“Pygmy” is another pejorative. He’s racking them up, isn’t he?
That’s < 1/3 Bantu vs Non-Bantu.
Those who have read Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey may have noticed mention of bronze weapons. Although these epic poems are believed to have been composed about 800 B.C., they were based on oral traditions, and the Trojan War is believed to have been fought during about 1200 B.C.
The Old Testament Book of Judges mentions that the Canaanites often had iron, that the Israelites did not, and this gave the Canaanites an advantage. The first book of Samuel mentions that the possession of Iron technology gave the Philistines an advantage.
Modern archaeological evidence identifies the start of iron production as taking place in Anatolia around 1200 BC, though some contemporary archaeological evidence points to earlier dates…
In Africa, where there was no continent-wide universal Bronze Age, the use of iron succeeded immediately the use of stone.[4] Metallurgy was characterized by the absence of a Bronze Age, and the transition from “stone to steel” in tool substances. Sub-Saharan Africa has produced very early instances of carbon steel found to be in production around 2000 years before present in northwest Tanzania…Nubia was one of the relatively few places in Africa to have a sustained Bronze Age along with Egypt and much of the rest of North Africa.
Iron smelting and forging technologies may have existed in West Africa among the Nok culture of Nigeria as early as the sixth century B.C.
“Before present” means before 1950, the year carbon 14 dating was invented. Before 600 B.C. the ancestors of American Negroes were living in the stone age, although they had developed primitive agriculture. By 600 B.C. Caucasians and Chinese had developed great civilizations with cities, writing, and mathematics. The American Indians were beginning to develop the same.
It is again and again simply an argument that is made up of the Just So Stories and not coherent internally.
Can’t even read your own cites, can you? [
This is the Pit, dipshit. You’re all “Mrs. Manners” in the middle of a food fight. Civility is for GD. Here, we get to throw pies at your stupid face.
You and brazil84 are the SDMB villiage idiots. Even a genius gets to mock the idiots every one in a while.
To summarize the last several posts- analysis of Most Recent Common Ancestors for several populations in Africa shows that it’s absurd to consider sub-Saharan Africans as one race. According to NDD’s own cites (and mine), the African ancestors of many African-Americans (and the rest of the New World African diaspora) are more closely related to Europeans and Asians than to many of the other African populations from which African-Americans can trace their ancestry to. Also, according to NDD’s cites, sub-Saharan Africans were at the forefront of technologies like ironworking and steel production.
Discoveries of very early copper and bronze working sites in Niger, however, can still support that iron working may have developed in that region and spread elsewhere. Iron metallurgy has been attested very early, the earliest instances of iron smelting in Termit, Niger may date to as early as 1200 BC.[12] It was once believed that iron and copper working in Sub-Saharan Africa spread in conjunction with the Bantu expansion, from the Cameroon region to the African Great Lakes in the 3rd century BC, reaching the Cape around AD 400.[12]
Sub-Saharan Africa has produced very early instances of carbon steel found to be in production around 2000 years before present in northwest Tanzania, based on complex preheating principles. These discoveries, according to Schmidt and Avery (archaeologists credited with the discovery) are significant for the history of metallurgy.[58]
At the end of the Iron Age, Nubia became a major manufacturer and exporter of iron. This was after being expelled from Egypt by Assyrians, who used iron weapons.[59]
Notice the use of the word “may.”
In 730 BCE, the Nubians again invaded northern Egypt, and the Nubian king, Piankhi, moved his capital to Memphis and started Egypt’s 25th dynasty…
The Assyrians came, drove out the Nubian king and brought with them to Egypt the knowledge of iron making and iron tools and weapons. Iron making became common in Egypt, and it spread south along the Nile to Nubia…
By 500 BCE, a civilization where Nigeria is today was in full bloom. It smelted and forged iron for tools.
The informed consensus is that except for the Nubians and perhaps the Ethopians, the Negroes were late leaving the stone age.
Oh, puh-leeze. By now, it’s well established that every word you write, including “a”, “an”, and “the”, is something you make up.
Well, duh, “1200” is twice as big as “600”, so it was obviously later.
Ah, so the fact that Bart Sibrel got Buzz Aldrin mad enough to punch his lights out proves that the moon hoaxers are right. Gotcha.
(Of course, the ultimate proof is that the so-called “astronauts” failed to bring back any cheese.)
But you haven’t answered the key question: Do Nubians and Ethiopians take sugar in their porridge?
Who are the “Negroes”? Are the Bamileke and the Kikuyu both Negroes? If so, how does that jive with the fact that the Bamileke are more closely related to Europeans and Asians than to the Kikuyu?
Not as late as Japan.
Claiming you have the “truth” is something only zealots do. You wouldn’t know the difference between anger, indignant or mockery as you’re too busy comparing the color of your turds to that of the guy next to you.
:rolleyes: Yes - it may have been 1200BCE, or it may have been even earlier[:
](http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3432&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html)
The “informed consensus” says nothing of the sort.
Trick question; the Negro doesn’t take sugar, they must beg for it from the White Man!
…He says as he flames the entire human race; yet with civility and intelligence.
24-06-2002 10:00 pm Paris - Africa developed its own iron industry some 5,000 years ago, according to a formidable new scientific work from UNESCO Publishing that challenges a lot of conventional thinking on the subject.Iron technology did not come to Africa from western Asia via Carthage or Merowe as was long thought, concludes “Aux origines de la métallurgie du fer en Afrique, Une ancienneté méconnue: Afrique de l’Ouest et Afrique centrale”. The theory that it was imported from somewhere else, which - the book points out - nicely fitted colonial prejudices, does not stand up in the face of new scientific discoveries, including the probable existence of one or more centres of iron-working in west and central Africa andthe Great Lakes area…
Tests on material excavated since the 1980s show that iron was worked at least as long ago as 1500 BC at Termit, in eastern Niger, while iron did not appear in Tunisia or Nubia before the 6th century BC. At Egaro, west of Termit, material has been dated earlier than 2500 BC, which makes African metalworking contemporary with that of the Middle East.
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3432&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
This is a minority viewpoint, expressed in only one book. It deserves to be viewed with skepticism. If iron technology developed in sub Saharan Africa over two thousand years before we know it developed in Anatolia we would expect it to have reached Egypt much earlier than it did, from Assyria.
Although the article says that the book will be translated from French to English in 2002, I was not able to find mention of the English translation. Unless someone else can find it I will suspect that there was no English translation, because the assertions made in the book are dubious.
Magnificent, we have again the display of the method of your Fables of Esope story telling.
First you make a naked assertion, and contorted logic where if some populations of the black africans developedthe metullurgies late - but others did not, so they are not the blacks any more for this specific point
But then the lateness of some of the caucasians - in fact many caucasian populations in your scheme is ‘whitened out’ by your ever changing ad hoc race borders. And it is the same for the ‘Orientals’ - by the magic argument any one small population that becomes advanced on a point makes the entire “race” smarter and any retardations in developments by others is ignored or excused. So the Japon or the Polynesians (or even the Americans) are late to metullurgy, it has no meaning. but if one population you name black is late, ah, voilà the proof that all the blacks, they are stupid.
There is no consistency in your standards or logics. It is all clearly ad hoc and based only on hostility and hate. That is very sad to see.
Yes, and he descends into silence when it is shown his made up story about Bantus and American blacks is nonsense.
There is no science, it is all the Fables of Esope.
Does not count of course. Just because.
It is like his other statements, it is the fabulation to support prejudices, and has no thing to do with a scientific reading of the evidences.