Any one following the 2012 republican primary nomination race, has certainly been entertained. From cheering for state executions and booing of a gay soldier, to the slip ups and punch lines, the GOP has exposed to America and the world just what it is all about. Sadly for America and for Texas, Gov. Rick Perry decided to try his chances at being the President of the United States. From the get-go, hell even before he jumped in the race and it was only rumors, I knew this was not going to end well for Rick Perry. I mean for one, they man hardly shows his face in Texas, this election cycle Perry barely made any stops or speeches in my city. You see in Texas we are a "Red State", meaning we are majority Conservative and Republican and Rick Perry had his election pretty much in the bag so to speak. Don't get me wrong he got on T.V and dished out ads where he lied about how he created jobs, and how Texas was doing fine in the recession...but Rick knew his Conservative sheep would flock to vote him in for a 3rd term simply because he has a "R" as his voting party.
Rick Perry might be able to get by in Texas with out doing much Public speaking and appearances. However to be President, Rick-boy has been thrown in to the media lime light like never before, and as a result we have seen the Real Rick Perry. Not the "Slick Rick" Pseudo Cowboy with a head full of hair, no my friends we see the REAL Perry,...Rick Perry the Moron who thought his dumb ass could fool the rest of Americans like he did the conservatives in Texas. Rick Perry is dumb, hell Dumb seems a little mild, the guy is fucking stupid, excuse my language. I mean seriously as a native Texan even I had no idea of the depths of stupidity and utter ignorance this man has. As I said Rick is not in the media here in Texas as much as he has been in the last 3-4 months he has been running for President, so this man's utter stupidity comes as a shock to me as well.
First was his "Oops" moment heard around the world..
Then his drug induced stupor at New Hampshire:
The other incoherent ramblings:
His Latest ad titled ironically "Strong" seems to be culmination of the past months of Rick Perry stupidity. This ad is a result of the American public having seen Rick for what he is and as a result he is polling at 4% according to NBC/Wall Street Journal polls. Desperate to regain the support he once had before the public knew how much of a buffoon he is, Rick has decided to resort to the usual GOP tactics, number one attack President Obama at any costs(even if the attacks are unfounded) and paint him as a threat, attack gays and homosexuals, and last but not least invoke the Christian Fundamentalists that support the GOP.
Rick starts his ad off saying "Im not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian." leaving the viewer dumbfounded as to the reason for such a remark. As far as I know, most Christians are not ashamed to admit their religion especially a GOP candidate. So what exactly is this moron ranting about?
Next Rick proclaims that "You don't have to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there is something wrong when Gays can openly serve in the Armed forces but children can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.."
-the only problem for Rick-boy is that you CAN have prayer in school, as long as prayer is not lead by a teacher or the school. I mean it makes sense not to have the state favor a religion and force people not apart of that religion to follow its customs. This is what America and the constitution was about, but to Rick and Fundamentalists they just don't get it. I am sure that Rick would not mind schools to force Christian children to pray five times a day and face Mecca if they had a Muslim teacher.-Yeah. Secondly, what is this crap about Christmas, are there some government forced crackdowns of children celebrating Christmas unknown to everyone except Rick Perry. What is this man talking about, no one is denying children or anyone the right to celebrate Christmas, especially considering that Christmas in America is a secular holiday which originates from a pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice. Ironically the people forbidding their children from celebrating Christmas are other Christian groups such as the Jehovah's Witness and others.
He ends his ad by claiming he will "End Obama's war on Religion" and vowing to end "Liberal attacks on our religious heritage".. Well, I must say I am impressed. The conservatives never cease to amaze me. First Obama is a secret Muslim now he is an atheist with a war on religion bent on preventing children from celebrating Christmas. To be fair I am sure, or at least I hope, most conservatives do not hold the views of Rick Perry. I mean Obama could be an Atheist or Agnostic deep down, despite his claims and remarks about Christianity and his faith. The idea has crossed my mind once or twice, but to say Obama has a war against religion is simply a lie. If the truth is told, Obama has done plenty for religion and to try to show himself as a Christian, he even had Rick Warren deliver the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. His remark about liberals is not even worth mention but the idea that Liberals can be religious must come as a shock to Rick Perry and I am sure most right wingers. Simple research will show that most liberals are religious in some way.
Rick Perry has come to the end of his rope, he proclaimed before his remark about ending Obama's war on religion, that if "He were President". Well Rick I don't know how to break it to you but you wont become president buddy. You are a buffoon and even your conservative party can see this. Currently his Ad has 638788 dislikes, a clear message to how the general public feels about Slick Rick Perry.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Putting History into perspective...
Why History is Important.
As an aspiring historian, I keep asking myself.."Why"..Why am I going this route, why is this so important to me, and why did it take such a long time to recognize that I wanted to pursue history. Well I can not tell you exactly when I became interested in history, as a child my interest was in Astronomy(still is) and as a teen I became interested in Architecture. It was not until recently that I recognized that I love history, despite the fact that I bought many books dealing with historical subjects. I guess my interest in history started with the fact that history can never end, that the story of history can always be reexamined and at the same time give us conclusion about modern day life. I do not want to go on with some long winded boring post so I will just get to the point....
How this blog will be structured...
1) I will post information on general history that will range from different subjects and time periods, from Prehistory to modern day history, from religion to secular. I will label the discussions based on their location, ancestry, and or importance...for example: Ancient Egypt, Ancient Sumer, Middle Age Ireland etc. The evidence will consist of images and information from a wide range of sources including magazine, internet sites, books etc.
I will try to present subject matter from an unbiased view point, but opinions and leaning will occur.
...Thank you again..
As an aspiring historian, I keep asking myself.."Why"..Why am I going this route, why is this so important to me, and why did it take such a long time to recognize that I wanted to pursue history. Well I can not tell you exactly when I became interested in history, as a child my interest was in Astronomy(still is) and as a teen I became interested in Architecture. It was not until recently that I recognized that I love history, despite the fact that I bought many books dealing with historical subjects. I guess my interest in history started with the fact that history can never end, that the story of history can always be reexamined and at the same time give us conclusion about modern day life. I do not want to go on with some long winded boring post so I will just get to the point....
How this blog will be structured...
1) I will post information on general history that will range from different subjects and time periods, from Prehistory to modern day history, from religion to secular. I will label the discussions based on their location, ancestry, and or importance...for example: Ancient Egypt, Ancient Sumer, Middle Age Ireland etc. The evidence will consist of images and information from a wide range of sources including magazine, internet sites, books etc.
I will try to present subject matter from an unbiased view point, but opinions and leaning will occur.
...Thank you again..
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Australopithicus Sediba, the latest finds cont..
Australopithecus sediba may be an ancestor of modern humans
Researchers say two skeletons found in a cave in South Africa may belong to a species that was the direct ancestor of Homo erectus, and hence modern humans
The cranium of the juvenile male Australopithecus sediba. Photograph: Brett Eloff/Lee Berger/University of Witwatersrand
It was a traumatic and lingering death. The adult female and young male probably fell through a fissure in a cave roof and remained alive for days or weeks with little or no food before finally meeting their end. The pair – possibly a mother and her son – were then washed by a rainstorm into an underground pool where they gradually solidified into rock. Their unusual demise nearly 2m years ago, and the preservation of most of their fossilised skeletons, has given scientists a unique glimpse of what kind of creature they were. The researchers who have studied them in detail believe they may be direct ancestors of modern humans.
The ancient bones were recovered from sediments in a subterranean cave at Malapa, South Africa, 25 miles (40km) from Johannesburg.
The discovery of the partial skeletons was made public last year, but in a series of papers published in the US journal Science on Thursday, researchers report the first comprehensive analysis of the individuals' anatomy. Through a combination of high resolution scans and precision measurements of the skull, pelvis, hand and foot, the authors argue that Australopithecus sediba, or the "southern ape", was an immediate ancestor of Homo erectus, the ancient form from which modern humans arose. Lee Berger, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg who led the team, said the skeletons possessed an extraordinary mix of primitive, ape-like features alongside traits that define modern humans today. "What is remarkable about Australopithecus sediba is that, as a field, it is a discovery we never thought would be made: a bona fide transitional species," Berger told the Guardian.
"It is a humbling experience. These are skeletons that you realise are going to be studied by humans for as long as humans study themselves. And that gives you some pause," he added.
At least 25 other animals died alongside them, including sabre-toothed cats, hyenas, woodland antelope and at least one primitive form of zebra. Around the cave was a sub-tropical alpine forest, with mixed woodlands and forests, Berger said. A. sediba walked upright and stood around 1.3m tall. It had a chimp-sized body, long arms similar to those of orang-utans, and was adept at climbing.
But other features appear distinctly human, Berger said. "The pelvis is shaped like a human pelvis, but longer, almost like a Neanderthal's. The hand is incredibly human-like, with short fingers and a long thumb. And then there is the brain," he added. Researchers used a powerful x-ray scanner at the European Synchrotron Facility in Grenoble, France, to create exquisitely detailed maps of the interior of the skull of one of the individuals. The bumps and other contours revealed the imprint of a small brain, only 420 cubic centimetres in volume, but one that was apparently reorganising from a primitive structure into a more modern form. Kristian Carlson, a colleague of Berger's who worked on the brain scans, said some areas of the organ appeared more developed than expected. "There are areas above and behind the eyes that are expanded and they are responsible for multitasking, reasoning and long-term planning. These are changes that mirror the differences that humans exhibit from chimpanzees," Carlson said. The discovery challenges the previously held theory that our ancient ancestors grew large brains before they reorganised to resemble the modern human brain.
Further measurements of the brain, skull and hand suggest that the creature may have been intelligent enough to wield tools and even communicate non-verbally, Berger said. "They could probably smile, and that is something unique to humans that chimps cannot do, they grimace. Australopithecus sediba has the beginning of our face," he said.
Other palaeontologists have yet to be convinced that the creature was an immediate ancestor of H. erectus - and hence our own species H. sapiens. But if Berger is correct, the fossils fill a gap between Lucy, the 3.2m-year-old hominin unearthed in Ethiopia, and H. erectus, which lived from 1.8m to 1.3m years ago and likely gave rise to modern humans in Africa.
"No matter where this species is eventually put in the family tree, whether you agree with our idea that it's the best candidate ancestor of Homo erectus, or whether it is a species that mimicked the developmental processes that led to our genus, or whether it turned out to be an evolutionary dead end, these are some of the finest transitional fossils that have ever been discovered for any mammal species, and I don't say that lightly," Berger told the Guardian. Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, said: "For the last 30 years, attention has focused on East Africa as the place where the first humans evolved, with a possible transition from Australopithecus to Homo erectus, via the intermediate species Homo habilis occurring there about 2 million years ago.
"In that view, the South African australopithecines were side-branches in human evolution, leading only to extinction. These new and detailed descriptions of the skeletons of two individuals from the Malapa site return the spotlight to South Africa as the possible location for the postulated transition from Australopithecus to Homo. "Australopithecus sediba resembles its presumed local ancestor, Australopithecus africanus, in its ape-sized brain, ape-like body shape, and the form of the shoulders and arms. Yet despite the fact that the hands had a powerful grip, they show more human proportions, suggesting greater dexterity. And the shape of the front of the brain cavity, the face, teeth, pelvis and legs also show more human characteristics, confirming that sediba is the most human-like australopithecine yet discovered, providing valuable clues to the evolutionary changes that led to the genus Homo.
"However, it is possible that australopithecines in different parts of Africa were taking up tool-making, meat-eating and travelling longer distances overground, which could have driven the parallel evolution of human-like features," he said."Whatever you call these things, there seem to be a number of different species running around at the same time – a number of experiments in being hominin," Carol Ward, a palaeoanthroplogist at the University of Missouri, Columbia, told the journal Science.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/08/australopithecus-sediba-ancestor-modern-humans
Australopithecus Sediba, a game changer in the evolution of Humanity??
The recent find of a totally new Hominid species from South Africa dubbed as, Australopitecus Sediba, is exciting to say the least. This NEW hominid species was found by Prof. Lee Berger and his team in South Africa. Not much is conclusive yet, but Lee Berger is certainly excited about the find as he should be, as Sediba is the most intact and best preserved Hominid fossil yet found, comparable to Austrolopithicus Africanus found by Raymond Dart and the famous Lucy Fossil. According to Lee Berger it seems that Sediba might be the ancestor to Homoerectus, which if he turns out to be correct is a major and historical turning point in the story of evolution, but as I said nothing is conclusive so early in the discovery. This would put the ancestors of Homo in South Africa not East Africa, change the idea of the large brain theory among many other concepts currently accepted by evolutionists. I will post what some of the latest scientific observations are showing thus far. To anyone who is interested in History, Archeology, Evolution and Genetics this is a very exciting find. Prof. Lee Berger will probably go down in the history books with names such as Raymond Dart, Donald Johanson, Louis and Mary Leakey etc.
Latest Info..
From Nat. Geo..
The first two skeletons removed from the pit were a young adolescent male, 12 or 13 years old, and an adult female. Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, and his colleagues made the announcement in April 2010. The site, an eroded limestone cave called Malapa, is in a region already so famous for its ancient human fossils that it is often referred to as the Cradle of Humankind. Much of that reputation rests on finds from the early 1900s, back when South Africa harbored the best evidence for early human evolution, including Australopithecus africanus, at the time our oldest known ancestor. Beginning in the late 1950s, the epochal finds of the Leakey family in Tanzania and Kenya, followed later by Donald Johanson's celebrated discovery of the 3.2-million-year-old Lucy skeleton in Ethiopia, shifted cradle-bragging rights to East Africa, where they have remained ever since.
Lee Berger thinks the cradle is about to rock again. He believes Malapa may hold the key to one of the most significant, least understood chapters in the human evolutionary journey: the origin of the first species enough like us to be called human—a member of the genus Homo.
"This is where that story may have begun," he says, as he starts the climb out of the pit.
At an international gathering of anthropologists in Minneapolis this past April, Berger and his colleagues laid out arguments for why the Malapa species, known as Australopithecus sediba, may represent an intermediate form between the primitive australopiths and our genus, Homo. The evidence they point to includes an australopith's little brain (with some curiously modern features), apelike shoulders, and arms adapted to climbing in trees—attached to a bizarrely modern hand with the precision grip of a toolmaker. According to the researchers, the adult female's foot presents an even odder melange; her mostly modern ankle is connected to a heel bone more primitive than that of A. afarensis—Lucy's species—which is at least a million years older.
In a science known for its contentiousness, such a claim will surely not go unchallenged. But no one disputes that the Malapa fossils are unprecedented.
"It really is a jaw-dropping find," says Carol Ward, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Missouri who studies the evolution of apes and early hominins (a term for humans and other nonape primates; some researchers prefer the older term, hominid). "We have no other collection of fossil skeletons, until the Neanderthals just over 100,000 years ago, that are so articulated, so complete."
The abundance and spectacular condition of the fossils have much to do with the peculiar geography of the place. Malapa, it seems, was both a water source that gave life and a trap that snuffed it out. Two million years ago, a cave-studded aquifer lay beneath an undulating plain of shallow, wooded valleys and rolling hills. Some of the caves were open to the surface through steep entryways or vertical shafts stretching up to 160 feet. In wet periods, when the water table was high, animals could easily drink from seepage ponds near the surface. During drier times they would venture into the darkness of a hole, following the sound or scent of water—and risking a plunge down a hidden shaft. (The boy's upper arm bones show fractures typical of a headfirst fall from a great height.)
"These animals had no choice. They needed water to survive," says Brian Kuhn, a zoologist from the Johannesburg university—called Wits for short—who works at the Malapa site. After death, their bodies would wash down even deeper in the cave system, becoming entombed within days or weeks in a single, thick layer of sand and clay, rather than a succession of thin layers, as would have happened had the sediments accumulated over months or years.
This raises the possibility, says Berger, that all the hominins—at least four are now known from the site—died weeks or even days apart, and therefore may have known each other in life. The rapid burial also caused their flesh to take longer to decompose, packaging the skeletons in death as they were arranged in life, right down to tiny bones of the hands and feet. Indeed, the rapid entombment may have preserved some of the skin itself, on top of the boy's skull and on the woman's jaw near the chin—something never before seen in a hominin fossil.
"Wow!" says Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist at Pennsylvania State University and author of the book, Skin: A Natural History. "The possibility of preserved australopithecine skin is massively cool." What makes it so cool is the possibility of determining how these near humans reacted to heat. She is particularly interested in whether the alleged skin (or a fossilized impression of the skin, if that's what it is) might contain evidence of scalp and facial hair, and a high density of sweat glands. Jablonski thinks such glands could be a precondition to the bigger brains long seen as a defining attribute of Homo. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, spend most of their time sheltered from the sun's heat by forest cover and have a limited ability to sweat. Our earliest ancestors also typically occupied woodland environments. But as the environment became drier around two million years ago, they began to forage in more-open grasslands—a problem for brains, which are notoriously vulnerable to heat. Bigger brains require even more cooling. A marked increase in the number of sweat glands and a reduction in body hair could have provided that, Jablonski speculates, in turn allowing for further brain growth as Homo began to use those bigger brains for toolmaking, planning, and other cognitively challenging activities.
So what about the brain of A. sediba? The question triggers another big grin from Berger. Its size is a chimplike 420 cubic centimeters—not at all unusual for something called Australopithecus. The shape, however, is. Together with Paul Tafforeau at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, Berger's team produced a series of ultrahigh-resolution images to create a virtual endocast: an impression of the boy's skull showing the general contours of the outer brain layer.
"The frontal lobes on the two halves appear to be different sizes," notes Kristian Carlson, a paleoanthropologist at Wits who is reconstructing A. sediba's brain. Pronounced asymmetry between right and left brain hemispheres is a hallmark of humans, because our cerebrum has become specialized, with the left side more involved in language. On that side Carlson sees hints of a protrusion in the region of Broca's area—a part of the brain linked to language processing in modern humans. But Dean Falk from the School for Advanced Research in Santa Fe, an expert on fossil endocasts, adds the caution that Broca's area is defined by specific creases in the brain, and "it would be quite a reach" to identify it based only on a bulge.
A. sediba's greatest promise may lie in its power to illuminate the murky origins of Homo. The birth of our genus has long been a conundrum for paleoanthropologists, to say the least. Only a few scattered and fragmentary fossils older than two million years have been argued to belong to the genus. Then, around 1.8 million years ago, not one but two or possibly even three Homo species appear, mostly in East Africa. The smaller brained, more primitive ones are called Homo habilis, or "handy man," a name given by Louis Leakey and colleagues in 1964 to specimens from Olduvai Gorge because of their association with the first crude stone tools. Some researchers group a few H. habilis specimens into a separate species, Homo rudolfensis. Then there is Homo erectus (the early African forms are sometimes called Homo ergaster)—larger brained, bigger bodied, more advanced, yet contemporaneous with little H. habilis.
Where did all these characters come from? Attempts to look deeper into the past only increase the frustration, says William Kimbel, a paleoanthropologist at Arizona State University and director of the Institute of Human Origins there. "There are only a handful of specimens. You could put them all into a small shoe box and still have room for a good pair of shoes," he says. An upper jaw from Hadar in Ethiopia, found by Kimbel himself, is 2.3 million years old. A lower jaw from Malawi may be 100,000 years older, though the dating is uncertain. Some researchers would include a skull piece from Kenya of about the same age. That's about it.
Enter the skeletons of A. sediba—as resplendently well preserved as those shoe box fossils are not. Anatomically, the species shows a mix of primitive and advanced traits. In addition to its long upper limbs, small brains, and primitive heel bone, its small body size and the shape of its molar cusps and cheekbones hark back to earlier australopiths, such as A. africanus, that lived in southern Africa between two and three million years ago. (Indeed, some researchers suggest that it might be a late form of that species.) The long legs and that modern ankle are key elements on the human side of the ledger, says Darryl de Ruiter, a paleoanthropologist at Texas A&M University and part of the Malapa team. He also cites the surprisingly humanlike pelvis built for a fully bipedal stride; smaller teeth and chewing muscles; a projecting nose and some other features of the face; and that remarkable, precision-grip hand. These traits are enough for the team to propose it as the australopith species most likely to have given rise to Homo. But which Homo? The team leans very cautiously toward Homo erectus, the species generally seen as the immediate forerunner of Homo sapiens. If this is so, then the smaller, mostly East African forms now attributed to Homo, including Louis Leakey's original toolmaker H. habilis, would become a branch of the family tree that simply petered out. It is not the first time scientists have suggested these species could be evolutionary dead ends. But the Malapa fossils bring more clout to the debate.
"Sediba casts everything called Homo before erectus into question," says de Ruiter.
The biggest obstacle facing this challenge to the establishment view is the timing. If two-million-year-old A. sediba is indeed the true ancestor of Homo, how could it give rise to those even older fossils assigned to Homo in Bill Kimbel's shoe box? A fossil cannot be ancestral to something older than itself any more than a daughter can give birth to her own mother. One possibility is that the Malapa specimens represent a late stage of an enduring species that gave rise to Homo at an earlier date. But Berger's team questions whether that shoe box really contains any Homo fossils in the first place—after all, they're just fragments. Kimbel doesn't buy it.
"It's nonsensical to dismiss fragments, because fragments do tell you something," he says. He points out that the upper jaw from Hadar has a short, broad, humanlike dental arch and flat snout, placing it firmly in the Homo genus—and it is at least 300,000 years older than A. sediba.
Berger's team, however, insists that Malapa changes the game. Articulated skeletons are far more than the sum of their parts: They prove that parts in isolation can be misleading. Think of the bits of A. sediba that look primitive, and the other bits that look modern, he says. The Hadar jaw, in the same way, might not accurately represent the rest of the creature. "How can the Hadar jaw be misleading?" says Kimbel. "Either it shares features with later Homo, or it does not. Nothing in sediba can change that."
If the Hadar jaw really is Homo, says Berger, then perhaps its dating is wrong—a contention Kimbel disputes as vigorously as he supports the validity of his fossil.
The truth about A. sediba's place in our ancestry may still be lying in the ground. "The beauty of a place like Malapa is that there are many more bones, and more individuals to come," Berger says. Ultimately the fossils, not the arguments, will carry the day.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/08/malapa-fossils/fischman-text
Latest Info..
From Nat. Geo..
Part Ape, Part Human
A new ancestor emerges from the richest collection of fossil skeletons ever found.
Photograph by Brent Stirton, Art by John Gurche
Lee Berger is standing in a death trap, smiling. It is a hole in the ground about 25 miles northwest of Johannesburg, in a ridged brown valley where herds of giraffes occasionally parade between stands of trees. The red-rock walls of the pit are higher than Berger's head, and steep enough in spots to make a scramble up, or down, rather daunting. Some two million years ago, the hole was a great deal deeper, with no possibility of escape for any creature that fell in. This accounts for the trove of fossils Berger is finding, which in turn accounts for his upbeat mood. He leans over a red boulder near the pit bottom, tracing a white-colored protrusion with his fingers. "It looks like part of an arm," he says. "That means we've found another individual."The first two skeletons removed from the pit were a young adolescent male, 12 or 13 years old, and an adult female. Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, and his colleagues made the announcement in April 2010. The site, an eroded limestone cave called Malapa, is in a region already so famous for its ancient human fossils that it is often referred to as the Cradle of Humankind. Much of that reputation rests on finds from the early 1900s, back when South Africa harbored the best evidence for early human evolution, including Australopithecus africanus, at the time our oldest known ancestor. Beginning in the late 1950s, the epochal finds of the Leakey family in Tanzania and Kenya, followed later by Donald Johanson's celebrated discovery of the 3.2-million-year-old Lucy skeleton in Ethiopia, shifted cradle-bragging rights to East Africa, where they have remained ever since.
Lee Berger thinks the cradle is about to rock again. He believes Malapa may hold the key to one of the most significant, least understood chapters in the human evolutionary journey: the origin of the first species enough like us to be called human—a member of the genus Homo.
"This is where that story may have begun," he says, as he starts the climb out of the pit.
At an international gathering of anthropologists in Minneapolis this past April, Berger and his colleagues laid out arguments for why the Malapa species, known as Australopithecus sediba, may represent an intermediate form between the primitive australopiths and our genus, Homo. The evidence they point to includes an australopith's little brain (with some curiously modern features), apelike shoulders, and arms adapted to climbing in trees—attached to a bizarrely modern hand with the precision grip of a toolmaker. According to the researchers, the adult female's foot presents an even odder melange; her mostly modern ankle is connected to a heel bone more primitive than that of A. afarensis—Lucy's species—which is at least a million years older.
In a science known for its contentiousness, such a claim will surely not go unchallenged. But no one disputes that the Malapa fossils are unprecedented.
"It really is a jaw-dropping find," says Carol Ward, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Missouri who studies the evolution of apes and early hominins (a term for humans and other nonape primates; some researchers prefer the older term, hominid). "We have no other collection of fossil skeletons, until the Neanderthals just over 100,000 years ago, that are so articulated, so complete."
The abundance and spectacular condition of the fossils have much to do with the peculiar geography of the place. Malapa, it seems, was both a water source that gave life and a trap that snuffed it out. Two million years ago, a cave-studded aquifer lay beneath an undulating plain of shallow, wooded valleys and rolling hills. Some of the caves were open to the surface through steep entryways or vertical shafts stretching up to 160 feet. In wet periods, when the water table was high, animals could easily drink from seepage ponds near the surface. During drier times they would venture into the darkness of a hole, following the sound or scent of water—and risking a plunge down a hidden shaft. (The boy's upper arm bones show fractures typical of a headfirst fall from a great height.)
"These animals had no choice. They needed water to survive," says Brian Kuhn, a zoologist from the Johannesburg university—called Wits for short—who works at the Malapa site. After death, their bodies would wash down even deeper in the cave system, becoming entombed within days or weeks in a single, thick layer of sand and clay, rather than a succession of thin layers, as would have happened had the sediments accumulated over months or years.
This raises the possibility, says Berger, that all the hominins—at least four are now known from the site—died weeks or even days apart, and therefore may have known each other in life. The rapid burial also caused their flesh to take longer to decompose, packaging the skeletons in death as they were arranged in life, right down to tiny bones of the hands and feet. Indeed, the rapid entombment may have preserved some of the skin itself, on top of the boy's skull and on the woman's jaw near the chin—something never before seen in a hominin fossil.
"Wow!" says Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist at Pennsylvania State University and author of the book, Skin: A Natural History. "The possibility of preserved australopithecine skin is massively cool." What makes it so cool is the possibility of determining how these near humans reacted to heat. She is particularly interested in whether the alleged skin (or a fossilized impression of the skin, if that's what it is) might contain evidence of scalp and facial hair, and a high density of sweat glands. Jablonski thinks such glands could be a precondition to the bigger brains long seen as a defining attribute of Homo. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, spend most of their time sheltered from the sun's heat by forest cover and have a limited ability to sweat. Our earliest ancestors also typically occupied woodland environments. But as the environment became drier around two million years ago, they began to forage in more-open grasslands—a problem for brains, which are notoriously vulnerable to heat. Bigger brains require even more cooling. A marked increase in the number of sweat glands and a reduction in body hair could have provided that, Jablonski speculates, in turn allowing for further brain growth as Homo began to use those bigger brains for toolmaking, planning, and other cognitively challenging activities.
So what about the brain of A. sediba? The question triggers another big grin from Berger. Its size is a chimplike 420 cubic centimeters—not at all unusual for something called Australopithecus. The shape, however, is. Together with Paul Tafforeau at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, Berger's team produced a series of ultrahigh-resolution images to create a virtual endocast: an impression of the boy's skull showing the general contours of the outer brain layer.
"The frontal lobes on the two halves appear to be different sizes," notes Kristian Carlson, a paleoanthropologist at Wits who is reconstructing A. sediba's brain. Pronounced asymmetry between right and left brain hemispheres is a hallmark of humans, because our cerebrum has become specialized, with the left side more involved in language. On that side Carlson sees hints of a protrusion in the region of Broca's area—a part of the brain linked to language processing in modern humans. But Dean Falk from the School for Advanced Research in Santa Fe, an expert on fossil endocasts, adds the caution that Broca's area is defined by specific creases in the brain, and "it would be quite a reach" to identify it based only on a bulge.
A. sediba's greatest promise may lie in its power to illuminate the murky origins of Homo. The birth of our genus has long been a conundrum for paleoanthropologists, to say the least. Only a few scattered and fragmentary fossils older than two million years have been argued to belong to the genus. Then, around 1.8 million years ago, not one but two or possibly even three Homo species appear, mostly in East Africa. The smaller brained, more primitive ones are called Homo habilis, or "handy man," a name given by Louis Leakey and colleagues in 1964 to specimens from Olduvai Gorge because of their association with the first crude stone tools. Some researchers group a few H. habilis specimens into a separate species, Homo rudolfensis. Then there is Homo erectus (the early African forms are sometimes called Homo ergaster)—larger brained, bigger bodied, more advanced, yet contemporaneous with little H. habilis.
Where did all these characters come from? Attempts to look deeper into the past only increase the frustration, says William Kimbel, a paleoanthropologist at Arizona State University and director of the Institute of Human Origins there. "There are only a handful of specimens. You could put them all into a small shoe box and still have room for a good pair of shoes," he says. An upper jaw from Hadar in Ethiopia, found by Kimbel himself, is 2.3 million years old. A lower jaw from Malawi may be 100,000 years older, though the dating is uncertain. Some researchers would include a skull piece from Kenya of about the same age. That's about it.
Enter the skeletons of A. sediba—as resplendently well preserved as those shoe box fossils are not. Anatomically, the species shows a mix of primitive and advanced traits. In addition to its long upper limbs, small brains, and primitive heel bone, its small body size and the shape of its molar cusps and cheekbones hark back to earlier australopiths, such as A. africanus, that lived in southern Africa between two and three million years ago. (Indeed, some researchers suggest that it might be a late form of that species.) The long legs and that modern ankle are key elements on the human side of the ledger, says Darryl de Ruiter, a paleoanthropologist at Texas A&M University and part of the Malapa team. He also cites the surprisingly humanlike pelvis built for a fully bipedal stride; smaller teeth and chewing muscles; a projecting nose and some other features of the face; and that remarkable, precision-grip hand. These traits are enough for the team to propose it as the australopith species most likely to have given rise to Homo. But which Homo? The team leans very cautiously toward Homo erectus, the species generally seen as the immediate forerunner of Homo sapiens. If this is so, then the smaller, mostly East African forms now attributed to Homo, including Louis Leakey's original toolmaker H. habilis, would become a branch of the family tree that simply petered out. It is not the first time scientists have suggested these species could be evolutionary dead ends. But the Malapa fossils bring more clout to the debate.
"Sediba casts everything called Homo before erectus into question," says de Ruiter.
The biggest obstacle facing this challenge to the establishment view is the timing. If two-million-year-old A. sediba is indeed the true ancestor of Homo, how could it give rise to those even older fossils assigned to Homo in Bill Kimbel's shoe box? A fossil cannot be ancestral to something older than itself any more than a daughter can give birth to her own mother. One possibility is that the Malapa specimens represent a late stage of an enduring species that gave rise to Homo at an earlier date. But Berger's team questions whether that shoe box really contains any Homo fossils in the first place—after all, they're just fragments. Kimbel doesn't buy it.
"It's nonsensical to dismiss fragments, because fragments do tell you something," he says. He points out that the upper jaw from Hadar has a short, broad, humanlike dental arch and flat snout, placing it firmly in the Homo genus—and it is at least 300,000 years older than A. sediba.
Berger's team, however, insists that Malapa changes the game. Articulated skeletons are far more than the sum of their parts: They prove that parts in isolation can be misleading. Think of the bits of A. sediba that look primitive, and the other bits that look modern, he says. The Hadar jaw, in the same way, might not accurately represent the rest of the creature. "How can the Hadar jaw be misleading?" says Kimbel. "Either it shares features with later Homo, or it does not. Nothing in sediba can change that."
If the Hadar jaw really is Homo, says Berger, then perhaps its dating is wrong—a contention Kimbel disputes as vigorously as he supports the validity of his fossil.
The truth about A. sediba's place in our ancestry may still be lying in the ground. "The beauty of a place like Malapa is that there are many more bones, and more individuals to come," Berger says. Ultimately the fossils, not the arguments, will carry the day.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/08/malapa-fossils/fischman-text
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Comparing Egyptian and other African religious concepts..part 1.
The Ancient Egyptians were known to be a deeply pious and religious people. To them the gods were a vital aspect of everyday life. To better understand Egypt's religion and mythology I will try to break down her most important concepts and attributes. I will begin by posting an article that examines very basic attributes of Egyptian religion to other traditions shared by African people as noticed by the late E.A Wallis Budge..
Sir E.A. Wallis Budge's book Osiris; The Egyptian Religion of Resurrection gives one of the most detailed comparisons of African and Egyptian religion to be found anywhere.
Budge had always contended that the ancient Egyptians were African peoples to the core and this bothered many of his contemporary scholars who were advocating an Asiatic origin for ancient Egyptian civilization.
The bracketed bullet points below are some of the more striking links uncovered by Budge.
(*) The widespread belief in a single creator, immortality, transmigration of the soul and transubstantiation (partial residence of God in amulets).
(*) The Moon, rather than the sun, is associated with the Supreme God among the ancient Egyptians and among todays people living along the Nile, Congo and Niger. Budge notes that new moon festivals is found all over Africa and is commonly associated, as it was in ancient Egypt, with the remembrance, by kings and commoners, of their sins, and by prayers for protection from evil spirits. He cited examples such as the Mendi, Tshi (also known as the Oji tribe are a group of people living in Ghana), and Ilogo (Central Africa Republic) and various peoples in the Sudan and Tanganyika.
(*) The importance of the cow as the most sacred of animals is found in ancient Egypt and in many parts of Africa especially among the tribes living along the Nile and in the Great Lakes region. Of particular importance was the sacrifice of bulls at the funerals of the deceased. The sacrifice of two bulls at funerals is detailed in "The Opening of the Mouth."
The Egyptian rite involved offering the heart of one bull to the mouth of the deceased or to the statue of the deceased. The hide of the other bull was used to wrap the corpse. Both rituals were believed to impart the powers of the bull (which represented Osiris) to dead ancestors. Among many Nile peoples the hide is placed at the bottom of the grave.
(*) In Egypt, offerings were made to ancestors in the form of meals placed on a stone slabs in the ancestor's tomb. Budge's notes that stone slabs were used for the same purpose among the Buvuma islanders (Ruvuma and Soga tribes of the coast of Uganda). The offering of meals to ancestors in spiritual temples or houses is widely found through much of Africa and Budge cites examples among the Bakongo people (aka. the Kongo) who dwell along the Atlantic coast of Africa from Pointe-Noire, Congo (Brazzaville) to Luanda, Angola, the Sukuma people (aka. Basukuma, Wasukuma, Zukuma) live in small villages in the northern part of Tanzania, Makarakas (Southern Sudanese tribe), and in East and West African peoples.
(*) Deification of ancestor heros is common practice in much of Africa. Budge noted that Osiris in the form of Khenti-Amenti stands as an ancestor God of Egypt while Isis is the ancestor Goddess. He noted the uncanny resemblance between the widespread African practice of giving birth in the "bush" to a bas relief found at Philae. Among Africans, birth in the bush is done in solitude with the father and the shaman waiting in the comfortable distance until after the delivery. The bas relief at Philae shows Isis in a stylized papyrus swamp suckling Horus. The papyrus would thus stand for the "bush." Standing on either side of Isis is Amen-Ra, representing the African father, and Thoth representing the African shaman. Budge thought the symbol found under Isis could represent the placenta and blood associated with child birth. Interestingly, Budge cited a passage in which Isis speaks of her loneliness during labour, which mirrors the African tradition of giving child birth in solitude. Examples were given about tribes in Sudan (Nuba, Nuer, Dinka, Shilluk) and Uganda.
(*) Amulets were seen as partial residences for ancestral spirits in ancient Egypt and throughout Africa. Budge noted the "fetish" quality of amulets, often stressed by Western observers, is secondary to the importance of communion with the ancestors.
(*) The beetle and the frog are amulets of new life in both ancient Egypt and modern Africa.
(*) In pre-Dynasty Egypt, Budge gave evidence of the practice of consuming the bodies of slain enenmies. This also appears to have persisted, to some extent, even into the Dynasty period. Passages are cited relating how King Unas of Sakkara obtained supernatural powers through eating human flesh. The same story is repeated in the pyramid texts of Teta in the 6th Dynasty. The practice of consuming one's slain enemies and the consequent powers gained survived among some African peoples in Budge's time. However, Budge goes overboard in giving citations of cannibalism in medieval and modern Egypt and Africa. In most cases, such cannibalistic events were due to extreme hunger during famine or war.
(*) In ancient Egypt, slaves and others were put to death at the funerals of Kings and important people. Budge cited the same practice at the funerals of chiefs in Sudan, the Gold Coast, Benin, along the Niger and Congo. The resting of coffins on human heads in Sudan is linked to to a similar practice illustrated on the tomb of Seti I.
(*) The tall hats and horned crowns worn by African chiefs resemble the white crown and horned crowns worn by Osiris. Examples given among the Congo tribes of Bayanzi, Imbangela, Lomari, Lulongo-Maringo, Bangala, Ngombe (a.k.a. Poto), Alunda. Two ostrich feathers decorate the crown of Osiris. Also, these feathers were worn by various peoples of Africa.
(*) The plaited beard which was common in ancient Egyptian art were common among the Markakas, Mpungu (of Namibia), Fang, Alunda (of Congo) and Luba (of Central Africa), as well as other parts of Africa.
(*) The scalework on the body of Osiris is thought to be related to the body painting or tattooing found various African peoples particularly those in Sudan.
(*) Budge noted that both the modern Africans and ancient Egyptians practiced preservation of the dead body: "The Egyptians removed the intestines and brain, and embalmed it the body with great skill, and then swathed it in linen, and laid it in a coffin or sarcophagus. The modern African removes the more perishable part of the body by ways described in detail by the book, and dries or smokes the corpse very effectively. He also anoints with unguents, and wraps it up in much cloth, and then places it in a coffin or a bier." (p. 90)
(*) The mention of the jawbones of the deceased Unas, Re-stau amd enemies of Horus in Egyptian texts are explained by the African practice of removing and preserving the jawbones of kings, or using the jawbones of enemies as trophies. Specifically mentioned are the Sudani, Dahomey, Baganda, Ashante, and various peoples of Uganda.
(*) The Egyptian concept of the ka, meaning "double" has its counterpart throughout wide regions of Africa. Among the Tshi it is known as the kra or kla meaning "soul" and as doshi among the Bantu (in South Africa) which means literally "double" (as in the Egyptian). In both Egypt and the rest of Africa, the ka differs from the Western idea of "soul." The ancient Egyptians and the modern African had the idea of at least three types of "souls" inhabiting each person. The ka is an immaterial double of the physical body that persists after death. The ka though is distinct from the person, is a type of guardian spirit. The ka in both Africa and ancient Egypt must be cared for after a person dies or the ka itself will perish. Egyptians and Africans made images in which the ka dwelt and to these were offered meals and worship.
(*) The sahu or "spirit-body" arose in the "Other World" after one's death. Among the Tshi, the "shadowy person" that comes to live in the "Other World" after death is known as the Srahman. Similar ideas were cited among the West African tribes of Yoruba, Uvengwa and Baluba. Like the ba, the sahu could perish in certain circumstances.
(*) The Egyptians considered the shadow or khaibet as a type of "soul." Similar beliefs among the Nsism, Wanyamwesi, Nandi and busuko and in various parts of the Lower Niger, Congo, Southern Guinea and Mashonaland were mentioned by Budge.
(*) The khu was the imperishable spirit and had its counterpart in the "dual soul" concept of West Africa. The belief in transmigration of the dual soul and shadow was common in Africa. Reincarnation was widely found among the people of the Niger Delta who made a practice of identifying which people in a community were the souls of persons deceased in earlier times. Among the Pygmies, Banza and West Mubangi the spirit was reincarnated in animal form and this type of belief was held by some segments of the ancient Egyptian population.
(*) Both modern Africans and ancient Egyptians took care to protect the buried body from contact with the earth, was seen as contaminating. The African burial usually consists of a deep pit which a niche is carved so that the body does not come into contact with the earth. The Egyptian tomb was also built in a pit with a sarcophagus taking the role of the niche. In some African burials the niche was sealed off with stones as with the Egyptian sarcophagus.
(*) The Egyptians, like modern Africans, saw the journey to the "Other World" after death as difficult. In both cases, rituals were performed to "open the way" for the deceased.
(*) The Egyptian concept of Duat found its counterpart in the African "God's Town" or "Njambi's Town."
(*) The concept of divine kingship linked ancient and modern cultures.
(*) Ancient Egypt and modern Africans both had priests/shamans adept in both "white" and "black" magic. Unlike the Hebrews or Mesopotamian priests, who usually eschewed magical practices, the Egyptian priest's schooling involved learning innumerable magical incantations and potions.
(*) The use of "black magic" by Egyptian priests often resembled practices common in voodoo. These included the making of dolls in the image of specific persons. These wax dolls could be cut and slashed to inflict pain on those persons or burnt to inflict death. In one passage, a wax crocodile was fashioned that turned into the real thing in order to attack the intended victim.
(*) Budge noted that spitting had a religious meaning among ancient Egyptians. He found similar beliefs among the Kordofan, Dyur, Barotze (Zambezi), Nandi, Suk, Kytch and Masa.
(*) Budge mentions that the Egyptians commonly made figures of steatopygous women. He mentions mentions specifically the dolls and representations at the 4th Egyptian room in the British museum. He compares these with the figures of the steatopygous queen and the princess of Punt.
(*) Budge noted that African cultures, including Egypt, often worship the snake and crocodile. The symbolism of serpent uraeus is specially noted.
(*) The use of multiple "mighty names" among ancient Egyptians was similar to the use of "strong names" among African peoples.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Understanding Africa's role in World History...Why is it important?
The idea of history as we know it, that is in the most general form, is not new. It can be argued that the first "Historians" were an African people, that is the Ancient Egyptians. To the royal scribes of Ancient Kemet(the name of Egypt as known by her indigenous people) it was their duty to remind the future generations of Suten(Pharaoh) of the exploits and victories of their ancestors. Adorning the Temple Walls, Tombs and stacked in the Temple Libraries were the history of the nation going back thousands of years. However this form of history was hidden or at least unknown to the average Egyptian. Only the royals, nobles and priests were trained to read the Mdu-ntr that told the History of Km.t. The average Egyptians history was more than likely oral in nature passing onto the next generation by word of mouth. Oral history was in fact the main way that most African cultures told and passed on their stories. Even when literacy was attained, as in the case of Ancient Egypt, oral history remained a vital component to many African people and cultures. This has often left the African story in world history silent and most often told from the perspective of non Africans, many who do not understand or care much for the African story.
So some people might wonder or ask, why Africans should get "special treatment", why should historians care, why should the average person living in the modern world care? Well as a student and future historian I can say that African people are not getting special treatment. African cultures and history are either neglected, ignored, or attributed to other regions of the world to this say. Take for example Ancient Egypt, despite Egypt confirmed African origins, African population, African religion and language, you can find many books claiming the 25th Dynasty as the "Black Pharaohs" yet one would have to search hard to find ancient Chinese Emperors labeled as "Yellow Emperors" or the Greek and Persian usurpers in Egypt referred to as the "White" Pharaohs. With the recent attention given to Timbuctou and her Libraries you will find some historians making mention of "Arabs" bringing culture to African Muslims in West Africa. However when it comes to Islamic History these same people will hardly if ever mention the Byzantine Influence on the Arabs, the Jewish, Egyptian and Persian influence on the Arab Muslim learning. When it comes to history, African contribution south of the desert is often ignored and silent. The only thing worth mention by historians is the African contribution to the slave markets(both ancient and middle age.) You won't have to search very far to find mention of Nubian slaves raids and slave trades, the Slave trade of the Western African people, etc. On the other hand despite the role played by Eurasians in the very same slave markets, the same historians remain silent. This biased and imbalanced version of history leaves the average lay-person who researches history with a story of Africa that is blurred and incomplete.
So what is the solution to this problem? Should we write our historians and make our complaints known? Well my answer is yes and no. To me it is up to us, as African people and those interested in African history, to write our own history books and to complete the African story ourselves. We should work alongside historians who are willing to listen, but our history should not be left in the hands of those whom do not seem that interested in the African story.
With that I would like to post a video of a lecture by Anthropologist Shomarka Omar Yahya Keita, aka S.O.Y Keita on the approach of history by African people. @2:00 His contention is that for people who want to study various African Cultures, citing various African cultures from the Numidians to the Axumites is going to require education and less a reliance on "old books". At 3:35 Keita makes it clear that the African World must do its own research be that African World in Brazil, Nigeria or Europe but that there are standards in academia we must meet. In Conclusion it is up to us to complete this story and give the voice to the African contribution to world history.
So some people might wonder or ask, why Africans should get "special treatment", why should historians care, why should the average person living in the modern world care? Well as a student and future historian I can say that African people are not getting special treatment. African cultures and history are either neglected, ignored, or attributed to other regions of the world to this say. Take for example Ancient Egypt, despite Egypt confirmed African origins, African population, African religion and language, you can find many books claiming the 25th Dynasty as the "Black Pharaohs" yet one would have to search hard to find ancient Chinese Emperors labeled as "Yellow Emperors" or the Greek and Persian usurpers in Egypt referred to as the "White" Pharaohs. With the recent attention given to Timbuctou and her Libraries you will find some historians making mention of "Arabs" bringing culture to African Muslims in West Africa. However when it comes to Islamic History these same people will hardly if ever mention the Byzantine Influence on the Arabs, the Jewish, Egyptian and Persian influence on the Arab Muslim learning. When it comes to history, African contribution south of the desert is often ignored and silent. The only thing worth mention by historians is the African contribution to the slave markets(both ancient and middle age.) You won't have to search very far to find mention of Nubian slaves raids and slave trades, the Slave trade of the Western African people, etc. On the other hand despite the role played by Eurasians in the very same slave markets, the same historians remain silent. This biased and imbalanced version of history leaves the average lay-person who researches history with a story of Africa that is blurred and incomplete.
So what is the solution to this problem? Should we write our historians and make our complaints known? Well my answer is yes and no. To me it is up to us, as African people and those interested in African history, to write our own history books and to complete the African story ourselves. We should work alongside historians who are willing to listen, but our history should not be left in the hands of those whom do not seem that interested in the African story.
With that I would like to post a video of a lecture by Anthropologist Shomarka Omar Yahya Keita, aka S.O.Y Keita on the approach of history by African people. @2:00 His contention is that for people who want to study various African Cultures, citing various African cultures from the Numidians to the Axumites is going to require education and less a reliance on "old books". At 3:35 Keita makes it clear that the African World must do its own research be that African World in Brazil, Nigeria or Europe but that there are standards in academia we must meet. In Conclusion it is up to us to complete this story and give the voice to the African contribution to world history.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Hello, and Welcome to my blog..
Hello..
This Blog is dedicated to the history and culture of people around the world with an emphasis on African people and African history. Growing up and now as a student of history, I have been aware that African history is often told, written, or presented in a European or a Eurocentric and sometimes Arabcentric point of view. Considering that Western history and many of the academics were pioneered mainly by European people, a little "Eurocentic" perspectives are bound to show up even in the most radical Afrocentric outlooks. However, to tell the history of Africans and non Europeans, the story should be told with the least amount of bias and western cultural baggage as possible.
With that I don't consider myself Afrocentric, I am quite educated on European history. I find European history to be interesting and enjoy many aspects of it. If I wanted I could run circles around the Eurocentrics on other blogs comparing Gothic cathedrals which have many foreign influences to the architecture of Mali or Zimbabwe. However my goal is not to debate but to present facts and have an open conversation on history.
I hope you enjoy this blog and much as I enjoy reading history, studying history, and discussing history with friends. All forms of participation is encouraged, but reading and lurking is just fine..
Thank you.
This Blog is dedicated to the history and culture of people around the world with an emphasis on African people and African history. Growing up and now as a student of history, I have been aware that African history is often told, written, or presented in a European or a Eurocentric and sometimes Arabcentric point of view. Considering that Western history and many of the academics were pioneered mainly by European people, a little "Eurocentic" perspectives are bound to show up even in the most radical Afrocentric outlooks. However, to tell the history of Africans and non Europeans, the story should be told with the least amount of bias and western cultural baggage as possible.
With that I don't consider myself Afrocentric, I am quite educated on European history. I find European history to be interesting and enjoy many aspects of it. If I wanted I could run circles around the Eurocentrics on other blogs comparing Gothic cathedrals which have many foreign influences to the architecture of Mali or Zimbabwe. However my goal is not to debate but to present facts and have an open conversation on history.
I hope you enjoy this blog and much as I enjoy reading history, studying history, and discussing history with friends. All forms of participation is encouraged, but reading and lurking is just fine..
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)