The Ancient Egyptian on the right looks White.
The Ancient Egyptian on the right looks White.
Gotta separate artistic license from evidentiary re-creation. They LOOK Middle Eastern, but without knowing the context of those statues --- means nothing.
I believe the Egyptians Dynasties probably integrated heavily with lower Africa. Maybe started out that way. But ANY empire like that has legions of workers, soldiers, intellectuals from the far reaches of their empire and their trading sphere.
Aw STFU -- my bet is ALL of the research seems to be done at Brown University by 2 guys. And my bet is -- they're probably white.Could be wrong. Now you just sound bitter and angry. Which might be your normal state. ALL of the Tanzanian history record is just RACIST.. And there's NO evidence because it was never valuable to "white people".. Listen to yourself.. Go dig under that tree where the "wise men" said the kiln was. Don't blame Whitey or the internet for lack of a single PHYSICAL piece of evidence.
What the hell is wrong with the Haya people. Ain't they got shovels and little wisk brooms?
I'm afraid it's the truth flacaltenn. You might not want to bet. Plenty of evidence exists supporting hat you have been shown. But if we shown you it's from African scholars you want to discount it like whites are the only ones who define what facts are. They aren't. Learn that. As quickly as possible.
I've done more "learning:" on this than you probably have. Traced the story to it's roots. Cannot find a single shred of HARD PHYSICAL archaeological evidence on the existence of that metal work.. Now would be time to educate. If you got it -- show it. Otherwise, keep your racism and ad homs to yourself..
The Ancient Egyptian on the right looks White.
Gotta separate artistic license from evidentiary re-creation. They LOOK Middle Eastern, but without knowing the context of those statues --- means nothing.
I believe the Egyptians Dynasties probably integrated heavily with lower Africa. Maybe started out that way. But ANY empire like that has legions of workers, soldiers, intellectuals from the far reaches of their empire and their trading sphere.
Majority of Black americans are brown you dummy. The Egyptians look just like us except most of the time they are darker.
I'd be interested to see how many you can post without showing the same one. I'm pretty sure, just like now, Black guys attracted women of different races to them. I'm not saying there were no other races there. I am saying just like the bible says, the statues, the paintings, the Egyptians themselves said, that the vast majority of Egyptians were Black people. Why would you call yourself Kmt if you werent Black?The Ancient Egyptian on the right looks White.
If thats your point you lose again. Most Black people are a reddish brown. Only the Nubians are truly the color Black. All the rest of us wish were that melanin rich.The Ancient Egyptian on the right looks White.
Gotta separate artistic license from evidentiary re-creation. They LOOK Middle Eastern, but without knowing the context of those statues --- means nothing.
I believe the Egyptians Dynasties probably integrated heavily with lower Africa. Maybe started out that way. But ANY empire like that has legions of workers, soldiers, intellectuals from the far reaches of their empire and their trading sphere.
Sure, a few White colored Egyptian depictions, and also a few Black colored Egyptian depictions wouldn't matter much, if most of them are Reddish - Brown.
That's kind of the point.
Aw STFU -- my bet is ALL of the research seems to be done at Brown University by 2 guys. And my bet is -- they're probably white.
What the hell is wrong with the Haya people. Ain't they got shovels and little wisk brooms?
I'm afraid it's the truth flacaltenn. You might not want to bet. Plenty of evidence exists supporting hat you have been shown. But if we shown you it's from African scholars you want to discount it like whites are the only ones who define what facts are. They aren't. Learn that. As quickly as possible.
I've done more "learning:" on this than you probably have. Traced the story to it's roots. Cannot find a single shred of HARD PHYSICAL archaeological evidence on the existence of that metal work.. Now would be time to educate. If you got it -- show it. Otherwise, keep your racism and ad homs to yourself..
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
Aw STFU -- my bet is ALL of the research seems to be done at Brown University by 2 guys. And my bet is -- they're probably white.
What the hell is wrong with the Haya people. Ain't they got shovels and little wisk brooms?
I'm afraid it's the truth flacaltenn. You might not want to bet. Plenty of evidence exists supporting hat you have been shown. But if we shown you it's from African scholars you want to
But the facts speak for themselves. 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.
The roots of metallurgy in Africa go very deep. However, French archaeologist Gérard Quéchon cautions that "having roots does not mean they are deeper than those of others," that "it is not important whether African metallurgy is the newest or the oldest" and that if new discoveries "show iron came from somewhere else, this would not make Africa less or more virtuous."
it like whites are the only ones who define what facts are. They aren't. Learn that. As quickly as possible.
I've done more "learning:" on this than you probably have. Traced the story to it's roots. Cannot find a single shred of HARD PHYSICAL archaeological evidence on the existence of that metal work.. Now would be time to educate. If you got it -- show it. Otherwise, keep your racism and ad homs to yourself..
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
Again iron is not the same as carbon steel. Its not hard to figure out if you truly want to learn. Kinda obvious you are just in denial.
Aw STFU -- my bet is ALL of the research seems to be done at Brown University by 2 guys. And my bet is -- they're probably white.
What the hell is wrong with the Haya people. Ain't they got shovels and little wisk brooms?
I'm afraid it's the truth flacaltenn. You might not want to bet. Plenty of evidence exists supporting hat you have been shown. But if we shown you it's from African scholars you want to discount it like whites are the only ones who define what facts are. They aren't. Learn that. As quickly as possible.
I've done more "learning:" on this than you probably have. Traced the story to it's roots. Cannot find a single shred of HARD PHYSICAL archaeological evidence on the existence of that metal work.. Now would be time to educate. If you got it -- show it. Otherwise, keep your racism and ad homs to yourself..
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
Aw STFU -- my bet is ALL of the research seems to be done at Brown University by 2 guys. And my bet is -- they're probably white.
What the hell is wrong with the Haya people. Ain't they got shovels and little wisk brooms?
I'm afraid it's the truth flacaltenn. You might not want to bet. Plenty of evidence exists supporting hat you have been shown. But if we shown you it's from African scholars you want to
But the facts speak for themselves. 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.
The roots of metallurgy in Africa go very deep. However, French archaeologist Gérard Quéchon cautions that "having roots does not mean they are deeper than those of others," that "it is not important whether African metallurgy is the newest or the oldest" and that if new discoveries "show iron came from somewhere else, this would not make Africa less or more virtuous."
it like whites are the only ones who define what facts are. They aren't. Learn that. As quickly as possible.
I've done more "learning:" on this than you probably have. Traced the story to it's roots. Cannot find a single shred of HARD PHYSICAL archaeological evidence on the existence of that metal work.. Now would be time to educate. If you got it -- show it. Otherwise, keep your racism and ad homs to yourself..
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
I am. That's what I'm doing. That's why I'm on message boards. Not to quarrel -- but to LEARN.
Did you read the UNESCO report? It makes NO CLAIM that SubSaharan invention FED the world as Asclepsias declared.
This Gerard guy is the seminal source. And HIS work at Egaro has been widely criticized. Because the few iron relics they found were not analyzed and dated. The surrounding POTTERY was dated and assumed to be of the same date range when the ground they all came from was in a place where the "stratification" assumption does not clearly hold.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/187874/pdf
A place named Egaro some 40 miles west of the Termit Massif has
yielded even earlier dates. Two potsherds found near iron objects on surface
sites were dated by calibration to 2900-2300 and 2520-1675 BCE.
This has been seen as confirmation that iron metallurgy in Niger goes
back deep into the second millennium BCE.112 However, Quéchon himself
cautioned that the finding “lacks the critical apparatus that would allow
it to be totally affirmative.”113
Quéchon’s data and conclusions on Termit have been widely accepted,
but a few specialists contend that his case is seriously flawed. The principal
criticism is that there is no real proof that the (reliably-)dated potsherds
found in association with metal objects or charcoal are contemporaneous
with them. Pottery making at Termit may indeed go back 7000
years. The sherds found with metal and fuel were apparently all recovered
from what archeologists call deflation surfaces. These are formed by
winds blowing away soil or sand and thereby mixing artifacts from different
periods. Normally archeologists rely on stratigraphy to determine
whether associated materials are contemporaneous, but in very arid regions
like Termit this is usually impossible, and Quéchon has produced
no stratigraphic evidence.
Critics charge that such assertions are insufficiently documented. Qué-
chon’s claim that iron objects were always found with the same range ofpottery types has to be taken on faith, they say, because he has not published
an adequate number of illustrations. Detailed drawings of the surface
material have not been forthcoming. David Killick challenges Qué-
chon’s claim that potsherd and charcoal dates from the same surface scatters
agree in convincing fashion. He says that “this is not at all obvious”
from the table presented, and instead finds some of the coupled datings
rather far apart.116
No archeometallurgist has ever accompanied Quéchon to Termit, and
Killick deplores the absence of any metallographic or chemical study of
the iron artifacts, which, he suggests, might have been made of meteoritic
iron rather than smelted metal.117 The recently developed technique that
can date iron directly, known as accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS),
seems not to have been tried.118
At best it seems that parallel development may have taken place there. And there is not solid evidence that SubSaharan developments in metallurgy were TRANSFERRED far from where they occurred.
Aw STFU -- my bet is ALL of the research seems to be done at Brown University by 2 guys. And my bet is -- they're probably white.
What the hell is wrong with the Haya people. Ain't they got shovels and little wisk brooms?
I'm afraid it's the truth flacaltenn. You might not want to bet. Plenty of evidence exists supporting hat you have been shown. But if we shown you it's from African scholars you want to discount it like whites are the only ones who define what facts are. They aren't. Learn that. As quickly as possible.
I've done more "learning:" on this than you probably have. Traced the story to it's roots. Cannot find a single shred of HARD PHYSICAL archaeological evidence on the existence of that metal work.. Now would be time to educate. If you got it -- show it. Otherwise, keep your racism and ad homs to yourself..
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
Aw STFU -- my bet is ALL of the research seems to be done at Brown University by 2 guys. And my bet is -- they're probably white.
What the hell is wrong with the Haya people. Ain't they got shovels and little wisk brooms?
I'm afraid it's the truth flacaltenn. You might not want to bet. Plenty of evidence exists supporting hat you have been shown. But if we shown you it's from African scholars you want to
But the facts speak for themselves. 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.
The roots of metallurgy in Africa go very deep. However, French archaeologist Gérard Quéchon cautions that "having roots does not mean they are deeper than those of others," that "it is not important whether African metallurgy is the newest or the oldest" and that if new discoveries "show iron came from somewhere else, this would not make Africa less or more virtuous."
it like whites are the only ones who define what facts are. They aren't. Learn that. As quickly as possible.
I've done more "learning:" on this than you probably have. Traced the story to it's roots. Cannot find a single shred of HARD PHYSICAL archaeological evidence on the existence of that metal work.. Now would be time to educate. If you got it -- show it. Otherwise, keep your racism and ad homs to yourself..
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
I am. That's what I'm doing. That's why I'm on message boards. Not to quarrel -- but to LEARN.
Did you read the UNESCO report? It makes NO CLAIM that SubSaharan invention FED the world as Asclepsias declared.
This Gerard guy is the seminal source. And HIS work at Egaro has been widely criticized. Because the few iron relics they found were not analyzed and dated. The surrounding POTTERY was dated and assumed to be of the same date range when the ground they all came from was in a place where the "stratification" assumption does not clearly hold.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/187874/pdf
A place named Egaro some 40 miles west of the Termit Massif has
yielded even earlier dates. Two potsherds found near iron objects on surface
sites were dated by calibration to 2900-2300 and 2520-1675 BCE.
This has been seen as confirmation that iron metallurgy in Niger goes
back deep into the second millennium BCE.112 However, Quéchon himself
cautioned that the finding “lacks the critical apparatus that would allow
it to be totally affirmative.”113
Quéchon’s data and conclusions on Termit have been widely accepted,
but a few specialists contend that his case is seriously flawed. The principal
criticism is that there is no real proof that the (reliably-)dated potsherds
found in association with metal objects or charcoal are contemporaneous
with them. Pottery making at Termit may indeed go back 7000
years. The sherds found with metal and fuel were apparently all recovered
from what archeologists call deflation surfaces. These are formed by
winds blowing away soil or sand and thereby mixing artifacts from different
periods. Normally archeologists rely on stratigraphy to determine
whether associated materials are contemporaneous, but in very arid regions
like Termit this is usually impossible, and Quéchon has produced
no stratigraphic evidence.
Critics charge that such assertions are insufficiently documented. Qué-
chon’s claim that iron objects were always found with the same range ofpottery types has to be taken on faith, they say, because he has not published
an adequate number of illustrations. Detailed drawings of the surface
material have not been forthcoming. David Killick challenges Qué-
chon’s claim that potsherd and charcoal dates from the same surface scatters
agree in convincing fashion. He says that “this is not at all obvious”
from the table presented, and instead finds some of the coupled datings
rather far apart.116
No archeometallurgist has ever accompanied Quéchon to Termit, and
Killick deplores the absence of any metallographic or chemical study of
the iron artifacts, which, he suggests, might have been made of meteoritic
iron rather than smelted metal.117 The recently developed technique that
can date iron directly, known as accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS),
seems not to have been tried.118
At best it seems that parallel development may have taken place there. And there is not solid evidence that SubSaharan developments in metallurgy were TRANSFERRED far from where they occurred.
Again iron is not the same as carbon steel. Its not hard to figure out if you truly want to learn. Kinda obvious you are just in denial.Aw STFU -- my bet is ALL of the research seems to be done at Brown University by 2 guys. And my bet is -- they're probably white.
What the hell is wrong with the Haya people. Ain't they got shovels and little wisk brooms?
I'm afraid it's the truth flacaltenn. You might not want to bet. Plenty of evidence exists supporting hat you have been shown. But if we shown you it's from African scholars you want to discount it like whites are the only ones who define what facts are. They aren't. Learn that. As quickly as possible.
I've done more "learning:" on this than you probably have. Traced the story to it's roots. Cannot find a single shred of HARD PHYSICAL archaeological evidence on the existence of that metal work.. Now would be time to educate. If you got it -- show it. Otherwise, keep your racism and ad homs to yourself..
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.Aw STFU -- my bet is ALL of the research seems to be done at Brown University by 2 guys. And my bet is -- they're probably white.
What the hell is wrong with the Haya people. Ain't they got shovels and little wisk brooms?
I'm afraid it's the truth flacaltenn. You might not want to bet. Plenty of evidence exists supporting hat you have been shown. But if we shown you it's from African scholars you want to
But the facts speak for themselves. 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.
The roots of metallurgy in Africa go very deep. However, French archaeologist Gérard Quéchon cautions that "having roots does not mean they are deeper than those of others," that "it is not important whether African metallurgy is the newest or the oldest" and that if new discoveries "show iron came from somewhere else, this would not make Africa less or more virtuous."
it like whites are the only ones who define what facts are. They aren't. Learn that. As quickly as possible.
I've done more "learning:" on this than you probably have. Traced the story to it's roots. Cannot find a single shred of HARD PHYSICAL archaeological evidence on the existence of that metal work.. Now would be time to educate. If you got it -- show it. Otherwise, keep your racism and ad homs to yourself..
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
I am. That's what I'm doing. That's why I'm on message boards. Not to quarrel -- but to LEARN.
Did you read the UNESCO report? It makes NO CLAIM that SubSaharan invention FED the world as Asclepsias declared.
This Gerard guy is the seminal source. And HIS work at Egaro has been widely criticized. Because the few iron relics they found were not analyzed and dated. The surrounding POTTERY was dated and assumed to be of the same date range when the ground they all came from was in a place where the "stratification" assumption does not clearly hold.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/187874/pdf
A place named Egaro some 40 miles west of the Termit Massif has
yielded even earlier dates. Two potsherds found near iron objects on surface
sites were dated by calibration to 2900-2300 and 2520-1675 BCE.
This has been seen as confirmation that iron metallurgy in Niger goes
back deep into the second millennium BCE.112 However, Quéchon himself
cautioned that the finding “lacks the critical apparatus that would allow
it to be totally affirmative.”113
Quéchon’s data and conclusions on Termit have been widely accepted,
but a few specialists contend that his case is seriously flawed. The principal
criticism is that there is no real proof that the (reliably-)dated potsherds
found in association with metal objects or charcoal are contemporaneous
with them. Pottery making at Termit may indeed go back 7000
years. The sherds found with metal and fuel were apparently all recovered
from what archeologists call deflation surfaces. These are formed by
winds blowing away soil or sand and thereby mixing artifacts from different
periods. Normally archeologists rely on stratigraphy to determine
whether associated materials are contemporaneous, but in very arid regions
like Termit this is usually impossible, and Quéchon has produced
no stratigraphic evidence.
Critics charge that such assertions are insufficiently documented. Qué-
chon’s claim that iron objects were always found with the same range ofpottery types has to be taken on faith, they say, because he has not published
an adequate number of illustrations. Detailed drawings of the surface
material have not been forthcoming. David Killick challenges Qué-
chon’s claim that potsherd and charcoal dates from the same surface scatters
agree in convincing fashion. He says that “this is not at all obvious”
from the table presented, and instead finds some of the coupled datings
rather far apart.116
No archeometallurgist has ever accompanied Quéchon to Termit, and
Killick deplores the absence of any metallographic or chemical study of
the iron artifacts, which, he suggests, might have been made of meteoritic
iron rather than smelted metal.117 The recently developed technique that
can date iron directly, known as accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS),
seems not to have been tried.118
At best it seems that parallel development may have taken place there. And there is not solid evidence that SubSaharan developments in metallurgy were TRANSFERRED far from where they occurred.
Who told you they were not analyzed in any 21rst century way? The researchers watched as the Hayas went through the process. Any lack analysis you may feel appears that did not occur doesnt give you licence to then say it didnt happen. Again iron is not carbon steel which was the original point. Until you can prove anyone produced carbon steel prior to the Hayas in europe then my facts stand as is. Whites were 300 years behind the Hayas in producing carbon steel.Again iron is not the same as carbon steel. Its not hard to figure out if you truly want to learn. Kinda obvious you are just in denial.
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
I am. That's what I'm doing. That's why I'm on message boards. Not to quarrel -- but to LEARN.
Did you read the UNESCO report? It makes NO CLAIM that SubSaharan invention FED the world as Asclepsias declared.
This Gerard guy is the seminal source. And HIS work at Egaro has been widely criticized. Because the few iron relics they found were not analyzed and dated. The surrounding POTTERY was dated and assumed to be of the same date range when the ground they all came from was in a place where the "stratification" assumption does not clearly hold.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/187874/pdf
A place named Egaro some 40 miles west of the Termit Massif has
yielded even earlier dates. Two potsherds found near iron objects on surface
sites were dated by calibration to 2900-2300 and 2520-1675 BCE.
This has been seen as confirmation that iron metallurgy in Niger goes
back deep into the second millennium BCE.112 However, Quéchon himself
cautioned that the finding “lacks the critical apparatus that would allow
it to be totally affirmative.”113
Quéchon’s data and conclusions on Termit have been widely accepted,
but a few specialists contend that his case is seriously flawed. The principal
criticism is that there is no real proof that the (reliably-)dated potsherds
found in association with metal objects or charcoal are contemporaneous
with them. Pottery making at Termit may indeed go back 7000
years. The sherds found with metal and fuel were apparently all recovered
from what archeologists call deflation surfaces. These are formed by
winds blowing away soil or sand and thereby mixing artifacts from different
periods. Normally archeologists rely on stratigraphy to determine
whether associated materials are contemporaneous, but in very arid regions
like Termit this is usually impossible, and Quéchon has produced
no stratigraphic evidence.
Critics charge that such assertions are insufficiently documented. Qué-
chon’s claim that iron objects were always found with the same range ofpottery types has to be taken on faith, they say, because he has not published
an adequate number of illustrations. Detailed drawings of the surface
material have not been forthcoming. David Killick challenges Qué-
chon’s claim that potsherd and charcoal dates from the same surface scatters
agree in convincing fashion. He says that “this is not at all obvious”
from the table presented, and instead finds some of the coupled datings
rather far apart.116
No archeometallurgist has ever accompanied Quéchon to Termit, and
Killick deplores the absence of any metallographic or chemical study of
the iron artifacts, which, he suggests, might have been made of meteoritic
iron rather than smelted metal.117 The recently developed technique that
can date iron directly, known as accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS),
seems not to have been tried.118
At best it seems that parallel development may have taken place there. And there is not solid evidence that SubSaharan developments in metallurgy were TRANSFERRED far from where they occurred.
One step at a time. Since the only real metal objects found at those sites don't appear to have been actually analyzed in any 21st century kind of way. We're a LONG way from documenting evidence on carbon steel. The theory that their furnaces were "hollowed out banana trunks" SPAWNED that speculation. Because of natural infusion of carbon into the early cooking. But all that is SECONDARY to actually finding ENOUGH of the 1500BC stuff to PROVE it was even smelted and not worked from meteoric iron or other ways.
Paper I linked to appears to be someone's thesis in 2005. It's a good read from about page 68 or 70 if you WANT the details.
Who told you they were not analyzed in any 21rst century way? The researchers watched as the Hayas went through the process. Any lack analysis you may feel appears that did not occur doesnt give you licence to then say it didnt happen. Again iron is not carbon steel which was the original point. Until you can prove anyone produced carbon steel prior to the Hayas in europe then my facts stand as is. Whites were 300 years behind the Hayas in producing carbon steel.Again iron is not the same as carbon steel. Its not hard to figure out if you truly want to learn. Kinda obvious you are just in denial.
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
I am. That's what I'm doing. That's why I'm on message boards. Not to quarrel -- but to LEARN.
Did you read the UNESCO report? It makes NO CLAIM that SubSaharan invention FED the world as Asclepsias declared.
This Gerard guy is the seminal source. And HIS work at Egaro has been widely criticized. Because the few iron relics they found were not analyzed and dated. The surrounding POTTERY was dated and assumed to be of the same date range when the ground they all came from was in a place where the "stratification" assumption does not clearly hold.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/187874/pdf
A place named Egaro some 40 miles west of the Termit Massif has
yielded even earlier dates. Two potsherds found near iron objects on surface
sites were dated by calibration to 2900-2300 and 2520-1675 BCE.
This has been seen as confirmation that iron metallurgy in Niger goes
back deep into the second millennium BCE.112 However, Quéchon himself
cautioned that the finding “lacks the critical apparatus that would allow
it to be totally affirmative.”113
Quéchon’s data and conclusions on Termit have been widely accepted,
but a few specialists contend that his case is seriously flawed. The principal
criticism is that there is no real proof that the (reliably-)dated potsherds
found in association with metal objects or charcoal are contemporaneous
with them. Pottery making at Termit may indeed go back 7000
years. The sherds found with metal and fuel were apparently all recovered
from what archeologists call deflation surfaces. These are formed by
winds blowing away soil or sand and thereby mixing artifacts from different
periods. Normally archeologists rely on stratigraphy to determine
whether associated materials are contemporaneous, but in very arid regions
like Termit this is usually impossible, and Quéchon has produced
no stratigraphic evidence.
Critics charge that such assertions are insufficiently documented. Qué-
chon’s claim that iron objects were always found with the same range ofpottery types has to be taken on faith, they say, because he has not published
an adequate number of illustrations. Detailed drawings of the surface
material have not been forthcoming. David Killick challenges Qué-
chon’s claim that potsherd and charcoal dates from the same surface scatters
agree in convincing fashion. He says that “this is not at all obvious”
from the table presented, and instead finds some of the coupled datings
rather far apart.116
No archeometallurgist has ever accompanied Quéchon to Termit, and
Killick deplores the absence of any metallographic or chemical study of
the iron artifacts, which, he suggests, might have been made of meteoritic
iron rather than smelted metal.117 The recently developed technique that
can date iron directly, known as accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS),
seems not to have been tried.118
At best it seems that parallel development may have taken place there. And there is not solid evidence that SubSaharan developments in metallurgy were TRANSFERRED far from where they occurred.
One step at a time. Since the only real metal objects found at those sites don't appear to have been actually analyzed in any 21st century kind of way. We're a LONG way from documenting evidence on carbon steel. The theory that their furnaces were "hollowed out banana trunks" SPAWNED that speculation. Because of natural infusion of carbon into the early cooking. But all that is SECONDARY to actually finding ENOUGH of the 1500BC stuff to PROVE it was even smelted and not worked from meteoric iron or other ways.
Paper I linked to appears to be someone's thesis in 2005. It's a good read from about page 68 or 70 if you WANT the details.
Damn. My math was way off. Thanks for prompting me to look it up again.Who told you they were not analyzed in any 21rst century way? The researchers watched as the Hayas went through the process. Any lack analysis you may feel appears that did not occur doesnt give you licence to then say it didnt happen. Again iron is not carbon steel which was the original point. Until you can prove anyone produced carbon steel prior to the Hayas in europe then my facts stand as is. Whites were 300 years behind the Hayas in producing carbon steel.Again iron is not the same as carbon steel. Its not hard to figure out if you truly want to learn. Kinda obvious you are just in denial.On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
I am. That's what I'm doing. That's why I'm on message boards. Not to quarrel -- but to LEARN.
Did you read the UNESCO report? It makes NO CLAIM that SubSaharan invention FED the world as Asclepsias declared.
This Gerard guy is the seminal source. And HIS work at Egaro has been widely criticized. Because the few iron relics they found were not analyzed and dated. The surrounding POTTERY was dated and assumed to be of the same date range when the ground they all came from was in a place where the "stratification" assumption does not clearly hold.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/187874/pdf
A place named Egaro some 40 miles west of the Termit Massif has
yielded even earlier dates. Two potsherds found near iron objects on surface
sites were dated by calibration to 2900-2300 and 2520-1675 BCE.
This has been seen as confirmation that iron metallurgy in Niger goes
back deep into the second millennium BCE.112 However, Quéchon himself
cautioned that the finding “lacks the critical apparatus that would allow
it to be totally affirmative.”113
Quéchon’s data and conclusions on Termit have been widely accepted,
but a few specialists contend that his case is seriously flawed. The principal
criticism is that there is no real proof that the (reliably-)dated potsherds
found in association with metal objects or charcoal are contemporaneous
with them. Pottery making at Termit may indeed go back 7000
years. The sherds found with metal and fuel were apparently all recovered
from what archeologists call deflation surfaces. These are formed by
winds blowing away soil or sand and thereby mixing artifacts from different
periods. Normally archeologists rely on stratigraphy to determine
whether associated materials are contemporaneous, but in very arid regions
like Termit this is usually impossible, and Quéchon has produced
no stratigraphic evidence.
Critics charge that such assertions are insufficiently documented. Qué-
chon’s claim that iron objects were always found with the same range ofpottery types has to be taken on faith, they say, because he has not published
an adequate number of illustrations. Detailed drawings of the surface
material have not been forthcoming. David Killick challenges Qué-
chon’s claim that potsherd and charcoal dates from the same surface scatters
agree in convincing fashion. He says that “this is not at all obvious”
from the table presented, and instead finds some of the coupled datings
rather far apart.116
No archeometallurgist has ever accompanied Quéchon to Termit, and
Killick deplores the absence of any metallographic or chemical study of
the iron artifacts, which, he suggests, might have been made of meteoritic
iron rather than smelted metal.117 The recently developed technique that
can date iron directly, known as accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS),
seems not to have been tried.118
At best it seems that parallel development may have taken place there. And there is not solid evidence that SubSaharan developments in metallurgy were TRANSFERRED far from where they occurred.
One step at a time. Since the only real metal objects found at those sites don't appear to have been actually analyzed in any 21st century kind of way. We're a LONG way from documenting evidence on carbon steel. The theory that their furnaces were "hollowed out banana trunks" SPAWNED that speculation. Because of natural infusion of carbon into the early cooking. But all that is SECONDARY to actually finding ENOUGH of the 1500BC stuff to PROVE it was even smelted and not worked from meteoric iron or other ways.
Paper I linked to appears to be someone's thesis in 2005. It's a good read from about page 68 or 70 if you WANT the details.
Watching "as they go thru the process" in NO WAY dates that process -- does it? It's all from folklore that doesn't have a reliable timeline back millenia. And it first has to be documented that Haya steel IS carbon steel. There are samples and NO EXCUSE to not date it. Not simply date the pottery around it. Because if it IS carbon steel -- it can be Carbon isotope tested. If it's NOT -- it may still be subject to AMS testing or contain enough contaminants to be proven.
I don't think the UNESCO summary would have passed on the carbon steel claim and been so "reserved" about the metallurgy claims if that had happened..
Who told you they were not analyzed in any 21rst century way? The researchers watched as the Hayas went through the process. Any lack analysis you may feel appears that did not occur doesnt give you licence to then say it didnt happen. Again iron is not carbon steel which was the original point. Until you can prove anyone produced carbon steel prior to the Hayas in europe then my facts stand as is. Whites were 300 years behind the Hayas in producing carbon steel.Again iron is not the same as carbon steel. Its not hard to figure out if you truly want to learn. Kinda obvious you are just in denial.On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.On overall black culture/history you have not. Nor have you do the work necessary to find out about metal work. It's just that simple. It gets old being called a racist by whites who think racism is us calling you out on your lies about Africa.
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 and the Great Lakes area.
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>
Maybe you need to simply learn what you don't know.
I am. That's what I'm doing. That's why I'm on message boards. Not to quarrel -- but to LEARN.
Did you read the UNESCO report? It makes NO CLAIM that SubSaharan invention FED the world as Asclepsias declared.
This Gerard guy is the seminal source. And HIS work at Egaro has been widely criticized. Because the few iron relics they found were not analyzed and dated. The surrounding POTTERY was dated and assumed to be of the same date range when the ground they all came from was in a place where the "stratification" assumption does not clearly hold.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/187874/pdf
A place named Egaro some 40 miles west of the Termit Massif has
yielded even earlier dates. Two potsherds found near iron objects on surface
sites were dated by calibration to 2900-2300 and 2520-1675 BCE.
This has been seen as confirmation that iron metallurgy in Niger goes
back deep into the second millennium BCE.112 However, Quéchon himself
cautioned that the finding “lacks the critical apparatus that would allow
it to be totally affirmative.”113
Quéchon’s data and conclusions on Termit have been widely accepted,
but a few specialists contend that his case is seriously flawed. The principal
criticism is that there is no real proof that the (reliably-)dated potsherds
found in association with metal objects or charcoal are contemporaneous
with them. Pottery making at Termit may indeed go back 7000
years. The sherds found with metal and fuel were apparently all recovered
from what archeologists call deflation surfaces. These are formed by
winds blowing away soil or sand and thereby mixing artifacts from different
periods. Normally archeologists rely on stratigraphy to determine
whether associated materials are contemporaneous, but in very arid regions
like Termit this is usually impossible, and Quéchon has produced
no stratigraphic evidence.
Critics charge that such assertions are insufficiently documented. Qué-
chon’s claim that iron objects were always found with the same range ofpottery types has to be taken on faith, they say, because he has not published
an adequate number of illustrations. Detailed drawings of the surface
material have not been forthcoming. David Killick challenges Qué-
chon’s claim that potsherd and charcoal dates from the same surface scatters
agree in convincing fashion. He says that “this is not at all obvious”
from the table presented, and instead finds some of the coupled datings
rather far apart.116
No archeometallurgist has ever accompanied Quéchon to Termit, and
Killick deplores the absence of any metallographic or chemical study of
the iron artifacts, which, he suggests, might have been made of meteoritic
iron rather than smelted metal.117 The recently developed technique that
can date iron directly, known as accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS),
seems not to have been tried.118
At best it seems that parallel development may have taken place there. And there is not solid evidence that SubSaharan developments in metallurgy were TRANSFERRED far from where they occurred.
One step at a time. Since the only real metal objects found at those sites don't appear to have been actually analyzed in any 21st century kind of way. We're a LONG way from documenting evidence on carbon steel. The theory that their furnaces were "hollowed out banana trunks" SPAWNED that speculation. Because of natural infusion of carbon into the early cooking. But all that is SECONDARY to actually finding ENOUGH of the 1500BC stuff to PROVE it was even smelted and not worked from meteoric iron or other ways.
Paper I linked to appears to be someone's thesis in 2005. It's a good read from about page 68 or 70 if you WANT the details.
Watching "as they go thru the process" in NO WAY dates that process -- does it? It's all from folklore that doesn't have a reliable timeline back millenia. And it first has to be documented that Haya steel IS carbon steel. There are samples and NO EXCUSE to not date it. Not simply date the pottery around it. Because if it IS carbon steel -- it can be Carbon isotope tested. If it's NOT -- it may still be subject to AMS testing or contain enough contaminants to be proven.
I don't think the UNESCO summary would have passed on the carbon steel claim and been so "reserved" about the metallurgy claims if that had happened..
I'd be interested to see how many you can post without showing the same one. I'm pretty sure, just like now, Black guys attracted women of different races to them. I'm not saying there were no other races there. I am saying just like the bible says, the statues, the paintings, the Egyptians themselves said, that the vast majority of Egyptians were Black people. Why would you call yourself Kmt if you werent Black?The Ancient Egyptian on the right looks White.
