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

[Black Belt Jedi]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 “modern” humans can be considered to date to approximately 200–250 kyr. Others (such as Milford Wolpoff), take the view that our species extends as far as approximately 2.0 myr, subsuming H. erectus, H. ergaster, 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 “strict” 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 “strict” 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 “races” have evolved to different “levels” 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 “Eve” theory suggests.
Beyond disagreement over fundamental issues like “What is a valid speciation event?” 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 “proved” 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]

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]

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]

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

And who would they be?

 

[geezer]

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?