" Pensar o passado para compreender o presente e idealizar o futuro" (Herdoto

Abstract (Document Summary)

Ancient Egypt is the first major civilization in Africa for which records are abundant. It was not, however, Africa's first kingdom.
On 1 Mar 1, 1979, Boyce Rensberger of The New York Times wrote that evidence of the oldest recognizable monarchy in human history, precedi
ng the rise of the earliest Egyptian kings by several generations, has been discovered in artifacts from anc
nt Nubia. This ancient
ingdom, generally called Ta-Seti, encompassed t
territory of the northern Sudan and the southern portion of Egypt.Full Text (268 words) Copyright International Communications Oct 20
06Ancient Egypt is the first major civilisation in Africa for which records are abundant. It was not, however, Africa's first kingd
om. On 1 March 1979, The New York Times carried an article on its front page, written by Boyce Rensberger, with the headline: Nubian Mona
rchy called Oldest. In the article, Rensberger told the world that: "Evidence of the oldest recognisable monarchy in human history, prec
eding the rise of the earliest Egyptian kings by several generations, has been discovered in artifacts from ancient Nubia... The discovery is ex
pected to stimulate a new appraisal of the origins of civilis
ions in Africa, raising the question of 'to what extent later Egyptian culture derived its advanced political structure from the Nubians?'
."This ancient kingdom, generally called Ta-Seti, encompassed the territory of the northern Sudan and the southern portion of Egypt. It h
as sometimes been referred to as Ancient Ethiopia in some of the literature, and as Cush (or Kush) in other literature. The first kin
gs of Ta-Seti may well have ruled about 5900 B
During the time of the fifth generation of their rulers, Upper (ie, southern) Egypt may have united and became a greater thre
at to Ta-Seti.In Kush (or Ta-Seti), a number of women had the title Kentake, which means Queen Mother, and was recorded in Roman
sources as Candace. Some of the women were heads of state. Kentake Qalhata (c.639 BC) had her own pyramid built at Al Kurru, as other
Kushite kings did (above photo). Pseudo-Callisth

"The middle east" is a fictitious historical entity.

It was invented by the British, with the esoteric geopolitical purpose of preventing Iran from claiming the rights to

its own oil.

It is meant to describe and legitimize a zone of European political influence.
Before the British invented this term in the early 20th century - there is no reference to "The middle east"
anywhere in the world.
Nor is there an equivalent term, or conception.
The term is completely non-native, unnatural, and superimposed upon non European people for the primary
purposes of sublimating there native identities and interest.
Therefore, to speak of the "racial" history of the middle east is to surrender to Eurocentric brainwashing.
It is a discourse rooted in nonsense, and bounded by the constructs of Eurocentric racists.
The consequence of Africanists who repeat this conception is to serve the interest of Eurocentrist.
As long as we remained pinned down discussing the world in terms of a Eurocentric ideology of "race" and "The
Middle east", then Eurocentrist prevail because they keep the conversation stalemated.
A stalemate always serves the interest of protectors of the status quo.
For a territory to be distinctive from the others, it must have some meaningful particularities or at least some
common characteristics.
When considered on the basis of these criteria, there is no region called the Middle East. The term has a function
and considered from this point, the region called the "Middle East", in fact, meant Britain's, and now American's
Zone of Interest.

"The Middle East" is the only ad hoc term listed.

Ad hoc means -> Existing to serve a singular, specific and often ulterior purpose.
"The Middle East" is not a Nation-State from 10,100,1000, 10,000 years ago, so your comment is non-sequitur.
__________________
The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed
Introducing Semitic Speakers:
Semitic languages are presently accepted as one of the branches of Afro-Asiatic languages. Together with other language
sub-groupings such as Chadic, Berber, Nilotic, Omotic etc, the Semitic groups of languages are definitely African in origin. It
used to be accepted that all the branches of the Afro-Asiatic language were clearly developed in Africa with the exception of
Semitic over which there had been some dubious contention. But not any more as scholarly studies have dovetailed with
common sense and logic in placing the original homeland of the Semitic speakers in Africa.
These Semitic speakers definitely were not white Africans.
The term Semites as an expression is applied to a group of peoples closely related in language, whose habitat is Africa
extending into Asia. The expression is derived from the Biblical table of nations (Genesis 10), in which most of these peoples
are recorded as descendants of Noahs son Shem; although some who are designated as Semites in the modern times belong
to peoples originally recorded as the children of Ham, the brother of Shem (i.e. the Phoenicians).
The term Semite was first proposed for the languages related to the Hebrew by Ludwig Schlözer, in Eichhorns
Repertorium, vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Through Eichhorn the name then came into general usage (cf. his Einleitung in
das Alte Testament (Leipzig, 1787), I, p. 45. He also used it in his Gesch. der neuen Sprachenkunde, pt. I (Göttingen,
1807).

Schlozer assumed that Abraham the eponymous Hebrew ancestor was of Semitic origin based upon the information in the
Bible. He wrongly reasoned that since Abraham spoke Hebrew (a language which unknown to Schlozer was indigenous to
Canaan) Hebrew should be a Semitic language. His work laid the grounds for the automatic but uncorroborated association of
ancient Hebrews with the Caucasian family of nation. The flimsy foundation of this entire argument has run into problems
with wider distributed access to source works that underlie scholarly research.
Proto-Semitic:
Proto-Semitic is the hypothetical proto-language of the Semitic languages. Proto-Semitic probably originated in Ethiopia or
Central Sahara and was one of the first languages to branch off the Afro-Asiatic phylum.
In the hey days of racist scholarship when it was considered erudite to routinely erase the role of Africa in the development of
world history, it used to be considered with arrogant irrationality that the most probable Proto-Semitic language was
Urheimat, which probably developed in the Arabian peninsula. This hypothesis was based on fact that the Canaanite,
Aramaic, and Arab nomadic tribes are recorded to have emerged from Arabia.
However this thesis is not supported by a plausible theory of geographical dispersion of Afro-Asiatic languages. It must be
stressed that Semitic is but a sub group of the African language group Afro-Asiatic.
The distribution of the related Afro-Asiatic languages such as Berber, Hausa, Omotic, and especially the Egyptian branch
which is most closely related to Semitic, suggest an Ethiopian language as the original Proto-Semitic language. It has been
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubts that there were several waves of immigration of the Proto-Semites from the Horn of
Africa to the Arabian Peninsula.
Current Authorities:
Alan Gardiner in his book Egyptian Grammar, (1950, p.2) argued that ancient Egyptian had structural similarity to Canaanite
and various African languages like Galla, Somali and Berber. Moustapha Gadalla in his book The Essence of Hispania denoted
the very close linkages between ancient Egyptian and classical Arabic.

In linguistic terms, Ehret has presented a phylogenetic history for Afro-asiatic languages, based on shared phonological
innovations. His scheme makes a primary division between the Omotic languages of Ethiopia and an Erythraean (Red Sea)
subgroup that includes all other Afro-Asiatic languages (including Semitic and Ancient Egyptian). His thesis, thus, suggests an
African origin for the Semitic language family. See, C. Ehret, Reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic (University of California Press,
Berkeley, C.A.,1995).
According to Christopher Ehert, world renowned linguist, the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find other
people already in the area.
Christopher Edens and T.J. Wilikinson in a 1998 article published in the Journal of World Prehistory (South west Arabia During
the Holocene: Recent Archaeological Developments), by the Bronze Age, there was a well-attested cultural ferment in
Southwest Arabia exemplified by village and town settlements occupied by sedentary farmers.
Edens and Wilikinson argue that a continuous archaeological record can now describe parts of Yemen. Evidence of literate
culture goes back to between 3600 and 2800 B.C. and perhaps earlier. These societies relied on food production from large
scale irrigation systems dependent upon the Wadi floods. They concluded that those Bronze Age settlements showed very
strong linkages to the Horn of Africa.
Darfur-Kordorfan-Saharan:
Nicolas Faraclas, in his book They Came Before the Egyptians: Linguistic Evidence for the African Roots of Semitic Languages
suggests that the roots of Semitic languages, which are classified as part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, lie in the DarfurKordofan region on the eastern edge of the Chad-Sudan border. He uses linguistic, archaeological, and climatic evidence to
trace the routes by which Afro-Asiatic languages seem to have spread. The Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, and Afro-Asiatic
languages all seem to have diverged in a migration that commenced with the Last Major Wet Spell of the Sahara, which ran
from 10,000 B.C. to 5,000 B.C.
Joseph H.Greenberg, one of the earliest European linguists to work in Africa was the first to identified five different branches

of the Hamito-Semitic (now called Afro-Asiatic) group of the African languages: Cushitic, Egyptian, Berber, Chadic and
Semitic. Given that those languages were so obviously interrelated it was assumed by colonial scholars of Europe that the
relationship of these languages stemmed from Caucasian invaders into Africa from the Middle East. Greenbergs research
contradicted this assumption.
Greenberg realized that the Cushitic branch languages were far more differentiated from each other than were those of any
other branch. Such sharp differences indicated that the sub-branches of Cushitic had differentiated from each other at a very
early date and had been evolving independently for much longer than any of the other branches.
The implication being that the Hamito-Semitic (Afro-Asiatic) language had evolved in Kush (Ethiopia) longer than anywhere
else.
Consequently, Ethiopia (Africa) should be the original homeland of all Hamito-Semitic languages. Clearly the original Semites
were Africans.
A developing consensus among scholars suggest that perhaps as early as 12,000-10,000BC, African proto-Cushitic speakers
migrated from Ethiopia/Central Africa spreading out into the rest of Africa and the Near East. This proto-Cushitic tongue
evolved not only into Cushitic, Egyptian, Berber, and Chadic tongues, but into the Semitic branch as well. This included
Hebrew, Phoenician, Arabic and Assyrian.
Although some Semitic speakers, including the Hebrews speakers migrated from Africa to the Middle East, others like the
Gurage group of language, Amharic language, Tigrinya language and a host of others continued to develop in Africa.
Greenberg renamed this Cushitic derived family group of language and called it Afro-Asiatic. (Time Life World Maps, Black
Spark, White Fire by Richard Poe, Languages of Africa by Joseph Greenberg)
A Bit of Genetics:
A critical reading of genetic data analyses, specifically those of Y chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes,
supports the hypothesis of populations moving from the Horn or southeastern Sahara northward to the Nile Valley, northwest

Africa, the Levant, and Aegean. See S.O.Y. Keita, History in the Interpretation of the Pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP YChromosome Variation in Egypt: A Consideration of Multiple Lines of Evidence, American Journal of Human Biology 17:559
567 (2005).
The geography of the M35/215 (or 215/M35) lineage, which is of Horn/East African origin, coincides with the range of AfroAsiatic languages. Underhill speculated that this lineage might have been carried from Africa during the Mesolithic.
The distributions of the Afro-Asiatic branches and this lineage can best be explained by invoking movements that originated
in Africa and occurred before the emergence of food production, as well as after. It is noteworthy that gene flow from Africa
to Middle East occurred not only in the prehistoric time but continued through to historical times. See . P. Underhill et al., Am.
J. Hum. Genet. 65, 43 (2001). See also G. Lucotte, G. Mercier, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 121, 63 (2003). See O. Semino et al.,
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 1023 (2004).
Jide Uwechia
March 13, 2006
West Asia is another name for that region currently called the Middle East. Greek used to call it Mesopotamia. One thing that
makes it special is the fact that it was the first outside Europe to be settled by the Europeans (currently the Arabs, Assyrians,
Somalis, etc.) 10,000 years ago. And please, please, do not isolate your self from the Europeans. Arabs, your ethnic
community is part of the greater white race known as the Caucasoid, a race which brings all those of the Europeans origin
together.

The way the game is played is:

Force Africans into narrow stereotypes.
Imply that anything that does not match such stereotypes is not truly "African".
When confronted with the anthropological fact that Africans have never been constricted to morphological

stereotype - simply imply that the original African population wasn't really African - and pretend to ignore the
blatant contradiction implied.
The game is foolish, but is played because some still buy into it.
Your comments continue to reflect your inability to communicate at an intelligent level and the resultant need to
resort to blatant class-clown trolling out of frustration.
The ancient Greeks had NO concept of a "Middle East", which encapsulated Western Asia, Central Asia, and North
Africa.
"Mesopotamia" is simply a loosely defined region, named by Europeans [Greeks] who are not even native to the
region.
I'll reiterate for the brain dead:
The "Middle East" is an utterly fake political construct created by the British in order to denote areas the British
coveted and to avoid assigning those areas to native peoples.
The "Middle East" is the name given to a "zone of interest" and it implies an appetite which has no sense of getting
full. The more the appetite grows, the larger the region becomes.
It's merely a ruse.
__________________The way the game is played is:

Force Africans into narrow stereotypes.

Imply that anything that does not match such stereotypes is not truly "African".
When confronted with the anthropological fact that Africans have never been constricted to morphological
stereotype - simply imply that the original African population wasn't really African - and pretend to ignore the
blatant contradiction implied.
The game is foolish, but is played because some still buy into it.
Your comments continue to reflect your inability to communicate at an intelligent level and the resultant need to
resort to blatant class-clown trolling out of frustration.
The ancient Greeks had NO concept of a "Middle East", which encapsulated Western Asia, Central Asia, and North
Africa.
"Mesopotamia" is simply a loosely defined region, named by Europeans [Greeks] who are not even native to the
region.
I'll reiterate for the brain dead:
The "Middle East" is an utterly fake political construct created by the British in order to denote areas the British
coveted and to avoid assigning those areas to native peoples.
The "Middle East" is the name given to a "zone of interest" and it implies an appetite which has no sense of getting
full. The more the appetite grows, the larger the region becomes.

It's merely a ruse.

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

(May 10, 2007) Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all
modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at
Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny
group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
The research confirms the Out Of Africa hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo
sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years.
These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.
Academics analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and
Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early
humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in
California all contributing key data and expertise.
The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to
the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.
Until now, one of the main reasons for doubting the Out Of Africa theory was the existence of inconsistent
evidence in Australia. The skeletal and tool remains that have been found there are strikingly different from those
elsewhere on the "coastal expressway" the route through South Asia taken by the early settlers.
Some scholars argue that these discrepancies exist either because the early colonists interbred with the local Homo
erectus population, or because there was a subsequent, secondary migration from Africa. Both explanations would
undermine the theory of a single, common origin for modern-day humans.
But in the latest research there was no evidence of a genetic inheritance from Homo erectus, indicating that the
settlers did not mix and that these people therefore share the same direct ancestry as the other Eurasian peoples.

Geneticist Dr Peter Forster, who led the research, said: "Although it has been speculated that the populations of
Australia and New Guinea came from the same ancestors, the fossil record differs so significantly it has been
difficult to prove. For the first time, this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and
New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the
African migration."
At the time of the migration, 50,000 years ago, Australia and New Guinea were joined by a land bridge and the
region was also only separated from the main Eurasian land mass by narrow straits such as Wallace's Line in
Indonesia. The land bridge was submerged about 8,000 years ago.
The new study also explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found
elsewhere even though the genetic record shows no evidence of interbreeding with Homo erectus, and indicates a
single Palaeolithic colonisation event.
The DNA patterns of the Australian and Melanesian populations show that the population evolved in relative
isolation. The two groups also share certain genetic characteristics that are not found beyond Melanesia. This
would suggest that there was very little gene flow into Australia after the original migration.
Dr Toomas Kivisild, from the Cambridge University Department of Biological Anthropology, who co-authored the
report, said: The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant
developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources.
"There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still
open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in
the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding."
-----

New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

(July 19, 2007) New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans
theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The
research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
(BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a
single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo
erectus to home sapiens in different areas.
The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of
over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last
arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a
population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of
anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further
modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world.
We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that
modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a
result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration. They then studied
an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed
that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the

same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African
origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of
modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings
show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
__________________
__________________

A
n
c
i
e
n
t
E
g

y
p
t

P
a
g
e
b
y
A
n
n
e

k
e
B
a
r
t

KingsandQueens
4thdynasty
Seneferu,Khufu,Khafre,Menkaure,Djedefre,etc.
11thdynasty
KingsnamedMentuhotepandIntef
12thdynasty
AmenemhetIIV,
SenusretIIII
18thdynasty
AmenhotepIIV,
TuthmosisIIV,Akhenaten,Tutankhamen,Aye,Horemheb,etc.
19thdynasty
Sety I-II, Ramesses I-II, Merenptah, Amenmesses, Tawosret.

Amenemhat (II) Nubkaure

20thdynasty
Sethnakht, Ramesses III
Ramesses IV - XI
25th dynasty
Alara, Kashta, Piye,
Shabaka, Shabataka,
Taharqa, Tanutamun, etc.