over the link.

But let me continue on your path. Eugenics is artificial selection rather than natural selection. So you are suggesting the reason why there are vastly looking different populations in the world is because a everyone in that population decided what physical features they desired and only mated with people who had those features and in return those who did not possess those physical features were weeded out of the populations.
I'll show you whats wrong with that scenario. Say if whatever artifically selected features in your eugenics scenario above were not beneficial to the environment, guess what...those people would die out. Say for instance if people in Europe were practicing eugenics for brown skin and therefore only mated with those who had brown skin and not those with light skin. That would mean the subsequent generations would have dark skin and that physical feature would perpetuate itself throughout the European populations. That sounds nice and dandy, but you're forgetting something very important...the environment! Dark skin before the days of Vitamin D enriched milk wasn't adapted for the cold and less direct sunlight in Europe. (If you'd like me to explain the connection between dark skin and Vitamin D deficiency I can, but I'll assume you this.) Therefore dark skinned people in these areas would develop severe cases of rickets leading to severe deformity and even death. Now tell me, if this eugenics thing you believed took place, do you think people were actively selecting for mates with rickets? I think not. People with rickets would have a very much less chance of mating and passing on their genes to future generations and consequently weeding out people with dark skin in colder climates. Nowadays, rickets is not a concern because people can get Vitamin D daily in their foods.

I don't know what point you are making about North Asians and Europeans. They look different and are both in cold climates. Like I said, all the variations in human appearance can't be explained, but both populations have light skin due to the Vitamin D deficiency - rickets things I just mentioned above. There are also people in equatorial environments that look different. Africans, Native Americans, Indians, South East Asians, Aboriginals, Pacific Islands, etc. The complexity in human appearance is obviously more than just skin color.

***************************************

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Fri Apr-29-05 02:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
38. "my point was, they aren't white people (chinese/asians)"
In response to Reply # 37


  

          

that destroys the whole "environment" theory.
And I am saying the eugenics occured closer to the equator, not
IN EUROPE. The PRODUCTS of the eugenics then migrated into
northern europe. Plus the originators of the eugenics program
made sure his followers were "healthy, strong and good breeders,
if not he sent them back, and all that was not good in multiplying"
It's related to SYMBOLOGY/HERMENEUTICS of "Jacob" raising "goats" in Genesis

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Fri Apr-29-05 03:59 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "what about the Ainu people of northern Japan?"
In response to Reply # 38


  

          

that destroys the whole "eugenics" theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Fri Apr-29-05 10:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
41. "the Ainu people are NOT WHITE PEOPLE, that's my whole point"
In response to Reply # 39


  

          

the eskimoes, ainu, and whoever the hell you name, they
are not white people. You only going to find the
epicentre of population growth of white people in one certain
range or LONGITUDE. They are made people. It ain't no
snow, cold, caves or other bullshit that made white people.
They was made DELIBERATELY.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Sat Apr-30-05 03:24 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "they have physical traits associated with "white people""
In response to Reply # 41
Sat Apr-30-05 03:26 PM by 40thStreetBlack

  

          

including pale skin and blue & grey eyes, that you claim are a product of eugenics in white people.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Fri Apr-29-05 10:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
42. "a link about the propoganda you are promoting"
In response to Reply # 39


  

          

http://www.dai3gen.net/epage19.htm

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ShinNy
Charter member
696 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 03:12 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "^^^Someone's been reading their Diop....."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

...that's pretty good...but, I don't quite agree with an Akkadian civilization coming before Kemet (Khamut)...then again, it's been a while since I've last reviewed "The African Origin of Civilization : Myth or Reality" by the late Cheikh Anta Diop...so, I could be wrong there...


ShinNy b.k.a....h k -A-g /|_ A \/ h....

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Harmonia
Charter member
14560 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 03:57 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
3. "actually..."
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

I haven't read much of Diop's work. I've studied the archaeology of this region in depth though and therefore am very familiar with it.

I hope you read the beginning part of my post because I said that it all depends on how you define civilization. At what point do you say humans went from uncivilized to civilized? I see a major dilemma in that alone. To this day, archaeologists cannot agree upon what defines an empire from a state from territorial state and so forth. To tell you the truth, there is no easy definition because each civilization is unique and to identify cross cultural similarities that you can then say "this is what defines X" is practically impossible. For instance some scholars say having a written language is a necessity for a centralized state or empire, however the Inca Empire which was very succesful and larger than the Roman Empire did not have a system of writing. Therefore to say the Inca were not an empire due to not having this specification would be a grave mistake.

But the dates for the Akkadian empire are correct. Like I said, the earliest Egyptian pharoahs date back from 3000 B.C. which is before the Akkadian Empire. However, the political makeup of Egypt at that time (Old Kingdom) was very different from the New Kingdom time. The reason for the succesful unification of Upper and Lower Egypt is that there was strong cultural unity along the Nile and had been for some time.

***************************************

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
ShinNy
Charter member
696 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 04:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "RE: actually..."
In response to Reply # 3


  

          


"I hope you read the beginning part of my post because I said that it all depends on how you define civilization. At what point do you say humans went from uncivilized to civilized? I see a major dilemma in that alone. To this day, archaeologists cannot agree upon what defines an empire from a state from territorial state and so forth. To tell you the truth, there is no easy definition because each civilization is unique and to identify cross cultural similarities that you can then say "this is what defines X" is practically impossible. For instance some scholars say having a written language is a necessity for a centralized state or empire, however the Inca Empire which was very succesful and larger than the Roman Empire did not have a system of writing. Therefore to say the Inca were not an empire due to not having this specification would be a grave mistake."

Understandably frustrating too....because you have very few Black African authors (Diop, Obenga, and a few others) that can stand up to what so-called archaeologists can "come up with"...I, myself have a hard time trying to figure out what "method" to go by when it comes to the ancestors...I know better than to go by what some so-called "Egyptologists" say...although, very few of them will admit somethings...

With my thoughts somewhat in congruence with yours...as far as the standpoint on "this is what defines X"...no date (that is given) is absolutely accurate...but, at times, we'll try and approximate...except here...

"But the dates for the Akkadian empire are correct. Like I said, the earliest Egyptian pharoahs date back from 3000 B.C. which is before the Akkadian Empire. However, the political makeup of Egypt at that time (Old Kingdom) was very different from the New Kingdom time. The reason for the succesful unification of Upper and Lower Egypt is that there was strong cultural unity along the Nile and had been for some time."

I agree with this too...Menes (Narmer) was the first Pharaoh of Dynastic Kemet(Egypt)...the thing is, I'm stuck when it comes to pre-dynastic and proto-dynastic...perhaps (and hopefully) LexM will see this post...

But yeah, I see what you're saying...


ShinNy b.k.a....h k -A-g /|_ A \/ h....

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Harmonia
Charter member
14560 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 07:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
13. "RE: actually..."
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

Wow, it's really interesting you talk about the best method when understanding ancestors because I'm taking a course in which we discuss this same thing. I think I can help you out. First, understand the socio-political climate from which the authors you are reading come from. I recommend Edward Said's "Culture and Imperialism".

***************************************

www.twitter.com/MsKianga
http://nativebeadwork.blogspot.com/
'I can't stand Tim McCarver. He has a penchant for making blindingly obvious statements in a self-congratulatory tone' Kyle Lohse

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Taharka
Member since Apr 18th 2003
7769 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 04:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "Well Kemet/egypt is a African civilization"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

but it is agreed that the people of the HAPI/nile valley civilizations migrated from the south thus this is where youh have the oldest settlements. Ta Seti came before dynastic KMT but even before that lands were ruled by chiefs and local rulers.

As far as the oldest human beings Mitochondrial(spelling) MtDNA proves African people are the elders of HUMANITY.

<--- The lovely Ms Hill when she wasn't thrown off.

LOOK WHOS RAPPIN NOW
http://www.myspace.com/quil215

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
urthanheaven
Charter member
626 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 06:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "RE: Well Kemet/egypt is a African civilization"
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

so is it true that kemet came far enough before sumer to qualify as the parent of modern civilization and the model which all following civilizations draw their inspiration from either directly through study in kemet or indirectly through study from people who studied in kemet?

>but it is agreed that the people of the HAPI/nile valley
>civilizations migrated from the south thus this is where youh
>have the oldest settlements. Ta Seti came before dynastic KMT
>but even before that lands were ruled by chiefs and local
>rulers.

so how can we put the sumerian assertion that their civilization was created by aliens from the tenth planet as well as humanity itself?

>
>As far as the oldest human beings Mitochondrial(spelling)
>MtDNA proves African people are the elders of HUMANITY.

that helps. i've been working against the assumption that africans are ignorant and backwards, never created anything of lasting value, and deserved to be enslaved because it gave them such great opportunities in the land of the free. i think this has been laid down thick by the their-storians not our-storians for the past two to three hundred years, and compounds upon 400 years of slavery, current economic destablilization and exploitation to produce a particularly virulent cocktail of missinformation. one which you could spend your entire life time trying to remedy. i don't want to treat the symtom so i'm trying to identify the problem or the illness at it's root.

i think this missinformation is a root cause for african suffering world wide. and the reclamation of our legacy is paramount.

so i guess i too am trying to be like taharka in the 42nd (?) dynasty. reclaiming egypt and all history. and putting the african in his rightfull place.

or abubakari. or many of the great africans of old.

ok.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Taharka
Member since Apr 18th 2003
7769 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 06:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "RE: Well Kemet/egypt is a African civilization"
In response to Reply # 7


  

          

>so is it true that kemet came far enough before sumer to
>qualify as the parent of modern civilization and the model
>which all following civilizations draw their inspiration from
>either directly through study in kemet or indirectly through
>study from people who studied in kemet?

It may sound bias but other than the chariot Sumer and civilizations to the North contribute nothing to KMT. This is evident in the few hundred years the hyksos shepardic kings ruled KMT. Nothing new was created and KMT was placed in a intellectual dark age.


>so how can we put the sumerian assertion that their
>civilization was created by aliens from the tenth planet as
>well as humanity itself?

I don't know much about sumerian philosophy or beliefs so I couldn't tell you.

>that helps. i've been working against the assumption that
>africans are ignorant and backwards, never created anything of
>lasting value, and deserved to be enslaved because it gave
>them such great opportunities in the land of the free. i think
>this has been laid down thick by the their-storians not
>our-storians for the past two to three hundred years, and
>compounds upon 400 years of slavery, current economic
>destablilization and exploitation to produce a particularly
>virulent cocktail of missinformation. one which you could
>spend your entire life time trying to remedy. i don't want to
>treat the symtom so i'm trying to identify the problem or the
>illness at it's root.

>i think this missinformation is a root cause for african
>suffering world wide. and the reclamation of our legacy is
>paramount.

>so i guess i too am trying to be like taharka in the 42nd (?)
>dynasty. reclaiming egypt and all history. and putting the
>african in his rightfull place.

The 25th dynasty and the last golden age of KMT but I got the point.

>or abubakari. or many of the great africans of old.

AbubaKari Sunni Ali Ber Nzinga Amina Tenkinamen etc.etc.


<--- The lovely Ms Hill when she wasn't thrown off.

LOOK WHOS RAPPIN NOW
http://www.myspace.com/quil215

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
urthanheaven
Charter member
626 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 07:07 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "when was the shephardic dynasty?"
In response to Reply # 10


  

          

according to the sumerians, aliens from the tenth planet created the adamu through genetic engineering of their own dna into a line of human like creatures with promise to do their work for them, then when they got sick of making them, through further genetic engineering they created the eve, or an adamu with an onboard womb and gave the humans a reproductive capacity.

the aliens then began to occasionally breed with the daughters of adamu producing super humans who became the kings under the gods who ruled mankind.

here are some links to that myth, and please excuse my paraphrasing.

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm

http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/CREATIONSTORIES.html

none of these are too clear,but they have been used to discredit african historical accomplishment and primacy by saying that european civilization comes from aliens and not from africans, like the later is harder to believe for the predjudiced appologist european scholar. theres a book out called black athena by martin bernal

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813512778/103-8878346-5639048?v=glance

which deals with this historical predjudice in conext outside of speculation and hearsay. i haven't read it yet, no credit card, but i will. it seems pretty good.

ok

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Taharka
Member since Apr 18th 2003
7769 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 07:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "shephardic dynasties were 13 to 17"
In response to Reply # 12
Wed Apr-27-05 07:12 PM by Taharka

  

          

where there is feudalism little to none advancements in writing architecture mathematics etc. etc.

I am reading the story and will get back to it later I always knew Judaism was influenced by many of its practices.

<--- The lovely Ms Hill when she wasn't thrown off.

LOOK WHOS RAPPIN NOW
http://www.myspace.com/quil215

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 12:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
18. "Post Over although I disagree with the terminology "African""
In response to Reply # 6
Thu Apr-28-05 12:34 PM by Allah

  

          

Peace.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
FireBrand
Charter member
145739 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 12:49 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "Do you disagree with the term "Chinese" when refering to"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

The country known today as China?

www.northernarc.net
www.myspace.com/egyptianknight

Songs that get more run in Springtime:
Tela- Sho'nuff, Brandnewheavies-Sometimes, Showbiz & A.G.-?, JayZ- Can't Knock da Hustle, Buju- Chuck it so.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 02:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
22. "here's the thing though, the word Chin comes from those people"
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

the word "africa" doesn't come directly from people on that
"continent" (I use the word "continent" with a grain a salt)

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Akhenaten
Member since Apr 22nd 2005
560 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 03:31 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "RE: here's the thing though, the word Chin comes from those people"
In response to Reply # 22


  

          

Colonialism is a B*tch!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 03:55 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "but you call it "Asia""
In response to Reply # 22


  

          

when the word "asia" doesn't come directly from people on that
"continent" either.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 06:47 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
25. "Wst"
In response to Reply # 24


  

          

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 07:31 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "Wassat?"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

j/k

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Taharka
Member since Apr 18th 2003
7769 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 11:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "Okay Alkebulan"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

!!!!!!!

<--- The lovely Ms Hill when she wasn't thrown off.

LOOK WHOS RAPPIN NOW
http://www.myspace.com/quil215

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Fri Apr-29-05 08:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
35. "I want to know how Dr. Ben developed that word"
In response to Reply # 32


  

          

since he seems to have invented it..........

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Taharka
Member since Apr 18th 2003
7769 posts
Fri Apr-29-05 04:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "He says it is the oldest know name used for"
In response to Reply # 35


  

          

the landmass known as Africa.

<--- The lovely Ms Hill when she wasn't thrown off.

LOOK WHOS RAPPIN NOW
http://www.myspace.com/quil215

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Allah
Charter member
47754 posts
Sat Apr-30-05 06:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
44. "what are his sources for THAT WORD?"
In response to Reply # 40


  

          

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
LexM
Charter member
28342 posts
Wed May-04-05 08:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "i've wondered that myself"
In response to Reply # 44


  

          

i mean, it sounds pretty & all, but...


~~~~
~fear is the mind-killer~

"...jesus had a wife. and she was his
messiah like that stranger may be
yours. who holds the subtle knife that
carves through worlds like magic
doors." ~saul wms

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Akhenaten
Member since Apr 22nd 2005
560 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 06:22 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "{quote} "I think it would be a good idea.""
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.
-Indian ascetic & nationalist leader (1869 - 1948)

"civilization is the act of being civil. alot of people fail the definition alone..."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Akhenaten
Member since Apr 22nd 2005
560 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 06:27 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "RE: the sumerians/the akkadians/the egyptians/the africans..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Oldest-Humans.html?

Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: February 16, 2005


Filed at 1:00 P.M. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed
nearly 40 years ago in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil
record of modern humans back to nearly 200,000 years
ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.

Researchers determined that the specimens are around
195,000 years old. Previously, the oldest known
fossils of Homo sapiens were Ethiopian skulls dated to
about 160,000 years ago.

Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about
200,000 years ago, so the new research brings the
fossil record more in line with that, said John
Fleagle of Stony Brook University in New York, an
author of the study.

The fossils were found in 1967 near the Omo River in
southwestern Ethiopia. One location yielded Omo I,
which includes part of a skull plus skeletal bones.
Another site produced Omo II, which has more of a
skull but no skeletal bones. Neither specimen has a
complete face.

Although Omo II shows more primitive characteristics
than Omo I, scientists called both specimens Homo
sapiens and assigned a tentative age of 130,000 years.

Now, after visiting the discovery sites, analyzing
their geology and testing rock samples with more
modern dating techniques, Fleagle and colleagues
report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature that
both specimens are 195,000 years old, give or take
5,000 years.

Fleagle said the more primitive traits of Omo II may
mean the two specimens came from different but
overlapping Homo sapiens populations, or that they
just represent natural variation within a single
population.

To find the age of the skulls, the researchers
determined that volcanic rock lying just below the
sediment that contained the fossils was about 196,000
years old. They then found evidence that the
fossil-bearing sediment was deposited soon after that
time.

Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology
Center, which specializes in dating rocks, said the
researchers made "a reasonably good argument" to
support their dating of the fossils.

"It's more likely than not," he said, calling the work
"very exciting and important."

Rick Potts, director of the Human Origins Program at
the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of
Natural History, said he considered the case for the
new fossil ages "very strong." The work suggests that
"we're right on the cusp of where the genetic evidence
says the origin of modern humans ... should be," he
said.

G. Philip Rightmire, a paleoanthropologist at
Binghamton University in New York, said he believes
the Omo fossils show Homo sapiens plus a more
primitive ancestor. The find appears to represent the
aftermath of the birth of Homo sapiens, when it was
still living alongside its ancestral species, he said.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

kidkia
Member since Oct 19th 2004
1200 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 08:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
29. "c'mon...everyone knows Anglo-Saxons were the first....j/k"
In response to Reply # 0


          

I couldn't resist. But I'm sure this is what a lot of kids are being brought up to believe. Sad world, huh?



bryan

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
urthanheaven
Charter member
626 posts
Thu Apr-28-05 10:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "RE: c'mon...everyone knows Anglo-Saxons were the first....j/k"
In response to Reply # 29


  

          

yeah. made by aliens from the tenth planet.... j/k

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
kidkia
Member since Oct 19th 2004
1200 posts
Fri Apr-29-05 09:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
36. "they taught you about that in school too?"
In response to Reply # 31


          

That was my favorite lesson...right between "How the Indians and the Settlers were BFF" and "Everything you need to know about Slavery, Civil Rights, and Black People in General...in 5 East Minutes!"

Once again, that'd be funnier if it wasn't true.


bryan

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

brokenchains79
Member since Nov 22nd 2003
6567 posts
Mon May-02-05 07:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "You're all over the place..."
In response to Reply # 0
Mon May-02-05 07:48 PM by brokenchains79

  

          

this what i know, or atleast i don't know of anything that refutes this.

Kemetic history is much older than the unification (sma tawi) under Mn. There were unifications prior to that and kings claiming rulership of what would be considered the two lands. There is alot of political interest in the periodization of Kemet, 3200 B.C. is an arbitrary date, ASCAC (www.ascac.org) uses the date of 4194 in accordance with Spdt and the begininng of hnty year. Astrological records are more dependable than someone claiming some kind of reign in those times, which were short lived. The date of 3200 B.C. is based off of a history by a Kemetic historian named Manetho, constructed for Greek purpose, Which makes it questionable for that and other reasons, especially documents that suggest otherwise.

As far as the unification under Mn, you aleady had a flourishing civilization (a systematic way of life where people are able to develop in ways that surpass survival, i.e. concentration on the arts and leisure etc.)The unification under Mn may have only been symbolic of the establishment of a central government and the checking of some people. We know the Kemites claimed descendancy from the south, anything saying otherwise is garbage, the text speak for themselves. the people of the south or the Nhsi (as the kemites called them, Nbw/Nubians mean gold)were the architects of Kemetic civilizations suggesting suggesting much older civilization, information is limited on this because Mereotic script is barely intelligible at this point due to translation difficulties. And if Diop is correct then the people of Meroe come from a people that migrated from even further south.

As far as a link between Mesopotamia and Kemet, how could there not be a link if we can say it is a given that the Kemites were not a stagnant people traveling for atleast well over a millenium before the 18th dynasty, when they became imperialistic. They traveled North, West, South, and East... i.e the Davidians in southern India.
What exactly is the link between the Hapi (Nile) and the Tigris Euphrates is *shrug*. I think scholarship of the 19th centrury had a motive of saying the latter was older thus influenced Kemet, which simply doesn't hold up. The opposite is more plausible and the people could have been of the same stock and have been wiped out by Asiatic and Euro nomads over time, changing the face of the land the same way Kemet has been changed.

However, I'd be very skeptical of what I will say is of Kemetic origin in Mesopotamia history and Greek history. I think if you look at the Kemetic and Meso creation stories you see fundamental commonalities such as the existence of the universe prior to the creation of the heavens and earths, also the male and female pairings throughout creation, then you start seeing some shit in Meso cosmogony that is totally outside the ethos of Kemetic cosmogony. Outside of the fundamentals I would say Hesiod's Theogony is more similar to Meso than Kemet. Fighting Gods, fundamental alienation, the wickedness of speech is shared in the former two cosmogonies and absent in Kemetic cosmogony.

George G.M. James, and Cheikh Anta Diop in my opinion were correct when they talked about the influence of Kemet on "tri continental" antiquity, however they may have over stepped their claims. Like the Kemites never talked about any laws of opposites, they would have seen things as being complementary, nor did they deduce things down to four basic elements, fire, water, earth, air, the Sp Tpy (creation) is way more complicated and I doubt they would try any reductionism like that.



*****
Some of the most dangerous Blacks in
the world are many of those brothers
and sisters who finished graduate
school "with honors" and yet operate
against the interest of Blacks because
of their Eurocentric orientation.
Dr. Bobby E. Wright
*****

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Akhenaten
Member since Apr 22nd 2005
560 posts
Tue May-03-05 05:08 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "RE: You're all over the place..."
In response to Reply # 45


  

          

I'm kind of confused by your last paragraph... Are you saying that Greek/KMT Ideologies were similar by coincedence? I apologize if I mis-understood.

"The first civilization of Europe was established on the island of Crete. It is called the Minoan Culture, after King Minos, an early legendary ruler of the island. The ancestors of the Cretans were natives of Africa, a branch of Western Ethiopians."

--John G. Jackson

Minoan Crete, the forerunner of Greek civilization, is the earliest known European high-culture. Although modest in size (170 miles east to west, thirty-five miles north to sourth), Crete exercised immeasurable influence on the Aegean archipelago, Western Asia and the Greek mainland. Throughout Crete the vestiges of
complex palaces, paved highways, aqueducts, terra-pipes for drainage, and irrigation canals provide plentiful proof of Minoan ingenuity in the areas of scientific and technical innovation. The Minoans possessed registed trademarks, uniform weights
and measures, calendrical systems based on precise astronomical observations and advanced writing systems. Interestingly enough, there were few fortifications on the island.

British archaeologist Arthur Evans (1851-1941), who conducted excavations on the island, was convinced of African migrations to ancient Crete and noted "the multiplicity of these connections with the old indigenous race of the opposite African coast." The late African-American cultural historian John G. Jackson (1907-1993) advocated the view the Minoan civilization was rooted in Africa, and believed that
the ancestors of the Minoans "dwelt in the grasslands of North Africa before that area dried up and became a great desert. As the Saharan sands encroached on their homeland, they took to the sea, and in Crete and neighboring islands set up a maritime culture."

The research team of C.H. and H.B. Hawes, the latter
of whom, like Evans, conducted important
archaeological excavations in Crete, support John
Jackson's argument, and noted that: "Anthropologists
are inclined to the view that the Neolithic people of
Crete were immigrants, and probably came from North
Africa."

Arthur Evans was convinced of North African migrations
to Neolithic Crete. He pointed out that:

"The multiplicity of these connections with the old
indigenous race of the opposite African coast, and
which we undoubtedly have to deal with in the pre
dynastic population of the Nile Valley, can in fact be
hardly explained on any other hypothesis than that of
an actual settlement in Southern Crete."

Historian H.R. Hall, also Oxford trained, shared
Evans' position on the early population of Minoan
Crete:

"While the majority of the original Neolithic
inhabitants of Crete probably came from Anatolia,
another element may well have come in oared boats from
the opposite African coast, bringing with them to the
southern plan of Messara the seeds of civilization
that, transplanted to the different conditions of
Crete, developed into the great Minoan culture, a
younger more brilliant, and less long-lived sister of
that of Egypt."

Whether the Minoan culture was more brilliant than
that of Egypt is highly questionable at best, but on
the other points Hall seems to just about to hit the
mark. Evans, again, indeed considered Egypt and Libya
as the springboards of Minoan civilization; so much so
that he structured his own Minoan chronology on that
of dynastic Egypt. He was particularly struck by the
similarities in the contents of the of the tombs of
the ancient Minoans and Egyptians:

"So numerous, in fact, are the points, of comparison
presented by the contents of these early interments
with those of pre dynastic Egypt that, far-fetched as
the conclusion might appear at first sight, I was
already some years since constrained to put forth the
suggestion that about the time of the conquest of the
lower Nile Valley by the first historic dynasty some
part of the older population had actually settled in
this southern foreland of Crete."

Gordon Childe also commented on the relations between
Crete and pre dynastic Egypt:

"At least on the Mesara, the great plain of southern
Crete facing Africa, Minoan Crete's indebtedness to
the Nile is disclosed in the most intimate aspects of
its culture. Not only do the forms of early Minoan
stone vases, the precision of the lapidaries'
technique and the aesthetic selection of variegated
stones as his materials carry on the the pre dynastic
tradition, Nilotic religious customs such as the use
of the sistrum, the wearing of amulets in the forms of
legs, mummies and monkeys, and statuettes plainly
derived from Gerzean `block figures,' and personal
habits revealed by depilatory tweezers of the Egyptian
shape and stone unguent palettes from the early tombs
and, later, details of costumes such as the
penis-sheath and loin-cloth betoken something deeper
than the external relations of commerce."

Cretan/Egyptian contacts pick up again in the
sixteenth and fifteenth centuries B.C. During the
reigns of Egyptian monarchs Makare Hatshepsut and
Thutmose III (1504-1447 B.C.) the people of Crete,
whom the Egyptians called Keftiu, were graphically
portrayed as tribute bearers on the walls of the tombs
of the Egyptian nobility.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
brokenchains79
Member since Nov 22nd 2003
6567 posts
Tue May-03-05 10:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
47. "RE: You're all over the place..."
In response to Reply # 46


  

          

No I'm definitely not saying they were similiar by coincidence, I'm saying KMT had a direct influence on Greece which is undeniable, I agree with the basics of James and Diop, but there is some aspects of Greek culture that may be more derivative of Mesopotamian culture that is forgeign to Kemet, therefore I would be careful to likening it too much to Kemet. I.E. Kemet influenced Greek Philosophy which is evident by the Philosophers that acknowledge it and the ones that even visted, but to say Greek philosophy is Kemetic philosophy is just wrong, Greece got their intellectual thrust from Kemet but alot of that stuff is distinctly Greek and shouldn't even want to claim it, a despiritualized philosophy? I wouldn't claim that as a part of Kemetic legacy. My point is, there should just be a distinction between what is really Kemetic and what is really Greek, and what might have been influenced by Mesopotamia, even if Mesopotamia was originally Black which I find easy to believe, some point in history it was no longer Black and the history and culture changed with the people, making it less similar to Kemet and being a progenitor of Greek culture as well, disimilar from Kemet.

*****
Some of the most dangerous Blacks in
the world are many of those brothers
and sisters who finished graduate
school "with honors" and yet operate
against the interest of Blacks because
of their Eurocentric orientation.
Dr. Bobby E. Wright
*****

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Akhenaten
Member since Apr 22nd 2005
560 posts
Tue May-03-05 01:42 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
48. "RE: You're all over the place..."
In response to Reply # 47


  

          

Only reason I think there was/is a major push to expose (despiritualized) Greek Philosophy as a watered down version of KMT's culture is because the "so-called" historians of the last few centuries convientely overlooked any contributions out of Afrika (among other blatant atrocities.) It has been and still widely believed that Ancient Greece is the birthplace of (today's) Civilization. Which is an outright lie. It can be further argued in reverse that the Greek Civilization did not contribute much if anything to civilization.

I look at it as a paternity case. The father adopted the child, gave him all his knowledge, let him go free, the son was mischevious, eventhough at first he acknowledged his father he twisted the knowledge to best fit him, he went on too have offspring that he taught this twisted knowledge, they claimed their father as the author of the knowledge, they always knew the truth, they came into power and spread their lies. Eventhough, the children have went astray. The father's family still have to claim the B*ST*RDS.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
brokenchains79
Member since Nov 22nd 2003
6567 posts
Tue May-03-05 08:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
49. "Yeah I'm aware of all that..."
In response to Reply # 48


  

          

I'm just saying we have to be careful of not confusing "heritage" especially if we are at a point where we are deconstructing and reconstructing education. Certain claims have to be crystal clear, i.e, if we say the concept of such and such came from here we have to know how it existed in KMT and how it was transformed by Greeks and why, to know the difference might help distinguish between a particular ethos that currently exist. To simply say the Greeks stole whatever, and think it is now what it was then could very well justify someone maintaining certain practices that he/she think is "African"

*****
Some of the most dangerous Blacks in
the world are many of those brothers
and sisters who finished graduate
school "with honors" and yet operate
against the interest of Blacks because
of their Eurocentric orientation.
Dr. Bobby E. Wright
*****

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Aeon
Charter member
43867 posts
Wed May-04-05 09:12 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
51. "."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

_

shakin your block with a 6 million dollar bop

_

www.davidevanmcdowell.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #30351 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com