So Europeans during slave trade knew Israel was in Africa

[4-Rin]

The world map as most of us know it is actually upside down. In the old days Upper Egypt was closer to Sudan and Lower Egypt was closer to Libya.

Why was it flipped?

 

[Lost1]

the chinese empires were sailing across oceans for more than a thousand years

but never bothered to settle on taiwan until a few hundred years ago

they were sailing across oceans, and even sailed to east africa, before they ever bothered to have a permanent settlement on taiwan

even though taiwan is pretty close to china

the taiwanese aboriginals are a different group from the real chinese and their ancestors settled on taiwan from a different route

they didn't get there from mainland china but came from a different area

the idea an expansionist empire has to settle on an island nearby if its sailing the oceans wasn't true with the chinese for centuries, so doesn't have to be true for the malians

 

[thekyuke]

'Israel' the name is African in origin..

Their whole belief system is stolen and a damn lie..trust and believe jews at your own peril.

This! This! This! There's a pro Israeli agent in these parts who doesn't even hide his agenda:nikka,actually said his Sephardim were the Original Egyptians!? Shlomo,where are you at?

 

[thekyuke]

There are some groups in Ghana that claim Judaism

Actually,the Israeli impostors have somehow claimed Ghanaian identity and history-I'd [pay to read just how they did it. Look at those common names!

There are over 50.

"Here are some GaDangmes names or words of Hebrew Origins.

GADANGME NAME OR WORD.. HEBREW NAME OR WORD.

1. ARYEH (Means, My brother") ARYEH (Hebrew Bible, 2 Sam.1:14; 1King 5:15))

2. AFRA (An Israeli settlement) OFRA (Torah, Tihilim 116:15)

3. OTTO (Meaning, "Who is Mighty") YISHAI (1 Sam. 16: 8-18; (Psalm 46)

4. ARYELLE/AYELE (Means, "Lion of God") ARYELLE (Acts 27:27)

5. OFEI OFER (Hebrew 13:15; Rev. 3:20; Luke 6:29)

6. ADA (Reference to Adam, the first MAN) ADA (1Corinthians 15:45)

7. TEMA TEMA (Job 6:19;Isaiah 21:14)

8. NUNU NUNU (Num. 14:16; Num.14:38)

9. DODOO DODO (Judges 10:1); 1 Chron. 11:26

10. ASHI ASHI (Leviticus 12:8)

11. DANGME (Dan means "a Judge" in Hebrew) DAN (Genesis 30:5-6); Judges 18:27-29

12 ANNAN (One of those who sealed the Covenant) ANAN (Nehemiah 10:26)

13. GAD (Gad means, "good fortune") GAD (Genesis 30:9-12; Gen.10:11-13

14. ABE AVRAHAM/ABRAHAM (2 Timothy 3:8)

15. SAKA/SAKA. (Father of AHIA in the Bible). SACHAR (1 Chron. 11:35)"
List of Names Ga-Dangme/Israelites

Never,ever believe MSM cac history! I can't stress that enough.

 

[thekyuke]

you onto something check this out. I don't like speaking on tribal shyt but I want to illustrate something here... something my mom put me onto.

Truth is truth! I heard an identical story from my mum who was told by a Falasha here in Nairobi-I believe it.



Go to 2 mn. Also Kikuyus have a lot of S Ethiopia in our dna. I've seen a study saying we've up to 25% Amarkoke from S Ethiopia and much Oromo.

 

[Supper]

the quote is in the book itself

i don't need to show a source that cites the book for the quote

just means there may not be an academic source out there citing that book for the quote

but the quote itself is in the book...you need to look the actual book...there's no way to miss the quote

You're making a claim- That the atlantic fleet quote is in the Corpus.

You're the one who needs to present receipts/evidence of your claim.

The burden is not on me to go find the evidence to substantiate YOUR argument.

I can and did show you that the MM giving out gold quote is contained within the Corpus with multiple academic sources citing it.

None of the sources that quote the atlantic fleet quote use the Corpus as a source.

Wiki claims and the source which wiki cities even states it originates from a FRENCH translation by a frenchman. Therefore the reasonable default position would be that it's not in the Corpus.

You're the only one claiming that it is in the Corpus. Therefore you need to be the one to present the evidence to your claim.

You say you've read the book, so then go pull it back up and show the world that I'm wrong.

what you're saying about mali, songhai kind of misses the point

the fact that cape verde islands is 'directly on the path from mali territory and america ocean' assumes malians would have set sail from a point on the mainland exactly opposite cape verde islands

that's just an assumption, they could set sail from another point on the coast in their territory

and you're also still ignoring that there is nothing of any value there

the place is just land

there's no political or economic reason to leave people there. the only reason the europeans settled people there was as a base for the slave trade

also most african empires weren't densely populated so there's not much incentive to seek out more land to settle on (unless that land is known to have special resources) when the land they already have on the mainland is far from filled up

i don't understand this bantu vs non-bantu business

not the case for cape verde

The mali empire didn't have vast tracts of coastal land to depart from. It was only about the size of modern day Senegal's coastal land shifted slightly north, Which would put it virtually parallel vertically to the Cape Verde Islands.

There's no other point departure where they could reasonable sail from that wouldn't run them smack dab into the Cape Verde Islands while sailing to America.

the bissagos islands were settled, and these aren't in a bantu area, but like the elobey islands, they are actually close enough to the mainland to justify setting up communities of fishermen out there

No, the reason they settled it was because it was close enough ie immediately off the coast to reach by rowing in a canoe(which west Africans had a lot of), just like the Bubi people did on Bioko Island, and the Banga people did on the Elobey Islands, while the São Tomé and Príncipe islands, like the Cape Verde Islands were too far to reach by rowing in a canoe.

The Bubi, as shore-dwelling, fishing people, probably had a little more canoe-engineering knowledge than most. But when a plan for escape began to develop, they knew it would take the largest trees of the mainland forest to make the strongest canoes for their bold, desperate plan -- which was to leave, not all at once, but by subtribes, under cover of darkness over a period of several months, and flee to that distant land.

The work on the canoes was done in secret. Supplies were gathered and loaded under the very noses of their captors. And the plan worked. The first tribe launched its boats after midnight , without discovery, and they rowed with palm leaf oars, in complete happiness and security, the story goes.

According to legend, all the migration was done within one year, primarily between mid-November and mid-March.

They didn't not go further because those islands were "useless". They didn't because they didn't possess ships capable of making the trip.

Newsflash! MOST societies around the globe, African or non-african, DIDN'T!

There's a reason why only two, maybe three if you count the heavily contested polynesian theory, groups of non-native people reached the Americas before columbus, the inuit and the vikings, and the vikings's was a failed endeavor.

So, that means the only successful settlements in the Americas came by way of the Natives and Inuit, both of which crossed the land bridge of the Bering strait at different times. Because the America's are an EXTREMELY difficult and isolated place to reach from eastern hemisphere. Especially by sea. Hence why it was the last continent to be settled by human being(Antarctica doesn't count).

you don't travel out that far to settle people on useless islands for no real reason

And "worthless" according to who's expert opinion- Your's?

If they were really sea fairing across the atlantic with ship built for long distance travel then setting up shop there should be no problem for them just like it wasn't for the Bangla people getting to the "useless" Elobey islands and setting up a naval fleet by canoe.

Again, they could've easily used them as outpost to establish naval control, as rest stops and refueling stations for outgoing and in coming ships, expanding their fishing waters, and expanding their salt mining industry if they were truly sailing the atlantic ocean.

Furthermore even if we assumed that to be true the only sure way for them to find out would be to thoroughly explore the island, probably through making many trips to bring in people with knowledge of agriculture, fishing, mining etc etc to test the grounds.

There would've definitely be physical archeological evidence of that, just like we have of the Viking exploration of the extreme northern American atlantic coast, which they never settled permanently and abandoned yet we know for almost certainty that they were there due to written records and archeological evidence to corroborate them, both of which are lacking in the case of the Mali Empire and Cape Verde or the Atlantic period.

There's no evidence that the malians even KNEW of the Cape Verdean islands.

 

[Supper]

the chinese empires were sailing across oceans for more than a thousand years

but never bothered to settle on taiwan until a few hundred years ago

they were sailing across oceans, and even sailed to east africa, before they ever bothered to have a permanent settlement on taiwan

even though taiwan is pretty close to china

the taiwanese aboriginals are a different group from the real chinese and their ancestors settled on taiwan from a different route

they didn't get there from mainland china but came from a different area

the idea an expansionist empire has to settle on an island nearby if its sailing the oceans wasn't true with the chinese for centuries, so doesn't have to be true for the malians

Taiwan wasn't in the pathway of waters the Chinese were most frequently sailing. Which was westward on the south china sea and india ocean during the silk road trade.

And btw early chinese sources state that they did know of and chinese sailors did travel to taiwan long before that even though they hadn't settled in mass yet.

There are references to Taiwan in Chinese court records dating to the 3rd century BCE. The first recorded contact between China and Taiwan occurred in 239 CE, when the Chinese emperor sent a 10,000-man mission to Taiwan to explore the island. In 605 China sent another expedition, which brought back to China several aboriginal people from Taiwan, who were taught Chinese. A follow-up mission went to Taiwan to gather more information. During the Yuan dynasty (1206–1368), when the Mongols ruled China, the P’eng-hu (Penghu) Islands in the Taiwan Strait were brought under China’s control. In 1430 the Ming dynasty’s famous explorer Zheng He (Cheng Ho) landed on Taiwan and obtained from the aboriginal peoples herbal medicines that were said to have “miracle powers.”

Meanwhile, perhaps as early as the 7th century, Chinese fishermen visited the P’eng-hu Islands, and probably some farmers settled there and on Taiwan itself. In any event, there were Chinese settlements on the island of Taiwan before the 12th century. Chinese and Japanese pirates also frequently used the island as a base of operations, and some Japanese settlements were established there.

Taiwan - Cultural life

Not at all like the case with the Malians and the Cape Verde islands where it is on the DIRECT PATH they'd be taking to get to the americas with their limited possible points of departure and completely uninhabited, free for the taking, and there are NO sources whatsoever that even state they had any knowledge at all of them. Not even any oral sources as far as I know.

Completely different situation.

 

[Lost1]

You're making a claim- That the atlantic fleet quote is in the Corpus.

You're the one who needs to present receipts/evidence of your claim.

The burden is not on me to go find the evidence to substantiate YOUR argument.

I can and did show you that the MM giving out gold quote is contained within the Corpus with multiple academic sources citing it.

None of the sources that quote the atlantic fleet quote use the Corpus as a source.

Wiki claims and the source which wiki cities even states it originates from a FRENCH translation by a frenchman. Therefore the reasonable default position would be that it's not in the Corpus.

You're the only one claiming that it is in the Corpus. Therefore you need to be the one to present the evidence to your claim.

You say you've read the book, so then go pull it back up and show the world that I'm wrong.

no offense

but you're just wrong here and i can't really bother with this

as i said i don't own a copy and this is not worth the effort

my advice is don't make false claims about a quote not existing in a book you haven't read

i'm not an 'expert' never claimed to be, but at least i read the books that i would argue about

you mentioned a book which you didn't read and tried to argue what was in it, and since i really have read it i keep insisting as i should that you are just wrong

you seem a bit aggressive over this when it doesn't need to be that kind of conversation

if i change my mind and i do come back here weeks later with picture proof you should apologize profusely for this approach you're taking

i haven't even claimed that the malians did reach the americas btw, just that there was an ocean voyage, and it was definitely mentioned in that quote which is in that book which you haven't read

Again, they could've easily used them as outpost to establish naval control, as rest stops and refueling stations for outgoing and in coming ships, expanding their fishing waters, and expanding them salt mining industry if they were truly sailing the atlantic ocean.

this idea is strange

there was no activity of any importance going on in or around those islands and the destinations they tried to reach in that voyage were way beyond those islands so using them as a 'station' would probably not have been worth the effort even if they had run into those islands during their voyage

and besides all this, the malians weren't obligated to sail in the most direct straight line west at the very start of their voyage

a diagonal southwestern route would work and would still take them west

 

[Lost1]

Taiwan wasn't in the pathway of waters the Chinese were most frequently sailing. Which was westward on the south china sea and india ocean during the silk road trade.

And btw early chinese sources state that they did know of and chinese sailors did travel to taiwan long before that even though they hadn't settled in mass yet.


Taiwan - Cultural life

Not at all like the case with the Malians and the Cape Verde islands where it is on the DIRECT PATH they'd be taking to get to the americas with their limited possible points of departure, and there are NO sources whatsoever that even state they had any knowledge at all of them. Not even any oral sources as far as I know.

there was a kingdom called ryukyu

it was inhabited by people who are similar to the japanese

it was located on the ryukyu islands

the chinese traded with ryukyu for a long time and japan annexed ryukyu and used ryukyu to trade indirectly with china once japanese and chinese relations soured

the ryukyu islands are close to taiwan

but there still wasn't a permanent settlement on taiwan from the chinese

even though they were sailing right by it for centuries to trade with ryukyu

Ryukyu Kingdom - Wikipedia

the chinese simply didn't bother with using taiwan permanently as any kind of 'refueling station' or setting up any permanent base there for centuries

meanwhile the aboriginal people that settled in taiwan seem to have got there from a completely different direction much earlier

ryukyu kingdom, which the chinese traded with for centuries, had southern islands that were basically as close to taiwan as you think cape verde is from any coastal point of departure that the malians could have had

 

[Ish Gibor]

Sub Saharan West African civilizations were not ocean traversing societies, especially the non-bantu ones(bantus managed to settle a few african islands off the coast). They relied on the Niger river system for everything from trade, to movement via canoes, to agriculture, to fresh drinking water etc etc. They had no need to traverse the oceans. Cape Verde & São Tomé and Príncipe were uninhabited when the Portuguese got there. Had they been traversing the atlantic ocean beyond the immediate coast they would've settled these islands in some capacity.

The phoenicians island hopped around the the mediterranean sea, and sailed the coast of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and Red Sea. Never going out into the open ocean.

The Menzies chinese theory has long been debunked. Both mainstream sinologist and native american historians reject his claims wholesale.

And you might want to update your sources to someone more recent and credible than Rogers who died in '66 and wasn't a scholar in Pre-Columbian native american history.

Are you familiar with the name Mansa Abubakari Keita II?

 

[Lost1]

this is a more accurate map of where the cape verde islands are located btw:

Google Maps

this map has more accurate proportions

the one you posted isn't in proper scale

clearly the southern half of mali empire coastal territory in what is the gambia and the southern half of senegal's coast, is a point of departure for the malians as well

and that isn't directly opposite the cape verde islands but instead to the southeast of the cape verde islands

so if the malians did set sail from anywhere in the senegal coast south of about where dakar is and they do go in a straight line west -- which they don't even have to do, they could go diagonal southwest instead -- they still won't run into the cape verde islands but instead pass by them

 

[Lost1]

Wiki claims and the source which wiki cities even states it originates from a FRENCH translation by a frenchman. Therefore the reasonable default position would be that it's not in the Corpus.

btw if the wiki article is claiming that the quote originates from a french source then that wiki article is wrong about that and the wikipedia editor who put that in there is not well informed

or more likely is somebody with an anti african/black bias fabricating things on the internet to try to question the credibility of the voyage...by putting doubts into people's minds about whether it was really from an original arabic source

the quote about the ocean voyage is definitely from an arabic original source and that's why it appears in both french and english books of translations of arabic sources

if you check the corpus book you'll see that the quote about the ocean voyage is definitely there

if this is what you're basing your doubt on then forget about the claim in that one wiki article, it's wrong

 

[Kasgoinjail]

Are you familiar with the name Mansa Abubakari Keita II?

I literally posted his name last page
I think poster has already made up his mind though

 

[Bawon Samedi]

It's not from a Malian transcript, like the Timbuktu manuscripts are, though. It's from the writings of a Syrian arab in Egypt about Mansa Musa's hajj to egypt written in arabic, which have indeed been translated into english in the Corpus of Early Arabic Sources For West African History. And the quote about the atlantic fleet doesn't appear in it, yet legitimate ones about Mansa Musa giving out gold in Cario do appear. The only source websites and wiki post for the Al Umari atlantic fleet quote is by Gaudefroy-Demombynes translated to FRENCH in 1927. And apparently there many different versions of the supposed quote by the same translator. But even it hadn't been translated that statement would make any sense. If it hasn't been translated then why have a bunch of non-arabic speaking non-scholars been citing it IN ENGLISH to lend credence to the idea that Malians sailed the atlantic, or even reach the Americas? How can you cite a translation that doesn't exist?

No, I KNOW what you mean. You said there was NO "primary sources" of it, the Syrian Arab one is a secondary one. What I was saying is hardly any of the Malian transcripts have been translated for us to even know for sure.

And just because it doesn't appear in most English translated book doesn't mean it didn't happen. Many, Arab(and even French) sources hardly make it to the English speaking world on a consistent basis. Saying that because it has not been translated to English means it doesn't exist is an error. Like I said there are many Arabic sources on Africa that hardly made it to the English speaking world. More importantly, I never heard of scholars dismissing it as "illegitimate."

Either way iirc it also appeared in The Journal of African History.

And it seems like your just coming up your own definition of what a "ship" or "canoe" is based on your own subjective whim.

You haven't described what exactly defines a canoe.

Traditional sahelian boat technology are not meant for traversing oceans or seas. They are meant for traversing RIVERS and lagoons thus are by definition not ships.

Same could be said about the Vikings.

The boats in this video don't even have any sails so they were definitely propelled by paddles, which is what defines a canoe. Although, canoes can have sails as well.

What about these ones?

Don't see any keel on the boat in the picture you posted either. So, yeah chances are it's(or going to be) a canoe as well.

You never defined what exactly makes a canoe.

I never said that west Sahelians only used the stereotypical small fishing canoes that you're probably thinking about.

That's why you should've elaborated because that's what most associate with canoes.

Many Sahelian canoes where large and complex capable of holding many occupants, and sometimes even used as war vessels such as when the the Mandekala drove away portuguese ocean bond slave traders in SHIPS with their CANOES like so.

Still very much a canoe.

Uh... This canoe is from the Congo/Cameroon area. Sahelians wouldn't have even used "canoes" such as these. Not sure why that image was used as an example.

No where in that quote does it mention anything about ships. But river going boats, which most most likely where propelled by paddle, thus making them canoes.

Doesn't mention canoes.

*Warcanoes used in rivers. Not warships used in oceans or seas.

Noted.

Ship = ocean or sea going vessel

Also not sure why you are dismissing oceans when Polynesians people have always been a seafaring people since prehistoric times and the ancestors of SOME South Americans came to that continent via canoes.
600-Year-Old Polynesian Ocean-Sailing Canoe Discovered in New Zealand | Archaeology | Sci-News.com

Then we have this.
600-Year-Old Polynesian Ocean-Sailing Canoe Discovered in New Zealand | Archaeology | Sci-News.com

Dude, they didn't go to the Americas AT ALL in anyway shape or form. There's nothing to question about what they did there because they weren't there.

Okay. Since you are so SURE. Please explain this. Like I said there are certain things that need explaining and this is one of them.

http://www.stcroixarchaeology.org/files/Hull_Bay_Skeletons_-_Ubelaker_-_Angel.pdf

^^These are skeletons with NEGROID morphology in St Thomas PRIOR to Columbus. No DNA testing has been done on them as of YET. And here is an OLD report of it back in the 70s.

These skeletons are also TOO RECENT to be PaleoAmericans who settled South America from Melanesia during the Paleolithic period. So again can you explain THIS since you are certain. Who were these people? And this isn't even the ONLY thing I have when it comes to stuff needing questioning based on Sahel West Africa vs New world.

And for the umpeenth time, if they had ANY capacity at all to traverse the oceans beyond the immediate coast they would've settled in the Cape Verde islands, which are right across the atlantic from Mali terrority, in some way. It would be impossible to miss it as it's directly on the way to America. Yet they were uninhabited when the portuguese discovered the islands. If they didn't reach a group of islands some ~400 miles away, then how in the HELL are we suppose to believe they would reach a continent over 4000 miles away. Sorry, but you're not going to be able to weasel out of this point. Cape Verde absolutely obliterates this entire argument.

Again you are very certain. The Cape Verde argument sounds a lot like the Madagascar argument. Anyways...

The recorded history of Cape Verde begins with Portuguese discovery in 1456. Possible early references go back around 2000 years. The Portuguese explorers discovered the islands in 1456 and described the islands as uninhabited. However, given the prevailing winds and ocean currents in the region, the islands may well have been visited by Moors or Wolof, Serer, or perhaps Lebou fishermen from the Guinea (region) coast.

History of the Cape Verde Islands

And NO using Cape Verde as a knock out argument will not work. Because Cape Verde is known for having a BIG historiography error. There is only written accounts from Europeans. There are even some Cape Verdean scholars who claim there were small African visits to the island. Not only that but oral traditions from Santiago claims that the Wolof were the original inhabitants prior to the Portuguese. I'll post more if I can. More importantly like I said I am NOT claiming Africans even settled the New World, but there are certain information you are dismissing that need overlooking like the Hull Bay skulls. And since you defined "canoes", canoes throughout history have been able to sail across seas. Prehistoric people like paleoamericans definitely did not have complex seafaring ships. Whether or not West Africans reached the Americas is another story what is certain is again... There are information that make your arguments not so confident.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Are you familiar with the name Mansa Abubakari Keita II?

Mansa Abubakari Keita is who he is talking about in this thread. Anyways, welcome back.