lol... this one is for you southern boys..
[i]"Evidence in Lower Egypt consists mainly of settlements with very simple burials, in contrast to Upper Egypt, where cemeteries with elaborate burials are found. The rich grave goods in several major cemeteries in Upper Egypt represent the acquired wealth of higher social strata, and these cemeteries were probably associated with centers of craft production. Trade and exchange of finished goods and luxury materials from the Eastern and Western Deserts and Nubia would have taken place in such centers. In Lower Egypt however, while excavated settlements permit a broader reconstruction of the prehistoric economy, there is little evidence for any great socioeconomic complexity... Archaeological evidence points to the origins of the state which emerged by the 1st Dynasty in Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of from from the Predynastic to the 1st Dynasty. This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that originating in Upper Egypt."[/i]
--K. Bard (2005). Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. 28
We are going DOWN SOUTH, way back south, and way down in Egypt-Land on this one. A common refrain in some quarters is how come "the south" gets disrespected or distorted? We ask the same only our "south" is "the south" in Egypt, and southerly regions of the Nile Valley basin. As shown by the quote above from the conservative Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, it was "the south" that is the pioneering, pace-setter of progress. Imagine flipping that around in American terms.. Anyway, as credible scholarship for decades has shown, the genesis of ancient Egyptian civilization is in the south, which just happens to be home to folk of more "darker" hues (such folk are also well represented up nawth by the way). The south is also more tropical, indeed almost 20% of Egypt is in the tropical zone, which slices through the land in the south.
The peoples who founded that civilization were indigenous tropical Africans that came from the south, south of the Sahara, in the tropical zone. and including the broad Saharan zone. Credible scholars have long shown this in data ranging from cranial evidence (Godde 2009, Keita 1992, 1990, 2005), to dental evidence (Irish 2006,Ricaut 2008) to archae-cultural evidence (Yurco 1989, 1996, Redford 2001) to DNA (Morkot 2005, Keita 2004, 2005, Stevanovich 2004) to limb proportion data (Zakrewski 2003, 2007, Raxter and Ruff 2008, et al). 2004). In short "Sub-Saharan Africans," "Black Africans" or "Tropical Africans" are not exclusively, (and conveniently confined) to "Nubia", but have been in Kemet since Day 1. Indeed, credible scholars have long shown that the Nubians are the closest ethnic cousins of the ancient Egyptians- they are not a separate "Black African" entity.
The south's triumph is not one of "barbarian hordes" sweeping north, but instead represents a stronger, more technologically sophisticated, richer culture eventually taking over that of the cooler climate Mediterranean zone. This is not to say that the northern folk did not have their own level of sophistication- they did- and indeed there is trade activity documented with Mesopotamia and other nearby places. Nevertheless, the fact is that it was the south that established the famous Dynastic civilization.
Why is this important? Because both in racialist academia (see Harpending and Cochran's The Ten Thousand Year Explosion) and on the racialist and more open and explicit racist web networks, standard claims fundamentally disparage the south- alleging a putative cold climate virtue as the source of all good, compared to those backward tropical peoples, "down south." Oh the phrasing is more sophisticated and coded, but we know the racialist bottom line. In the more genteel version, as in Cochran and Harpending has this to say for example:
“In most ways (except for their use of iron tools) African technology and social organization were simpler than that of Amerindians- at any rate simpler than Andean and Mesoamerican civilizations."
But such statements reveal a profound lack of understanding and up to date scholarship about Africa. In fact for millennia, Africa was a leader in technology and social organization. As shown by credible mainstream archaeologists, it was these tropical Africans, the early Egyptians, the ones from the south that established the Dynasties- they pioneered the first systematic writing systems, some centuries earlier than Mesopotamia. (See Gunter Dreyer's excavations- Dreyer 1999- Umm El-Quaab I- The Predynastic Royal Tomb U-j and Its Early Writing-Evidence) Centuries later on into the New Kingdom, it was these same Egyptians that played a key part in the adaptations and adjustments that led to alphabetic scripts by Semitics in Egypt which in turn spread throughout the Mediterranean world to Europe. (See Yale's David Sacks' (2003) "Language Visible" for the data).
It was these same Africans from the south that with the favorable Nile River at their disposal who pioneered decrue agriculture- or systems of basin irrigation that captured water and silt deposited by the river. Such basin irrigation systems are ancient in Africa and are still seen today. On top of this was the system of canals, locks and dams that further channeled the captured waters to crop fields. It was not merely waiting for the river to dump its silt after which "the culluds" - in "unchallenging" tropical style" tossed seeds hither and yon, then sat around drinking local beer while the crop sprang up. It was these same tropical Africans that went on to do many other things, including some of the "social organization" that made possible some of the greatest engineering works of all time. All this is well established by credible mainstream scholars.
In addition, Egypt is not, and does not have to be some sort of "central civilization headquarters" in Africa to validate it as the African civilization affirmed by multiple mainstream scholars. Pyramids do not have to show up in the Gulf of Guinea to "validate" Egypt an African polity, anymore than Greek temples to Athena have to show up in ancient Sweden to call Swedes European. Why is it that when it comes to "the South" - Africa, so many Eurocentric double standards appear?
Hypocrisy, distortion and double standards of certain European scholars re Africa
Harpending and Cochran go on to dismissively refer to areas of Africa “not influenced by Islamic civilization- west, central and southern
Note the double standard. Europe itself is a massive borrower and copier of technology from other peoples- inventing neither writing, nor pioneering the key domesticates that underpin 'civilization', nor cultural products such the massively influential Christian religion for example. Why the hypocritical double standard that lets Europe massively borrow and copy from the world over but when in comes to Africa, Africans somehow are deficient if they copy something? Why the hypocritical double standard that hails Greeks who borrow techniques and concepts from the sub-tropical "Middle East" but distorts, downplays and denies African achievements within Africa, such as the Nile Valley? Why the hypocritical double standard that embraces Greeks to Swedes as Europeans, but denies and distorts African bio-history, even excluding broad-nosed, jet black "sub-Saharan" people from being "really" African as detailed numerous times in this blog, AND peer reviewed scholarly articles in the field?
As stated elsewhere:
European civilization is built on a foundation of borrowing and copying from non-European peoples, who in other eras borrowed and copied form Europe. Over time, like everywhere else thesee borrowings were adapted, improved on and new innovations developed. This is all part of the common pattern, sharing and inheritance of human culture. The world shares in many ways common patterns, strands of culture and ways of doing things. Hypocritical scholarship or racialism though makes out that only Europeans invented anything of value. Fortunately, SOME honest Europeans and Asians have seen through such double standards, unlike their more benighted racialist brethren. They know for example, that Europe is not a first-mover or inventor in many of the fundamental building blocks of civilization. And that's fine. They see no need for simplistic chest-thumping displays, or less visible manipulation and distortion of the record, or subtle dismissal sof the record. Some of this honesty is often identified with progressive Europeans, but some conservative boosters of the West, such as Ian Morris (Why The West Rules- 2010) candidly and frankly admit the facts. They know that Europeans did not invent writing. They did not invent plant domestication. They did not invent animal domestication. They did not invent agriculture. They did not invent metallurgy. They did not invent ship-building. They did not invent the wheel. They did not invent divine kingship. They did not invent astronomy. They did not invent science. They did not invent powered machinery and its gear mechanisms. All of these things came from tropical or sub-tropical peoples of Africa or the Asian marches. The alphabets used by Europeans for example came via scripts invented by tropical Africans in ancient Egypt, which in turn were copied and modified by Middle Eastern peoples like Phoenicians, before finally filtering down into Europe (Sacks 2003). The list can go on.
Let's recap: For one thing, the earliest most, advanced civilizations in the world were created by tropical peoples, not cold climate Europeans or Asiatics. Egypt for example was a leader in civilization for millennia before the rise of Greece, and Egypt was founded by indigenous tropical Africans from the south as attested to by mainstream scholars, and as freely admitted to, even by conservative writers such as Mary Lefkowitz.
[b]In addition, Europe has been a massive borrower and copier and beneficiary of technologies developed elsewhere - from the key plant and animal domesticates of the Neolithic Natufians, to the improvements in metallurgy, pottery, construction etc down the ages, often introduced by said Natufians.[/b] The Greeks did what they did mostly on imported, not home grown technology. As the centuries rolled by there was the Arab era, again, benefiting Europe as technology from the east moved Westward to be adapted, copied and eventually improved, including advances in knowledge (the concept of zero for example is from India, algebra from the Middle East), steelmaking, mining, engineering, etc etc.
[b]Likewise the fundamental innovations responsible for advances in human civilizations[/b] - whether it be writing, powered machinery, science, medicine, agriculture, animal husbandry, metallurgy are initially from peoples outside Europe.
[b]Joseph Needham's monumental work: Science and Civilization in China,[/b] is but one example documenting the creations and innovations in place before anything comparable in Europe. The modern Chinese surge in technology and economic muscle continues or recaptures a pattern in part, that began long before Europe rose to prominence.
[b]Things like Medieval European universities for example drew heavily on the work of Islamic writers,[/b] including Islamic compilations of ancient Greek, Indian and Persian writings. Indeed it is commonly recognized that the scholarship of Islam is the central preserver of ancient knowledge and transmitter to medieval Europe, and its centers of learning.
for detailed references.
[b]In fact Europeans are ALSO heavy beneficiaries of geographical windfalls in that numerous technological and cultural advances crucial to civilization,[/b] (from key animal and plant domestication- cows or wheat for example, to literacy, to advanced metallurgy and a host of other items) were put in place first by non-Europeans, and then imported along a favorable easy East-West climate axis for Europeans to cash in on the windfall. Honest Europeans have no problems with these facts- they do not diminish "the glory that was Greece," or "the grandeur that was Rome." They are simply human culture 101.
Such geographical windfalls for Europe are shown in detail in Jared Diamond's 1997 Guns, Germs and Steel. Other writers such as Sowell 1981 note further geographic windfalls such as navigable river systems and harbor-friendly coastlines that enabled the spread of non-European derived ideas, technology and innovation. Europeans are borrowers from, and copiers of other peoples par excellence, even in cultural products nowadays deemed "European", such as the massively influential Christian religion. Candidly recognizing such facts does not hurt white self-esteem, wealth, power or accomplishments as honest Europeans have long recognized. They see no need for "plausible denial" tactics to obscure and distort.
[b]For most of its history, large parts of Africa have been isolated and under-populated, similar to white areas like Ireland, or the Balkans. These are historically poor European areas that have disadvantages in geography and political fragmentation. parts of Africa likewise show the same pattern. This again, is nothing special. [/b]Note that those areas of Africa that had good transport and access to trade show a different pattern. We have already discussed ancient Egypt, but look also at ancient Mali and Ghana. You have to do apples to apples comparisons. In medieval times, Ghana and Mali had a standard of living higher than or equal to numerous contemporary kingdoms in Europe. Wealth was certainly greater than many European countries of the time. Look at the history of Mansa Musa below for example and you will see why.
Recap for new readers:
Mali in the same 1200-1300 time period most likely exceeded several (never said all) kingdoms in contemporary Europe in terms of wealth, extent of territorial dominion, and size of its armed forces. And this is BEFORE the Black Death was to begin to ravage Europe. For example, by the beginning of the 14th century, Mali was the source of almost half the Old World's gold exported from mines in Bambuk, Boure and Galam.
(--Stride, G.T & C. Ifeka. Peoples and Empires of West Africa: West Africa in History 1000-1800".
Other historians point to the impact of Malian gold in economic development of the Mediterranean: QUOTE:
[i]The most important foundation of Malian power, however, was control of gold, and it is as a man
of gold that Mansa Musa is still remembered. His story is quite important to world economic history, since the supply of gold he commanded played a crucial role in the economic growth of the Mediterranean."[/i]
--Merry E. Wiesner 2002. Discovering the Global Past
[i]"It should be remembered here that during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there was an acute shortage of precious metals in Europe and in the Muslim lands and that the only really important source of gold was in the western Sudan and its hinterland."[/i]
--M. Ma³owist (1966). The Social and Economic Stability of the Western Sudan in the Middle Ages. Source: Past and Present, No. 33, (Apr., 1966), pp.3-15. Published by: Oxford University Press
[i]"From an examination of Omari's writings, which come from the same period and are based on Sudanese accounts, it may be concluded that particularly a griculture and fruit-gathering, and also, in certain parts of the country, hunting and the rearing of l ivestock, assured the Mali peasants of a relatively prosperous and independent life, satisfying their needs without much contact with the outside world."
Arab travellers from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries all tell us that Mali towns Timbuktu, Gao and lesser places - were in general well supplied with victuals, and there is no doubt that the towns obtained some of their provisions by trade with the peasantry. The rural areas had a surplus of agricultural and animal products which was dispatched for sale in the towns. Ibn Batoutah and other sources indicate that the western Sudan even exported a certain amount of millet and rice to the Sahel regions, not only to Walata but also farther towards the districts where rock-salt and copper were exploited for import into the Sudan.[/i]
[i]“Jaime Cortesao has drawn historians' attention to Portuguese sources of the early fifteenth century, according to which Portuguese gold currency was at that time based on importing from Morocco gold which must have come from the Sudan. The same author is of the opinion that it was above all in Sudanese gold that Morocco paid the import costs for European and Levantine goods brought by the Genoese and the Venetiansl2 a suggestion confirmed by several Italian documents. It should be added that Sudanese trade was not the only way in which Sudanese gold in large quantities reached Egypt and the Near East. Sudanese pilgrims, who each year visited Egypt and the holy places of Islam in Arabia, brought with them very considerable quantities of gold to spend on the journey and on arrival in Cairo, Mecca and Medina.”[/i]
----M. Ma³owist (1966). The Social and Economic Stability of the Western Sudan in the Middle Ages. Source: Past and Present, No. 33, (Apr., 1966), pp. 3-15. Published by: Oxford University Press.
[i]"The rising European demand for gold, added to the perennial market in the Islamic states, stimulated
more gold production in the Sudan, to the enormous fiscal advantage of Mali. In the latest medieval
period overall, West Africa may have been producing almost two-thirds of the world's gold supply." [/i]
-- Ross E. Dunn. 1987. The adventures of Ibn Battuta, a Muslim traveler of the fourteenth century
[b]Compare to Britain in the same general era - not to "prove" who was "better" but to show that African polities had their own long track record of wealth and accomplishment. These would later be overshadowed by other powers, just as Britain was once a mere colony under the Roman hegemon. In time, the wheel turned. There is no need for distortions or propaganda campaigns to slander or dismiss the African record:[/b]
[i]".. there was no English commercial revolution, no development of banks and credit facilities that can be claimed for thirteenth-century Italy. One consequence of this relative backwardness was that in the thirteenth century, an increasing proportion of England's foreign trade came to be in Italian hands.. In a very real sense late thirteenth-century England was being treated as a partially developed economy. Much of its import-export business was handled by foreigners (Gascons and Flemings as well as Italians. Its main exports were aw materials - wool and grain- rather than manufactured goods, There had been, in other words, no industrial revolution."
.. Moreover, despite the claims sometimes made for the cloth-fulling mill, there were no significant advances in industrial technology. Nor was there anything to compare with the highly capitalized development of the Flemish cloth industry in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries."
"..Above all, there was no agricultural revolution.. the technical limitations under which they worked meant no significant increase in yields was possible, neither from sheep in terms of weight of fleece, nor from seed in terms of yield of grain. Though the use of the horse as a draught animal was spreading, this was of marginal importance. ."
".. Thus in many respect England remained a stagnant economy. It can indeed be argued that by comparison with some of its neighbors, especially Flanders and Italy, England was less advanced in the thirteenth century than it had been in the eleventh.. In twelfth and thirteenth-century England, people felt they lived in a country which was economically advanced by comparison with the lands of their Celtic neighbours." [/i]
--John Gillingham, Ralph Alan Griffiths. 2002. Medieval Britain: a very short introduction
Note: none of the above says that there may not have been European kingdoms at the time richer than Mali- of course- there might be such, just as Mali in turn was richer than other European kingdoms, and just as China or some of China's kingdoms,were better off than several European or African kingdoms of the same era, and vice versa. The point is that some African kingdoms, depending on the era examined, compared favorably or better than European kingdoms of that same era. Mali's ascent is more in perspective because despite its gold and salt fields, despite the lavish sponsorship of learning centers such as Timbuktu (as later developed under the successor Songhai Empire) etc., nature in some ways, still dealt a harsh hand- with a territory that was heavy on desert, with long distance trade needing to go through by camel caravan via the Sahara to get to major trading partners and a lack of good navigable rivers and natural harbors that might have better moved men and material in bulk. Contrast with parts of Europe and ability to more easily import skills, technology, materials and methods from non-Europeans elsewhere, and thus copy and borrow more effectively from others as a basis for its own innovations. The alleged "easy" tropical environments of "HBD" lore are deliberate distortions of Africa and its history. The African tropical zone never yielded anything "easy." Gold and salt for example had to be mined the hard way and moved over harsh desert terrain. Nothing was "easy."
Hence we return to the south, Note the detailed data put forth by credible mainstream archaeologists and scholars below- QUOTE:
".. but his [Frankfort's] frequent citations from African ethnography- over 60 are listed in the index- demonstrate that there is a powerful resonance between recent African concepts and practice on one hand, and ancient Egyptian kingship and religion on the other.."
Rowlands (Chapter 4) provides much additional evidence suggesting that 'sub-Saharan Africa and Ancient Egypt share certain commonalities in substantiative images and ideas, yet whose cultural forms display differences consistent with perhaps millennia of historical divergence and institutionalization'.
"First, kingship in Egypt was 'the channel through which the powers of nature flowed into the body politic to bring human endeavour to fruition' and thus was closely analogous to the widespread African belief that 'chieftains entertain closer relationship with the powers in nature than other men' (Frankfort 1948: 33, ch. 2). Second, the Egyptian king's metaphorical identification as an all powerful bull who tramples his enemies and inseminates his cow-mother to achieve regeneration was derived from Egyptian ideas and beliefs abut cattle for which best parallels can be found in some, but not all, recent African societies.."
"Like the chiefs discussed by Rowlands, the king combines 'life giving forces with the power to kill" (Rowlands, CHaptr 4:52). Overall, this Egyptian concept of kingship, so akin to African models, seems very different to that held in the ancient Near East (Frankfort 1948; Postgate 1995)"
"In conclusion, there is a relative abundance of ancient materials relevant to contact and influence, as well as striking correlations between ancient Egyptian civilization and the ethnography of recent and current sub-Saharan communities, chiefdoms and states... Perhaps the fact that commonalities do exist suggests that, because of great time depth and different organization, these commonalities may result from inherently African processes."
--David O'Connor, Andrew Reid (2007) ANCIENT EGYPT IN AFRICA. pp 15-22
OTHER MAINSTREAM SCHOLARS SHOW THE AFRICAN CHARACTER OF EGYPT
Conservative mainstream Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt shows
ancient Egypt derived from an African
[i]"The evidence also points to linkages to
other northeast African peoples, not
coincidentally approximating the modern
range of languages closely related to
Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group
(formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These
linguistic similarities place ancient
Egyptian in a close relationship with
languages spoken today as far west as
Chad, and as far south as Somalia.
Archaeological evidence also strongly
supports an African origin. A widespread
northeastern African cultural assemblage,
including distinctive multiple barbed
harpoons and pottery decorated with
dotted wavy line patterns, appears during
the early Neolithic (also known as the
Aqualithic, a reference to the mild
climate of the Sahara at this time).
Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this
time resembles early Egyptian
iconography. Strong connections
between Nubian (Sudanese) and
Egyptian material culture continue in
later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper
Egypt. Similarities include black-topped
wares, vessels with characteristic
ripple-burnished surfaces, a special
tulip-shaped vessel with incised and
white-filled decoration, palettes, and
Other ancient Egyptian practices show
strong similarities to modern African
cultures including divine kingship, the
use of headrests, body art, circumcision,
and male coming-of-age rituals, all
suggesting an African substratum or
foundation for Egyptian civilization.."
-- Source: Donald Redford (2001) The
Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt,
Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p.28
MORE MODERN SCHOLARS..
"Ancient Egypt belongs to a language
group known as 'Afroasiatic' (formerly
called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest
relatives are other north-east African
languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's
cultural features, both material and
ideological and particularly in the earliest
phases, show clear connections with that
same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt
was an African culture, developed by
African peoples, who had wide ranging
contacts in north Africa and western
--Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction. p. 10)
"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'... we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian peninsula."
--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
"Over the long run of northeastern African history, what emerges most strongly is the extent to which ancient Egypt's culture grew from sub-Saharan African roots. The earliest foundations of the culture that was to evolve into that of dynastic Egypt were laid, as we have already discovered, by Afrasan immigrants
from the general direction of the southern Red Sea hills, who arrived probably well before 10,000 B.C.E. The new inhabitants brought with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grasses or grains as food. They also introduced a new religion Its central belief, in the efficacy of clan deities, explains the traceability of the ancient Egyptian gods to different particular
Egyptians localities: originally they were the deities of the local communities, whose members in still earlier times had belonged to a clan or a group of related clans."
--Christopher Ehret. (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. p. 93
".. how is it come about that Neolithic Saharan civilizations, ancient Egypt and modern Black African civilizations share cultural features? .. Today however, essentially autochthonous explanations are preferred based on what we call the substratum theory, whereby all the civilizations in question, even in their
differences and peculiarities share a common cultural substratum as occurs in the northern world among Indo-European civilizations."
--CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, Joseph, Egypt, Africa and the Ancient World, in: Proceedings 7th Int. Congress of Egyptologists, 261-272.
THE SOUTH DOES NOT NEED COOKIE CUTTER ELEMENTS IN ALL THE SAME PLACES TO BE "VALIDATED" - a critique
The Nile River Basin as shown above touches a huge swath of northeast and central Africa, just as the Sahara is a true Pan-African entity that cuts across the continent. It was once a lush greenbelt that covered one third of Africa from coast to coast. Indeed, it is a Pan-African entity that has been a key motor of Africa's evolution as credible scholars show-Quote:
"Radiocarbon data from 150 archaeological excavations in the now hyper-arid Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Chad reveal close links between climatic variations and prehistoric occupation during the past 12,000 years. Synoptic multiple-indicator views for major time slices demonstrate the transition from initial settlement after the sudden onset of humid conditions at 8500 B.C.E. to the exodus resulting from gradual desiccation since 5300 B.C.E. Southward shifting of the desert margin helped trigger the emergence of pharaonic civilization along the Nile, influenced the spread of pastoralism throughout the continent, and affects sub-Saharan Africa to the present day."
--Kruper and Kropelin 2008. Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa's Evolution
Likewise there is a a Trans-Saharan Pastoral Technocomplex that links the Nile Valley all the way to West Africa. QUOTE: "a Trans-Saharan Pastoral Technocomplex MacDonald, KC; (1998) dating to between 3800 and 1000 BC. Material support for this notion comes from a shared set of valued ojects (notably small stone axes and stone rings), as well as a common pastoral economy and stylistically similar tumuli, which ultimately stretched from Kerma (Sudan) in the east to Dhar Tichitt (Mauritania) in the west. "
--- MacDonald, KC; (1998) Before the Empire of Ghana: Pastoralism and the Origins of Cultural Complexity in the Sahel. In: Connah, G, (ed.) Transformations in Africa: essays on Africa's later past. (71 - 103).
In short, despite Africa's many geographic handicaps (such as lack of fully navigable rivers or good ports, or other barriers like deserts) it has its linkages,and there is a common "southern culture" - a package of material culture, technology, religious beliefs etc that cut across wide areas. Such commonalities are stronger of course in countries near to one another- like Egypt and the Sudan, or Egypt which has linguistic links with Chad, in Central Africa. The great Pan-African span of the Sahara delivers these linkages in varied strengths but they are there. Just because hymns to Osiris fail to be found on cave walls in Kenya does not in the slightest bit weaken the fact that the peoples of both Kenya and the Nile Valley are part of one African reality- (DNA, cultural, limb proportion etc) diverse indeed, but ultimately one- just as Greeks and Swedes form part of a European reality. Eurocentric models too often engage in "splittism" by insinuation- splitting Africa up into little chunks which can then be regrouped in such a way as to deny or minimize commonality.
And what's wrong with areas NEAR to Egypt showing the deep-rooted African cultural patterns and commonalities? Since when is "beyond Nubia" a point of validation? How come the same litmus test is seldom applied to say European peoples like Greeks to validate common patterns based on the Mediterranean basin in agriculture, culture, material artifacts and so on? The ancient Greeks had the greatest impact in areas comparatively CLOSE TO Greece- North Africa, Anatolia, Italy and the Balkans. Unlike the more land-based Egyptians, their islands were more sea-based and thus it was natural for them to use the broad seafaring belt of the Mediterranean to facilitate that influence. Even so, the bulk of their ancient impact was in that general Medit zone. Few people are going around saying that the Greeks should show temples in ancient France to "prove" they are European, or that the ancient peoples of Gaul should likewise be huddling around such temples as "proof" they also are European.
As noted above, there is DEEP AFRICAN CULTURAL SUBSTRATUM that extended from the Nile Valley across a vast belt of adjacent territories into the Sahara, East Africa and touching West Africa via the Sahara. Other scholars above (O'Connor, Wengrow etc) show just such deep linkages. Numerous African areas near to Egypt and sharing culture material and population with Egypt- the Sahara, etc are also "SUB-SAHARAN" OR lie within the tropical zone. Indeed, almost one-sixth of Egypt lies within the tropical zone which for all practical purposes extends even further north (Thompson 1997- Applied Climatology). The peoples therein are tropical Africans, or came from "sub-Saharan Africa in the early era. Trying to play some sort of "geographic apartheid" game where lack of pyramids in Ghana is insinuated to conjure a vast segregation of the Nile Valley from "interior Africa" is a dubious ploy. The Sahara was always a moving target- and donated people and culture to vast swathes of the continent including West Africa.
The flow of data shows Egypt IN Africa. The cultural and technological developments that gave rise to Egyptian civilization flowed from "inner" Africa to Egypt via the Saharan zone. That is what laid the basis from the tool kits, to the animal husbandry, to the proto-agriculture in protecting, storing and harvesting wild grains, to the domestication of African breeds of cattle, to techniques like mummification, to divine kingship, to numerous aspects of Egyptian religion like the cattle cults, animal gods etc. All this is well established by mainstream scholarship.
FROM THE TROPICAL SOUTH..
"While communities such as Ma'adi appear to have played an important role in entrepots through which goods and ideas form south-west Asia filtered into the Nile Valley in later prehistoric times, the main cultural and political tradition that gave rise to the cultural pattern of Early Dynastic Egypt is to be found not in the north but in the south.":
The Cambridge History of Africa: Volume 1, From the Earliest Times to c. 500 BC, (Cambridge University Press: 1982), Edited by J. Desmond Clark pp. 500-509
"..the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life."
(Source: Shaw, Thurston (1976) Changes in African Archaeology in the Last Forty Years in African Studies since 1945. p. 156-68. London.)
"What is truly unique about this state is the integration of rule over an extensive geographic region, in contrast to other contemporaneous Near Easter polities in Nubia, Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Levant. Present evidence suggests that the state which emerged by the First Dynasty had its roots in the Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of form from the Predynastic to the First Dynasty, This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of Lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that which originated in Upper Egypt. Hierarchical society with much social and economic differentiation, as symbolized in the Nagada II cemeteries of Upper Egypt, does not seem to have been present, then, in Lower Egypt, a fact which supports an Upper Egyptian origin for the unified state. Thus archaeological evidence cannot support earlier theories that the founders of Egyptian civilization were an invading Dynastic race from the east.."
"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation is Egypt is less clear... The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millennium B.C. however, was unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine- in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. There was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the 4th millennium B.C., but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt is unique and religious in character."
(Bard, Kathryn A. 1994 The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3):265-288.)
"From Petrie onwards, it was regularly suggested that despite the evidence of Predynastic cultures, Egyptian civilization of the 1st Dynasty appeared suddenly and must therefore have been introduced by an invading foreign 'race'. Since the 1970s however, excavations at Abydos and Hierakonpolis have clearly demonstrated the indigenous, Upper Egyptian roots of early civilization in Egypt."
(Ian Shaw ed. (2003) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt By Ian Shaw. Oxford University Press, page 40-63)
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
(Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Pre-colonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
And thus the South still stands. As already shown, numerous double standard and hypocritical "HBD" arguments are themselves SIMPLISTIC and fail to grasp modern anthropological and scientific data on Africa. But understanding is not the purpose of such arguments. The purpose is to downplay and distort "the south." As we see above, while such distortion is easy in the echo chambers of "the faithful" when exposed to hard data and scholarship, it falls short.
But y'all already knew that... *wink*
LINKS TO OTHER POSTS:
Irony 2: touted High IQ "G-men" cannot reproduce themselves
Unz and Sowell: Unz debunking Lynn's IQ and Wealth of Nations. Sowell debunking the Bell Curve
Irony 1: touted High IQ types are more homosexual, more atheist, and more liberal (HAL)
Elite white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative action"
Deteriorating state of white America
Racial Cartels (The Affirmative Action Propaganda machine- part 2
Hereditarian's/HBD's "Great Black Hope"
Exploding nonsense: the 10,000 Year Explosion
We need "rational racism"? Proponent Dinesh D;Souza becomes his own test case
The Affirmative Action Propaganda Machine- part 1
Two rules for being "really" black- no white wimmen, no Republican
The Axial age reconsidered
Cannibal seasonings: dark meat on white
"Affirmative Action" in the form of court remedies has been around a long time- since the 1930s- benefiting white union workers against discrimination by employers
Mugged by reality 1: White quotas, special preferences and government jobs
Lightweight enforcement of EEO laws contradicts claims of "flood" of minorities "taking jobs"
Railroaded 3: white violence and intimidation imposed quotas
Railroaded 2: how white quotas and special preferences blockade black progress...
Railroaded 1: How white affirmative action and white special preferences destroyed black railroad employment...
Affirmative action: primary beneficiaries are white women
7 reasons certain libertarians and right-wingers are wrong about the Civil Right Act
Social philosophy of Thomas Sowell
Bogus "biodiversity" theories of Kanazawa, Ruston, Lynn debunked
In the Blood- debunking "HBD" and Neo-Nazi appropriation of ancient Egypt
early Europeans and middle Easterners looked like Africans. Peoples returning or "backflowing" to Africa would already be looking like Africans
Ancient Egypt: one of the world's most advanced civilizations- created by tropical peoples
Playing the "Greek defence" -debunking claims of Greeks as paragons of virtue or exemplars of goodness
Quotations from mainstream academic research on the Nile Valley peoples
Assorted data debunking
Joint products of "racial evolution"...
Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples ... - Jelte Wicherts 2010
Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence - WIcherts, Borsboom and Dolan 2010
Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 91-96
Are intelligence tests measurement invariant over time? by JM Wicherts - ?2004
--Dolan, Wicherts et al 2004. Investigating the nature of the Flynn effect. Intelligence 32 (2004) 509-537
-------------------------------------------LYNN AND VANHAVEN'S IQ AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS DEBUNKED
Race and other misadventures: essays in honor of Ashley Montagu... By Larry T. Reynolds, Leonard Lieberman
Race and intelligence: separating science from myth. By
M. Fish. Routledge 2002. See Templeton's detailed article referenced above also
inside the book
HBD "SELECTION" AND EVOLUTION CLAIMS DEBUNKED-Sarich and Miele's "Race: the reality of Human Differences"
Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
For summary see: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-02-18/
--S OY Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)
--S.O.Y. Keita and Rick Kittles. (1997) *The Persistence ofRacial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. AJPA, 99:3
HBD RACE EVOLUTION CLAIMS DEBUNKED BY GENETICISTS
Alan Templeton. "The Genetic and Evolutionary significnce oF Human Races." pp 31-56. IN: J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating scinnce from myth.
HBD RACE AND INTELLIGENCE CLAIMS DEBUNKED
J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating science from myth.
MORE HBD DEBUNKING
Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
Krimsky, S, Sloan.K (2011) Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture
Wicherts and Johnson, 2009. Group differences in the heritability of items and test scores
--Joseph Graves, 2006. What We Know and What We Don’t Know: Human Genetic Variation and the Social Construction of Race
J. Kahn (2013) How a Drug Becomes "Ethnic" - Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, v4:1