| 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
yahweh View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote yahweh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Adam's Calender Structure Myth Or Reality?
    Posted: 18 Mar 2014 at 00:18
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
Sponsored Links


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: 27 Sep 2009 at 02:56
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
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: 27 Sep 2009 at 02:48
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
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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 13:26
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
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 14:16

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 14:17
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: 25 Sep 2009 at 06:48
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 - 25 Sep 2009 at 06:50
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: 25 Sep 2009 at 04:32

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
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 14:47
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
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 13:15
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 12:06

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
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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: 24 Sep 2009 at 07:48
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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 04:41


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 - 25 Sep 2009 at 01:22
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: 23 Sep 2009 at 04:25
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
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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 04:10
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
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: 23 Sep 2009 at 03:56
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:


What brings you to that conclusion? If you may ,can you give your opinion as to why these sights predecessors of Mapungubwe?


Well, that was something I read. I have not been involved in archaeological work in this area myself.

In the book I read they said that some of the stone kraals could be dated back to 1400 BP (it would be around the 7th century AD). But I do not know if this dating is correct or if it is the oldest.

But if it is true, some of them predate Mapungubwe (11th to 13th century) and Great Zimbabwe (where the occupation accosiated to the stone walls is dated to 11th to 15th century). And since one can see some similarities between the layout and shape of the stone Kraals and the layout of the larger stone monuments I just laborated  with the idea that there can have been some influence. And after what I understand there are researchers that actually think so.

(At least I see this idea as more plausible than many ideas of foreign, overseas, influence on Mapungubwe and Zimbabwe and similar monuments in south Africa and Zimbabwe).




Edited by Carcharodon - 23 Sep 2009 at 04:06
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2009 at 03:20
Guys, could we please try to be a bit more civil?
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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 03:13
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"!
 
As for "jealousy" you are definitely delusional...almost Cyruslike!Censored


Edited by drgonzaga - 23 Sep 2009 at 03:13
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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: 22 Sep 2009 at 10:25
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Well, this thread will most certainly not contribute anything furthering that supposition, given that there is even difficulty with correct spelling! Adam's Calender (sic)?

Nice try Uncle Scrooge , but its too late, I have already proven your points to be absurd  and remarkably symptoms of jealousy .You have repeatedly littered threads with you dash of critque due to your insatiable craving for a supremacy verdict to all topics of discussion. I believe that the nurses should keep you away from the computer in your "Retirement Home".Ouch



Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Interesting about the stone structures is among other things their chronology, continuity and architectural development. The shapes of the structures are interesting since some of them seem to resemble the big monuments of southern Africa in their style, just in a smaller scale. It seems that some of these structures are dated to around 1400 years BP, it would mean that they predate sites as Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe. To get a grip of the development and distribution of these monuments is of course very valuable.


What brings you to that conclusion? If you may ,can you give your opinion as to why these sights predecessors of Mapungubwe?


Edited by AksumVanguard - 22 Sep 2009 at 23:15
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: 22 Sep 2009 at 10:18



Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

A newspaper accounting is not a "source" on the state of an academic discipline...

LOLThat's what you call clarification?

It must be certain that you truly like to twist and dilute articles for your own objectives, It was you who decided to give the newspaper source not me.If your mad that you have put your foot in your own mouth due to your own mishaps,hey that is not my fault. It clearly states that the Vrystaat  has not visited all the sites and is fully aware of more sites that are to be investigated but refuse to go on any further, due to lack of initiative on their part. So you can deduce that the Vrystaat does not know it all because it has not done meticulous research.


http://jv.news24.com/Die_Volksblad/Vrystaat/0,,5-2266_2295027,00.html

Vrystaat readers who are aware of heritage areas that have not been visited by the museum before, for example rock art sites, stone kraals, stone walls, gravesites, even old farm houses and others, can call Henderson at the National Museum



Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:



 Archaeobotanists have done extensive research on cow dung in Iron Age South Africa taken from these stone kraal [which cover large areas of Southern Africa as distinct from RSA] and the venture into photography hardly qualifies as "evidence" of what Bantu's were up to in the 11th century.




The only cow dung examined is the diverted impervious nonsense you typed in this thread. What does that have to do with anything. Anyway it is true the Bantu did start their migration from modern day Congo region near Cameroon and have traveled towards the south going through parts of Zambia,Namibia,etc during 3000 BC to 1500 AD.  The "so called kraals" of Mpumalanga have earlier datings before the Bantu arrived. And it is true that the  Bantu arrived in South Africa before the 1600's,but they did not build the settlements the encroachment circles,which by the way the last ones date to 1100AD. I did say they Bantu did reoccupy some of these already built so called kraals,which they would also depart from later on. The Dutch and Portuguese who arrive during  1648 brazenly engaged into incursions with the San.


Originally posted by Drgonzaga Drgonzaga wrote:

By the way Bantu is a linguistic term but from the grasp of English usage exhibited...

Duh, and is the dominant language in the region today which means it would have to disseminate amongst the other tribes in order to become their adopted language. But once and for all not all these settlement are "Stone Kraals", you can tell and see they were each built very different.


 

 

 
Anthropologists claim that the influx of Bantu settlers from the north happened in very small groups, the largest being no more that 300 people. At the time of the South African War (Boer War) there were no more than 800 black settlers from north and east Africa who over time became known by the names we call them today. And yet there are thousands of ruins dating back thousands of years suggesting there must have been a population of between 200,000 and 600,000 people living here long before we previously imagined.
 

Originally posted by drgonzaga fabricated word play drgonzaga fabricated word play wrote:


"At the time of the South African War (Boer War) there were no more than 800 black settlers from north and east Africa who over time became known by the names we call them today..."


Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Talk about leaping out of an airplane without a parachute!


Listen , where and when did I say in the article that the Bantu tribes didn't occupy settlements that big during the Boers wars. The Bantu just weren't that rampant during the Boers Wars .The  Cape of South Africa was mainly occupied  KhoiKhois and the San(the San would retreat to the Nambian Desert later on). The Dutch Afrikaneers and Europeans before them (during the time of 1600s & 1700s) mainly fought against the  KhoiKhois to seek dominant control in the region. It is true that they were in fact tribes like the Zulu and Xhosa close to South AFrica,but they didn't occupy the middle regions and interior of what is today South Africa,plus they were in small numbers. Many tribes such as the Nguni and Sotho occupy the region also have remigrated back to the Zambezi rivers after defeat amongst other rival tribes. This would of reduced the population. My god they way you give false accounts is just truly amazing.


Notice the occupation of the Xhosa and Zulu tribes territory are mainly in the North  Eastern coast and are not in the interior where Mpumalanga (dubbed the Makomati),constituting  all the  sites for the Encirclement Structures for what some like you  would call" Kraals", were settled in. Many Bantu Tribes did not live that far in the interior of South Africa to let alone build these sites.






http://www.south-africa-tours-and-travel.com/images/1885-map-showing-zululand-zulu.jpg




http://www.nguni.com/culture/virtualafrica/xhosa/1820map.JPG





http://www.basotho.org/Basotho/Basotho.htm

The Basotho are a group of people from a cluster of tribes united under King Moshoeshoe I (Moo shway shway) during the early 1800’s. Moving south from the Transvaal region of South Africa, they settled in the Orange Free State and on into the mountainous area now known as The Kingdom of Lesotho. Lesotho, with an area of 11,720 square miles, is completely surrounded by the Republic of South Africa.


http://www.worldlicenseplates.com/maps/SouthAfrica-TV.gif

Notice the were the Cape Province lies there is not a large  concentration of  Bantu tribes in the Cape Province during the Boer Wars of so how could the Bantu tribes build a whole lot of those Encirclement Structures during the 1100AD.



Edited by AksumVanguard - 22 Sep 2009 at 17:40
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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 03:16
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Interesting about the stone structures is among other things their chronology, continuity and architectural development. The shapes of the structures are interesting since some of them seem to resemble the big monuments of southern Africa in their style, just in a smaller scale. It seems that some of these structures are dated to around 1400 years BP, it would mean that they predate sites as Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe. To get a grip of the development and distribution of these monuments is of course very valuable.
 
Well, this thread will most certainly not contribute anything furthering that supposition, given that there is even difficulty with correct spelling! Adam's Calender (sic)?
 
Tsetse flies, anyone?
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: 21 Sep 2009 at 17:40
Interesting about the stone structures is among other things their chronology, continuity and architectural development. The shapes of the structures are interesting since some of them seem to resemble the big monuments of southern Africa in their style, just in a smaller scale. It seems that some of these structures are dated to around 1400 years BP, it would mean that they predate sites as Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe. To get a grip of the development and distribution of these monuments is of course very valuable.

Edited by Carcharodon - 21 Sep 2009 at 17:42
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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: 21 Sep 2009 at 15:43
A newspaper accounting is not a "source" on the state of an academic discipline so kindly refrain from trollish blanket bombing and unauthorized cut-and-paste that does little else that waste the forum's bandwidth. Archaeobotanists have done extensive research on cow dung in Iron Age South Africa taken from these stone kraal [which cover large areas of Southern Africa as distinct from RSA] and the venture into photography hardly qualifies as "evidence" of what Bantu's were up to in the 11th century. By the way Bantu is a linguistic term but from the grasp of English usage exhibited...
 
Vrystaat readers, who are aware of heritage areas that have not been visited by the museum before,
 
Guess subordinate conditional phrases give some plenty of trouble.
 
E.G.
 
CARRION, J.S., SCOTT, L., HUFFMAN, T. & DREYER, C. (2000). "Pollen analysis of Iron Age cow dung in southern Africa". Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9:239-249 .
 
Once and for all if there is any cliff diving required visit Acapulco rather than littering the landscape with all of the detritus pushed forward with the usual winks and nods of the conspiracy minded. And please, stop embarrassing yourself with these preposterous assertions:
 
"At the time of the South African War (Boer War) there were no more than 800 black settlers from north and east Africa who over time became known by the names we call them today..."
 
Talk about leaping out of an airplane without a parachute!


Edited by drgonzaga - 21 Sep 2009 at 15:46
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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: 21 Sep 2009 at 10:23

The surveys and excavations in South Africa have not been sincerely extensive and properly orchestrated despite what anyone claims. Drgonzaga, there are over 30,000 of reported "Stone Walls" that have not gone professionally attended and observed by archeologist. Many wealthy landowners of South Africa have some of these stone walls right backyard, and they still haven't been properly attended to. Once again you have given a reference that is an example of fallacy in your sources and is a another repeat in your series of your own "cliff diving with a parachute" spectacles of debating.

Your own reference says it itself.

http://jv.news24.com/Die_Volksblad/Vrystaat/0,,5-2266_2295027,00.html

Vrystaat readers who are aware of heritage areas that have not been visited by the museum before,for example rock art sites, stone kraals, stone walls, gravesites, even old farm houses and others.....

There it is some of these walls have not been tested or dated to find out whether its are Kraals or
or actual wall built by pre existing San people who occupied the area.

The circular walls settlements are not fancy Kraals. Some critics have made skeptic remarks without  taking professional investigation into these discoveries.It is true Bantu tribes did occupy some of these circular settlements reminiscent a but only after the Bantu first encountered these already established settlements. You don't think I already saw the explanations for these sights as being Kraals,remnants of the Shona Empire , or  being King Solomon's lost Gold Mines.

Let this be known that the "Stone Kraals" of the Bantu Tribes look very different from that of the  Encirclements.

Bantu Kraals

http://www.ezakwantu.com/Pedi%20Duggan-Cronin%2001.jpg




http://www.agri-land.co.za/images/41.9.jpg


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

http://www.griquas.com/2006/21Sep/041.jpg


Old Pleistocene Kraals.




This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 640x511.
Click the image to open in full size.







This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 513x410.
Click the image to open in full size.



This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 640x502.
Click the image to open in full size.



This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 640x501.
Click the image to open in full size.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 640x426.
Click the image to open in full size.




Anthropologists claim that the influx of Bantu settlers from the north happened in very small groups, the largest being no more that 300 people. At the time of the South African War (Boer War) there were no more than 800 black settlers from north and east Africa who over time became known by the names we call them today. And yet there are thousands of ruins dating back thousands of years suggesting there must have been a population of between 200,000 and 600,000 people living here long before we previously imagined.

There is a an interview with Michale Tellinger and unfortunately we have not been able to find any total testimonys from archeologist such as Richard Wade. Michael Telliger even states that helped determined the sites by alien rocks(lets hope he means "regionally alien"). But according to him the dated it back by erosion.

http://intoallthat.com/2008/11/30/185/


Dolerite erodes very slowly and the erosion patterns on most monoliths indicate that they were brought there a long, long time ago.

We have gathered artifacts from the same site that date back from 300,000 yrs and 600 years. This points to a very long occupation of these sites.




These sites allegedly range from different periods of time, but I wonder why there hasn't been any datings of walls found in somones own backyard. I agree that 75,000 years is way extreme but there stiill isn't proper excavations.


Edited by AksumVanguard - 21 Sep 2009 at 10:29
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: 21 Sep 2009 at 05:53
Well its nice that there are surveys and investigations of stone structures in South Africa, but as you said its hardly a totally new research. But the more investigations and surveys the more complete will be the picture of the archaeological remnants of this country. Studies about the continuity of building plans from smaller structures up to structures the size of Mapungubwe and similar are very valuable.


Edited by Carcharodon - 21 Sep 2009 at 06:01
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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: 21 Sep 2009 at 05:37
Look, the remnants of stone "kraals" throughout the Central Plateau of the Zambezi valley are hardly a novelty and serious scholars have long approached the subject. In fact, much of the nonsense raised over these structures have rather dark ulterior motives akin to the earlier assignations over Great Zimbabwe! At least read responsible material...references are as easy to find as the crap thrust forth as "competent study" by the Internet Iliterati .
 
 
See, even the press gets it right!
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: 20 Sep 2009 at 20:47
Yes, if serious research regarding different ancient monuments should halt just because some of all these proponents of alien visitors took an interest in them, then noone could research the pyramids of Egypt, or the Inca ruins or the Maya pyramids either, since Daniken and others like him have proposed a lot of strange theories about these as well.
It is better to find out what these ruins really are and to conduct serious research about them with surveys, excavations, datings and analyzes.
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: 20 Sep 2009 at 19:27

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.

The sites discovery,excavation,and exposure is not totally due to Michael Tellinger, the site was founded by Johan Heine. Michael Tellinger just chose to write a book about Johan Heine's discovery which is giving Adam's Calender and all of its counterpart discoveries  in the vicinity bad press.

Tellinger is not synonymous with Adams Calender,so get your facts in order.



Edited by AksumVanguard - 21 Sep 2009 at 08:39
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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: 20 Sep 2009 at 16:18

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.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
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: 20 Sep 2009 at 12:41
It seems Michael Tellinger's exploitation of this archeological find gives this site bad press . Whether or not these sites in Makomati are Pre Historic or date back to the time of the Common Era,there must certainly be proper excavating in this area.

Edited by AksumVanguard - 20 Sep 2009 at 19:18
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: 20 Sep 2009 at 12:29
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Dear Pinguin, welcome to the world of Michael Tellinger, whose escapades make even Thor Heyerdahl respectable. The guy pushing this intellectual fraud is well known for outrageous muddle. Before hitting upon this prattle, he authored one of the most uproarious bits of trash, Slave Species of God, that made even The Chariots of the Gods appear respectable! Here is the reception he received from the ForteanTimes (a web site dedicated to "strange phenomena"):


Its not a mystery that Tellinger's books are wild and too inappropiately constructed, but however his website does show very interesting arieal pictures that can be conclusive for being man made. I really careless about the  ancient astronomical structure,  I already stated that  really is a flimsy construct and hold s no seriousness to the obeservance. I  am talking about the circular stone structures , how do you explain the formation of that.
We are debating whether the sites such as the encirclement campings and other findings can be called authentic. We are also trying to figure out what date and time are these abandoned settlements relevant to which period or are these just "mother nature's" wonderous blunders,that take the form of  man made structures.

I really gave no claim as proof to Micheal Tellinger's book, the site was founded and excavated by Johaine Hein Stone. Another astronomer Bill Holenbach, an astronomer also  found the sites interesting,but that's here nor there as we really don't need to link it with the astronomy.

No if you read Carcharadon's article which says that the Blombas Cave Carvings have 300 to 400 indications of human molding and crafting, which  goes back 40,000 to 70,000 years ago. So its not impossible that dwellers in this region of Southern Africa have knowledge of stone crafting,with the obvious finding of stone tools.



Quote

The Johan Heine Stone Calendar (affectionately called Adam’s Calendar) has been dated by astronomer Bill Hollenbach to be around 75,000 years, based on the movement of the peoples in southern Africa and the emergence of rock art during that period. But it could in fact be even older – dating back to the dawn of Homo sapiens some 250,000 years ago.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


The man is a musician with no knowledge whatsoever of history, science or even phenomenology! The funny part is this bit of froo-froo being introduced as a point for serious discussion!


I see you choose to fire rant as soon as you get back from your heart attack vacation old man. Whats funny is that you gave no assertion as to why the sites were hoaxes or not. Now if you are to prove their hoaxes that is fine,but do tell why. 
Now in the next above comment he already suggested that the sites may look real but the dating is false, there can be one person that agrees that these are settlements of some kind. Can you name what are the sites origins, I think not you have no knowledge of expertise in this area.



Edited by AksumVanguard - 21 Sep 2009 at 01:14
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 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.