PAGAN 9JA:


btw the insults were because he started it first. i just wanted to show him I can insult too.

Just to correct this intolerant fellow's lies:

His FIRST words on this thread:


''^^^SUMERIAN? which i*DI*T is claiming that?


where is SUmeria and where is Igboland......''



His second post:



''...I dont know why you are lying but i know you are an akata and you are doing wrong by spreading lies.''


https://www.nairaland.com/1272627/ancient-igbo-people/1


.....


Well like I said, I'll henceforth ignore anyone who adopts this approach to debate.

Rossikk:

Just to correct this intolerant fellow's lies:

His FIRST words on this thread:


''^^^SUMERIAN? which i*DI*T is claiming that?


where is SUmeria and where is Igboland......''



His second post:



''...I dont know why you are lying but i know you are an akata and you are doing wrong by spreading lies.''


https://www.nairaland.com/1272627/ancient-igbo-people/1


.....


Well like I said, I'll henceforth ignore anyone who adopts this approach to debate.

YOU MADMAN, WHY DID YOU REPLY? I THOUGHT YOU SAID OTHERWISE. YOU TRULY ARE A LIAR!

anyways what a pointless post.

ezeagu:

This is bullshit. If someone can disprove a stupid theory then they've disproven a stupid theory, no matter who it was written by. You talk about smugness right after you go on about "qualified and qualified scholars" as if that makes any difference to an argument. If something is wrong anybody with a proper argument as to why that thing is wrong has a say.

You can have a say but common sense tells us that those who have done the legwork and research, including field research, have a lot more credibility in saying what is what - than those who haven't.

Can you even confirm any of those so called ancient Egyptian words?

YOU go and research the words and ''confirm'' for yourself. How do you expect me to ''confirm''? That's your job.

Look at the pure thirst to stretch the meanings of the Yoruba words to fit with the Egyptian.

I only see a 'thirst' by you to debunk any Yoruba links to the Nile Valley.

And there's even comparisons with proper nouns without elaborating on the etymology and how they are cognates and not just similar sounding words, kind of like comparing Orlu with Orleans.

That's ludicrous. The meanings of the words were attached right next to them!

By the way how is the plethora of ethnic groups in West Africa, including those speaking language isolates, explained by this theory?

The numerous ethnic groups in West Africa are actually proof of ancient fragmentation caused by migration of groups and the splitting up of hitherto united societies and language groups. Further buttressing this are inguistic and cultural links/similarities which connect all those West African groups, even as they evince surface differences. For instance it is clear the Igbos and Yorubas were once one people, or at least members of a single language group, thousands of years ago. The language similarities alone are enough to show this.

The early period of Ancient Egypt is closer to our time than island hopping migrations in the Pacific. In fact the first Australians arrived on the southern continent equivalent to ten times the time between now and pre-historic Egypt. Some of the oldest languages in Africa belong to the Khoisan. Not to even talk about 200,000 year old human remains.

Were you serious with this question?

How does the existence of 200,000 year old languages which you can't name obviate the proven linguistic connections between Nile Valley and West African languages? Cheikh Anta Diop found over 500 congruences between Wolof and Medu Neter.

What archaeology are you talking about?

Read Olumide Lucas.

Doesn't make any bloody sense, the languages are still completely different. What migrations were these and from what dynasty, era, so we can know what kind of Egyptian we're even talking about.

Read Chancellor Williams' The Destruction Of Black Civilization. Dr Williams, now late, spent 25 years of his life in Africa, visiting about 30 nations in the course of his field study. He actually SAW the bones of those Africans who perished along the migratory paths. The migrations did not occur in one fell swoop. They began first with the desertification of the once fertile and populated Sahara, and later on continued with foreign settlement of the fertile north African regions, and invasions of Egypt. Williams states that the downfall of Africa began with the blacks abandoning those northern strongholds, and always retreating southwards, either to escape the desert, or to distance themselves from the ever predatory 'whites' who settled from across the med. The loss of Egypt was the final nail in the coffin of black relevance. Africans (at any rate black Africans) became 'hemmed in'. Cut off from the global developments of which access to the meditarrenean 'interractivity zone' or corridor/cross roads of various global cultures, was vital.

Was it not along this corridor that Arabs, Chinese and Europeans were to later develop and manifest a global technological consciousness that was to elude the Africans?

'Adapting to the forest', what does that mean?

I never said that. Quote exactly what I said and you'll get a response.

Arabic is distantly related but still sounds close to Coptic today. You mean a giant of a culture like Egypt went to a forest region and nothing of them is recognisable today. Your diffusionist theory has been proven wrong.

There are a LOT of things about Ancient Egypt that are recognisable in West Africa today. Language similarities, cultural similarities like divine kingship, circumcision, bride price, festivals, age-grades, libation, nomadic life, burial rites, matrilineal succession. Many kings are buried with their earthly treasures till tomorrow throughout West Africa, to help them 'on the other side'. Where else does that happen TODAY on earth outside West and Central Africa? Go to Egypt itself today, it doesn't happen.

In fact if one were to search the world today to find those who carry on the traditions and ways of the ancient Egyptians, BLACK AFRICA is the ONLY place to look.

What would you say to West Africans that claim they did not migrate from anywhere, are you going to suggest to them that they came from Egypt a civilisation they did not know existed until Colonial expeditions started in the 1800s?

How the hell do you know our ancestors knew nothing about Egypt before the colonial invasions? This is the condescending haughtiness about the African past that so irks me. MANY oral traditions among our people state that their forbears migrated from the Nile Valley region/Egypt. Oral traditions predate the colonial invasions!

At the end of the day this Egypt shit was started by insecure people that know nothing about West African history.

Cheikh Anta Diop knows nothing about African history?

Chancellor Williams too?

Basil Davidson?

Wake me up after you've spent 1/2000th of the time each of those gentlemen have spent in the course of their groundbreaking research work.

Better yet, if you say you are REALLY interested in African history, do the right thing and pick up one or two of their books and read their work. It won't kill you!

abagoro: I usually like to respect peoples views of themselves without imposing my impression even though I have mine. Igbos to me belong to same group as Yoruba, Idoma, Edo and Igala in terms of migration but some people were living in all these area and were mixed with the migrants. Most Igbos on the fringe usually have a story of migrating from else where outside the Isuama/Nri/Awka area which is considered by many as the Igbo core. We usually say we migrated from Idu, Obiama, Itu etc but many of these stories are quite doubtful to me.

Another thing I've noticed about Igbos is that the oral history of majority of communities dates back to around 16th to 18th century and nothing more is remembered beyond those dates. Something must have happened that caused the sudden emergence of several Igbo communities around that period.

It's not only the Igbos. None of the major West African groups can trace their history in their current region to beyond the 14th century MAX.

WHY? Because they all MIGRATED FROM ELSEWHERE.

Where?

From North/North East and East Africa!

And you know something? Such groups were historically prone to SUPPRESSING such information about their migration. No group wants to be seen as 'onye biarabia', the visitor/stranger. All want a stake in their new settlements, which often led to the invention of whole mythologies, such as that by the Yoruba that the world was birthed in Ife. Of course the ancient Yoruba sages knew that was NOT the case. They merely created that out of a perceived need to lay eternal claim to the region.

Of course they are all migrants. Around the same period (14th century threabouts) we start seeing complex, sophisticated kingdoms like Benin, Oyo, The Igbo States, The Hausa States, all simultaneously spring up out of nothing! Where was the gradual, painstaking evolution from sedementary, peasant, hunter gatherer societies to sophisticated empires like Benin? None! It's almost as if the hunter gatherers all woke up one morning and became empire builders, casting world class sculptures and building sophisticated cities compared in their time to Amsterdam and Paris, and sophisticated republican governance structures!

This is what the ''we came from nowhere'' crowd would have us believe.

Of course there were original populations which settled West Africa in deepest antiquity, migrating up from the south and east. But those were very few and were boosted significantly by the INFLUX of new migrants who came with their skills and knowledge in waves of migrations from at least 1000 BC culminating around the 10th century AD, and this accounts for the sudden, abrupt development of sophisticated societies - Ghana, Mali, Songhai, the Mossi States in the Sahel and further in the forest regions.

Rossikk:

You can have a say but common sense tells us that those who have done the legwork and research, including field research, have a lot more credibility in saying what is what - than those who haven't.

YOU go and research the words and ''confirm'' for yourself. How do you expect me to ''confirm''? That's your job.

I only see a 'thirst' by you to debunk any Yoruba links to the Nile Valley.

That's ludicrous. The meanings of the words were attached right next to them!

You didn't really say anything here. And I'm wondering why you can't understand why comparing place names on sound alone is a problem.

Rossikk: The numerous ethnic groups in West Africa are actually proof of ancient fragmentation caused by migration of groups and the splitting up of hitherto united societies and language groups. Further buttressing this are inguistic and cultural links/similarities which connect all those West African groups, even as they evince surface differences. For instance it is clear the Igbos and Yorubas were once one people, or at least members of a single language group, thousands of years ago. The language similarities alone are enough to show this.

I'm not willing to waste time with this, because you KNOW you yourself don't think this is it.

Rossikk: How does the existence of 200,000 year old languages which you can't name obviate the proven linguistic connections between Nile Valley and West African languages? Cheikh Anta Diop found over 500 congruences between Wolof and Medu Neter.

How can you know that ancient Egyptians called their language 'Medu Neter', in fact from what form of Egyptian is the word 'Medu Neter'? Do you still not understand why language similarities between West Africa and some arbitary forms of Egyptian is not a guarantee for any hypothesis.

Which bring me onto the next point, how is it that every civilisation that has come in contact with Egypt either developed writing or adopted it from the Egyptians apart from the supposed 'lost Egyptians' of West Africa who didn't even build one Egyptian styled temple or left any evidence of hieroglyphs.

Rossikk: There are a LOT of things about Ancient Egypt that are recognisable in West Africa today. Language similarities, cultural similarities like divine kingship, circumcision, bride price, festivals, age-grades, libation, nomadic life, burial rites, matrilineal succession. Many kings are buried with their earthly treasures till tomorrow throughout West Africa, to help them 'on the other side'. Where else does that happen TODAY on earth outside West and Central Africa? Go to Egypt itself today, it doesn't happen.

In fact if one were to search the world today to find those who carry on the traditions and ways of the ancient Egyptians, BLACK AFRICA is the ONLY place to look.

This is ridiculous.

Rossikk: How the hell do you know our ancestors knew nothing about Egypt before the colonial invasions? This is the condescending haughtiness about the African past that so irks me. MANY oral traditions among our people state that their forbears migrated from the Nile Valley region/Egypt. Oral traditions predate the colonial invasions!

Let me guess, the ancient Yoruba word for Egypt is 'Ijiputu', right? Can you give some pre-20th century oral traditions from West African communities that explicitly state that they migrated from Egypt.

Rossikk: Cheikh Anta Diop knows nothing about African history?

Chancellor Williams too?

Basil Davidson?

Wake me up after you've spent 1/2000th of the time each of those gentlemen have spent in the course of their groundbreaking research work.

Better yet, if you say you are REALLY interested in African history, do the right thing and pick up one or two of their books and read their work. It won't kill you!

It took Isaac Newton a couple of minutes to explain what people in Europe couldn't explain for hundreds of years. You're clasping at straws.

It's like linking Igbo communities with France because they both use the words moi and mua for 'myself' and beaucoup and bu ukwu for 'very big'.

Rossikk:

Of course they are two different words. Who said they meant the same thing? Negroid means of visible black African ancestry. Negro means a black person. That's all there is to it.

No it doesn't! Negroid meant a race and for you to be a part of that race you had to have Negroid characteristics...The caharcateristics were:
Kinky hair
Big lips
Flat nose
Dark skin
Different skull shape.

Again you clearly DO NOT know what the word means. Stop acting like you do when you prove time and time again that you DON'T!

Rossikk:
Does skin colour not constitute part of one's physical features?

Of course it does.

If that was the freaking case then Ethiopians would have been grouped in with Negroid.


But they weren't because they did NOT have all the traits/characteristics to make them a part of the Negroid race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopid_race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic


Are you this dense?

Rossikk:
It is not outdated. It remains in use by forensic anthropologists. The only ''flaw'' is in your head.

It is OUTDATED because it is no longer is RACE! It just mean phenotype and horners and Tutsi DO NOT have Negroid phenotype. Are you this slow?

Rossikk:
What are you on about dude? Negroid means physical features which suggest black African ancestry, correct?

So what is the argument about?

Again are you freaking slow!? Negroid DOES NOT mean black African ancestry it just means a physical features. Horners, Beja, Tutsi, Fulani's,etc DO NOT have what you call Negroid features like this.


Yet we know that they are genetically related to people with 'Negroid' features are what you call 'black African'

Which is why I told you to STOP USING THE WORD. But you're just too slow to even understand where I am even coming from. Arguing with you is like arguing with a child...

You are the one saying we should not use the term because some white boy somewhere used the term inappropriately.

Rossikk:
But the term negroid, used in its simple, honest manner means 'of black' or resembling black.. In fact there is academic suppport for this position:
[/quote[
No they DON'T! Which is why its outdated.

Why people these people outside of Africa were once grouped with Africans due to having 'Negroid' features. And were a part of the Negroid race.

Indignous Melanesians


Negritos


^^^^But genetics and modern science has proven that these people are genetically DISTANT from Africans. Which is why Negroid is flawed and OUTDATED!!!!!! Again those people have Negroid features and look black yet are genetically DISTANT from Africans!

How hard is to comprehend this



[quote author=Rossikk]
''The word is formed by the base "Negro" (which means black in Spanish) and the suffix "-oid", which means "resembling"

^ Company, Houghton Mifflin (2005). The American Heritage guide to contemporary usage and style. Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 512. ISBN 0-618-60499-5.


''The term has both Greek and Latin etymological roots. It literally translates as "black resemblance" from negro/niger (black), and -oeidēs, equivalent to -o- -o- + -eidēs having the form of, derivative of eîdos form.''

^ "Oid | Define Oid at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 2012-06-12.

^^^That has NOTHING to do with Negroid but negro which are TWO DIFFERENT TERMS!

Ashley Montagu lists " neotenous structural traits in which...Negroids differ from Caucasoids... flattish nose, flat root of the nose, narrower ears, narrower joints, frontal skull eminences, later closure of premaxillary sutures, less hairy, longer eyelashes, [and] cruciform pattern of second and third molars "

Rossikk:
Thus negroid would apply to all blacks and as well as all negroid populations, like Australasians and many southern Indians and Bangladeshis.

There is no reason to shy away from the term.

Those populations are GENETICALLY DISTANT from Africans. You just deflated your own argument.

KidStranglehold: Those populations are GENETICALLY DISTANT from Africans. You just deflated your own argument.

Not according to these sources

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/dna-confirms-aboriginal-australian-origins/

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/09/23/3323640.htm#.Ub8kiee1FYc


Proof Of South Indian Dravidian African origins

Y-Chromosome evidence of an African origin of
Dravidian agriculture
Clyde Winters

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=dravidian+african+dna&spell=1&sa=X&psj=1&ei=tCa_UbyTLMe7O4n6gYgL&ved=0CCoQBSgA&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=d72358517086133c&biw=1440&bih=799

No it doesn't! Negroid meant a race and for you to be a part of that race you had to have Negroid characteristics...The caharcateristics were:
Kinky hair
Big lips
Flat nose
Dark skin
Different skull shape.

Again you clearly DO NOT know what the word means. Stop acting like you do when you prove time and time again that you DON'T!

What is it with little children like you and your acerbic tongue based on hot air and nonsense?

Show us the definition of 'negroid' as you claimed above. I just showed you the definition of the term, which you twisted to mean 'negro'.

Again:

Negroid:

''The word is formed by the base "Negro" (which means black in Spanish) and the suffix "-oid", which means "resembling"

''The term has both Greek and Latin etymological roots. It literally translates as "black resemblance" from negro/niger (black), and -oeidēs, equivalent to -o- -o- + -eidēs having the form of, derivative of eîdos form''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid


So that is the base meaning of the term' negroid - BLACK RESEMBLANCE. Nowhere does any commonly accepted definition of the term state what such 'resemblance' must be those features you listed.

If that was the freaking case then Ethiopians would have been grouped in with Negroid.

First of all, I'm not interested in these silly pictures you're posting. Cut it out. Second, Ethiopians are negroid, REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY INDIVIDUAL SCHOLAR OR GROUP OF SCHOLARS SAY or ''group them as''.

This is what I'm trying to get into your skull. The base definition of negroid is 'resembling blacks'. Therefore ANYONE can make their own assessment of a person being negroid or not. There is no ''correct'' or ''incorrect'' assessment. If scholar A comes in here and says Ethiopians are not negroid, Scholar B (me) will say, YES OF COURSE THEY ARE. Finish.

Again are you freaking slow!? Negroid DOES NOT mean black African ancestry it just means a physical features. Horners, Beja, Tutsi, Fulani's,etc DO NOT have what you call Negroid features like this.

Who are you to determine what are black physical features? Tutsis, Fulanis are negro AND negroid going by the simple definitions of the terms. If a white racist says he wishes to place those groups in the caucasian category, you should ask him why, since those groups have black skin, which is a feature of negroid populations. You don't just ACCEPT when they classify those groups as such and then call me ''slow'' for not adopting their definition, or for using the term as it should be used.

Which is why I told you to STOP USING THE WORD.

You need to understand the meaning of the word yourself (which you clearly don't) before asking others to ''stop using it''.

But you're just too slow to even understand where I am even coming from. Arguing with you is like arguing with a child...

Really, I would have to stop responding to you if you cannot debate without using the 'crutch' of insults. In your next post, show more respect or you will be summarily ignored.

PAGAN 9JA:



YOU SON OF A ***!!!!


WHAT GROUPS?! YOU BULLSH!T MAN! FRANCE , ITALY AND BRITAIN ARE NATIONS! COUNTRIES! FRENCH , BRITISH AND ITALIANS ARE NOT ETHNIC GROUPS YOU DULLARD! THEY ARE PEOPLE BELONGING TO THESE COUNTRIES! ITS LIKE SAYING NIGERIANS!

IGBOS ARE AN ETHNIC GROUP OF BANTU ORIGIN! OK?!

TRIBE IS AN ENGLISH WORD! THE CLANS THAT COMPRISE THE IGBOS SHARE 90% SIMILAR LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND RELIGIOUS TRAITS!

THE SLIGHT DIFFERENCES ARE DUE TO ISOLATION, LOCATION AND CONTACT WITH NEIGHBOURING GROUPS!


YORUBAS ARE A TRIBE YOU !!!!!

THERE IS NO COUNTRY LIKE YORUBA OR IGBO! THESE ARE ETHNIC GROUPS WITH SAME CULTURE, GENETICS, RELIGION, ETC. (maybe with slight regional variations)


HOWEVER AMONG THE BRITISH - THEY ARE A MIX OF MORE THAN 1 "UNRELATED ETHNIC GROUPS THAT HAD DIFFERENT GENETICS, LANGUAGE, RELIGON, CULTURE, ETC>


NAMELY : THE BRITONS ( A CELTIC PEOPLE), THE SAXONS/ANGLES (GERMANIC PEOPLE) , THE NORMANS ( VIKING/NORSE PEOPLE).

THE MIX OF MODERN DAY BRITISH IS LIKE MIXING SOMALIS WITH YORUBAS AND ZULUS.!!!!



YOU ARE A MADMAN! I DONT KNOW WHY IM ARGUING WITH YOU AT THIS STAGE!

I GUESS ITS JUST BECAUSE I DONT WANT YOU TO CORRUPT FELLOW NAIRALANDERS WITH YOUR USELESS BULLSHYTZ.

thanks pagan 9ja. You really sounded wise this time around. Only somebody who has not taken time to study the igbo ethnic group will say that they are not the same people. Aro,nri,onitsha etc all have the same root but due to expansion they came incontact with other non igbos whom they assimilated.

Ikenganri:
an excellent response. I think that the problem is now how to know those old igbo people because everything is now mixed together and everybody claims to be original. But unitedly,we can do that,just lets throw away our ego.

Igbo is a recent term.

ezeagu:
My opinion:

Igbo people are branch of a migration of people coming from the east between 3000 and 7000 years ago. They are one of the oldest branches of a tree that went on to birth other groups that are west of them, but they probably absorbed a more ancient group of people which is why you have tales of colonisers and people who never even migrated at all. The word Igbo was used by a few Igbo groups before the industrial age, not by all or most. The Igbo are a ethno-lingustic group, and I do not believe the theory that they were born out of recent (around 1000) years of sporadic migration for the most part. There is a clear, in my opinion, definitive migration pattern starting from where would be around Abia, Imo, Enugu today and branching out in all directions that links most or all Igbo communities together through blood ties. For instance, most of the communities in Abia were founded by people from Imo State.

.

but Abia used to be Imo state, or am I reading you wrong.

ezeagu:
I believe there were aborigines of 'Igboland', such as 'Pygmies', who were displaced and absorbed by agricultural peoples.. . . . . Pygmies are thought to have inhabited this greater central African forest as a hunter-gatherer society before being displaced by agricultural peoples from the Sudan area.

it's possible.

Rossikk:


The Sumerians referred to themselves as 'saggi gi' (The black headed ones).

Intriguingly, Igbos today formally refer to blacks as 'ndi isi oji' - black headed people.

what does black headed people mean?

which Igbos use this term, ie from where?

ezeagu:
It's like linking Igbo communities with France because they both use the words moi and mua for 'myself' and beaucoup and bu ukwu for 'very big'.

Cameroon

tpiaobsession:


it's possible.

Supremacist statements like Nri civilized a group of people and pygmies make Black Africans look stupidd and ignorant. Which people did Nri civilize and what does Nri have that others do not have.
The only fact here is that people were already settled in Igboland before Nri migrated into that area and probably displaced a group of people.
It's unfortunate that West Africans couldn't sit down to develop a written language and document their original history.
Igbo people are just a group of people with a distinct identity that probably birthed other people.

Ihuomadinihu:

Supremacist statements like Nri civilized a group of people and pygmies make Black Africans look stupidd and ignorant. Which people did Nri civilize and what does Nri have that others do not have.
The only fact here is that people were already settled in Igboland before Nri migrated into that area and probably displaced a group of people.
It's unfortunate that West Africans couldn't sit down to develop a written language and document their original history.
Igbo people are just a group of people with a distinct identity that probably birthed other people.

I've edited the post to show what I was commenting on.

I'm not that familiar with Nri although I've seen it discussed on Nairaland.

tpiaobsession:



Igbo is a recent term.

Igbo is not a recent term. it is as old as the people themselves.

very good point.

i am old school and therefore am more into the original ways of afrocentrism which was NEVER about black racial superiority in any way, shape, or form. In fact to me the idea of a superior race is comical to say the least.

It's just about being black, proud, and educated about one's history.

again you have a good point so i guess i will just say that I am Kails and am not ignorant to or in denial of the different cultures and phenotypes found among black people the world over.

oh shut up! You are black and proud yet spend ur time talking shit about igbos (a black people) eff outta here