| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Adam's Calender Structure Myth Or Reality?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Adam's Calender Structure Myth Or Reality?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Sep 2009 at 18:10
Carcharodon, there had been a consistent effort on this thread to confuse the stonework and metallurgy associated with the cattle culture of the Bantu speakers with the earlier world of the Holocene foragers and their rock art. Just the simple reading of Peter Mitchell, The Archaeology of Southern Africa (Cambridge: The University Press, 2002) will suffice to not only clarify the current contention but dismiss it altogether.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Sep 2009 at 18:25
I have read it once upon a time and also a couple of other books on both South African archaeology and about stone structures like Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe, and I am inclined to connect the stone kraals with bantu speaking peoples. That makes also the connections and influences between these monuments and the larger stone structures rather plausible.
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2009 at 18:41


Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Once again you misrepresent and fabricate utter nonsense in order to confuse and mask your sheer fantasias! Aksum those asinine convolutions posted above follow a ploy you have attempted before so you has best go back and edit away the evidence of your travesty. Yet, it is funny how you revert to ideosyncratic terminology to fashion all of the taurus foeces you are dropping. Aksum you prove nothing other than your total incapacity to comprehend what you are purportedly reading. Get this straight, the Bantu were already as far South as Johannesburg by 1000 AD as archaeology has long proven and the bit about the "stone kraals" predating the Bantu is folderol since neither the Khoi nor the San had a "cattle culture"!
 


Of course the Bantu people have settled in the South Africa by 1000 AD, there is some archeologist that say the Bantu -Nguni and Tswana tribes,  settled there some time earlier before. The issue here Drgonzaga is that the Bantus were not that prevalent in the region and did not populate in what is now South Africa in a significant amount. South Africa does not have a large water supply during the 1800's, so it was a bit questionable for South Africa  to have a large population before the colonial period due to the lack of water.

http://www.southafrica.info/about/geography/geography.htm

Although the country is classified as semi-arid, it has considerable variation in climate as well as topography.

In so dry a country, dams and irrigation are extremely important: the largest dam is the Gariep on the Orange River.

In contrast, the eastern coastline is lush and well watered, a stranger to frost. The southern coast, part of which is known as the Garden Route, is rather less tropical but also green, as is the Cape of Good Hope - the latter especially in winter.





Most of the Bantu tribes populated the Eastern coastal regions,and most were of Nguni descent. The accounts of how and when the tribes entered South Africa varied.But most did not migrate to the interior in reasonable numbers.At the time during Shaka Zulus reign  it was estimated that he presided over 250,000 subjects. The bulk of the  subjects were of the Xhosa and Zulu tribes, they were the largest . So even during the 19th century when the population reached its paramount it didn't account for the mass stone encirclements scattered across the South Africa because most of them did not settle there.






http://www.walkingexperiences.com/images/photos_472.jpg

http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/ulundi/zulu-kraal.jpg









http://www.warthog.co.za/dedt/tourism/culture/kraal/layout.htm

The Kraals of the Zulu and Xhosa do not resemble the stone encirclements spread across South Africa. It is inaccurate to call the Stone Encirclements of Southern Africa , "Kraals",by the way here is an excerpt from the "ScienceDirect.com dates the Stone Kraals from 1000 A.D. to 1750 AD. So  some of these stone encirclements have still yet to be properly labeled and researched.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH9-4V402KH-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1020628913&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ef97a8fe7e8f62f6597df50e3ce35381

The prehistory of sheep and cattle herding in South Africa's semi-arid Karoo region remains poorly documented. Yet the upper Karoo plays a key gateway role in one competing model of pastoralist expansion into the extreme south of the continent. Direct-dated prehistoric livestock remains from local rock shelters are too few to build an adequate chronology. An alternative is the direct dating of fiber temper in potsherds collected at livestock enclosures (kraals) built of low, dry-stone walling. Seventeen such 14C dates are reported, along with comparable thermoluminescence dates including three from pottery associated with Khoekhoe pastoralists in the ethnohistoric record. The earliest dated kraal in the upper Seacow valley is not, vert, similarCal AD 1000 and the youngest is not, vert, similarCal AD 1750, so it is likely that all of them are of pre-European(not, vert, similarAD 1780) date. There was a continuous herder presence, buffered by local Bushman hunter-foragers who also took up herding but retained their own ceramic tradition. The dates are spread too thinly to verify gaps in the record that might signal short-term collapses in herding practice, like the one that preceded the Dutch trekboer invasion. Resident foragers first made fiber-tempered pottery here a full millennium before the advent of herding.




http://malisa.viawias.com/les25%20Xhosa-cattle-kraal.jpg


http://www.mk.org.za/objects/lrg_GenaKraal.jpg

Stone Kraal

^^The example above is what the Stone Kraal looks like, they do not look any similar to the sites of Mupluuga.We are not a not talking about the Kraal we are talking about other encirclement structures. Yes a lot of archeologist have mistaken the so called stone encirclements for kraals but they cannot explain the other features.





As for the San not having a cattle culture that is not true. They are many Khoisan that have traded with the Dutch Afrikaaners for much sought for livestock,how did you come u with that conclusion.

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/hunters-and-herding-local-level-livestock-development-among-kalahari-san

The San are crucial to the Kalahari livestock industry. Many work as herders (badisa) on cattle posts and ranches, and a number of San keep livestock of their own. Numbering between 40,000 and 60,000, the San are usually described as hunter-gatherers or non-stockholders, yet there is mounting archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic evidence to suggest that the San have had access to livestock and livestock products for a substantial period of time. Archeological surveys and excavations in the Kalahari reveal that agropastoralists have resided in the region for over 1,500 years. In the nineteenth century San were used as herders by Tswana, Kalanga and other Bantu-speaking populations, some of whom bartered cattle in exchange for services in a system known as sejara. Other San obtained livestock through wages earned in formal sector employment such as the mines of South Africa. It is interesting to note that according to oral history data, cattleless populations sometimes obtained livestock from San who had managed to build up fairly sizeable breeding herds.




You complain about me installing my update I wanted to give you a clearer picture of where the Bantu Nguni settled in South Africa, yet there is vast amount of stone encirclements scattered out in and around the country.






Edited by AksumVanguard - 24 Sep 2009 at 15:22
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2009 at 21:48
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2009 at 02:06

Bantues are alliens to South Africa as much as Europeans. Anything that predates the Bantu invasion must be associated with the natives Khoi-San.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2009 at 03:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Bantues are alliens to South Africa as much as Europeans. Anything that predates the Bantu invasion must be associated with the natives Khoi-San.



At least they arrived earlier than the Europeans. And their impact on the Khoi San was not as destructive (eventhough there could be hostilities).
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2009 at 04:47
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...At least they arrived earlier than the Europeans.
 
At least nothing! The fact those invaders were Blacks don't excuse of the impact they have on native populations.
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...
And their impact on the Khoi San was not as destructive (eventhough there could be hostilities).
 
That's nonsense. Invaders are always destructive. Even more, you that base much of your sources on that famous and single site of yours, just search how the San and Pigmeys are persecuted by Bantues in Southern Africa.
 
 
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2009 at 18:32

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Bantues are alliens to South Africa as much as Europeans. Anything that predates the Bantu invasion must be associated with the natives Khoi-San.

I agree and disagree with you. This is what I am trying to state all throughout this thread that the "encirclements" do not correlate with the "Kraals" that the Bantu left behind during their migration into South Africa. They of course look different.

Its ironic how certain so called experts "historians" like to zig zag and cross reference the new unearthed discoveries located in South Africa to fit their own liking. Let me give an example situation, lets say in Durban ,South Africa archeologist find art on a pottery that is 2,000 years old, and has art on it that looks similar to the designs the Xhosa put on their pottery.  Archeologist  would assume the Bantu were in South Africa, 2,000 years before. But because the lack of knowledge on the archeologist part the they didn't know Xhosa had adopted the art and designs from the Khoi-san who assimilated in the Xhosa bantu tribes arrived in Africa.


Contrary to popular belief the Khoi-San and Bantu tribes did have relations with each other, whether it be exchange of different cattle or livestock between the two or it could be Khoi-san acted as trail guides for Bantu into new territory. Tribes such as the Zulu intergrated with the Khoi-San and not all the Bantu tribes were rivals o the Khoi-San. 







Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2009 at 20:48
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
That's nonsense. Invaders are always destructive. Even more, you that base much of your sources on that famous and single site of yours, just search how the San and Pigmeys are persecuted by Bantues in Southern Africa.


Historically the whites have had a larger and more destructive impact on the Khoi-San peoples than the Bantus had. They were enslaved, displaced and even exterminated in some cases.


Edited by Carcharodon - 24 Sep 2009 at 20:50
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Sep 2009 at 04:16

Bantues did the same to the Khoi-Sans: enslaved, displaced and even exterminated in some cases. Even more, they still do with the tribes of hunters. And you know that!



Edited by pinguin - 25 Sep 2009 at 04:17
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2009 at 03:26
Has anyone looked at a map lately with regard to Mpumalanga?
 
 
It is the Northeast and the Limpopo Valley! Now how actual history and archaelogy can be fractured for the purpose of political folderol...we'll this thread provides a shining example.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2009 at 16:48
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Bantues did the same to the Khoi-Sans: enslaved, displaced and even exterminated in some cases. Even more, they still do with the tribes of hunters. And you know that!



Even if it is hard to measure the exact amount of genocide, slavery and displacement there still seem to be a greater impact in that sence made by the whites. That will not exclude also abuse from some other peoples (the ones that you lump together under the name Bantu).


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2009 at 16:56
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...Even if it is hard to measure the exact amount of genocide, slavery and displacement there still seem to be a greater impact in that sence made by the whites. That will not exclude also abuse from some other peoples (the ones that you lump together under the name Bantu).
 
No matter there is no deny some abuses may exist, the native Khoisan population suffered the same impact Amerindians, Inuits and Polynesians had when Europeans arrived: diseases. Khoisans weren't immune to the diseases Europeans carried.
Lucky bantues, who had nature on theirs side on tropical Africa; where the Europeans were most exposed to death than locals. That was not the case of Khoisan peoples.
Back to Top
yahweh View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote yahweh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2014 at 14:18
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Tellinger is a looney and puting this froth forth brings to question the integrity of any proponent. One need not waste time to disprove the discreditable...so take this one-pony show somewhere else.


Hey, Troll, you need to check your own misspellings ("alliens"!), split infinitives, improper syntax, poor grammar and the litany of logical fallacies you employ before grammarnaziing others. Your bias, including the ad hominem attack in the quote above, relegates your opinions to be meritless.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.