Il y a là-dedans des choses extrêmement intéressantes et d'autres qui le sont moins, voire qui frisent la mauvaise foi ou l'extravagance. Il faut donc faire la part des choses, ce qui n'est pas facile à un non spécialiste. Donc : ouvrage utile mais dangereux...
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
70 internautes sur 81 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Worthwhile18 juin 2011
- Publié sur Amazon.com
I ordered this book the moment that I became aware of its existence and that its subject matter focused on Nabta Playa. Previously, I had obtained Thomas Brophy's "The Origin Map" which also focused upon the Nabta Playa megaliths and the "Cowstone" found there. Prior to that I had eagerly devoured the online report by Fred Wendorf on the discovery and excavation of Nabta Playa. The revelation that semi-nomadic pastoralists had constructed such monuments during the Green Sahara period was fascinating to me.
Since information on that period seemed to be so sparse, I was eager for any additional scraps anyone might have written. My main interest in Egypt and North Africa in general lay in the times long before the rise of Ancient Egyptian civilization. Although I had visited Egypt, the dynastic periods did not hold the same fascination that it does for so many. Likewise, I could not care less what the skin pigmentation of the Ancient Egyptians may have been. I was, however, fairly certain that the source of Ancient Egyptian culture had been indigenous to Africa and would have been very surprised to learn that those people were very much different from those depicted in the rock art of the prehistoric Sahara. Thus the whole thrust of the "Black" part of the title was a non-starter for me and if I had thought the whole book was on the subject of the racial origins of the AE's, I would not have bothered reading it. Fortunately, it was not. And it is for that part that it rates the three stars from me. Had the book dwelled at greater length on the nomadic pastoralists and their culture in the Green Sahara, I might have given it two more. The sections on early exploration of the Sahara were equally interesting but also too brief for me.
The most intriguing idea brought up in the book was the matter of how the Nabta Playans had known of the bedrock formation from which they quarried the Cowstone, why they went to such lengths to carve it and why they would then rebury it. Wendorf, a staid mainstream archaeologist, presented a speculative scenario which which stopped just short of the paranomal. To me, it was a completely unsatisfactory one. Thomas Brophy's speculation that the Cowstone had been carved much, much earlier than the surface megalithic "henge" made considerably more sense from a rational point of view. This in itself is rather ironic coming from a book coauthored by a writer renown for his "alternative" theories, Robert Bauval.
Throughout this book it is difficult to tell when Brophy leaves off and Bauval picks up but it seems that a little over half way through, Bauval begins to dominate the writing as it turns to his astrotheological theories put forth in his previous books with Graham Hancock. Again, as the discussion turned to dynastic times, my interest waned but that's just me. I'm sure others will find it worthy of many more inconclusive, interminable arguments on the Ancient Egyptians and their culture.
The value of this book, to me lies in the presentation of more information on the predynastic and Neolithic periods of the Sahara. Compared to the later periods those times are vastly underreported, at least as far as the layman is concerned. I certainly appreciate the additional facts the authors have presented for us. My only complaint is that I wish Black Genesis had focused more on those Neolithic people but if it had, I imagine this would have been a very slim volume indeed. It is to be hoped that further expeditions into the deep desert will yield more books and revelations on this little known period and its people.
54 internautes sur 62 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Wow become familiar with Nabta Playa! great job Mr. Bauval, a fresh new book that continues to tie Egypts roots to Africa23 juillet 2011
- Publié sur Amazon.com
Wow other Africans in the deserts of Africa west of Egypt, a brown people who came out of the Sahara were lining stones up to the stars Sirius and the constellation of Orion/Osiris way before the pyramids were built. Bauval seems to believe these Africans settled in Egypt and brought their science and astronomical know how with them. The book is very convincing. Anyone who is familiar with esoteric schools of thought these stars were very important to the Egyptians because of their association with Isis and Osiris for these stars to be associated in importance with another group of Africans that predate the Pharoahs says a lot. It is also good to see the Bauval/Hancock camp join forces with the Diop Afrocentric School of thought....I can feel the critics trembling, speaking of which...I have been noticing this for a while now...Its funny how people who hate Afrocentrism actually track down Afrocentric books to write negative comments about them, not a psychologist but a little extreme you think....saying that, some of the negative reviews are wrong mainly because it misses a very important point. The critics always associate Negro with West African or Black with West African.....for Diop, Shomarka Keita, and now Bauval you are either a Indigenous African or you are not. The argument is real simple. What bothers certain people about this line of thinking is that Bauval now and others before him have no problem equating indigenous African with black. Shomarkas work in anthropology and genetics has shown how diverse Africans "Blacks" are they have evolved these different looks or phenotypes because Africans have been living on the planet longer than any other "race" (see Louis Leakey and others).......as far as Zawi Hawaas comments about the Egyptians not being Black.....is Zawi not an Arab lol how much ancient Egypt is tied up in modern Arab nationalism affects his statements and conclusions only a blind man can not see it.....as far as the 25th Dynasty being the only Blacks in Egypt, no they are just some more Africans in much the same way the Egyptians were also Africans they looked different from the Egyptians but never the less are still Africans ( I will say this an often overlooked fact the Nubians painted themselves brownish red the SAME way the Egyptians did when you go look in the Nubian tombs many people are not aware of this because all the focus is on Egypt and not Nubia) the way people from China and people from India are still Asians.....what the heck the way people from Germany and people from Italy are still Europeans. Stop separating the tree from the root.....the Egyptians came out of the Sahara/Savannah when it dried up, last time I checked the Sahara was not in Europe?
23 internautes sur 26 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Mainstream evidence corroborates with this book that the Ancient Egyptians were Black.31 mars 2012
- Publié sur Amazon.com
A must read for anyone interested in Ancient Egypt. This book shows that the Ancient Egyptian civilization didn't sprung up out of nowwhere, but was actually a gradual evolution that started thousands of years ago, a few miles below the Nile Valley, from a advanced Black civilization. And when the Sahara dried up, you'll see that these people disappeared, and it is at that moment that you have the appearance of the Ancient Egyptian civilization. This book outlines many similarites between this civilization and the Ancient Egyptian civilization. This prehistoric civilization where doing the same Astronomy that the Pyramid builders were doing thousands of years later. One major interesting fact about this book is that this prehistoric civilization where aware of something in Astronomy called Precession. This was something that was believed to be discovered by the Greeks, but this book shows that it was known by this prehistoric civlization.
This book also has mainstream science backing it up. This book mentions that these prehistoric people had their origins in East Africa. And many people dont know, or dont wanna know, that it has been conclusively proven by mainstream science that the Ancient Egyptians were East Africans. Below is a peer-reviewed article from a man who is considered to be an authority on this subject, S.O.Y Keita. It shows that the Ancient Egyptian civilization where started by indigenous, North East Africans. Ancient Egypt was a Black civilization from beginning until about the end of the New Kingdom when admixture took place because of immigration from Middle Eastern and European people. On a side note, I wanted to mention to not be confused when you come across odd info relating to the race of the Ancient Egyptians. For example, if you're researching on the race of the Ancient Egyptian, you might come across info that says that Ramses had red or blond hair, but that actually is more evidence that the Ancient Egyptians were East Africans. If you google "somali henna hair" you'll find pictures of Somalians with red hair and blond hair. Here goes the article :
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient EgyptiansProfessor S.O.Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University
Professor A. J. Boyce University Reader in Human Population Oxford University
What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt--which led to the dynastic culture--migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?
These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Ku****es, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.
Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.
The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Ku****es and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.
There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.
This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.
The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.
The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (M
In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.
Angel, J. L., and J. O. Kelley, Description and comparison of the skeleton. In The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic Burial from Southern Egypt. E Wendorf and R. Schild. pp. 53-70. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. 1986
Brauer, G., and K. Rimbach, Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications, Journal of Human Evolution 19:789-807. 1990
Drake, St. C., Black Folk Here and There, vol 1. Los Angeles: University of California. 1987
Keita, S.O.Y., Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships. History in Africa 20:129-154. 1993
Mahmoud, L. et. al, Human blood groups in Dakhlaya. Egypt. Annah of Human Biology. 14(6):487-493. 1987
Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993
Petrie, W.M., F. The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. 1984
Thoma, A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khaterman. Journal of Human Evolution 13:287-296. 1984
Here is another peer reviewed article from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. This peer reviewed study confirms that Nubians were a better representation of early ancient Egyptians than Late Dynastic Egyptians were, because those Late Dynastic Egyptians experienced significant admixture with invading and migrant Mediterranean populations. So that means that the ancient Egyptians originally lacked biological affinities with Mediterranean populations, but rather had affinities with more southerly Northeast African populations.
"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.
Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520-528"
Here is some more info. Here is a statement from the Oxford Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt (wrote by an Afrocentric critic BTW)
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
"must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)
And here is a article from renowned professor Christopher Ehret.
Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.
The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.
A new religion came with them as well. Its central tenet explains the often localized origins of later Egyptian gods: the earliest Afrasians were, properly speaking, neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. Instead, each local community, comprising a clan or a group of related clans, had its own distinct deity and centered its religious observances on that deity. This belief system persists today among several Afrasian peoples of far southwest Ethiopia. And as Biblical scholars have shown, Yahweh, god of the ancient Hebrews, an Afrasian people of the Semitic group, was originally also such a deity. The connection of many of Egypt's predynastic gods to particular localities is surely a modified version of this early Afrasian belief. Political unification in the late fourth millennium brought the Egyptian deities together in a new polytheistic system. But their local origins remain amply apparent in the records that have come down to us.
During the long era between about 10,000 and 6000 B.C., new kinds of southern influences diffused into Egypt. During these millennia, the Sahara had a wetter climate than it has today, with grassland or steppes in many areas that are now almost absolute desert. New wild animals, most notably the cow, spread widely in the eastern Sahara in this period.
One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.
One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.
Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East. Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era.
But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)
Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.
From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.
One key feature of classical Egyptian political culture, usually assumed to have begun in Egypt, also shows strong links to the southern influences of this period. We refer here to a particular kind of sacral chiefship that entailed, in its earliest versions, the sending of servants into the afterlife along with the deceased chief. The deep roots and wide occurrence of this custom among peoples who spoke Eastern Sahelian languages strongly imply that sacral chiefship began not as a specifically Egyptian invention, but instead as a widely shared development of the Middle Nile Culture Area.
After about 3500 B.C., however, Egypt would have started to take on a new role vis-a-vis the Middle Nile region, simply because of its greater concentration of population. Growing pressures on land and resources soon enhanced and transformed the political powers of sacral chiefs. Unification followed, and the local deities of predynastic times became gods in a new polytheism, while sacral chiefs gave way to a divine king. At the same time, Egypt passed from the wings to center stage in the unfolding human drama of northeastern Africa.
A Note on the Use of Linguistic Evidence for History
Languages provide a powerful set of tools for probing the cultural history of the peoples who spoke them. Determining the relationships between particular languages, such as the languages of the Afrasian or the Nilo-Saharan family, gives us an outline history of the societies that spoke those languages in the past. And because each word in a language has its own individual history, the vocabulary of every language forms a huge archive of documents. If we can trace a particular word back to the common ancestor language of a language family, then we know that the item of culture connoted by the word was known to the people who spoke the ancestral tongue. If the word underwent a meaning change between then and now, a corresponding change must have taken place in the cultural idea or practice referred to by the word. In contrast, if a word was borrowed from another language, it attests to a thing or development that passed from the one culture to the other. The English borrowing, for example, of castle, duke, parliament, and many other political and legal terms from Old Norman French are evidence of a Norman period of rule in England, a fact confirmed by documents.
Ehret, Christopher, Nilo-Saharans and the Saharo-Sahelian Neolithic. In African Archaeology: Food, Metals and Towns. T. Shaw, P Sinclair, B. Andah, and A. Okpoko, eds. pp. 104-125. London: Routledge. 1993
Ehret, Christopher, Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone Consonants, and Vocabulary. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Berkeley. 1995
Wendorf, F., et al., Saharan Exploitation of Plants 8000 Years B.P. Nature 359:721-724. 1982
Wendorf, F., R. Schild, and A. Close, eds. Cattle-Keepers of the Eastern Sahara. Dallas: Southern Methodist University, Department of Anthropology. 1984
68 internautes sur 88 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Great book even If some can't face the truth!5 juin 2011
- Publié sur Amazon.com
I borrowed this book from a friend. I found it to very interesting and could not put it down. I plan on buying the book myself to share with others. The writers place egypt where it belongs as a african society founded by blacks. Some reviewers can't face this truth, and gave the book poor marks because of it, not because it was a bad book.THE ANCIENT EGYPTAINS WERE NOT CAUCASIAN, FACE IT!!!GO CHECK THE FACTS!!Anyway read this book, and have an open mind!
20 internautes sur 25 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THE CURRENT MID-EAST CRISIS6 juillet 2012
Robert Steven Thomas
- Publié sur Amazon.com
I was expecting this book would be a follow-up to Thomas Brophy's breakthrough, but highly controversial 2005 book "The Origin Map," further detailing the history-altering archeological discoveries at Nabta Playa. While it is an update of sorts, "Black Genesis" deals less with the scientific/historical anomalies at Nabta Playa that make it invaluable for a correct understanding of world history and more with the surrounding new discoveries and contemporary political drama. While disappointed that Bauval & Brophy did not continue to discuss the challenge this ancient ruin provides to the falsehoods maintained by mainstream science and history, I still rate it five-star because of the up-dating of status for the actual archeological ruins and the Egyptian government's shameful conduct in failing to protect this irreplaceable international archeological treasure. (Many of the key megalithic, inscribed, marker-stones have actually been removed, broken and discarded during the last five-years, with the Egyptian government's participation in an effort to hide the paradigm-changing evidence at this location.) The book is especially important because it contains first-hand accounts of the diabolical lengths mainstream Egyptologists in the Egyptian government and archeological organizations like the UNESCO World Heritage will resort to; in an effort to distort the honest account of the true history of human evolution. A pox on each of their houses! Particularly revealing is the arrogant display and unbridled dishonesty Egyptian Head of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass has gone to in an effort to alter and undermine an honest, free-flow of information to the public on this and other critically important examples of Egyptian world heritage. The book has all of the classical elements of archeological adventure, intrigue, challenge and political dishonesty worthy of an "Indiana Jones" novel. But, it is important that more people are made aware of the archeological treasures at Nabta Playa, their importance to history and the corruption and distruction the new "Muslim Brotherhood" governments now forming in Egypt and Libya may resort to in an effort to extend their power and religious fanaticism. Intelligent Intervention