# When Martial Arts was called Montu Arts and Nubian Wrestling (Article)



## Black Belt Jedi (Oct 2, 2011)

Here is some of the research I've been doing for several years in order to understand the roots of combative systems,

Here is an article called Ancient Wrestling in Nubia by Prof. Scott Carroll:

http://wysinger.homestead.com/nubiansport.html

Here is a video of Ashra Kwesi in Egypt explaining the fighting arts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHr4ekIq2HQ&feature=channel_video_title


----------



## Jenna (Oct 2, 2011)

I think martial art (martial being of Mars the Roman god of war) is surely only a nomenclature and no reliable indicator of history?  

Surely have fighting systems not been around for as long as resources on those human evolutionary plains have been scarce?  And formal systems for as long as we have evolved hierarchical societies and sought to convey our competitiveness in a non- "field" environment?  I think it should be difficult to define the root of all fighting systems.  And because an Ancient Egyptian one is before the early Roman epoch, surely that does not imply it is the root of all fighting art?

I am no expert, just my thoughts... Interesting treatise though. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 2, 2011)

While there is no doubt that there were martial arts in Africa, this does not mean that it is the roots of all martial arts. This suffers the same kind of logic that all arts descend from Shaolin, or that all arts came from India. People have been fighting as long as the human race has been walking this earth, and many similarities in styles from distant locations is much easier to explain and understand as the human body is built the same way in every section of the world. There are height differences, and weight differences, but the standard is two arms, tow legs attached to a body. Therefore movement is going to be similar.  Occam's razor will tell you that simultaneous development is much more likely than one tribe discovering how to fight with fists and feet, or how to wrestle, then showing the entire world how to do it.

Study the African arts, if that is what interests you. It is good for diversity and variation in the martial arts.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 3, 2011)

"*It is reasonable to think that the Egyptians subjugated wrestling tribes like the Nuba. African wrestling champions were taken from their villages and organized into a regiment to wrestle in the Pharoahs tribute games.* " Cut from the linked article. This is a reasonable assumption. However ,there is another possibility. In the beginning of the article it states *Wrestling was extremely popular with the ancient Egyptians, judging by the frequency with which the sport appears in Egyptian art.(2) There are a host of wrestling scenes which first appear in the Old Kingdom tomb of Ptahhotep (2300 B.C.) through the time of the New Kingdom (2000-1085 B.C.). Some of the most interesting scenes show foreigners wrestling against the Egyptians. Nubian wrestlers appear at least five times in Egyptian art. Our information about ancient Nubian wrestling is dependent on these glimpses in Egyptian iconography together with a late description found in Heliodorus Aithiopica*_*.

*_So, the proof of ancient Nubian wrestling is dependant on Egyptian carvings which show Nubian wrestlers. Is it not also possible that as the Egyptians took Nubians as slaves, that they may have taught them wrestling , for the entertainment of the Egyptians?   That runaway slaves returned to their homeland and taught wrestling to their tribesman?   I don't see enough information to cancel out one possibility or the other.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 4, 2011)

Did the ancient africans have martial arts? Yep.  Did all ancient cultures have martial arts of some kind? Yep.  What we don't know and never can is how systematized they were and the method of transmission.  As Mr. Raud pointed out, we all only have two arms and two legs (maybe less) and there are only so many ways to bend, lock, punch, kick, throw somebody.  As it has been said, "There is nothing new under the sun".

But, I don't buy the idea that ALL MA's are based on this.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 4, 2011)

The Sumerians used to Prize Fight, often depicted with the Fists.

That doesnt mean Boxing is based on Sumerian Prize Fighting.

Its Interesting History.
But you need to remain Retrospective


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Oct 9, 2011)

In my theory, I don't say fact. It is logic to think that the indigenous fighting systems has started where human life began, in Eastern Africa (Kush) in the Nile Valley. Another theory is that every civilization developed their own fighting systems. If every civilization had developed their own fighting systems then the world was opened to trade routes before the Kush Empire approx. 75,000 to 1 million years ago.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 9, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> In my theory, I don't say fact. It is logic to think that the indigenous fighting systems has started where human life began, in Eastern Africa (Kush) in the Nile Valley. *Another theory is that every civilization developed their own fighting systems. If every civilization had developed their own fighting systems then the world was opened to trade routes before the Kush Empire approx. 75,000 to 1 million years ago*.



Let's try this again. If every civilization developed their own fighting systems, then every civilization developed their own fighting systems. This in no way means that there were trade routes before the Kush Empire. One statement has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 9, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> _*In my theory, I don't say fact*_. It is logic to think that the indigenous fighting systems has started where human life began, in Eastern Africa (Kush) in the Nile Valley. Another theory is that every civilization developed their own fighting systems. If every civilization had developed their own fighting systems then the world was opened to trade routes before the Kush Empire approx. 75,000 to 1 million years ago.


 In your original post, you don't state anything rearding fact or theory, what you wrote was _*Here is some of the research I've been doing for several years in order to understand the roots of combative systems, *_then provided links to someone else's work. So is this your research, or is it a theory you are working with developed by other people(that you agree with)? Basically, what are you trying to communicate, and potentially educate us at Martialtalk, about?


----------



## geezer (Oct 9, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> In my theory, I don't say fact. It is logic to think that the indigenous fighting systems has started where human life began, in Eastern Africa (Kush) in the Nile Valley. Another theory is that every civilization developed their own fighting systems. If every civilization had developed their own fighting systems then the world was opened to trade routes before the *Kush Empire approx. 75,000 to 1 million years ago.*



Your dates are pretty far-fetched according to mainstream anthropologic data. Modern Homo sapiens only first evolved from Homo erectus ancestors about 100,000 years ago! As far as wrestling, or martial arts originating in Africa, well I'd say that's a given since the best data shows that all humans came from there, and from what we know of fighting, it's as old as humanity. As far as the idea that _Blacks_ started the martial arts, I'd say that's also a given, since the best evidence suggests that the first humans were all dark skinned and the "races" we identify now developed later after our ancestors migrated out of Africa and relatively small populations of humans became isolated in different environments. Interestingly, recent DNA analysis has revealed that skin color is one of the fastest adaptive genetic changes that occurs in the human species.


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Oct 9, 2011)

frank raud said:


> In your original post, you don't state anything rearding fact or theory, what you wrote was _*Here is some of the research I've been doing for several years in order to understand the roots of combative systems, *_then provided links to someone else's work. So is this your research, or is it a theory you are working with developed by other people(that you agree with)? Basically, what are you trying to communicate, and potentially educate us at Martialtalk, about?



I'm not trying to make people believe what I shared or to brainwash anybody, but I just wanted to provide information in order for us to be open minded. I'm still looking for answers about the origins of Martial Arts, so it is a theory, until the facts are revealed and the myths dispelled.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 9, 2011)

geezer said:


> Your dates are pretty far-fetched according to mainstream anthropologic data. Modern Homo sapiens only first evolved from Homo erectus ancestors about 100,000 years ago!



Er, actually, modern _homo sapiens sapiens_ evolved from the admixture of _archaic homo sapiens_: _homo heidelbergenis, homo rhodesiensis, homo neanderthalensis_, et al, about 200,000 years ago, in the middle paleothic. It was they (or, at least,some or *one of them* ) that evolved from _homo erectus_: of course, this is all subject to a great deal of debate, but it's generally agreed that _homo sapiens sapiens_, that is to say, *us*, have been around about 200,000 years, unless, of course, you're a fundamentalist Christian who believes that there's no such thing as 200,000 years, and all of creation is only about 6,000 years old. :lfao:

As for the African migration, this was a migration of _homo erectus_, and did take place at or around the time frame posted by Mr. Jedi. 

I've already done the whole "Africa is the mother of everything" debate. Have at it gentlemen......:lfao:


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 9, 2011)

I have done this debate many and many a time,and elder's post and Mr.Jedi's post are dead on.Furthermore,I am pursuing my Ph.d. in African Studies which includes intensive delving into anthropology and many other disciplines. Essentially,combat systems are not the same as engaging in combat. We've fought for survival against the elements,animals,and each other with various degrees of skill for untold millenia. However,the active analysis of SUCCESSFUL combat techs and actively keeping,refining,and teaching these methods developed much later.This process is a natural human process,and happned first in Africa with Africans,as we are the first humans including the first homo sapiens sapiens.There are a variety of reasons for this fact--wholly major impersonal factors like climate terrain etc--which don't imply either an innate African superiority nor does it in any way imply the inferiority of the ancient African arts in any way.

I find it very interesting to note that quite a few people in previous discussions long prior to your arrival,Jedi,on this site perhaps and most definitely on KenpoTalk found it so hard to believe that the eldest branch of the human race had every occassion to have intercourse with their neighbors and in the process of that intercourse shared martial knowledge along with all of the other primary arts and sciences which this eldest of races discovered and practiced first. The fact that Africans were the first to create and practice all of the primary essential arts and sciences,crafts and disciplines of civilization in no way infers a superhuman or superior cast upon us nor does it in any way belittle the innovations or the contributions of others. What it does is place the Black African squarely on the stage of human development in a very very prominent way as oftentimes the first to innovate and highly refine essentials for human survival and elevate them to very high degrees,and places as within the chain of human development and achievement in a permanent way.It's the REACTIONS to this assertion (which was long proved millenia before any of us could get on an internet chat board) that are most telling and revealing,imo.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 9, 2011)

geezer said:


> Modern Homo sapiens only first evolved from Homo erectus ancestors about 100,000 years ago! As far as wrestling, or martial arts originating in Africa, well I'd say that's a given since the best data shows that all humans came from there, and from what we know of fighting, it's as old as humanity. As far as the idea that _Blacks_ started the martial arts, I'd say that's also a given, since the best evidence suggests that the first humans were all dark skinned and the "races" we identify now developed later after our ancestors migrated out of Africa and relatively small populations of humans became isolated in different environments...




^^^This is largely accurate.When,however,we overlay the developments of other ancient groups such as the Dravidians and the Chinese,the Greeks,etc, and we see clear indications of trade,war,commerce,etc. between these groups? We can make some very accurate assessments about who did what first and how that achievement could have wholly jumpstarted a similar endeavor in another country that is wholly influenced initially by the people who started it (like hip hop started in America and is still considered the shrine and purest expression of hiphop,and bjj started in Brazil so going to Brazil to practice bjj is considered to be a big deal,and going to Thailand to practice and study Muay Thai is considered the same,as is going to Korea for Taekwondo,Japan for Judo and Karate,back to the USA for boxing,etc. You get my point by now,I trust) and subsequently developed by those who INHERITED it.

Africans without a doubt crafted the first martial arts via survival necessity,and continued to develope it as a human necessity. By the time we journeyed to other places,and "evolved" into other people,we perforce continued to practice martial arts as one of the first bastions of survival itself. Not everyone was a warrior,but everyone knew its necessity. African civilization evolved first and reached a point where it was advanced enough to reach out and interact with other cultures first as well,and once again infused their African-cum-Indian or African-cum-Greek or African-cum-Chinese brethren with their more advanced martial arts which these other populations grafted onto to their own PREEXISTING martial practices.As I've been saying since forever...Africans created martial arts first and refined it all the way up until the Fall of African Civilization (which included the wholly Black African Pharoahnic system and Pharoahs),and throughout the millenia Africans had intercourse with every other branch of humanity...sharing trading and bartering.Etc. In the process,the more advanced African martial arts were shared with their brethren,which these younger cultures and races then grafted onto their PREEXISTING BUT LARGELY RUDIMENTARY martial arts then refined it further.

It's similar to the interaction and process that one has with your student. You teach them at a time that--from your perspective--they're largely clueless about effective martial arts,but clearly they've managed to survive long enough to meet you (and that is years on top of years for every one of them except for family you teach from nearly the crib).You teach them your martial expression.They become skilled,make the art their own by adding their own personal innovations to it (and if you did your job right? they've IMPROVED the art and hopefully have SURPASSED YOU IN SKILL) and then they pass it on. A process similar to this has happened in the African martial arts,both within and without Africa.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 9, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> However,the active analysis of SUCCESSFUL combat techs and actively keeping,refining,and teaching these methods developed much later.This process is a natural human process,and happned *first in Africa with Africans,as we are the first humans including the first homo sapiens sapiens*.There are a variety of reasons for this fact--wholly major impersonal factors like climate terrain etc--which don't imply either an innate African superiority nor does it in any way imply the inferiority of the ancient African arts in any way.



Nope. Sorry. Wrong. 

The human migration from Africa was of _homo erectus_,and the _archaic homo sapiens_, like _homo neanderthalis,_ not _homo sapiens sapiens_ There is no evidence of modern man developing in Africa first, or any primacy anywhere at all: according to the fossil record, it appears as though our development in Africa was parallel to our development in Europe and Asia. 



ATACX GYM said:


> I find it very interesting to note that quite a few people in previous discussions long prior to your arrival,Jedi,on this site perhaps and most definitely on KenpoTalk found it so hard to believe that the eldest branch of the human race had every occassion to have intercourse with their neighbors and in the process of that intercourse shared martial knowledge along with all of the other primary arts and sciences which this eldest of races discovered and practiced first.


Don't believe Africans are "the oldest branch of the human race." That's psuedo-scientific.Don't believe that all of the ther primary arts and sciences were discovered and practiced by Africans first. That's pseudo scientific, and pseudo-historic. 

What I *do* believe, though, might cause some head scratching, and it includes the notion that Africans got around a lot more than conventional history says. 




ATACX GYM said:


> The fact that Africans were the first to create and practice all of the primary essential arts and sciences,crafts and disciplines of civilization in no way infers a superhuman or superior cast upon us nor does it in any way belittle the innovations or the contributions of others.



It's not a *fact*, Ras. It's not even a very good theory.



ATACX GYM said:


> What it does is place the Black African squarely on the stage of human development in a very very prominent way as oftentimes the first to innovate and highly refine essentials for human survival and elevate them to very high degrees,and places as within the chain of human development and achievement in a permanent way.It's the REACTIONS to this assertion (which was long proved millenia before any of us could get on an internet chat board) that are most telling and revealing,imo.



And here's where John says "you see racism everywhere." People don't agree with crazy, unsupported, undocumented, poorly presented, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-historic B.S., and you think it's because they can't stand the idea of the prominence of Africans in human history.(Though, based on past posts, that just might be true for some of us....)


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Nope. Sorry. Wrong.
> 
> The human migration from Africa was of _homo erectus_,and the _archaic homo sapiens_, like  _homo neanderthalis,_ not _homo sapiens sapiens_ There is no evidence of modern man developing in Africa first, or any primacy anywhere at all: according to the fossil record, it appears as though our development in Africa was parallel to our development in Europe and Asia.



I've read this as well,and have found quite a bit of info that disputed that claim.In the interest of NOT thread-jacking,I'll share that information with you via PM when I return to the PC in a few days.Peace.

Quickly,for the edification of those reading this thread...

Very broadly speaking in anthropology and other disciplines we have two primary camps,Out of Africa (OoA)-Replacement,and the Multiregionalist (MR)-Continuity camp of thought.I personally tend to favor a hybrid of the two,but that's getting ahead of myself. To quote a composite of one of my favorite research collectives and academic anthropological all-stars...

"...Most researchers currently accept the statement that &#8220;modern&#8221; humans can be considered to date to approximately 200&#8211;250 kyr. Others (such as Milford Wolpoff), take the view that our species extends as far as approximately 2.0 myr, subsuming _H. erectus_, _H. ergaste_r, and _H. heidelbergensis_. There are two polarizing camps on the issue of our species origin (though there is varying degrees of compromise between the two stances as well as various alternative positions): the multiregional (or continuity) camp, and the Out of Africa (replacement) camp.The perspective of multiregionalists is that extending to the origin of _H. erectus_, there have been populations of humans living around the old world, and these all contributed to successive generations, eventually leading to modern humans. In this scenario, the Chinese and Indonesian material are the most direct ancestors of modern East Asians, the African material are the most direct ancestors of modern Africans, and that either the European populations are the most direct ancestors of modern Europeans, or that the European populations contributed significant genetic material to modern Europeans, with most of modern Europeans origins rooted in Africa or West Asia. Adherents to this model look at early material and try to trace continuity in morphology from those early populations to later populations in the same geographic area. In this model, there are paralleled changes in all penecontemporary populations, with enough genetic migration to maintain close species bonds, while still allowing the suite of racial features we see today.
The perspective of the Out of Africa model (often called Out of Africa II, referring to a second migration from Africa of a hominid population) adherents is that when there was a migration of _H. erectus_ out of Africa into Asia and Europe, these populations (seen in materials like the Chinese and Indonesian _erectus_) did not contribute a significant amount of genetic material to later populations that led to modern humans (some claim no genetic ancestry to these groups and their descendants at all, a &#8220;strict&#8221; replacement model). At approximately 200 kya there was a second migration of hominids out of Africa. This time it was fully modern _H. sapiens_, which proceeded to replace whatever populations that then occupied Asia and Europe. Some see direct competition and extermination of the native populations, some see passive replacement due to better adaptive strategies, and some see genetic admixture with the preponderance of genetic material coming from the incoming human populations, eventually replacing and assimilating them into the greater collective. In this view there is a specific speciation event that occurred which led to the origin of _H. sapiens_ in Africa, and this population is the forerunner of modern humans, leaving the European Neanderthals, Chinese _erectus_, and others out in the cold.
There are various models which embody combinations of these ideas, different &#8220;strict&#8221; interpretations of the two theories, etc. Multiregionalists look for similarities between populations in the same geographic location that are separated spatially, while people who follow replacement look for differences. It is oft a difference of semantics between different interpretations rather than real differences of opinion, but often there is real disagreement on the validity of research, and theoretical interpretations. This has led to some fairly severe strife within the paleoanthropological community, with potshots often taken unfairly at rival theories and rival theoreticians. For example, multiregionalism is often portrayed as a racist theory that claims different &#8220;races&#8221; have evolved to different &#8220;levels&#8221; of intelligence. Out of Africa II has often been portrayed as a religiously motivated idea that tries to come to terms with the biblical story of Genesis, as reference to the &#8220;Eve&#8221; theory suggests.
Beyond disagreement over fundamental issues like &#8220;What is a valid speciation event?&#8221; one fact stands out: neither theory has proved itself above the other in terms of parsimonious explanation of the fossil evidence. The general opinion among researchers seems to go in cycles, supporting OoA, then supporting MRE, then supporting OoA, etc. Currently, we seem to be at a cusp of support for replacement, and there seems top be a shifting in opinion more favorable to continuity. The highly publicized genetic studies that purportedly &#8220;proved&#8221; that Neanderthals did not contribute the modern human genome are so plagued with practical and theoretical problems to make their conclusions moot, especially since it does not in any way address the rest of the populations in the world, and their genetic fate..."


----------



## billc (Oct 9, 2011)

I hate to break it to you guys, but the origin of all martial arts systems is Korea.  The original "Sun Source" of all marital arts is Sinanju.  If you don't like that fact, take it up with the current Master.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 9, 2011)

You damn well Chuin doesn't talk to anybody not of the heavenly blessed Korean race or only at the direction of the Emperor Smith, in a rare case of generosity, his adopted white child Remo. Don't get his hopes up. It just isn't going to work out. :bangahead::drinkbeer:ultracool


----------



## elder999 (Oct 9, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> .To quote a composite of one of my favorite research collectives and academic anthropological all-stars...."



And who would they be?


----------



## geezer (Oct 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Er, actually, modern _homo sapiens sapiens_ evolved from the admixture of _archaic homo sapiens_: _homo heidelbergenis, homo rhodesiensis, homo neanderthalensis_, et al, about 200,000 years ago, in the middle paleothic. It was they (or, at least,some or *one of them* ) that evolved from _homo erectus_: of course, this is all subject to a great deal of debate, but it's generally agreed that _homo sapiens sapiens_, that is to say, *us*, have been around about 200,000 years...



As usual, Elder your erudition serves you well. What you stated is pretty much what I learned when I got my first degree in anthropology in the late '70s. Since then I've pursued other fields, and am not really up to date on all the current theories. Still, from what I understand the current thinking is that neanderthal and other similar variants were not our direct ancestors and are thought to have been a separate species, leading to an evolutionary dead end. This  theory is supported by studies in mitochondrial DNA recovered form neanderthal bones. Then again, I saw something in the news recently that stated just the opposite. Go figure. As you pointed out, there is still a good deal of scientific debate over the particulars of human evolution, but not the essential _fact_ that it occurred!

So what's with this foolishness about a million year old empire or whatever?


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 10, 2011)

frank raud said:


> "*It is reasonable to think that the Egyptians subjugated wrestling tribes like the Nuba. African wrestling champions were taken from their villages and organized into a regiment to wrestle in the Pharoahs tribute games.* " Cut from the linked article. This is a reasonable assumption. However ,there is another possibility. In the beginning of the article it states *Wrestling was extremely popular with the ancient Egyptians, judging by the frequency with which the sport appears in Egyptian art.(2) There are a host of wrestling scenes which first appear in the Old Kingdom tomb of Ptahhotep (2300 B.C.) through the time of the New Kingdom (2000-1085 B.C.). Some of the most interesting scenes show foreigners wrestling against the Egyptians. Nubian wrestlers appear at least five times in Egyptian art. Our information about ancient Nubian wrestling is dependent on these glimpses in Egyptian iconography together with a late description found in Heliodorus Aithiopica*_*.
> 
> *_So, the proof of ancient Nubian wrestling is dependant on Egyptian carvings which show Nubian wrestlers. Is it not also possible that as the Egyptians took Nubians as slaves, that they may have taught them wrestling , for the entertainment of the Egyptians?   That runaway slaves returned to their homeland and taught wrestling to their tribesman?   I don't see enough information to cancel out one possibility or the other.



Here we may have a real confusion of terms. Egypt is to Ethiopia what California is to the USA...at least at first and for quite some time. Ethiopia was first,and Egypt was a part of her empire...not the other way around. Egypt...which got its name from the ancient Black African Pharoah Menes,whom the Greeks Aigyptos,which name was corrupted over the centuries into EGYPT...owes her population (Black African) her Pharoahnic system,and all of her seminal distinctions to Ethiopia.In ancient times this knowledge was common and the kinship between Egypt and Ethiopia was a given.Oftentimes,the term Nuba was used to refer to Ethiopia all the way to what is now Nubia and even more...because apparently ancient records have long recorded that the Ethiopian empire spread pretty much through that whole area of Africa until its massive size broke up until smaller but still stellar empires and states.

So basically we have members of what was once a massive single empire battling amongst themselves for supremacy and engaging in trade.They're effectively cousins warring with cousins...very much like say the French warring with the English.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 13, 2011)

So, trying to take this back to the OP, thrugh all of this IS interesting, even if this martial art is the oldest DOCUMENTED martial art, there are two problems: possible existence of  earlier martial arts, and necessary causal indicators. Even looking at the article, if the Egyptians conquered the guys who taught them martial arts, then the egyptians already HAD a martial art, and decided they should work their ground game. There is no history stating "and sinanju begat  montu arts. Montu arts begat Hindu wrestling. Hindu wrestling begat shaolin..." And so on. This is a version of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Even if an art predates another art, it is not NECESSARILY the cause of the new art.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 13, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> So, trying to take this back to the OP, thrugh all of this IS interesting, even if this martial art is the oldest DOCUMENTED martial art, there are two problems: possible existence of  earlier martial arts, and necessary causal indicators. Even looking at the article, if the Egyptians conquered the guys who taught them martial arts, then the egyptians already HAD a martial art, and decided they should work their ground game. There is no history stating "and sinanju begat  montu arts. Montu arts begat Hindu wrestling. Hindu wrestling begat shaolin..." And so on. This is a version of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Even if an art predates another art, it is not NECESSARILY the cause of the new art.




Agreed to a large degree.I think that there will probably never be documentation that we can find that will provide ironclad proof that the ancient African arts necessarily and definitely gave birth to all other martial arts in the way and form that you mentioned above,i.e." Sinanju begat montu arts..." etc. I think that the ancient cultures and people probably didn't feel the need to rigorously document these matters for those of us millenia in the future in a way that we would appreciate and grasp,nor could they accurately forecast the turn of events that leads to our "modern" world. If such proof existed...and it probably did,insofar as the lineage of one master teaching student "x" and whatnot...it's probably been lost permanently in the shrouds and throes of very remote antiquity.

I would be quite pleased (as a starting point leading eventually and hopefully to the uncovering of the aforementioned facts that at this point are beyond us) with the worldwide acknowledgement of the anteriority and effectiveness of the ancient African martial arts,their appreciation as well as their cultivation expansion and integration into our martial endeavors here and now.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 13, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> Agreed to a large degree.I think that there will probably never be documentation that we can find that will provide ironclad proof that the ancient African arts necessarily and definitely gave birth to all other martial arts in the way and form that you mentioned above,i.e." Sinanju begat montu arts..." etc. I think that the ancient cultures and people probably didn't feel the need to rigorously document these matters for those of us millenia in the future in a way that we would appreciate and grasp,nor could they accurately forecast the turn of events that leads to our "modern" world. If such proof existed...and it probably did,insofar as the lineage of one master teaching student "x" and whatnot...it's probably been lost permanently in the shrouds and throes of very remote antiquity.I would be quite pleased (as a starting point leading eventually and hopefully to the uncovering of the aforementioned facts that at this point are beyond us) with the worldwide acknowledgement of the anteriority and effectiveness of the ancient African martial arts,their appreciation as well as their cultivation expansion and integration into our martial endeavors here and now.


While I will agree that absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, it is certainly not the evidence of presence. If these "facts" are currently beyond us, they are not facts. They are speculation. To remain intellectually honest, one must also remain agnostic about these postulates.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 14, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> While I will agree that absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, it is certainly not the evidence of presence. If these "facts" are currently beyond us, they are not facts. They are speculation. To remain intellectually honest, one must also remain agnostic about these postulates.



Ugh. Him say with nice words what I try to say earlier. Mongo not good with fancy words.  I would be curious to see these arts being taught to a wider audience, and used in an open competition atmosphere to guage their effectiveness. Until such time, they will remain an oddity, much like many warrior arts from many cultures around the world.


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Oct 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I hate to break it to you guys, but the origin of all martial arts systems is Korea.  The original "Sun Source" of all marital arts is Sinanju.  If you don't like that fact, take it up with the current Master.



I can say that that's a myth that was programmed into you. That's what happened when I was starting training at a local dojo 7 years ago, when I was taught that Bodhidharma invented the Martial Arts and traveled from India to China in the 500's CE and taught the monks Martial Arts and practices of Zen Buddhism. Therefore, Martial Arts originated in India, then transported to China, then Okinawa, then Japan, Korea, and then North America. That's the myth I didn't make sense with me. So I went on to dig into Historical facts of the fighting systems, instead of taking a bogus story.


----------



## geezer (Oct 14, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> I can say that that's a myth that was programmed into you....



Excuse me, but wasn't Bill _joking_ when he posted that?


----------



## clfsean (Oct 14, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> I can say that that's a myth that was programmed into you. That's what happened when I was starting training at a local dojo 7 years ago, when I was taught that Bodhidharma invented the Martial Arts and traveled from India to China in the 500's CE and taught the monks Martial Arts and practices of Zen Buddhism. Therefore, Martial Arts originated in India, then transported to China, then Okinawa, then Japan, Korea, and then North America. That's the myth I didn't make sense with me. So I went on to dig into Historical facts of the fighting systems, instead of taking a bogus story.



Well then there's a pretty good chance you were taught incorrectly to begin with.

Bodhidharma didn't "invent" anything. He brought with him what he was taught from an early age, being from the Warrior Caste of India. He taught a series of exercises at the Songshan Temple. The monks then combined that with other skills they learned as time went by to have it evolve continuously.


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Oct 14, 2011)

geezer said:


> Excuse me, but wasn't Bill _joking_ when he posted that?



I'm don't know, I can't tell. If he was said Martial Arts was invented by Chuck Norris, then I would've known that he was joking.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 14, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> I'm don't know, I can't tell. If he was said Martial Arts was invented by Chuck Norris, then I would've known that he was joking.



Sinanju is a reference to a paperback series called "the Destroyer," where it is the ultimate martial art.  Shame on you for not reading pulp fiction.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 14, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> I can say that that's a myth that was programmed into you. That's what happened when I was starting training at a local dojo 7 years ago, when I was taught that Bodhidharma invented the Martial Arts and traveled from India to China in the 500's CE and taught the monks Martial Arts and practices of Zen Buddhism. Therefore, Martial Arts originated in India, then transported to China, then Okinawa, then Japan, Korea, and then North America. That's the myth I didn't make sense with me. So I went on to dig into Historical facts of the fighting systems, instead of taking a bogus story.



First... Sinanju.

Second...  Most people accept that the Bodhidharma story is a myth, I think.  There may be some underlying truth, but that's all.  It's definitely wrong to even suggest that all martial arts derived from India via China.  There is no one origin for martial arts.  Every culture answers the questions of "how do I survive?" and "how do I keep that guy from killing me?" in their own way, reflecting their environment and beliefs.  The first "martial art" was probably Grog-fu -- because Grog turned out to be better at bashing other folks than they were at bashing him -- and then he figured out a way to show his buddies.  

Were there African martial arts?  Yes, obviously and clearly.  Did they inspire others?  Maybe some, but certainly not all.  Again -- there simply is no one underlying source.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 14, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> First... Sinanju.Second...  Most people accept that the Bodhidharma story is a myth, I think.  There may be some underlying truth, but that's all.  It's definitely wrong to even suggest that all martial arts derived from India via China.  There is no one origin for martial arts.  Every culture answers the questions of "how do I survive?" and "how do I keep that guy from killing me?" in their own way, reflecting their environment and beliefs.  The first "martial art" was probably Grog-fu -- because Grog turned out to be better at bashing other folks than they were at bashing him -- and then he figured out a way to show his buddies.  Were there African martial arts?  Yes, obviously and clearly.  Did they inspire others?  Maybe some, but certainly not all.  Again -- there simply is no one underlying source.


Except of course for Sinanju.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 14, 2011)

geezer said:


> Excuse me, but wasn't Bill _joking_ when he posted that?


Bill might have been joking, but myths like these really DO get drilled into a number of people.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 14, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> I can say that that's a myth that was programmed into you. That's what happened when I was starting training at a local dojo 7 years ago, when I was taught that Bodhidharma invented the Martial Arts and traveled from India to China in the 500's CE and taught the monks Martial Arts and practices of Zen Buddhism. Therefore, Martial Arts originated in India, then transported to China, then Okinawa, then Japan, Korea, and then North America. That's the myth I didn't make sense with me. So I went on to dig into Historical facts of the fighting systems, instead of taking a bogus story.



So, you don't believe it is possible that martial arts were developed in one country(India), then transported to other countries, but you believe that martial arts were developed on one continent(Africa)and transported from there?


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Oct 16, 2011)

frank raud said:


> So, you don't believe it is possible that martial arts were developed in one country(India), then transported to other countries, but you believe that martial arts were developed on one continent(Africa)and transported from there?



Correct. Human civilization began in Eastern Africa therefore indigenous fighting systems originated there.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 16, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> Correct. Human civilization began in Eastern Africa therefore indigenous fighting systems originated there.



Do you have anything that shows that the Montu arts are in fact the seminal martial arts(that all other arts developed from)? Or are you working from the assumption that as these are the oldest arts that you have found information about(fairly cryptic and second hand information at that), that every other development in martial arts is an enhancement\evolution of the African arts?


*sem·i·nal
*(s
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





m
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







-n
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




l) _adj._ 
*3. *Highly influential in an original way; constituting or providing a basis for further development: _a seminal idea in the creation of a new theory.

_


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Oct 16, 2011)

To further add to it. Martial Art is derived from Mars the Roman God of War son of Jupiter (which in Greek it is Ares son of Zeus Pater). Therefore Mars is not worshipped in India by the Hindu faith. It is important to understand language or else we are going to miss it. So there is no way that Martial Arts invented during the dark ages whatsoever. 

The Greeks were educated from the African people. The first library was built in Egypt. The Greek pantheon of Gods were influence by Egyptian Gods. The Egyptian diety of warfare Montu was changed to Ares by the Greeks and then changed to Mars by the Romans.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 16, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> To further add to it. Martial Art is derived from Mars the Roman God of War son of Jupiter (which in Greek it is Ares son of Zeus Pater). Therefore Mars is not worshipped in India by the Hindu faith. It is important to understand language or else we are going to miss it. So there is no way that Martial Arts invented during the dark ages whatsoever.
> 
> The Greeks were educated from the African people. The first library was built in Egypt. The Greek pantheon of Gods were influence by Egyptian Gods. The Egyptian diety of warfare Montu was changed to Ares by the Greeks and then changed to Mars by the Romans.



Martial Arts are called martial arts in the western world, because of the huge influence of the Roman empire in defining Westerners as a people. It is the equivalent of calling similar arts in India by the name of Kali, Goddess of war. I will claim ignorance of the appropriate term in Sanskrit, Hindi, or whichever language was being used on the Indian continent at the time of the Bodhiharma story, but I wouldn't expect them to use Western terminology for whichever native arts they were practicing. Of course, I also wouldn't expect pre-Egyptian civilization Africans to refer to their art as Nubian wrestling. Nor would I expect them to name their arts after an Egyptian god.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 16, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> To further add to it. Martial Art is derived from Mars the Roman God of War son of Jupiter (which in Greek it is Ares son of Zeus Pater). Therefore Mars is not worshipped in India by the Hindu faith. It is important to understand language or else we are going to miss it. So there is no way that Martial Arts invented during the dark ages whatsoever.
> 
> The Greeks were educated from the African people. The first library was built in Egypt. The Greek pantheon of Gods were influence by Egyptian Gods. The Egyptian diety of warfare Montu was changed to Ares by the Greeks and then changed to Mars by the Romans.



Why would anyone expect someone of the Hindu faith to worship Mars? I am fairly certain in the statement could be made of Buddhists,Christians, Muslims and Jews. Are you aware of any religion that is so all inclusive in its beliefs that all foriegn dieties throughout the millenia are accepted and worshipped?


----------



## frank raud (Oct 16, 2011)

ATACX GYM;1434718Africans without a doubt crafted the first martial arts via survival necessity said:
			
		

> If I am reading this correctly, I have a few issues with this, and so should Mr. Jedi. If other civilizations had  PREEXISTING BUT LARGELY RUDIMENTARY martial arts, then it becomes incredibly difficult to state that all arts come from Africa. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> What information do you have that the African arts were superior/more advanced than the PREEXISTING BUT LARGELY RUDIMENTARY martial arts ?


----------



## clfsean (Oct 16, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> To further add to it. Martial Art is derived from Mars the Roman God of War son of Jupiter (which in Greek it is Ares son of Zeus Pater). Therefore Mars is not worshipped in India by the Hindu faith. It is important to understand anguage or else we are going to miss it. So there is no way that Martial Arts invented during the dark ages whatsoever.



Umm... no. In China, wu &#27494;is "military" or "warlike" ... shu &#34899; is "practice" or "technique". Transliteration & Romanization makes it "martial art" referring back to the Mars reference since our language is Latin based.



Black Belt Jedi said:


> The Greeks were educated from the African people. The first library was built in Egypt. The Greek pantheon of Gods were influence by Egyptian Gods. The Egyptian diety of warfare Montu was changed to Ares by the Greeks and then changed to Mars by the Romans.



Please provide peer reviewed & published papers on where the Greeks were students of African people. I'm not quite aware of the Greeks feeble mindedness & the need to be taught, then usurp another cultures pantheon of gods & religion.

The Library of Alexandria was conceived & ordered built by a Macedonian general, Ptolemy Lagides (or Ptolemy I Soter I), that served under Alexander (Macedonian, not Egyptian) that took control of Egypt & the title of Pharoah around 323 BC give or take. He founded the Ptolemic Dynasty of Egypt. But he was NOT African by birth or nationality. He became king of Egypt by political wrangling & probably some bloodshed.


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 16, 2011)

Some experts think that the Indigenous people of Australia may have been on the continent for 70000 years or maybe even longer. Did the Africans teach the Aborigines how to fashion spears , shields and cave a human skull in with a nulla nulla (war club) , I don't think so. These things were born out of necessity , to protect them from the animals they hunted and other hostile tribes, nothing to do with being taught by Africans, Egyptians, Greeks or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 16, 2011)

Cain vs Abel... round 1 to Cain. Warfare, homocide, fratricide, martial arts, vampires, etc... all created at one shot.

Older than Africa depending on POV & religious background.

Move along... nothing more to see.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 16, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> While I will agree that absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, it is certainly not the evidence of presence. If these "facts" are currently beyond us, they are not facts. They are speculation. To remain intellectually honest, one must also remain agnostic about these postulates.



I didn't think that we were debating proof of presence,as we already have proof of presence.The only issue is how far back into antiquity these African warrior arts stretch.By the very necessities of human civilization's primary method of development,these warrior arts are a mandatory part of not only African but human civilization itself...without which said African civilization couldn't maintain its existence. Since very few people energetically deny that African civilization was the first civilization on earth,it's pretty sensible to infer and conclude that the African warrior arts likewise preceded all others as a necessary corollary to said African civilization. When I said that there was probably an absence of hard data in the sense of "Sinanju begat Montu Arts which begat Hindu Arts which begat Shaolin etc."..I was referring specifically to something on the order of some ultra mystical scroll or record keeping library,monastery and/or region that traced the path dissemination and evolution of African arts from the Motherland to however far these African martial arts and sciences travelled. We may never find such a thing; but the anteriority of the African civilization perforce proves the anteriority of the African martial arts as well.

Now,the next issue will be: which homo sapiens sapiens civilization preceded others? This question has been wrangled over forever,but by and large the OoA (Out of Africa) camp of thought is right in that homo sapiens sapiens developed first in Africa too. That inference is bred wholesale into the concept that homo sapiens sapiens civilization developed first in Africa...along with whatever form of civilization that attended each stage of the evolution of the human animal...all of which is also widely held to happen first in Africa too.To infer otherwise would indicate something on the order of assuming that there would be factors of climate terrain diet etc. which accelerated the various hominid and Cro-Magnon humans in other non-African locales to homo sapiens sapiens faster than said evolutionary forces came to bear in Africa.That would be a very difficult to accept premise without some very detailed data. To the best of my knowledge,not only does that data not exist? There is quite a bit of data to soundly champion the cause of homo sapiens sapiens developing in Africa first by quite a long period of time.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 17, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> Since very few people energetically deny that African civilization was the first civilization on earth,it's pretty sensible to infer and conclude that the African warrior arts likewise preceded all others as a necessary corollary to said African civilization..



Er...don't really ahve time here, but I'm afraid I have to "energetically deny that African civilization was the first civilization on earth." The first civilization that we know of arose in the middle east, in Sumer-specifically, what's now Iraq, in the so called fertile crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, around 4000 BC.

At least, that's the conventional story. If you want to make the case for the ancient Egyptians being Africans, and Egyptian civilization dating back 10-14 thousand years, well,_ I've heard it before_, but you're not going to have much chance of convincing anyone else on this forum.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2011)

The first martial arts came from the aliens...it's always the aliens.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 17, 2011)

Yeah but they left, so they bloody don't get credit.

Unless they left a lightsaber somewhere around...


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Er...don't really ahve time here, but I'm afraid I have to "energetically deny that African civilization was the first civilization on earth." The first civilization that we know of arose in the middle east, in Sumer-specifically, what's now Iraq, in the so called fertile crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, around 4000 BC.
> 
> At least, that's the conventional story. If you want to make the case for the ancient Egyptians being Africans, and Egyptian civilization dating back 10-14 thousand years, well,_ I've heard it before_, but you're not going to have much chance of convincing anyone else on this forum.




Well yes then we would have that wonderfully intense and perhaps bladed disagreement my friend elder,as I and (as you know) whole camps of quite respected and thoroughly knowledgeable scientists would very sharply disagree with you. What you refer to as "the conventional story" is more in keeping with the part of the debate that you credit.I very much credit the opposite conclusion. And yes,I agree...we don't really have time here for that kind of debate. And I don't mind in the least not convincing many others on this forum of the correctness of my opinion in this matter...which you probably suspected.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Er...don't really ahve time here, but I'm afraid I have to "energetically deny that African civilization was the first civilization on earth." The first civilization that we know of arose in the middle east, in Sumer-specifically, what's now Iraq, in the so called fertile crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, around 4000 BC.
> 
> At least, that's the conventional story. If you want to make the case for the ancient Egyptians being Africans, and Egyptian civilization dating back 10-14 thousand years, well,_ I've heard it before_, but you're not going to have much chance of convincing anyone else on this forum.



Then you can throw in Tiwanaku in South America that existed around 12-17,000 years ago and can't be explained either.  Kind of makes one wonder if there was some type of flood that killed off most of the earth's human population and we "started over".


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 17, 2011)

Heard about that one too. That's part and particle of that massively intense detailed hotly disputed debate that elder and I referred to earlier,and which we are on opposite sides of. See,the elder date of Tiwanaku is older than the Sumerian date that elder gave and...nvm. I will drop it before that major OoA vs MR (Out of Africa vs Multiregional) debate is rekindled over here.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 17, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> Heard about that one too. That's part and particle of that massively intense detailed hotly disputed debate that elder and I referred to earlier,and which we are on opposite sides of. See,the elder date of Tiwanaku is older than the Sumerian date that elder gave and...nvm. I will drop it before that major OoA vs MR (Out of Africa vs Multiregional) debate is rekindled over here.



We're not on opposite side at all. Remember: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." 

There just isn't enough "evidence" to make some of the leaps that you are. I have no doubt, though, that the Sphinx is a lot older than Zawi Hawass would have the rest of the  world believe-and I have a pretty good idea what it's head was like before it was modified into Khufu's......can't prove it, and it doesn't prove anything. :lfao:


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> We're not on opposite side at all. Remember: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
> 
> There just isn't enough "evidence" to make some of the leaps that you are. I have no doubt, though, that the Sphinx is a lot older than Zawi Hawass would have the rest of the world believe-and I have a pretty good idea what it's head was like before it was modified into Khufu's......can't prove it, and it doesn't prove anything. :lfao:



There is a temple not far from the Sphynx that is alot older than those structures.  No one really knows who built it or when.  The sphynx shows alot of water damage, as if it was in a flood, that does not match up to it's regular errosion.  It also points to an older pre-egyptian culture.  I think it is an interesting theory that civilization is alot older than we think it is and was destroyed by something.  ALL major/old religions have the story of the great flood in it, and there is evidence that one happened.  Could be something to that.

There was an interesting show on either History or Discovery that talked about what would happen if all the people died.  Basically, except for buildings most historical traces (art, data, books etc.) of us would be gone in a VERY short amount of time ( less than 5 years) because the way we store data is not good and would not last to the elements.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 17, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> There is a temple not far from the Sphynx that is alot older than those structures. No one really knows who built it or when. The sphynx shows alot of water damage, as if it was in a flood, that does not match up to it's regular errosion. It also points to an older pre-egyptian culture. I think it is an interesting theory that civilization is alot older than we think it is and was destroyed by something. ALL major/old religions have the story of the great flood in it, and there is evidence that one happened. Could be something to that..



That's what I'm (*not*) talking about......:lfao:


----------



## Blindside (Oct 17, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> Correct. Human civilization began in Eastern Africa therefore indigenous fighting systems originated there.



Regardless of the "which civilization" argument, why does "civilization" need to be present for a "martial art" to be present?  Martial arts can originate at the tribal and even family level, the presence or absence of a civilization does not really prove anything with regard to the rise of "indigenous fighting systems."


----------



## Blindside (Oct 17, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> To further add to it. Martial Art is derived from Mars the Roman God of War son of Jupiter (which in Greek it is Ares son of Zeus Pater). Therefore Mars is not worshipped in India by the Hindu faith. It is important to understand language or else we are going to miss it. So there is no way that Martial Arts invented during the dark ages whatsoever.
> 
> The Greeks were educated from the African people. The first library was built in Egypt. The Greek pantheon of Gods were influence by Egyptian Gods. The Egyptian diety of warfare Montu was changed to Ares by the Greeks and then changed to Mars by the Romans.



The idea of the Mars as a war (and agriculture) god predated the Greek influence on Roman society, once the influence occured the Ares myths were fused with those for Mars.  Also clearly, given that the major influence of Greece on Rome was after its (Greece) conquest, the presence of well established martial arts in the Roman Empire can be assumed.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 17, 2011)

Blindside said:


> Regardless of the "which civilization" argument, why does "civilization" need to be present for a "martial art" to be present?  Martial arts can originate at the tribal and even family level, the presence or absence of a civilization does not really prove anything with regard to the rise of "indigenous fighting systems."



Martial arts DID originate in the fighting methods of successful hunters families tribes etc. These individuals and units are part and parcel of civilization. Civilization doesn't always mean cities states empires etc. But it's mandatory that in order to achieve any state or civilization,martial arts had to be a vital part of its creation because without martial arts? The competition of survival would simply have eliminated any aspiring state and nation builders. At no time was anyone taking issue with your contention above,Blindside...at least imo nobody was. However,if we locate the oldest civilization in human history,we have also located the oldest martial arts in human history. The temples near the Sphinx,for instance,and the ancient civilization of Wo'se from which Egypt sprang,and many other specifics indicate that there are very ancient civilizations in Africa which predate all others. There is only a debate of this level of intensity and with this far reaching and even over reaching of hypothesis regarding the author of martial arts or any of the refined arts that are still practiced today whenever the location seems to strongly indicate that the authors are Black. I don't recall,for instance,anyone claiming that Romans pioneered Greek civilization.Ancient African civilization,dynastic Egypt,pre-dynastic Egypt,Ptah-Seti which spawned Egypt and covered far more ground than present day Ethiopia does (including the area that much later would be called Nubia or in this article Nuba) the entirety of the indigenous African population...are Black.Therefore we don't need to trouble ourselves on that score,the only issue we may be debating is which specific Black people of which ancient African civilization are the actual historical authors of martial arts.

The OP advances the idea that the people we call Nubians--who like Egypt were part of the ancient Ptah-Seti/Wose empire--might have been the authors. Others may claim that the Sumerians predate them but there is also quite a bit of data that indicates that the original Sumerians were also Black and African ( I know,elder,I know. LOLOLOL.) Gentlemen,this thread is veering dangerously closer and closer to the OoA vs MRH debate that I referred to earlier...which remains unsettled for many. I don't find the primary conclusions to be so confounding or obfuscating,and clearly I am of the position that humanity in every form including homo sapiens sapiens first originated in Africa and these homo sapiens sapiens were Black.Others disagree. This is where we find ourselves in direct disagreement. elder has reminded us that "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" and I agree...I simply disagree that there is evidence which trumps the evidence which points directly at homo sapiens sapiens being first in Africa.


----------



## geezer (Oct 17, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> ...clearly I am of the position that humanity in every form including homo sapiens sapiens first originated in Africa and these homo sapiens sapiens were Black.



See... that's the problem. If you go back far enough, all of our ancestors originated in Africa and had dark skin. It makes the whole issue kind of moot. What's questionable is saying that the martial arts, civilization, what have you, originated with _Blacks,_ projecting the peculiar racial beliefs of our own history backwards onto the distant past. It reminds me of the attitudes of the 19th and early 20th centuries when various groups and nationalities misinterpreted history and archeology through the warped lenses of their own uber-nationalism, equating race with human accomplishment and hatching some pretty bizarre and dangerous ideas (can you say Nazi!). I thought we were moving beyond that kind of thinking (and it's backlash) in twenty-first century America. 

Personally, I fully expect my grandkids to be as ethnically diverse as Elder (and hopefully as smart too). When the vast majority of our decendents reach that level of diversity, maybe we can finally stop worrying about what the racial makeup was of the first humans to accomplish... whatever!


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 17, 2011)

geezer said:


> See... that's the problem. If you go back far enough, all of our ancestors originated in Africa and had dark skin. It makes the whole issue kind of moot. What's questionable is saying that the martial arts, civilization, what have you, originated with _Blacks,_ projecting the peculiar racial beliefs of our own history backwards onto the distant past. It reminds me of the attitudes of the 19th and early 20th centuries when various groups and nationalities misinterpreted history and archeology through the warped lenses of their own uber-nationalism, equating race with human accomplishment and hatching some pretty bizarre and dangerous ideas (can you say Nazi!). I thought we were moving beyond that kind of thinking (and it's backlash) in twenty-first century America.
> 
> Personally, I fully expect my grandkids to be as ethnically diverse as Elder (and hopefully as smart too). When the vast majority of our decendents reach that level of diversity, maybe we can finally stop worrying about what the racial makeup was of the first humans to accomplish... whatever!




While I agree that there is a gigantic peril of projecting modern day biases onto people of the past...an area that I have strenuously objected to and noted myself...there is no connection to acknowledging that the martial arts originated in Africa with Black people. We have long known that there could not be a single person,a family unit,a clan,a village,etc. without the martial skill to protect said family unit from predators and the ability to hunt and provide for said family unit.This requirement becomes more involved and complicated as the size of the people involved in the endeavor increases.A hand full of scouts become a brace of scouting hunters who develope into the vanguard of an invading army,for instance. As you pointed out,humanity's ancestors being African is a human thing. It makes debate moot on this issue. Civilization's origins are also African,which makes the people Black...and since there could not be a civilization in any form without the military might to form it and fend for it? The martial arts are also without question African in origin. The specific records of the most remote African martial arts are perhaps lost to us forever.

I decry ANY racist attitude,including the racist attitudes of the European 19th and early 20th centuries too ( I say "European 19th and 20th centuries" because older people and civilizations of course have a different calendar and different take on this matter) and in no way endorse what amounts to the opposite and what people horrifically miscall "reverse racism". Hate that phrase,btw. And as much as I would like to believe that collectively we as humans have moved beyond such beknighted attitudes of the past? We haven't. Look at faaarrr too many obvious instances of this,including the reaction that President Obama engenders from the fringe wings. I denounce such attitudes. 

But this issue of the martial arts primacy of Africa is not such a matter. Others may project their inadequacies upon it,but this issue in and of itself is devoid of such stupidities.However, making an assertion such as mine gives rise to the immediate challenge of many that presuppose that Africa is NOT the birthplace of the most ancient human civilization...merely the birthplace of the earliest forms of humanity and NOT homo sapiens sapiens. I would advance the notion that the site of the most ancient civilizations is by necessity the work of homo sapiens sapiens,and the site of the most ancient civilizations is unquestionably Africa and I would be echoing the work of hundreds if not thousands of anthropologists preceding us all and outshining us all in their field of work...and here we go again.OoA vs MRH...Out of Africa vs the Multiregional model. There are those who honestly and objectively ask this question as a noble pursuit of accurate knowledge for the benefit of all mankind,and then there are those who number faaarrr too many that ask the question as a form of race baiting; they have an agenda to push and preformed beliefs which they seek to validate above all others and at virtually all costs. I seek to avoid that seething cauldron of enflamed passions because ultimately...none of us onsite can resolve this matter. Our trusted esteemed and objective anthropology scientists and seniors will resolve this matter by going out in the field and discovering,and then using the lab to finish their sluething.

Although there are many...maaaanny...who feel that this matter has been resoundingly concluded already and Africa is without a doubt the birthplace of humanity and humanity's oldest civilizations...


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 17, 2011)

geezer said:


> See... that's the problem. If you go back far enough, all of our ancestors originated in Africa and had dark skin. It makes the whole issue kind of moot. What's questionable is saying that the martial arts, civilization, what have you, originated with _Blacks,_ projecting the peculiar racial beliefs of our own history backwards onto the distant past. It reminds me of the attitudes of the 19th and early 20th centuries when various groups and nationalities misinterpreted history and archeology through the warped lenses of their own uber-nationalism, equating race with human accomplishment and hatching some pretty bizarre and dangerous ideas (can you say Nazi!). I thought we were moving beyond that kind of thinking (and it's backlash) in twenty-first century America.
> 
> Personally, I fully expect my grandkids to be as ethnically diverse as Elder (and hopefully as smart too). When the vast majority of our decendents reach that level of diversity, maybe we can finally stop worrying about what the racial makeup was of the first humans to accomplish... whatever!


Im interesting in one part of your Idealogy - I may be missing something, but ive gotta put it up.

South Africans do not have Dark Skin.
The Middle East, albeit a bit after, sure did lighten their Skin quickly as well.
'specially the Persians.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 17, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Im interesting in one part of your Idealogy - I may be missing something, but ive gotta put it up.
> 
> South Africans do not have Dark Skin.
> The Middle East, albeit a bit after, sure did lighten their Skin quickly as well.
> 'specially the Persians.




The actual indigenous people of those regions...the Xhosa,Zulu,the short folks who Europeans called Hottentots at one time...are absolutely without a doubt phenotypically Black African. Any and all lighter persons are likely a much much later admixture of late Arabic and even later European stock.The Caucasians borne in Africa--all of them--can trace their lineage to another continent,just as we Africans in America can do the same. The Middle Easterners were at a time much darker than they currently are,but lightened considerably after millenia of intermixture.And that goes double for the Persians,who neeeever looked aaaanything like they'd have us believe they do in the movie PRINCE OF PERSIA. Although the action in that movie was madd cool.


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Oct 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Er...don't really ahve time here, but I'm afraid I have to "energetically deny that African civilization was the first civilization on earth." The first civilization that we know of arose in the middle east, in Sumer-specifically, what's now Iraq, in the so called fertile crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, around 4000 BC.
> 
> At least, that's the conventional story. If you want to make the case for the ancient Egyptians being Africans, and Egyptian civilization dating back 10-14 thousand years, well,_ I've heard it before_, but you're not going to have much chance of convincing anyone else on this forum.



Here is a lecture I listened to a several months ago of the late Dr. Diop explaining the origins of humanity. I found it makes more sense instead of following religious paradigms, since religion is based on myths not historical events.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 21, 2011)

I have all of Dr.Diop's works,and they are first rate science beyond reproach. There are certainly those who differed with him--especially during the times that he wrote Precolonial Black Africa and his magnum opus,Civilization or Barbarism,which I happen to have within reach of me right now as I'm writing this post--but almost all of them have been overwhelmed by the blizzard of data which he produced and which all but the most irrational of his detractors have been forced to acknowledge in some shape or other over the last 40 years or more. Again,those who claim that Africa is NOT the site of humanity's eldest civilizations are facing titanic blizzards of empirical facts and data that are truly,truly,truly difficult to reconcile with their position.

I remember having a debate with an anthropologist some years ago who was still a devout follower of the candelabra theory,which Multiregionalism is imo essentially an extension of...and that's a theory sans real validation and justification.


----------

