Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Big Triece]

Throughout this thread it's apparent that most people seem to accept that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast Africans, yet seem to uneasy with the fact that the ancient Egyptians actually LOOKED like the Northeast Africans whom they are most closely related to biologically. The thing is though, if none of you have presented nor seen any biological evidence supporting your assertions of them having a distinct phenotype from these other African populations, then why even argue against it?

[Simon_Jester]

Which Northeast Africans? "Northeast African" covers a very wide range of skin tones, a lot of different kinds of facial structures, and a lot of different ethnic groups. Saying "Ancient Egyptians looked like Northeast Africans" is very likely to be true and even more likely to be meaningless. It's too vague to tell us much of anything.

So could you nail down for me precisely what you're getting at? What, exactly, is this highly important contention about the appearance of ancient Egyptians? What, exactly, are they supposed to have looked like?

I mean, I can hardly tell whether I'm "uneasy" with your claims when I'm not clear on what they are.

[Chirios]

I don't understand this thread. Egypt is IN Africa, therefore by definition they are Africans. Is the debate about whether or not they were light or dark-skinned?

[Spoonist]

I don't understand this thread. Egypt is IN Africa, therefore by definition they are Africans. Is the debate about whether or not they were light or dark-skinned?

The problem isn't what skintone they have. The problem is what such a skintone differnce indicates. Add to that an historic bias and a modern reverse bias and you got a loaded issue.
What becomes important you see is how much an influence ancient northern egyptians had and how much influence the levant had. If your personal honor is invested in it being almost exclusively a nubian origins. Then such influence would be a detractor vs your investment. Add to that that afrocentrism isn't an african product but an american one.
If your investment instead lies with modern egyptians then the reverse is true, the more influence that comes from the ancient northern egyptians and the levant then the more the the originators would resemble the modern mix. Add to that that modern egyptians have a bias against subsaharan africa.

So its not just about skintone, its about where your investment lies. Funny thing is that the consensus among egyptologists isn't in either field as reading this thread might make you think.

I'd recommend page 3 & 4 to see the basics of this thread.

[PharaohMentuhotep]

I'm still waiting on the rest of Thanas summary. If you are done Thanas please let us know.

By the way I am currently working on obtaining a video of Rushton in a debate with evolution biologists about his theories on race and human evolution. I will probably have it uploaded next week. So maybe we can create a separate thread about that for people who want to discuss it.

[Big Triece]

Which Northeast Africans? "Northeast African" covers a very wide range of skin tones, a lot of different kinds of facial structures

The elongated African head shape is the general variation that is seen in that region of Africa. In the research that I've come across the most mentioned groups of Northeast Africans in relation to the ancient Egyptians are Somalis and Tigray Ethiopians:

• "Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)

Tigray

[Big Triece]

To further twelve into the clear cultural and religious similarities between the Yoruba of Nigeria and the ancient Egyptians, here is another article about Egypt's cultural relations between other inner African regions, including West Africa:

((COPYRIGHT VIOLATION REMOVED
If it says "Do Not Use Without Permission" then DO NOT USE WITHOUT PERMISSION -- LadyTevar ))






The first one is a sculpture of a Yoruba figure called a Child of Obatala. Obatala is a Yoruba god. And the second one is the Egyptian god Bes. And they are both wearing a skull necklace.



http://hum.lss.wisc.edu/hjdrewal/Ife.html

These clear similarities lend clear further support to the Yoruba belief that their people descend from Egypt. What do you all think?

[SCRawl]

Did you notice in the article you quoted there's all these big copyright notices, saying that you can't quote it without permission of the author? I'm not a lawyer, but it appears as though you're violating the author's wishes by posting it here.

[Big Triece]

How in the Hell do you know if I had permission or not?

[Serafina]

How in the Hell do you know if I had permission or not?

You get permission by ASKING for it. If you didn't ask, you can't possibly have permission.
Do we REALLY have to explain such basic concepts to you

[SCRawl]

How in the Hell do you know if I had permission or not?

We don't know for absolute certainty. However, the fact that the paper has that warning plastered all over it makes a reasonable person ask the question. In the interim, the prudent thing to do is to remove the uncertain material, since it's pretty clear that this doesn't fall into "fair use" exceptions. If you want to produce an affadavit signed by the author, then I'm sure that we would reconsider allowing you to post it here. Until then, please don't post copyrighted material where the right to use it is in serious question.

[Zed]

In general, if scientific papers have "do not quote" lines on them, it means that they're a draft version and not the published version. Authors often post these versions online because they retain the rights to these drafts, but not to the final version in the journal. However, as the articles might be subject to revision before being published, the final versions in the journals might look different, and the final version is what truly matters. Authors expect scholars to cite the final versions, not the drafts. However, this generally means that these drafts shouldn't be quoted in journals or other official work - quoting them on an internet forum is a whole other deal. Ofcourse, I can't check whether this concerns that type of disclaimer, since the link's been removed.

[LadyTevar]

Copyrighted Material, draft or otherwise, should not be used without the author's knowledge or permission. If you have a problem with how I handled this, Big Triece, you are welcome to PM Dalton or Mike himself to complain. Otherwise, find a way to present your continuing argument without use of Copyrighted Material.

[Dalton]

Or next time just link the fucking article and put in search hooks.

[Simon_Jester]

Bes and Whatsisname don't look all that similar to me aside from both being scowling dwarves with chubby cheeks. Of course, that doesn't prove much either way- depictions of deities usually aren't standardized over periods of thousands of years, and it would be stupid to expect them to be. Just look at how many different faces and postures Christ has appeared with over the last two millenia.

More to the point, having roughly similar statues doesn't prove anything- maybe an Egyptian statue of Bes made its way across Africa in some merchant's pack train and someone decided to make copies of the foreign-god-statue. There are simply too many blank spaces in the historical record for us to justify trying to fill them in with highly specific speculations like "the Yoruba must be descended from the Egyptians because they made some vaguely similar statues at some point."

The only reason to even present this as 'evidence,' especially when trying to "twelve [sic] into the clear cultural and religious similarities" between two people, is because one is grasping at straws.

Triece, if you actually have a point with all this, go back to analysis of skeletons and DNA. When you were talking about that you at least weren't totally bullshitting us.

[I also find it ironic that in a thread titled "Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt," the original poster is now more interested in proving the Egyptian origins of cultures elsewhere in Africa. I wonder why...?]

[Akhlut]

I also think it is a little dismissive of Yoruba accomplishments to try and state they are Egyptian in origin. While their creation myths state that their mythic progenitor came from "the East," that means about as much as many Polynesian myths stating that they originated from "Hawaiki" (or some similarly named place).

[Big Triece]

Bes and Whatsisname don't look all that similar to me aside from both being scowling dwarves with chubby cheeks.

Funny, you note the similar fat face and pygmy like size of both statues, but not acknowledge the main contention that I made which was the fucking skull necklace which is seen on both of these African Gods! What the fuck are you so scared of?

More to the point, having roughly similar statues doesn't prove anything

You are acting as though this is the only piece of evidence that has been presented in favor of this ancient Yurbuba BELIEF! Below is a good article which help show some of the similiarities between the two African civilizations:

• In a search for the roots of the Yoruba religion one can look to the Egyptians. One has to remember that religion and philosophy are very difficult to separate in some of these early civilizations. What can be deduced from archeological and historic records the Yoruba people migrated from east to west. J. Olumide Lucas in his book The Religion of the Yorubastraces their history as a civilization back to Egypt. "A chain of evidence leads to the conclusion that they must have settled for many years in that part of the continent known as Ancient Egypt." (Cook, 1974, p. 184) In his work Lucas shows that there were similarities in language, religion and customs between these two groups of people.
  
  "Abundant proof of intimate connection between ancient Egyptians and the Yoruba may be produced under this head. Most of the principle gods were well known, at one time, to the Yoruba. Among these gods are Osiris, Isis, Horus, Shu, Sut, Troth, Khepera, Amon, Anu, Khonsu, Khnum, Khopri, Hathor, Sokaris, Ra, Seb, the elemental deities and others. Most of the gods survive in name or in attributes or in both" (Lucas, 1948, p.21).
  
  In comparing the religions, we find that the Yoruba had a moon deity known as Osu (moon) which is the Egyptian lunar god Khonsu. To find the conclusive proof of this similarity one has to look at the etymological development of the Yoruba language. In the Yoruba language Kh does not exist. By following the consonant—vowel rules in Yoruba the vowel is dropped and you are left with the word Osu from Khonsu. If we follow this etymological analysis we find that "Amon exists in Yoruba with the same meaning it has in ancient Egyptian: hidden. The god Amon is one of the first deities known by the Yoruba and the words Mon and Mimon (holy and sacred) are probably derived from the name of that god, according to Lucas. Troth would become To in Yoruba" (Cook, 1974, p. 185).
  
  Following this lead we can see that the development of a monotheistic religion had it roots in the land of Egypt. Although many have claimed that the religion of the Egyptians was polytheistic in fact it was not. Moses even went so far as to declare that Yahweh, like the God of Egypt, was one (Deut. vi.4). To the Egyptians Path was a spirit self created having no beginning or end. Path was the intelligence of the universe and it was his thoughts that produced the material world and everything in it. Path had power in the words that resided in his mouth. This idea was pointed out by Jablonski where he connected it with the Hebrew idea of how the world was created by their God. The idea of an all powerful god was developed in Egypt and spread with the migration of the Yoruba people. This spiritual conception of god and the universe was begun in the Nile valley 4000 years before the
  Christian era. Later we see Amen of Thebes be declared as having the same power and nature as Path. "...Lucas recalls that all the ontological notions of the ancient Egyptians, such as the Ka, Akhu, Khu, Sahu, and Ba are found in the Yoruba" (Cook. 1974, p. 186). We see in the Egyptian Ka transformed into the Guarding spirit of the Yoruba. The final cement for an Egyptian and Yoruba connection is the existence of Yoruba hieroglyphics. "To conclude, let us note that Pedrals mentions, on page 107, the Kuso Hill near Ife and the existence of a Kuso Hill in Nubia, near ancient Meroe, west of the Nile 'in the heart of the land of Kush'" (Cook, 1974, p. 187). From this we can thus consider that a historical connection of facts joins the Egyptian and the Yoruba civilizations together.
  
  The labyrinth of religious development is long and complex from its root beginnings at the dawn of civilization to its numerous forms in the present day. Its importance for the peoples of Africa was to keep them secure through out their long history. Whether as rulers of great civilizations or as slaves in foreign countries the Yoruba maintained their identity and life blood throughout their religious convictions and heritage.
  
  Selected Bibliography
  
  Cook, M. (1974) The African Origin of CivilizationChicago
  
  Lucas, J. O. (1948) The Religion of the YorubasLagos
  
  References
  
  Mbiti J.S. (1975) Introduction to African ReligionNew York
  
  Noss, J. B. (1949) Man's ReligionNew York: Macmillan
  
  Wippler, G. M. (1989) Santeria The ReligionNew York
  
  Wippler, G. M. (1994) Legends of SanteriaMinn.
  
  John Eberts

maybe an Egyptian statue of Bes made its way across Africa in some merchant's pack train and someone decided to make copies of the foreign-god-statue.

Sounds great! And I suppose those wandering merchants just happened to have extensive knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language as well as their religious practices and customs which they so easily passed on to those West Africans. Wandering merchants is a much more probable theory to explain the above than extensive contact or descent: roll:

Heavens forbid that like some of the other ancient civilizations and peoples in the Middle East and Europe some remnants of the ancient Egyptian culture and religion had influenced...West Africans..GASP !

There are simply too many blank spaces in the historical record for us to justify trying to fill them in with highly specific speculations like "the Yoruba must be descended from the Egyptians because they made some vaguely similar statues at some point."

This is just one of those theories that you are uncomfortable with for what ever reason and will attempt to treat each piece of evidence supporting it as the sole reason for the theory and or attempt to dismiss or discredit those who may support it or not rule it out as a possibility. I'm quite sure that you came across the linguistic and culture study that I presented from UGA to Broomstick about two or three pages ago which found an undeniable connection between the two via language as well as stating their principal belief concerning their own fucking origin. Here is what one of the first modern scholars who has studied this Yoruba belief has to say about the matter:

• “With Egypt at its roots, it is therefore inevitable that African herbal medicine became associated with magic. Amulets and charms were more common than pills as preventions or curatives of diseases. Priests, who were from the earliest days the forefathers of science and medicine, considered diseases as possession by evil demons and could be treated using incantations along with extracts from the roots of certain plants. The psychosomatic method of healing disorders used primarily by psychiatrists today is based loosely on this ancient custom.” Dr. Jonathan Olumide Lucas:Herbal Medicine From Africa.”

The only reason to even present this as 'evidence,' especially when trying to "twelve [sic] into the clear cultural and religious similarities" between two people, is because one is grasping at straws.

No, I think it's more probable to say that you're just full shit when it comes to Africans and African history. Anyway I'm sure that you weren't aware of the comparison which has often been made between ram-headed breastplates from Lagos and the depiction of the Kemetic deity Amun:

Triece, if you actually have a point with all this, go back to analysis of skeletons and DNA. When you were talking about that you at least weren't totally bullshitting us.

Funny now you want to run back to an argument revolving around biological affinities, because culture, linguistics and religion are pointing to something with to a dish with too much damn spice for your ass! The biological affinities of the early ancient Egyptians prove that they were essentially the same as Nubians and ancient Saharans, you don't/cant refute this fact, so enough said!

I also find it ironic that in a thread titled "Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt," the original poster is now more interested in proving the Egyptian origins of cultures elsewhere in Africa.

The point of me even posting information about these West Africans was because Thanas made the bullshit assertion that no cultural legacy of ancient Egypt was present in any African civilization. When I pointed to the plausible suggestion that Voodoo originated in ancient Egypt and pointed to the undeniable connection that real art historians have made between a famous ancient Nok statue (also in Nigeria...go fucking figure) and ancient Egyptian social and religious custom, Broomstick upon reading this just felt so "appalled" that she literally busted a ball and went up and arms saying how she had to "THIS I have to put down right now. This is blatant bullshit" and how she wouldn't stand for this and what not. Rather than actually refuting the claim of Voodoo originated in ancient Egypt, she paraphrased an article about voodoo and it's variations around the new world, while simultaneously pretending to actually know shit about what she was pasting. I then shut her ass up with this:

"The origin of the Yoruba in Nigeria can not be clearly deciphered. It is believed that their primary ancestor, Oduduwa, came from Egypt. There are many variations and myths to how the Yoruba people came to be, and here is a couple of variations. Oduduwa is the legendary progenitor of the Yoruba. There are two variations of the story of how he achieved this feat."
http://www.uga.edu/aflang/YORUBA/ODUDUWA.htm

Showing that the very people who were credited as the main creators of Voodoo, believe and have believed for thousands of fucking years that they descend from Egypt. Thus lending support to the theory that the ideas of Voodoo may have been influence that came from Egyptian beliefs.

Nor could she say shit about this:

• A Nok sculpture resident at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts portrays a sitting dignitary wearing a "Shepherds Crook" on the right arm and a "hinged flail" on the left. These are symbols of authority associated with ancient Egyptian pharaohs and the god Osiris and suggests that an ancient Egyptian style of social structure, and perhaps religion, existed in the area of modern Nigeria during the late Pharonic period.
  
  http://www.artsmia.org/viewer/detail.ph ... =8&op=1449

Instead some people just did what you did! Which was rather than do some actual fucking research on the subject, just dismissed that this statue was the only piece of evidence suggesting contact between ancient Egypt and West Africa. Obviously this assertion on your parts about the evidence for this has been proven wrong!

I wonder why...?

You tell me! By pushing the Yoruba belief stemming to the times of Christ that they descend from the Nile Valley am I somehow being "Afrocentric"? Are the Yoruba somehow "Afrocentric" because of their thousand plus year oral tradition of their origins? Does this bother you that some West Africans may have a connection to ancient Egypt? If so then why?

[Simon_Jester]

Bes and Whatsisname don't look all that similar to me aside from both being scowling dwarves with chubby cheeks.

Funny, you note the similar fat face and pygmy like size of both statues, but not acknowledge the main contention that I made which was the fucking skull necklace which is seen on both of these African Gods! What the fuck are you so scared of?

I don't know, what the fuck are you so hopped up about?

As for skull necklaces, again I don't know. Skulls are one of those things you see all over the world, wherever people have skulls; they're not that uncommon a religious motif. Does Bes always have a skull necklace? Does this Yoruba god? Do some images of Bes have such a necklace, but not others? Does the same apply to the Yoruba god?

Without a ton of context you didn't provide, the skull necklace doesn't mean a damn thing. And if you were applying any sane standard of evidence to yourself, you would know that. If I were trying to make that kind of case in a scientific paper I would be one hell of a lot more cautious than you. But you've got such a sense of urgency, such a colossal fucking chip on your shoulder about this issue, that the moment you have a fragment of maybe-could-be-something-might-be-nothing, you start shouting about how you've proved your case.

This is not how people with functioning brains argue. To take an obvious example, this is not how PharaohMentuhotep argues. I could give more examples, but he's the obvious one I can think of who you might actually listen to long enough to take seriously.

More to the point, having roughly similar statues doesn't prove anything

You are acting as though this is the only piece of evidence that has been presented in favor of this ancient Yurbuba BELIEF

Damn sure it's the only piece I saw at the time, because the rest of your argument had been torn out because you carelessly violated copyright and then tried to stonewall when people asked you if you'd gotten permission to repost the content.

Below is a good article which help show some of the similiarities between the two African civilizations:

• In a search for the roots of the Yoruba religion one can look to the Egyptians. One has to remember that religion and philosophy are very difficult to separate in some of these early civilizations. What can be deduced from archeological and historic records the Yoruba people migrated from east to west. J. Olumide Lucas in his book The Religion of the Yorubastraces their history as a civilization back to Egypt. "A chain of evidence leads to the conclusion that they must have settled for many years in that part of the continent known as Ancient Egypt." (Cook, 1974, p. 184) In his work Lucas shows that there were similarities in language, religion and customs between these two groups of people.
  
  "Abundant proof of intimate connection between ancient Egyptians and the Yoruba may be produced under this head. Most of the principle gods were well known, at one time, to the Yoruba. Among these gods are Osiris, Isis, Horus, Shu, Sut, Troth, Khepera, Amon, Anu, Khonsu, Khnum, Khopri, Hathor, Sokaris, Ra, Seb, the elemental deities and others. Most of the gods survive in name or in attributes or in both" (Lucas, 1948, p.21)...

How are these authors regarded among the general community of scholars? Are you citing a mainstream author, or a crackpot? Citations to work dating from the 1940s aren't promising; most of our understanding of history has undergone at least one revolution since that time. Then again, I don't know Lucas; maybe he's just a founding figure who's universally cited as an authority without my knowing it.

Following this lead we can see that the development of a monotheistic religion had it roots in the land of Egypt. Although many have claimed that the religion of the Egyptians was polytheistic in fact it was not. Moses even went so far as to declare that Yahweh, like the God of Egypt, was one (Deut. vi.4). To the Egyptians Path was a spirit self created having no beginning or end. Path was the intelligence of the universe and it was his thoughts that produced the material world and everything in it. Path had power in the words that resided in his mouth. This idea was pointed out by Jablonski where he connected it with the Hebrew idea of how the world was created by their God. The idea of an all powerful god was developed in Egypt and spread with the migration of the Yoruba people. This spiritual conception of god and the universe was begun in the Nile valley 4000 years before the Christian era. Later we see Amen of Thebes be declared as having the same power and nature as Path.

Er... by "Path" you mean "Ptah," right?

In this case, I'd have to ask for a double-check against the opinions of someone who knows more about ancient Egyptian religion.

Also, that last sentence strikes me as the sort of thing written by someone trying to invent accomplishments for ancient Egypt more than anything else- why is the idea of an all-powerful deity somehow an advance over other ways to put together a mythos?

maybe an Egyptian statue of Bes made its way across Africa in some merchant's pack train and someone decided to make copies of the foreign-god-statue.

Sounds great! And I suppose those wandering merchants just happened to have extensive knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language as well as their religious practices and customs which they so easily passed on to those West Africans. Wandering merchants is a much more probable theory to explain the above than extensive contact or descent: roll:

Heavens forbid that like some of the other ancient civilizations and peoples in the Middle East and Europe some remnants of the ancient Egyptian culture and religion had influenced...West Africans..GASP !

Again, I saw that statue presented without context. With context, your case does not get a lot better, because it seems very heavily based off a relatively thin thread of argument. Much of it is linguistic, and I am not familiar with any linguistic evidence making the languages of West Africa descendants of ancient Egyptian. Linguistic similarities in isolated words aren't enough, or we could draw connections between the Greco-Roman use of the word "deus" for "god" and the appearance of "teo" in the names of Aztec deities or some such.

There are simply too many blank spaces in the historical record for us to justify trying to fill them in with highly specific speculations like "the Yoruba must be descended from the Egyptians because they made some vaguely similar statues at some point."

This is just one of those theories that you are uncomfortable with for what ever reason and will attempt to treat each piece of evidence supporting it as the sole reason for the theory and or attempt to dismiss or discredit those who may support it or not rule it out as a possibility.

In this case, it was the only piece of evidence I saw.

Look, if there's some broad scholarly tradition, based on multiple lines of evidence, for the idea that the Yorubans are an ancient Egyptian exodus-population... fine.* Much, much stranger things have happened. In that case, I'd like to see the same caliber of evidence I saw earlier, near the beginning of the thread- evidence in terms of genetics, in terms of evolution of language by mainstream linguists, large scale similarities of artistic themes and not just "oh look they have skulls so they're the same!" That sort of thing.

If all there is is a handful of guys who all reference each other's books over the period of half a century about vague similarities between the religious pantheons of two cultures (separated by exactly how many years?), that's a totally different proposition. There is a real difference between "one guy wrote a book" and "scholars have concluded that..." When it comes to archaeology in West Africa, I wouldn't know which category the ancient Egyptian origins of Yoruba culture fall into.

So please, enlighten me.
________

*At which point I must ask "so what?" What is the point? You have the air about you of a man trying to make some kind of general point, who has some grand thesis about the large-scale history of humanity... and yet I am not clear on what this general point is. Exactly what is it that you feel you have to prove? Or is there anything you feel you have to prove?

• “With Egypt at its roots, it is therefore inevitable that African herbal medicine became associated with magic. Amulets and charms were more common than pills as preventions or curatives of diseases. Priests, who were from the earliest days the forefathers of science and medicine, considered diseases as possession by evil demons and could be treated using incantations along with extracts from the roots of certain plants. The psychosomatic method of healing disorders used primarily by psychiatrists today is based loosely on this ancient custom.” Dr. Jonathan Olumide Lucas:Herbal Medicine From Africa.”

[/list]...

That's common throughout the ancient world- Mesopotamia, China, you name it. Use of amulets, charms, and "magic" to cure disease was routine everywhere.

I also find Lucas' assertion that this approach to psychiatry can be called "loosely based on" such a practice; again, this strikes me as the words of a man with an axe to grind.

The only reason to even present this as 'evidence,' especially when trying to "twelve [sic] into the clear cultural and religious similarities" between two people, is because one is grasping at straws.

No, I think it's more probable to say that you're just full shit when it comes to Africans and African history. Anyway I'm sure that you weren't aware of the comparison which has often been made between ram-headed breastplates from Lagos and the depiction of the Kemetic deity Amun:

In point of fact, I wasn't aware. Thing is, when I don't know things, I admit to not knowing them. I do not, however, accept that the moment you show me one thing I must be stampeded into accepting everything you say.

Look, kid, this is a common problem for everyone who wants to promote a hypothesis not generally accepted already. Every idea in scientific history started out with a substantial uphill climb- either a battle to create a theory where no one knew what to look for before (relativity, quantum mechanics), or a battle to promote a new theory over an older one that was not entirely without its virtues and reasonable defenders (this happens all the damn time in the social sciences).

Your problem is that as soon as people start asking for the kind of "big evidence" it takes to justify your big conclusions, you get offended and start insulting rather than seeking to educate. That is, generally, the sign of someone who's cherrypicking their evidence and trying to bluster past the fact that they don't understand the context well enough to address other people's problems with the theory. Someone who's so bound and determined to establish Internet cred with people who already uncritically accept his worldview* that the idea that his behavior is foolish simply does not occur to him.

Maybe you're the exception to that rule. I'd like to think so.

*his; this is a very male activity...

Triece, if you actually have a point with all this, go back to analysis of skeletons and DNA. When you were talking about that you at least weren't totally bullshitting us.

Funny now you want to run back to an argument revolving around biological affinities, because culture, linguistics and religion are pointing to something with to a dish with too much damn spice for your ass! The biological affinities of the early ancient Egyptians prove that they were essentially the same as Nubians and ancient Saharans, you don't/cant refute this fact, so enough said!

...Did you not get my point? I don't give a damn about trying to refute the notion that the ancient Egyptians were closely related to ancient Saharans. This hardly comes as a surpise to me. Why would I expect anything else, for God's sake? It's like expecting the ancient Irish to be closely related to the ancient English and Scots.

My point is that when you were arguing about this subject, you presented real, concrete evidence based on real objects that really exist. You know, skull measurements, DNA samples, stuff like that.

Whereas now, you are presenting unreal evidence based on what is, as far as I can tell, nothing but a lot of wild guessing. Your entire argument about the Egyptian origins of Yoruba culture seems to revolve around a handful of scholars who I don't know from Adam. People who may have known what they were talking about, or may have been crackpots with an axe to grind. I don't know.

If you want to present these people as experts whose opinions I should respect, when I know nothing about them, and know nothing about the underlying background that would lead me to conclude they are correct... well, you'd be well advised to show more evidence for that.

Otherwise, I might just proceed with the assumption that Yoruba religion, language, and culture are inventions of the Yoruba people and their ancestors in the immediate area, just like the religion, language, and culture of so many other peoples throughout the world.

I also find it ironic that in a thread titled "Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt," the original poster is now more interested in proving the Egyptian origins of cultures elsewhere in Africa.

The point of me even posting information about these West Africans was because Thanas made the bullshit assertion that no cultural legacy of ancient Egypt was present in any African civilization. When I pointed to the plausible suggestion that Voodoo originated in ancient Egypt and pointed to the undeniable connection that real art historians have made between a famous ancient Nok statue (also in Nigeria...go fucking figure) and ancient Egyptian social and religious custom, Broomstick upon reading this just felt so "appalled" that she literally busted a ball and went up and arms saying how she had to "THIS I have to put down right now. This is blatant bullshit" and how she wouldn't stand for this and what not. Rather than actually refuting the claim of Voodoo originated in ancient Egypt, she paraphrased an article about voodoo and it's variations around the new world, while simultaneously pretending to actually know shit about what she was pasting. I then shut her ass up with this:

"The origin of the Yoruba in Nigeria can not be clearly deciphered. It is believed that their primary ancestor, Oduduwa, came from Egypt. There are many variations and myths to how the Yoruba people came to be, and here is a couple of variations. Oduduwa is the legendary progenitor of the Yoruba. There are two variations of the story of how he achieved this feat."
http://www.uga.edu/aflang/YORUBA/ODUDUWA.htm

Showing that the very people who were credited as the main creators of Voodoo, believe and have believed for thousands of fucking years that they descend from Egypt. Thus lending support to the theory that the ideas of Voodoo may have been influence that came from Egyptian beliefs

Mythic ancestors don't count for much. The Aztecs believed their legendary king-god-figure had sailed off into the sunrise and would one day return to them from the eastern ocean. They turned out to be epically wrong. It happens.

What I'd like to see from you is evidence that this community of scholars like Lucas and his successors are more than just a small band of like-minded crackpots whose ideas you've latched onto as The Truth. The fact that you see discussion in terms of "shutting people's asses up" is not promising in this respect. Nor is the fact that you don't know enough about the people you debate with to make intelligent judgments. I know more about Broomstick than you, and I find it quite likely that she knows more about voodoo than you do- easily more than I do.

Instead some people just did what you did! Which was rather than do some actual fucking research on the subject, just dismissed that this statue was the only piece of evidence suggesting contact between ancient Egypt and West Africa. Obviously this assertion on your parts about the evidence for this has been proven wrong!

Triece...

YOU, not US, are the one making sweeping claims about whose culture comes from where. YOU, not US, are the one who has demonstrated utter impatience with anything less than total acceptance of the idea that the culture of X comes from Y. YOU, not US, are the one behaving like a grandstanding teenager trying to impress his friends with your ability to disrespect people who point out the silliness of what you're doing.

Therefore, YOU, not US, are obliged to show that you have a coherent case to make here. A handful of statues and one man's dreams, or even one university department's dreams, about proving that the Yoruba got their culture from ancient Egypt rather than inventing it themselves*, is not enough.

*As if it somehow reflects poorly on the Yoruba if their culture is their own... [snorts]

I wonder why...?

You tell me! By pushing the Yoruba belief stemming to the times of Christ that they descend from the Nile Valley am I somehow being "Afrocentric"? Are the Yoruba somehow "Afrocentric" because of their thousand plus year oral tradition of their origins? Does this bother you that some West Africans may have a connection to ancient Egypt? If so then why?

What I think is that you're trying to invent a glorious lineage for yourself.

First, you want to prove that "Africans," for some very nebulous definition of "Africans," invented the fruits of modern civilization- if not as the sole source of it, at least as a totally independent source that didn't have anything to do with anyone else. Since the obvious candidate for this invention of civilization is ancient Egypt, you focus on that, and on the (obviously strong) biological ties between the ancient Egyptians and other peoples living immediately around them during the same time- but only on the African ones, because anyone who does not live on the African continent is to be thrown out to the margins of this historical narrative.

Second, you want to prove that these Egyptians spread the fruits of this totally independent dark dark dark civilization to the rest of the "African" peoples, again for some nebulous definition of "African."

Third, I strongly suspect, you want to associate this nebulously defined Egyptian-African tradition with yourself, for reasons which I will not speculate. I doubt you were planning to do that last bit in public; it strikes me as a rather solitary vice.
_______

Now see, I don't feel a need to do this for myself.

I am quite capable of accepting that 2500 years ago my ancestors were nothing special. Like a lot of people at the time, they spent their days running around, building rather crude villages, and stabbing each other in tribal conflicts. They had a rich oral tradition, some really interesting artwork, a pantheon of deities we know little about today, and priest caste with a complex philosophical worldview we know even less about today. So did everyone else on the planet. This is at once something wonderful and unique... and nothing special.

Like a unique snowflake, the Celtic cultures of the British Isles and northern Europe c. 500 BC had all sorts of things no one else ever had before or since. Like a unique snowflake, those cultures were one of many others, all of whom had all sorts of things no one else ever had before or since. Like most unique snowflakes, they eventually melted when someone meaner and better equipped than they were showed up- in my case, the Romans and the characteristically late-Roman religion of 4th century Christianity.

Unlike, say, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian, or Mexican people (most of whom are 'traditionally' discriminated against according to the charming and primitive traditions of my ethnic group), I cannot say that my ancestors of the Iron Age produced a world-historical civilization whose ideas and culture are of significant historical note today.

This does not cause me to feel ego-pain. I can deal with this.

Can you?

[Duckie]

As a linguist , I'm no expert, but one: Without detailed language information on the Yoruba language and its manner of adopting loan words I can't reject or accept those linguistic parallels. Nonetheless, similar parallels have been found between quechua and chinese, yet we don't believe the Incan Empire was actually a Chinese Colony. The chance of chance resemblances between languages which use limited soundsets and have tons of words is huge, and while here the chance of a loan is higher due to lack of blatant improbability I wouldn't bet my career on it. Further, such a massive deletion from /xonsu/ (which I presume is how it's pronounced) to [osu] is unusual- one would expect kon?su (where ? is any vowel), kosu, hosu, or something. Even konsu or honsu assuming that '-ns-' is allowed in yoruba. If -ns- is allowed in yoruba, there's no reason to delete the n, which would make "Osu" a very unusual loan were it to be one.

Further, in proto-yoruba the 'kh' sound may or may not have existed, but I know for certain that a 'gh' sound did exist, and it's typologically rare (although possible) to be lacking /x/ while possessing /ɣ/.

However, a small criticism. Khonsu was not an important mood-god until the time of the Hittite Empire. The original moon god was named 'Jh3' or 'j3h' as I recall. Further, the god Path is Ptah, and Troth is actually Thoth but that's greek- a romanisation that closer captures the egyptian pronunciation is djehuty. Did the supposed transfer here happen before the New Kingdom?

[Bakustra]

Also, if Egypt was monotheistic, then what we know about Akhenaten and his reign is nonsensical. The whole idea (which Hinduism gets too) of conflating a philosophical monotheism with the totality of the religion is an elitist approach to the study of religion. If I were to say that Hindus were essentially monotheist because of the concept of Brahman, then I would be wrong, because of very critical differences in both the lay person's approach to their beliefs and between a monotheistic god and Brahman. Pretending that one myth associated with Ptah (and Ra was self-created in other myths, but was not the sole god) proves that there was but one god, and that this was generally accepted by the Egyptian populace, conflicts violently even with my limited knowledge of Egyptology. Perhaps you should either study or read more before making your arguments.

[Duckie]

Ugh, I'm going to double post here because I seriously fucked up some information in that post and didn't edit in time:
As a linguist, I'm no expert on religion of ancient egypt (though I've looked amateurly at some stuff for fun and the one thing you cannot say over the period of egypt's history of religion is that it ever had any single generalisation makeable), but one thing stands out to me: Without detailed language information on the Yoruba language and its manner of adopting loan words I can't reject or accept those linguistic parallels. I find the manner in which Khonsu supposedly became Osu, however, very unlikely, and no other examples are cited.

As an exemplar of what I feel to be a problem when looking at wordlists between languages without looking for phonetic correspondance in proto-languages with regular loanwords or actual documentary evidence of such a change, I will present the following fact: Similar parallels have been found between quechua and chinese, yet we don't believe the Incan Empire was actually a chinese colony because that would be absurd, and the level of similar words is within statistical limits- is it unusual, yes, but if you compare 30 languages that's thousands and thousands of possible connections, each one with a chance to just accidentally look like eachother. The chance of chance resemblances between languages which use limited soundsets and have tons of words is huge, and while here the chance of a loan is higher due to lack of blatant improbability I wouldn't bet my career on it.

However, assuming such a loan occured, such a massive deletion from /xonsu/ (which I presume is how it's pronounced) to [osu] is unusual- one would expect kon?su (where ? is any vowel), kosu, hosu, or something. Even konsu or honsu assuming that '-ns-' is allowed in yoruba. If -ns- is allowed in yoruba, there's no reason to delete the n, which would make "Osu" a very unusual loan were it to be one. I suspect based on the yoruba words and names I've encountered it's a strict CV language, and if so it'd be somewhat strange to drop so much markedness in the world (although possible, as like many west african languages as I recall it has a series of tones so perhaps it still had iconicity by virtue of that)

Further, in proto-yoruba the 'kh' sound may or may not have existed, but I know for certain that a 'gh' sound did exist, and it's typologically rare (although possible) to be lacking /x/ while possessing /ɣ/.

However, a small criticism. Khonsu was not an important mood-god until the time of the Hittite Empire. The original moon god was named 'Jh3' or 'j3h' as I recall, I cannot remember which. Further, the god Path is Ptah, and Troth is actually Thoth but that's greek- a romanisation that closer captures the egyptian pronunciation is djehuty. Did the supposed transfer here happen before the New Kingdom?

[Broomstick]

The whole issue with the Yoruba is a red herring - it is irrelevant to the origins of Ancient Egypt. Why is Big T going off about Western African cultures when he's supposed to be discussing Ancient Egypt?

[Big Triece]

I don't know, what the fuck are you so hopped up about?

Your blatant denial! When I presented the two statues never did I mention that they resembled one another in facial features (which evidently could be argued), instead I mentioned the skull necklace that both of these African Gods were sporting. You ignored that aspect that mentioned to start bitching about their facial features.

As for skull necklaces, again I don't know. Skulls are one of those things you see all over the world, wherever people have skulls;

I don't have a problem with you simply not knowing about this particular comparison. What I do have a problem with is your initial approach to the comparison. It was not called for, for you come out and criticize the comparing of the two African Gods, especially with you just admitting that you have limited knowledge of the subject.

Does Bes always have a skull necklace? Does this Yoruba god?

Bes does not always have a "skull" necklace, but other depictions of him show him sporting an animal like amulet. As far as Obatala is concerned this is the only ancient statue of the God.

Without a ton of context you didn't provide, the skull necklace doesn't mean a damn thing.

As far as I know there have been no scholars who have weighed in on this specific comparison, so I have no basis to attribute a specific meaning to necklace's. Needless to say however the ancient Egyptians nor Yorubans were not making fashion statements with those necklaces, that type of shit has meaning behind it.

But you've got such a sense of urgency, such a colossal fucking chip on your shoulder about this issue

Quit using these coward ass code phrases! Grow some balls and say what you really mean by "chip on your shoulder".

this is not how PharaohMentuhotep argues. I could give more examples, but he's the obvious one I can think of who you might actually listen to long enough to take seriously.

Ok point being? We are two different people, who just happen to agree on the key issue of the overall discussion of this thread. It's apparent that you fuckers do take him seriously as evident by how post have put you all on hush mode.

You on the other hand are person that 'I' do not take seriously! You seem to insist upon some alternative conclusion based on the evidence that has been presented in this thread main discussion, rather than the most obvious one. Your posts in this thread have been ignorable at best.

Damn sure it's the only piece I saw at the time, because the rest of your argument had been torn out because you carelessly violated copyright and then tried to stonewall when people asked you if you'd gotten permission to repost the content.

Ok sure fine here is the link to the study now shut the fuck up

Er... by "Path" you mean "Ptah," right?

Why are you referring to me? Did you not read where I stated that the information in the quotation was from a fucking study? Get your shit together!

In this case, I'd have to ask for a double-check against the opinions of someone who knows more about ancient Egyptian religion.

Then do it and let me know what you came out with!

Much of it is linguistic, and I am not familiar with any linguistic evidence making the languages of West Africa descendants of ancient Egyptian.

Check the study above.

Linguistic similarities in isolated words aren't enough

COUPLED WITH religious and cultural similarities, and the ancient Yoruba belief dating back over thousand years that they originally came from Egypt:

So let's review:

1. Confirmed strong linguistic ties

2. Cultural and Religious commonalities (Egyptian God's still being worshipped by the Yoruba)

3. The Yoruba belief that their original ancestor came from ancient Egypt to escape persecution from foreign rulers.

or we could draw connections between the Greco-Roman use of the word "deus" for "god" and the appearance of "teo" in the names of Aztec deities or some such.

What is the evidence to suggest that this clear linguistic tie? I have evidence to support my stance! Do the Aztecs believe that they descended from the Romans also? The Yoruba seem to be of the belief that they descend from the Nile Valley. They speak the language and practice the customs of the ancient inhabitants of the Nile Valley. Are they lying?

Look, if there's some broad scholarly tradition, based on multiple lines of evidence , for the idea that the Yorubans are an ancient Egyptian exodus-population... fine.*

And that's all I'm out to prove! When you and Broomstick came to me and stated similarly along the lines that this stance was absolute bullshit that was how this bullshit argument started.

In that case, I'd like to see the same caliber of evidence I saw earlier, near the beginning of the thread- evidence in terms of genetics

Genetics is not necessary to prove a cultural connection between the two civilizations, which was my main contention after Thanas stated that there was no such connection. As far as I know however there have been no genetic studies on this particular subject however.

in terms of evolution of language by mainstream linguists,

Check the study above and it's conclusion.

large scale similarities of artistic themes and not just "oh look they have skulls so they're the same!" That sort of thing.

"Large scale" what do you mean by this? Numerous scholars as well as art experts, have pointed to Egyptian influence in the ancient art work seen in modern day Nigeria. The link above of the Nok statue and comments of it's similarities with typical Egyptian social custom came from the website of an art museum in Minneanapolis. One would think that those individuals would have the credentials to make such call.

If all there is is a handful of guys who all reference each other's books over the period of half a century about vague similarities between the religious pantheons of two cultures (separated by exactly how many years?), that's a totally different proposition. There is a real difference between "one guy wrote a book" and "scholars have concluded that..." When it comes to archaeology in West Africa, I wouldn't know which category the ancient Egyptian origins of Yoruba culture fall into.

If you want a recent and objective analysis of this subject then I would suggest reading this 2007 study:

Ancient Egyptian origin of Yoruba of West Africa: A comprehensive scientific approach
by Salau, Abdulrazaq Danbaba, PhD, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, 2007:

• Abstract: This study deals with Ancient Egyptian and Yoruba of West Africa, an enduring historical problem in African historiography. This dissertation builds upon Lucas's book (Lucas 1948). The central argument of Lucas's book is that Yoruba originated from Ancient Egypt. A lot of African historians have uncritically accepted this view without corroborating their views with facts to affirm Lucas's thesis, and other strident historians like Westcott (1961), and Law (1973b) rejected Lucas arguments by challenging his linguistic method for factual flaws, and others like Law totally rejected Lucas hypothesis regarding Ancient Egyptian origin of Yoruba, both of these authors did not provide information why early Yoruba historians will be claiming Ancient Egyptian origin without any basis in history or objective reality. The rest of the historians have been ambivalent about Ancient Egyptian origin of Yoruba. The 'three schools' of Yoruba historiography: classicism, traditionalism, and pragmatism identified by Doortmont (1993) failed to resolve these issues of Ancient Egyptian origin of Yoruba. African historiography has attempted to resolve this issue of Ancient Egyptian origin of Yoruba, yet the issue remains unabated. In fact, a number of scholars have been examining this problem more or less thoroughly starting from 1942 the year which J.O. Lucas completed his doctoral dissertation. In 1948 the dissertation was published into a book. After publication of Lucas's book there have been many important developments in African history, namely accessibility to scholarly materials, new techniques, and documents which made method of doing research to change these new techniques and changes must be fully integrated into to the conduct of current research in African history. The aim of this dissertation is to resolve the issue of Ancient Egyptian origin of Yoruba. That is why it is indispensable and imperative now that after sixty-five years, to assess and evaluate this historical problem of Yoruba origin and Ancient Egyptians systematically. What I propose to do in this dissertation is to get precise facts to prove relationships between Ancient Egyptians and Yoruba of West Africa. My training in Ancient Egyptian language, and my knowledge of Yoruba and Hausa languages as a native speaker both prepare and give me competence, and understanding to explore significant research questions comprehensively.

So please, enlighten me.

The above should!

Exactly what is it that you feel you have to prove? Or is there anything you feel you have to prove?

First of all you are attacking the wrong person with this question! Why not as Thanas what point was he trying to prove when he stated that ancient Egypt had no cultural connection with any other civilization that is the reason why this was even brought up. A question that I think you and others (Broomstick) should ask yourselves is why is this stance, one that get's you all so riled up? I did not call you out when I presented the study of the two civilizations earlier and the statues, but you felt the need to call it "bullshit"! Why? You obviously saw that a critical piece of evidence to relay my point had been removed, so why not just ask for a link to examine argument instead of rejecting the stance as hogwash?

That's common throughout the ancient world- Mesopotamia, China, you name it. Use of amulets, charms, and "magic" to cure disease was routine everywhere.

Here's another good article on this particular subject from The East West School of Planetary Herbology.

In point of fact, I wasn't aware. Thing is, when I don't know things, I admit to not knowing them. I do not, however, accept that the moment you show me one thing I must be stampeded into accepting everything you say.

There is nothing wrong with being objective. The thing is you came into this particular topic with your mind dead set on disproving my implications as "bullshit". Why would an open minded person without a particular prejudice or bias who admittedly has limited knowledge on a subject be so decisive as to what stance he or she will take? Point is your initial statements were unwarranted.

Look, kid

Younger people tend to be more open minded about new things as opposed to old fossils who's necks have become so damn stiff that they can't even glance into the next lane, so I'll take this as a compliment.

Your problem is that as soon as people start asking for the kind of "big evidence" it takes to justify your big conclusions, you get offended and start insulting rather than seeking to educate.

You Wrote:

Triece, if you actually have a point with all this, go back to analysis of skeletons and DNA. When you were talking about that you at least weren't totally bullshitting us.

Statements like that do not suggest that an individual wants to be "educated", rather that they want to start a pissing match! If you wanted to be "educated" then the civil thing to ask would have been more along the lines of "Do you have anything else to support your assertions". Not insinuating that I am attempting to mislead other people, by presenting what I seen evidence for my stance. In the world that I'm from such comments are considered "insults " and are meant to start either an argument or a fight!

People like Thanas (who started this shit), regardless of what ever credentials he's said to have, clearly has his own prejudices that block his better judgment. No serious scholar would claim that ancient Egypt had no cultural connection with other African civilizations, or Middle Eastern or European for that matter. A serious question about objectivity of members on this forum is why is that statement that he made not held to such scrutiny as me attempting to refute it? Is stressing the predominantly African roots and cultural connection of ancient Egypt and inner Africa, that which has been long denied (now refuted) by early Western scholars the equivalent of witch craft to you? Why deny the scholarly support for my stances, but support the blatant prejudices of people opposing it?

that the idea that his behavior is foolish simply does not occur to him.

YOU don't have the credibility to lecture anyone on motives and foolish behavior! Your motive in this entirely thread was simply to deny the likelihood of the ancient Egyptians being was we in America would consider "black". When the question was asked was asked who disagrees with the biological fact that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous dark skinned Africans, you absolutely oozing with your own political motive/prejudice in response state:

"If by "dark skinned" you mean "most of them were darker than all but the swarthiest Europeans, and on average they were way darker than the average European," which is what people usually mean by "dark skinned," yeah I'm sure the ancient Egyptians were dark skinned. Most people are; being dark-skinned by that definition is normal for humans. Much like black hair. Deviations from the general 'brownish skin, blackish hair' range- including even darker skin, or lighter skin and hair- are what's weird"

You are so full of shit that, even with you lacking anything resembling counter evidence could not even admit to that biological fact, without putting your own politically motivated spin on it. So no, don't lecture me on honesty and foolish behavior. Hell you probably don't even possess the honesty to admit that this entire debate is for fucking political purposes, I will admit it! Anyone who spent the last month engaging in this debate obviously has a political motive that they want to prove. Broomstick admitted that she wanted to prove that Egypt was "multiracial", but still predominantly black throughout early to mid dynastic times. This is something I can I agree, though I do disagree on what constitutes calling a civilization "multiracial". Will you actually have the balls to admit that you want to prove that Egypt was non black? Just a stint on honesty!

Did you not get my point? I don't give a damn about trying to refute the notion that the ancient Egyptians were closely related to ancient Saharans.

Notice you didn't list the Nubians as well who were mentioned right along side of the Saharans

My point is that when you were arguing about this subject, you presented real, concrete evidence based on real objects that really exist. You know, skull measurements, DNA samples, stuff like that.

So I guess that those ancient Europeans who worshipped Egyptian Gods and Goddess, must have looked like Egyptians because that fact? Since when does cultural influence require genetic input? In fact I believe that is something that Broomstick kept shouting. If the ancient Yoruba belief is correct that just one migration of East Africans settled in that West African region and peacefully integrated with indigenous peoples of the region, then the likelihood of the East Africans retaining a unique craniometric form after over a thousand years is slim to none. The genetics of modern Yoruba people show an input of 10-20% in the genetic profile from Eastern Africa. Take from that what will!

Mythic ancestors don't count for much.

This is a tactical thing with you isn't it?

*As if it somehow reflects poorly on the Yoruba if their culture is their own... [snorts]

Case and Point!

What I think is that you're trying to invent a glorious lineage for yourself.

For what ever idea that you think that the Yoruba-Egyptians connection might make, I think that it strikes the fear of God in people in like you.

First, you want to prove that "Africans," for some very nebulous definition of "Africans," invented the fruits of modern civilization

When did 'I' state that or even insinuate it? Is this your basis for such denial?

you focus on that, and on the (obviously strong) biological ties between the ancient Egyptians and other peoples living immediately around them during the same time- but only on the African ones

Dumbass that's because the "AFRICAN ONES" are the only one's whom they slow overlapping biological affinity with. I can't help that this fact hurts your wishful thinking, but I'm not about to bow to your feelings by compromising this fact. You and all of you cohorts had almost 10 fucking pages to present your case in regards to biological evidence (or any legit evidence for that matter) to Mentuhotep and I....None of you did! Instead after proved our case via biological affinity you all just bitched and moaned about "how black were they? Were they mocha brown, coal black, high yella, ect ect ect" and pathetic side stepping bullshit like that. Placing your motives in the skin tone of these ancient Africans. Here is your post below confirming your this:

Which Northeast Africans? "Northeast African" covers a very wide range of skin tones, a lot of different kinds of facial structures, and a lot of different ethnic groups.

To which I answered!

Second, you want to prove that these Egyptians spread the fruits of this totally independent dark dark dark civilization to the rest of the "African" peoples

Your obsession with skin tone...smh! The also spread their fruits to Europe and the Middle East as well. So why bitch about the other African enjoying the fruits?

Third, I strongly suspect, you want to associate this nebulously defined Egyptian-African tradition with yourself

I don't practice Yoruba culture so how would this change the perspective that I have in my day to day life? The main new world blacks who practice Yoruba culture are in Latin America, especially Brazil. One documentary show those black Brazilians in the North worshipping the Yoruban Ocean God, which is one of the Yoruba God's that is said to have roots Egypt. I could post the video if you'd like. Would this bother you somehow?

Now see, I don't feel a need to do this for myself.

What would that be research?

I am quite capable of accepting that 2500 years ago my ancestors were nothing special.

I don't know who my specific ancestors are, I just know that they came from Africa. Therefore I look at all African history and see it collectively. It's something that we in America just tend to do...it's a "social custom".

This does not cause me to feel ego-pain. I can deal with this. Can you?

This is that coding that I was talking about earlier; just say what you want to say, I promise I won't call Al Sharpton!

[Big Triece]

The whole issue with the Yoruba is a red herring - it is irrelevant to the origins of Ancient Egypt. Why is Big T going off about Western African cultures

Because ignorantly Thanas stated that there was no African civilization that had cultural ties with ancient Egypt.

when he's supposed to be discussing Ancient Egypt?

That's pretty much settled, they were indigenous Northeast Africans, most closely related to more southerly Northeast Africans.

[Edi]

You're so full of shit it's oozing out of your ears, Big Triece.

You're again referring to that same circulation draft whose author is unknown and who references all the same things that you have already paraded before us. Show us the goddamn peer reviewed published version of that study and we might take you seriously. It doesn't help your case that googling the name of the author of that study (Aldometo Kakpo-Cici) yields a grand total of zero hits. ZERO. That in itself is pretty damning and this Sandro Capochichi doesn't garner a whole lot more.

The most prominent links lead to the Egypt Search forum, which we are familiar with. A hive of illiterate black supremacist racist fuckwits who can't string together a coherent argument even with remedial basic English instruction, so if you're going to use them as source for anything, you're just going to get dismissed out of hand.

From a cursory perusal of that document forum you linked, it's pretty clear that whoever wrote it doesn't seem to have the first fucking idea about just how adulterated the West African tribal religions have become by Islam. The attempts at transplanting the Egyptian deities over there, especially given how the Yoruba alone had more than 1700 deities, is patently ridiculous. I'd be more surprised if there wasn't overlap, since for example there is a New Mexican deity that is exactly analogous to one of the major Yoruba deities even though its name is completely different.

You also whined about people using cowardly code words and phrases when they said you had a chip on your shoulder. Let me spell it out for you then:

You seem to be an afrocentrist black supremacist who has already made up his mind and thinks his internet googling skills are so awesome that he can refute the vast body of actual scientific evidence for positions he dislikes by quoting some crackpots and then yelling loudly enough. You're a right fucking embarrassment is what you are. But keep sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALAAA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!" and maybe the world will go away.

You really must have slipped a whole lot of grandeur into your delusions this morning.

Now would you kindly fucking abandon this irrelevant Yoruba tangent and get back to the ancient Egypt part, which was the topic of this thread?