Writing African History By John Edward Philips Published by Boydell & Brewer, 2006
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
"It is always important to be wary of the traps of circular reasoning."
^ defines the error of the racial model of anthropology.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
"If a gene predates the emergence of and ethnic group then it is wrong to label it with the groups name."
^ defines one part of the -many- errors associated with the term "Caucasian", in anthropology.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
''The Hamites were a myth... Likewise the then fashionable term Hamito-Samitic for major languages in Northern and North Eastern Africa should be dropped as misleading. For these languages Greenberg coined a new term, Afroasiatic; and this has since come into general acceptance... Yet Afroasiatic can also be misleading... for the asiatic element in Greenbergs classification applies only to one of the five major groupings in this linguistic family, that of Arabic which became current in the north-eastern Africa only after the middle of the seventh century. The other four linguistic elements in Afroasiatic , are Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic in its five deritive variants, and Chadian; all of them, as you see, thoroughly African.''
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Likewise the then fashionable term Hamito-Samitic for major languages in Northern and North Eastern Africa should be dropped as misleading
Hamite has been dropped, and is no longer a part of current linguistic or anthropological classification.
quote:Afroasiatic can also be misleading...
Agreed, Christopher Ehret has tried one approach of calling the language Afrisan, as he is trying to remove the term "Asia" from a language group that consists of African familes only.
Wally, a former discussant on Egyptsearch, makes the argument that only Hebrew and Arabic of the major languges of this family, actually fit the definition of Afro-Asiatic.
The others, including Berber, are African languages - period.
Posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: "If a gene predates the emergence of and ethnic group then it is wrong to label it with the groups name."
^ defines one part of the -many- errors associated with the term "Caucasian", in anthropology.
True indeed, in the past we discussed this with Dumb Euro.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Yet the guy incessantly argued for "caucasoid" genes and or haplotypes.
Anyway, let me read the entire paper before I can make a full reply.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: "If a gene predates the emergence of and ethnic group then it is wrong to label it with the groups name."
^ defines one part of the -many- errors associated with the term "Caucasian", in anthropology.
True indeed, in the past we discussed this with Dumb Euro.
^ he, or Dienekes would say - it's not an ethnic group, it's a race.
Which leads right back to....
"It is always important to be wary of the traps of circular reasoning."
^ both those fools could be educated by the above article, but closed minds, driven by ethno centric agenda are not receptive to education.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
I just don't know why some pretend "scholars" want to pretend as if the Hamite myth has been "dropped".
"Early Afro-Asiatic spread out from the Horn and did not come into Africa from Asia (brought by "Caucasians") as was believed at one time, and as is occasionally assumed by nonlinguists (e.g., Barbujani and Pilastro 1993; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995)...There is no need to postulate massive European settler colonization of Africa or genetic swamping and/or settler colonization by Eurasians, as is implied or stated in some contemporary genetic work (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), echoing the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis...Northern Africans are more accurately conceptualized as primarily the products of differentiation than of hybridization."
According to the work of Sforza, Green = "Caucasoid territory".
"Other studies that do not use racial terminology (but usually use the same groups, because the underlying thinking is the same)" - Keita
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
According to the extract above, was Angel speaking of Mechta-Afalou proto-Moors and proto-Berbers, or is it a matter of the resolution of the copy of the pages shown, and rather, that it should have read: Mechta-Afalou, proto-Moors and proto-Berbers?
I've already spoken to the shaky premises of "Mechta-Afalou" representing a type, and the discredited idea that these were the ancestors of contemporary Berber groups of coastal North Africa.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Hamite has been dropped, and is no longer a part of current linguistic or anthropological classification.
the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis. - SOY Keita.
defunct - no longer in effect or use; not operating or functioning.
Hamitic - an obsolete ethno-linguistic classification
quote:just don't know why some want to pretend as if the Hamite myth has been "dropped". - akoben.
^ that's because you don't know the meaning of words
-> such as defunct or obsolete,
which leads to not being able to understand citations.
which leads to mis-citations.
which leads to illiterate threads.
let's try and keep the thread literate.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ As usual your childishly silly editing skills always ends up exposing your agenda.
"echoing the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis..."
Echo - To repeat or imitate
Sforza repeats the defunct Hamitic hypothesis i.e. its not dead to him... Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: echoing the now *defunct* Hamitic hypothesis..."
quote:Echo - To repeat or imitate
^ Per your own citation, echo does not negate the fact that Hamitic hypothesis is now defunct - - which means no longer in effect or use; not operating or functioning.
If echo meant, not defunct, then the sentense you cited would be self-contradictory.
You can't show that Hamitic hypothesis is *not* defunct, by citing Keita as saying that it is.
lol.
I doubt you can grasp that, though, base upon your history of disastrous reading comprehension error.
quote:childishly silly editing skills always ends up exposing your agenda.
^ Unlike the relationship between echo, and defunct, your lack of reading comprehension *does negate* your agenda.
And in a most devastating fashion.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Explorer wrote: to think, all this started because akoben misunderstood one simple sentence.
^ Indeed, you would think one would learn from past mistakes.
Clearly he can't, so I will ignore his forthcoming nonsenses for the sake of the thread.
quote:jackass wrote: although it is defunct
^ which you set out to argue with, via strawman fallacy, but now admit, which moots the rant you began with.
continue then....
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Keita is saying that although it is defunct, people like Sforza still echo it. Hence it's not dead to whites like him.
Trolling deleted - Henu
[ 03. January 2009, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: I just don't know why some pretend "scholars" want to pretend as if the Hamite myth has been "dropped".
Totally agree. People need to be very careful with the studies they align themselves with, some of these studies are just rebranding old racial stereotypes in the hope of seperating Africa for its Nile valley civilisations of antiquity. By quoting from these racially motivated exercises (which for some reason always seem to have extensive coverage of 'North Africa and the Nile Valley') they are perpetuating and falling into the lie of these false classifications. Just because they have exchanged the term 'Hamitic' for 'Afroasiatic' it doesn't mean there has been a shift of paradigm. The Nile Valley civilisation spanned from north, to central, to sub saharan Africa, at no point did the Nile impose a physical barrier of restraint. Its the same reason I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa. It seems that every African culture that expanded into Asia is then classified to be of Asian origin. Political correctness of the new terminologies has done nothing to erase the racist views of the old.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: By quoting from these racially motivated exercises
^ Like Keita. You have to develop a more sophisticated approach to the gathering of data, beyond choosing to quote or not quote whomever you think might be racist.
-> Keita uses Howells notoriously biased database of crania in his studies, although Howells branded African crania as -non African-, out of racial bias.
-> Keita is a -student- of Larry Angel, and sites Angel as documenting that Europeans are mixed with Blacks from Africa.... Angel uses racial terminology in his description and racial conceptions in his methods. But Keita dismisses this as irrelevant to the underlying facts that Angel was able to shed light on.
-> Virtually *all* of th older European Egyptologist of note were racist, because racism was endemic to Europe's culture.
If you don't want to use the work of racist - you would have to dismiss virtually all of Egyptology.
This includes Budge, and Champollian [who deciphered the Rossetta Sonte] who are nonetheless cited by Diop as evidence that Egypt was a Black African civilisation.
And frankly, if you literally want to dismiss racially -motivated- work, then you would have to directly reject Diop, who was strong proponent of 'race'.
Keita correctly cites Sforza's Nuclear DNA studies as contributing to the deconstruction of race - even as he critiques the errors of Sforza [a non linguist] with regards to his support of the Nostratic hypothesis which tries to assign Afro Asiatic to caucasoids.
He places information into context, as a thinking person must, rather than catagorize scholars as *good* or *evil* as unthinking people lazily do, because it's a substitute for doing the hard work of assessing data.
[ever actually read Sforza's work, as Keita has??]
Keita cites Greenberg - who is the key scholar whose work led to the demise of the Hamite myth in linguistics.....
But Greenberg was also a supporter of the Nostratic hypothesis, which ultimately attempts to figure out a way in which European language/family can be the basis of other languages, and therefor escape from the current predicament of the Afro-Semitic basis of European literacy.
Context is difficult.
Someone like Akoben both lacks the intelligence to place information in context, and the integrity to even attempt to do so.
His sole concern for 'attacking' Sforza is to deny that Europeans are mixed.
^ This is the actual argument he is making, and his comments should be placed in that context, all strawmen and red herrings from him, that seek to distract from this argument should be so dismissed.
Ironically, that Europeans are mixed is something that Sforza, and Keita, and Larry Angel and most other scholars, all agree on.
From Keita: "I was a student of Professor Angel. Angel found evidence for a "Black", [if exits] genetic influence in Neolithic Europe, racialist models which deny overlapping genepools are clearly negated by Angel's work."
^ Scholarship requires context.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ To better understand how to put information into proper context, make a study of the logical fallacies.
Their basic premise, is that anything that is not germane to an argument, cannot be used to either support it, or refute it.
* person makes claim X. * person also says Y. * Y is therefore false.
^ Fallacy.
Logical fallacy is the rule rather than the exception on the internet, because such fallacies exploit the sloppiness and intellectual laziness that is characteristic of troll infested "discussion" forums.
The favorite error of lazy trolls is the strawman argument, which is all the person you just "agreed" with ever does.
Do you know what a strawman argument is.....
* Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. *
^ Strawmen arguments work on people who do not bother to place information in proper context, which also requires some effort and intelligence.
At it's best, ES tries to elevate discussion to a higher level than that.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Therefore....
quote: By quoting from these racially motivated exercises
.... is a logical fallacy:
Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer - a form of ad hominem fallacy http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Appeal-to-motive Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
You probably have a point with your logical fallacy statement. Perhaps I should clarify.
''If you don't want to use the work of racist - you would have to dismiss virtually all of Egyptology.''
I agree, and I do (dismiss) to a large extent when it comes to hypothesisng the race of the Egyptians, as most Eurocentric research is usually a nonsense and should not be engaged seriously. Diop, to a large degree used the study of racist Egyptologists to falsify and highlight contradiction. For the large part he relied on his own research and statements refuted/ignored by the Egyptological community to prove Egypt's African origin. My stance is that people approaching Egyptology objectively need to carry out their own research, or let the research of more objective Egyptologists take precedence. You are correct, in your 'eat the meat, spit out the bones' argument that you present. In another thread I have referenced Gadallah who makes some flimsy and easily refutable arguments (regarding the 'Hamite' race, but this does not negate his excellent research regarding the African Migrations: off topic) But, just how 'boney' does a piece of research have to be before you dismiss it as a nonsense?
On a side note, I have noticed you have indulged a couple of strawman arguments yourself re: 'diop mistakes'. And the fact that I agree with a statement posted by akoben does not mean I disagree with the premise of the thread, hence your indulging in telling me I shouldn't do this could be classified as a strawman argument, no? Because you're making an assumption that this single note of support refutes the entire thread, and it doesn't. I have no interest in taking sides, just call it how I see it. Thanks for the heads up though, I always appreciate when people take the time to reply at length to anything I post.
On a side note, my issue with the Sforza study is because of their racist origin, it is so easy to bias the results of a genetic argument. You can bias a sample, bias the strands that you use for comparison. I saw Keita's study being misquoted to argue that the Moor's were solely Berbers and their was no black African presence in mainland Europe! If you use a biased study as a basis, then your interpretation of the results will ultimately be false. I don't want to be viewed as a troll, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks again for your reply...
Posted by JMT (Member # 12050) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by akoben: I just don't know why some pretend "scholars" want to pretend as if the Hamite myth has been "dropped".
Totally agree. People need to be very careful with the studies they align themselves with, some of these studies are just rebranding old racial stereotypes in the hope of seperating Africa for its Nile valley civilisations of antiquity. By quoting from these racially motivated exercises (which for some reason always seem to have extensive coverage of 'North Africa and the Nile Valley') they are perpetuating and falling into the lie of these false classifications. Just because they have exchanged the term 'Hamitic' for 'Afroasiatic' it doesn't mean there has been a shift of paradigm. The Nile Valley civilisation spanned from north, to central, to sub saharan Africa, at no point did the Nile impose a physical barrier of restraint. Its the same reason I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa. It seems that every African culture that expanded into Asia is then classified to be of Asian origin. Political correctness of the new terminologies has done nothing to erase the racist views of the old.
Welcome!
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Yo, we have a new poster; Narmer Menes and he does not sound like Supercar
I like what you write, Narmer Menes.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
LMAO @ rasol trying to school others on more sophisticated approach to the gathering of data!
Citing studies willy nilly and having the intelligence to comprehend what they are really saying are two different things. Unlike you, Keita does not widely quote and blindly support Sforza's bizarre claims. Yes Keita correctly cites Sforza's (I thought you insisted it was Bowcock? ) Nuclear DNA studies as contributing to the deconstruction of race by showing their "Caucasoid" sample as consisting of specific percentages of their Chinese and Pygmy samples.
But does he agree that racial divergence occurred between the Asian and African as implied by them? Does he agree with their continental tree branching and clustering? Does he agree with their sampling methods that "do not use racial terminology (but usually use the same groups, because the underlying thinking is the same)"? Does he agree that North Africans are genetically Caucasoid? That pretty much sums up most of Sforza's lifes work.
Yes rasol, scholarship requires context which is why you are just a faux keyboard scholar.
Trolling deleted - Henu
[ 03. January 2009, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: You probably have a point with your logical fallacy statement. Perhaps I should clarify.
''If you don't want to use the work of racist - you would have to dismiss virtually all of Egyptology.''
I agree, and I do (dismiss) to a large extent when it comes to hypothesisng the race of the Egyptians, as most Eurocentric research is usually a nonsense and should not be engaged seriously. Diop, to a large degree used the study of racist Egyptologists to falsify and highlight contradiction. For the large part he relied on his own research and statements refuted/ignored by the Egyptological community to prove Egypt's African origin. My stance is that people approaching Egyptology objectively need to carry out their own research, or let the research of more objective Egyptologists take precedence. You are correct, in your 'eat the meat, spit out the bones' argument that you present. In another thread I have referenced Gadallah who makes some flimsy and easily refutable arguments (regarding the 'Hamite' race, but this does not negate his excellent research regarding the African Migrations: off topic) But, just how 'boney' does a piece of research have to be before you dismiss it as a nonsense?
On a side note, I have noticed you have indulged a couple of strawman arguments yourself re: 'diop mistakes'. And the fact that I agree with a statement posted by akoben does not mean I disagree with the premise of the thread, hence your indulging in telling me I shouldn't do this could be classified as a strawman argument, no? Because you're making an assumption that this single note of support refutes the entire thread, and it doesn't. I have no interest in taking sides, just call it how I see it. Thanks for the heads up though, I always appreciate when people take the time to reply at length to anything I post.
On a side note, my issue with the Sforza study is because of their racist origin, it is so easy to bias the results of a genetic argument. You can bias a sample, bias the strands that you use for comparison. I saw Keita's study being misquoted to argue that the Moor's were solely Berbers and their was no black African presence in mainland Europe! If you use a biased study as a basis, then your interpretation of the results will ultimately be false. I don't want to be viewed as a troll, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks again for your reply...
In defense of Cavalli-Sforza I don't think he was being racist at all, but what he did do is conduct his studies in such a way so as to gain the desired results and Keita addresses this as well as another author who critiqued his study:
Current Anthropology Volume 41, Number 3, June 2000
Pygmies, Khoisan, and Caucasian connections. The high-level cluster of sub-Saharan African populations contains 33 of the 49 populations of the phylogenetic tree. It is a considerably more diverse grouping than the Saharan/Northern African, with multiple subclusters at different fissioning points. The most famous "outlier" populations of traditional African ethnography are of course Pygmy and Khoisan-speaking groups, which are to varying degrees physically distinct from their African neighbors and also to varying degrees participate in foraging economies. These latter are frequently seen by Westerners as archaic, and Pygmy and Khoisan populations have often been identified as unchanged relics of earlier ages (e.g., Thomas 1959:68; Turnbull 1983:1113, 15758). Pygmy (Mbuti and Biaka) and "Pygmoid" populations are found at various points on Cavalli-Sforza et al.'s phylogenetic tree as outliers and with other groups. As Froment (1998) points out, this separation of Pygmy and other African populations is extremely imprecise; it depends to a great extent upon linguistic criteria, ignores the numerous transitional populations (not only those denominated as "Pygmoid"), and systematically discounts the fact that we know very little about the historical and physical relations between these groups over any significant period of time.
Similarly, Khoi and San populations cluster with a Somali sample (which itself is held to be out of place, given that Somali groups geographically sit within the Northern African range), while Sandawe clusters with populations from Senegambia and Hadza is an outlier between the two. Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994:16970, 17477, 18993) posit that especially San populations are the result of admixture between "Caucasoid" groups originating in Southwest Asia and African "Negroid" groups. This is supposed to be a different process of interaction across the Red Sea from the one that yielded the distinctive genetic and physical characteristics of Ethiopian populations; indeed, the San and Ethiopian peoples are held to be "similar to Caucasoids but ... otherwise very different [from one another]" ( p. 191). The historical mechanismsand even the demographic meaning of such multiple similarities are left unspecified. This is unfortunate, given that hypotheses of immigration into Africa by (often "Hamitic") "Caucasoids" have bedeviled African history and archaeology for much of the past century, often being advanced to explain away African cultural innovations and based on very unsatisfactory evidence. One would have hoped that consciousness of this situation would have led the authors of The History and Geography of Human Genes to substantiate this hypothesis in detail.
The nongenetic evidence marshaled in support of the hypothesis of relations between San groups and populations in the Near East is extremely weak. A putative "Asian" genetic contribution to forager groups in Ethiopia (Nijenhuis and Hendrikse 1986) is discussed only with reference to "Pygmoid" populations, although Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994:174) imply that these groups are related to the San. They claim ( pp. 160, 176) that skeletal material "credibly identified as San" has been found in various parts of North and East Africa, including northern Egypt, but note only parenthetically that this assertion in Nurse, Weiner, and Jenkins (1984) is based upon a 30-year-old paper by Philip Tobias (1968 [1964]). The Tobias paper does not in fact seem to make that claim, and it is in any case disputed by more recent researchers on the basis of the characteristics of the material involved, the very fragmentary state of the collections, and known problems with the accumulation of Khoi and San skeletal reference collections (Froment 1998; Morris 1986, 1987; Rightmire 1975; 1984:19398; Schepartz 1988). In fact, the identification of this skeletal material from northeastern Africa as related to San skeletal material from southern Africa is very doubtful; the material indicates that ancient populations in the area were most closely affiliated with the present-day inhabitants.
The only widely accepted evidence of ancient Khoisan populations in East Africa is the ascription of the Sandawe and Hadza languages to the Khoisan phylum (with even less well-attested traces of Khoisan contacts in Dahalo and Yaaku [Ehret 1974:11, 88]). However, the Khoisan affiliations of Sandawe and/or Hadza are still disputed by some linguists, and in any case the available genetic data do not indicate a close relationship between Sandawe and Hadza people, on the one hand, and San and Somali people, on the other. The paradox is obvious: Sandawe and Hadza provide the only firm link between San populations and northeastern Africa (a linguistic one), but according to the genetic data that provide the basis for The History and Geography of Human Genes they are more closely related to West and Central African groups (fig. 2). There seems to be no a priori reason to associate Khoisan-speaking populations with Southwest Asia on the basis of San genetic data and not to associate Khoisan-speaking populations with Senegambia on the basis of Sandawe genetic data, but this is just what Cavalli-Sforza et al. do. It is also, of course, possible that either or both associations are spurious, especially given the small size of some of these forager groups and the attendant possibility of genetic drift....
The distinction between Saharan/Northern African populations and peoples living in sub-Saharan Africa is explained by the varying contribution of genes from "Caucasoid" populations in Europe and Southwest Asia to the former. This is very likely a contributing factor, given the archaeological and historical evidence of such population interactions around the Mediterranean. It is also quite likely that clines in gene frequencies across the Sahara are in part the result of natural selection operating upon characteristics that are not adaptively neutral in the very different environments through this region. There is a significant amount of evidence for both climatic and latitudinal effects upon different gene frequencies (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994:143; Mastana, Constans, and Papiha 1996; O'Rourke, Suarez, and Crouse 1985; Spitsyn et al. 1998). The greater instability of Saharan environments through time probably offered less scope for such in situ adaptation than is the case among, for example, the Nile Valley populations examined by Brace et al. (1996).
Saharan and Sahelian groups (various Berber- and Arabic-speaking populations, including Tuareg and groups subordinated to them, such as the Bella and the Haratine and Saharan-speakers such as the Chaamba, Reguibat, Teda, and Kanembu) are not covered in detail in the work (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994:173), although investigations of biological variation among those populations have indicated that their anthropometric and genetic affiliations are very diverse and complex (Froment 1999). This lack of data on intermediate groups may make human physical and genetic distinctions across the Sahara appear more clear-cut than they are. The status of these populations is particularly important given that climatic change rendered significant parts of the Sahara passable (and in some cases habitable) through periods in the Holocene at least, with the result that there is abundant evidence of more extensive human contacts across the desert than have existed in historic times. Sutton (1974) and Ehret (1993) have suggested that the Saharo-Sudanese Neolithic tradition was largely the province of Nilo-Saharan-speakers. Populations speaking those languages do not, however, occupy an intermediate position between North African and sub-Saharan African populations, suggesting that either the correlations between archaeology and linguistics or those between genetics and linguistics or both are erroneous.
While Cavalli-Sforza et al. emphasize the contribution of immigrant genes to the modern genetic makeup of Saharan/Northern African populations, they do not really consider the possibility of an African genetic contribution to either Europe or the Near East. It thus appears that Africa accepts genetic contributions from other areas but does not reciprocate them. A principal-component map of 42 world populations (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994:82) indicates a somewhat more complex picture, with a succession of Basques, Sardinians, Near Eastern populations, and Berbers occupying a space intermediate between African and European populations, although certainly arrayed closer to European groups. This assumption is also at variance with the known history of the region, where we see evidence for two-way relations throughout the Holocene, especially via Southwest Asia and the Iberian and Italian peninsulas. People from North, Saharan, and sub-Saharan Africa have crossed the Mediterranean as settlers, conquerors, and slaves through recorded history just as have Europeans. In recent times such population flows may have tended to be from north to south, but it should not be assumed that this has always been the case. Posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: LMAO @ rasol trying to school others on more sophisticated approach to the gathering of data!
Citing studies willy nilly and having the intelligence to comprehend what they are really saying are two different things. Unlike you, Keita does not widely quote and blindly support Sforza's bizarre claims. Yes Keita correctly cites Sforza's (I thought you insisted it was Bowcock? ) Nuclear DNA studies as contributing to the deconstruction of race by showing their "Caucasoid" sample as consisting of specific percentages of their Chinese and Pygmy samples.
But does he agree that racial divergence occurred between the Asian and African as implied by them? Does he agree with their continental tree branching and clustering? Does he agree with their sampling methods that "do not use racial terminology (but usually use the same groups, because the underlying thinking is the same)"? Does he agree that North Africans are genetically Caucasoid? That pretty much sums up most of Sforza's lifes work.
Yes rasol, scholarship requires context which is why you are just a faux keyboard scholar.
Trolling deleted - Henu
Get the hell out of this thread with your jackass incessant trolling about something that was discussed in another thread, this thread isn't about Europeans being 2/3 Asian and 1/3 African so quit cyber stalking posters from the thread to thread baiting people and trolling destroying thread after good thread with good information. The mods need to step it up on this troll.
I've got this, just let me know instead of responding - Henu
[ 03. January 2009, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:In defense of Cavalli-Sforza I don't think he was being racist at all,
Straw man arguement Charles.
We stress that racial thinking is not necessarily synonymous with racist thinking. The interest here is in the vestiges of typological or categorical thinking as applied to humans. - Keita
So the question really is, does Sforza's work reflect vestiges of typological or categorical thinking as applied to humans? Or as one observer puts it, "Basically, all his number-crunching has produced a map that looks about like what you'd get if you gave an unreconstructed Strom Thurmond a paper napkin and a box of crayons and had him draw a racial map of the world."
And if this thread isn't about Sforza why are you spamming in an obvious attempt at Sforza apologia Charles? Note also your spam above say about his "Berbers" "occupying a space intermediate between African and European populations, although certainly arrayed closer to European groups"
^ do you buy this?
And also note, it validates Keita's point re the absurdity of their continental tree branching and clustering. Give it up Charles. The man is Coonian. This is why you are upset.
Dr. Winters was right.
Trolling deleted - Henu
[ 03. January 2009, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ The moderator should ban jackass akoben if he wants to have a serious thread instead of a silly one.
Now...
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: You probably have a point with your logical fallacy statement. Perhaps I should clarify.
Indeed.
quote:''If you don't want to use the work of racist - you would have to dismiss virtually all of Egyptology.''
I agree, and I do (dismiss) to a large extent when it comes to hypothesisng the race of the Egyptians, as most Eurocentric research is usually a nonsense and should not be engaged seriously.
Diop, to a large degree used the study of racist Egyptologists to falsify and highlight contradiction.
^ No.
That isn't all he did so you are not being entirely honest.
Diop placed information into context.
This is different than trying to catagorize sources as
a) racist
b) non-racist
...and then trying to attack "racist authors", rather than deal with specific merits or demerits of an *argument.*
[this is the logical fallacy you are promoting, and which your reply does not really address]
This involves citing Egyptologists where he agreed with them, which needs no external rationale, and regardless of whether he disagreed with them on other points.
^ This is exactly what you oppose.
He cites the translations of Budge and Champollian the Younger, the reproductions of Kurt Sethe, and Richard Lepsius, and the anthropology of Fontanes, Amélineau, Chandler and others.
Diop even uses the works of Carleton Coon, and though -I disagree- with Diop's views here, he praises Coon's work wrongly, because at the time that he wrote the following Coon was a standard bearer of contemporary anthropology.
Coon's views did influence Diop's views, and in fact, they *both* advocated race.
What is ironic here, is that Diop is often subject to a broad brush attack, for promoting outdated ideas of race.
^ Broadbrush attacks are also useful to shallow trolls because they can never deal with specifics anyway, and will usually postulate cut and past attacks against scholars whom they never even bothered to read.... and wouldn't understand even if they had.
The method used here by Eurocentrists -> is the same method you advocate.
^ They take Diop out of context, and use his outdated views on race, as a strawman by which to attack all of his work.
So you can't claim that Diop never cited racialist Egyptologists, nor can you read Diop and be true to your own *tenant* to ignore the works of scholars who promote race.
Diop writes:
I am not an anthropologist, nor is the author, but I refer the reader to one of the best books on the subject of ancient Egypt: Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe (New York: Macmillan, 1939, pp. 91-98 & 458-462).
In it the racial components of Ancient Egypt are analyzed (Mediterraneans in the Preneolithic, Whites; Tasians on the Abyssinian plateau. Browns with Negroid tendency, Naq-ada, related but less Negroid; Mediterraneans of Lower Egypt, Whites; and from 3000 B.C. to the Ptolemaic epoch, the history of Egypt shows "the gradual replacement of the Upper Egyptian type by that of Lower Egypt" (p. 96). The later invaders (Hyksos, peoples of the sea, Semites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks), all belong to white races, with the exception of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, of Nubian ancestry, as is known.
To be true to your own advise you need to -ignore- Coon *and* Diop.
quote:By quoting from these racially motivated exercises
^ Diop quoted from racially motivated sources, and was himself racially motivated.
The only contradiction is in your claim that did not, or was not.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:That isn't all he did so you are not being entirely honest.
He did not say all, he said to a large degree. It is you who is being dishonest, again. But Narmer will soon find you out as surely as I did.
But why are you building straws and trying to save face here too rasol? Is the issue really about who an author cites or whether or not their work can stand up to scrutiny? Sforza approvingly sites Dobzhansky. Go read what Keita has to say on this guy and you see his influence on Sforza and his "breeding populations".
Now since both authors, Diop and Sforza, cite works of racialists are they to be judged the same? Can the work of Sforza stand up to scrutiny as has Diop's, despite his "mistakes"?
Please rasol, stop clouding the issue to protect your white authors.
Trolling deleted - Henu
[ 03. January 2009, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:he did not say all he said to a large degree
^ at issue is the original unqualified assertion, which was.....
quote: By quoting from these racially motivated exercises......
^ it is pointed out that such are in fact, often quoted, by Diop for example.
this leads to a qualifier being added...
quote:to a large degree
^ it is then shown that, that is *not all* he did, and not the only reason for citing 'racially motivated' scholars [to only contradict them].
therefore this fails to address the error in the original assertion, which is falsified by the examples provided, no matter that it was subsquently qualified. [aka backtracking]
And....
since you fail to address this this, your reply is just another strawman argument.
Which leads us to....
quote:Why are you building straws?
^ every post you ever write, such as the above, consists soley of strawman arguments, miscitations, and non sequiturs.
you really should leave this forum, so that others can have an intelligent conversation free of your trolling.
quote:Diop and Sforza, cite works of racialists are they to be judged the same?
^ As does Keita. They all do. Name the scholars of African history who never cite racialists?
You can't.
Because there are none.
And because - TROLLS NEVER ANSWER QUESTIONS.
^ They just ignore questions, and keep trolling.
What a scholar, like Diop and Kieta does, is place information into context.
A troll is not inclined to.
Akoben = troll.
And this is why you can't learn and never have and will never contribute anything intelligible to this forum.
quote: stop clouding the issue to protect your white authors
^ Stop trolling the threads with your GARBAGE POSTs.
Don't litter
Insults deleted; Just ignore & report trolling. - Henu
[ 03. January 2009, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:it is then shown that, that is *not all* he did
Obviously you don't know the difference between "all" and "to a large degree". Shame. This alone should convince Narmer that you are indeed the forum clown.
But look at yourself rasol. In your short exchanges with Narmer you already accused him of dishonesty and now want to bait him into a semantic argument.
Like I said, he will soon find you out. Yes trolls never answer questions which is why you have yet to say whether or not Diop and Sforza should be seen in the same light. Should a "scholar" who echoes the Hamitc myth be judged the same as the Pharaoh of African studies? Should a "scholar" who's sampling reflects the "true negro" criteria be judged the same as the Pharaoh of African studies?
The answer is obvious. Diop, no matter his "mistakes", is far more credible than Sforza. It hurts you, but its the truth.
Trolling deleted - Henu
[ 03. January 2009, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Obviously you don't know the difference between an intelligable reply,and your,
GARBAGE POSTs.
Don't litter Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: But look at yourself rasolowitz. Blaming others for your lack of basic comprehension skills and uncritical love of Sforza.
No one here has said that Sforza's work is without problems. In fact rasol himself has described Sforza as "brilliant but biased", which is far from a sign of "uncritical love". Rather, we think some of his work has merit. That doesn't mean it is without flaws. Every scientist makes mistakes as well as valid contributions; the job of the scientist's critic is to distinguish the mistakes from the facts.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ of course, this is why information has to be placed in context.
this requires thinking, and requires that you address specifics which takes effort.
on Eurocentric forums Keita and Diop are both ridiculed as "Afrocentric", which is absurd, but it provides pseudos with a method of not actually addressing information that they don't like and can't refute.
that is why the approach of 'appeal to motive' is a form of logical fallacy, and not a legitimate critique of Keita, or Diop, or Sforza either.
Sforza was among the 1st to discover, contrary to his own prior beliefs, that Europeans did not model as a distinct 'race', but rather as hybrid of prior diverged Africans and Asians.
this is correct.
One can rant against this 'forever', but the ranting is completely irrelevant -> unless you can show that subsequent genetic study demonstrates that this is not the case.
trolls cannot show this. they can only commit elementary fallacies of logic, and hope for naive' audiences who don't know any better, and so credit them with something more fallacy/trolling.
Posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass (Member # 10328) on :
Can the mods please delete the posts of the troll akoben? Its disrupting this thread and every other thread of merit thats being discussed.
Insult deleted - Henu
[ 03. January 2009, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ YES PLEASE!!
Akoben, either discuss the actual topic of this thread or get the hell out!! Do not ruin another good thread with your donkey sh*t, keep that mess in their original threads!
Insults deleted - Henu
[ 03. January 2009, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Now... getting back to the topic.
I just got through reading the entire excerpt, and I absolutely agree. The paper is nothing more than a confirmation of what multidisciplinary research has been saying all along. You cannot concieve the biological status of early Afrasian speakers without first accepting the FACT of the great biological diversity of indigenous African populations in general! And of course a major part of this diversity are craniofacial features. This pretty much obliterates the faux racial notions of "caucasoid" or "caucasian", let alone the old 'Nostratic' origin theories of Afrasian.
Ironically while Western scholars in the past try to emphasize Eurasian influence in the African continent and specifically Afrasian origins, the opposite is actually the case and I feel not enough research is made to find out about these early African populations that migrated to Arabia and Southwest Asia!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Insults/trolling deleted - Henu
[ 03. January 2009, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posted by Henu (Member # 13490) on :
I've cleaned up the thread. Don't feed the trolls, just report them. The mods are usually MIA so a ban would take a while.
Edit: That's really weird, the edit time stamps are behind by an hour...
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
I suggest a ban on Henu for taking sides.
Posted by Henu (Member # 13490) on :
I don't care about your opinion, akoben. Only how you present it.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ give me a break. where did you delete other poster's insults and pictures? i maintain you should be banned for censorship and taking sides!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Arwa:
and he does not sound like Supercar
Indeed; I don't let you get away with your stupidity or lying. If and when the new poster does that, then he might start to sound like me to you.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: I just don't know why some pretend "scholars" want to pretend as if the Hamite myth has been "dropped".
[i]"Early Afro-Asiatic spread out from the Horn and did not come into Africa from Asia (brought by "Caucasians") as was believed at one time, and as is occasionally assumed by nonlinguists (e.g., Barbujani and Pilastro 1993; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995)
Great, you post fourteen year old studies trying to solidify scholars still using the Hamitic hypothesis? You're very clever.... Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Arwa:
and he does not sound like Supercar
Indeed; I don't let you get away with your stupidity or lying. If and when the new poster does that, then he might start to sound like me to you.
why are you picking on her when you ran from your holocaust beatdown, I mean debate?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Einstein, because she mentioned me?
I gather that like you, she has to unnecessarily invoke me in conversations that have nothing to do with me, because she has the hots for me. She being female, that's understandable and I can take that, but you...quite a different story.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Henu: I don't care about your opinion, akoben. Only how you present it.
thanks for deleting some of the offending posts.
suggest, don't allow the troll to cry crocodile tears on the forum.
they crave the attention of moderators, and invariably protest that the moderator is biased.
you are opening a can of worms for massive amount of whiny misbehavior, baiting you to act on it, and calling you biased if you do.
that's what trolls do next - it's in their limited handbook.
the most effective moderators delete offending posts without comment, and if it continues, ban the poster - again without comment, as this denies them the attn. they seek in the 1st place.
once you make an example of them, in this respect, it tends to have marked impact on the improve behavior in the forum in general. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Who ever is banned it will not negate the fact that the Hamites were a myth and myth makers such as Sforza are merely "echoing the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis". Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Ehret's spelling is Afrasan which to me still has too much Asia in it and why I proposed Afrisan as a spelling that injects more of the sound of AFRIca into the descriptor.
quote:The development of Afrisan
1530 - kinship noted between Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic 1702 - Ludolf notes affinity of Ethiosemitic with [the above listed] languages 1887 - Muller links Egyptian, Semitic, Berber, Cushitic, and Hausa 1963 - Greenberg introduces Afroasiatic to replace Hamito-Semitic name 1988 - Diakonoff coins Afrasian a short form for Afroasiatic 2002 - Ehret proposed Afrasan to take Asia out of superphylum's name
I use Afrisan to inject more of the sound of AFRIca into the name Outside of the far northeast tectonic extension of Africa now known as the Mid-East, this language family is spoken nowhere in Asia out side of religious introduction.
Agreed, Christopher Ehret has tried one approach of calling the language Afrisan, as he is trying to remove the term "Asia" from a language group that consists of African familes only.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I take it Philips is the editor of a book containing the given passage from Keita? Also, can you please post the footnotes as the article is incomplete without them.
Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass:
S.O.Y. Keita Afro-Asiatic Speakers: An Exploration
taken from the book,
Writing African History By John Edward Philips Published by Boydell & Brewer, 2006
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Can you explain to me why if Ge'ez is indeed proto-Semitic that would preclude its birth and development in Africa?
It seems to me that if anything that if Ge'ez is proto-Semitic and Ethiopia has the greatest number of Semitic languages that the birth (Ge'ez) and the development (Ethiopia's plethora of Semitic languages) adds up to nothing else than Semitic being African.
Semitic is the name of a language family that does not likewise name a geographic region or area unlike say Niger-Congo which is not merely a name for a language family but a vast region encompassing a wide expanse of west and central Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: ... I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Semitic is the name of a language family that does not likewise name a geographic region or area unlike say Niger-Congo which is not merely a name for a language family but a vast region encompassing a wide expanse of west and central Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: ... I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa.
Problem with that is connotations. Although Proto-Semitic is a language family, the term Semitic (as you know) was coined based on the Biblical description of nations in and surrounding Europe, Egypt, Africa and Asia. Cush (Ethiopia) is based firmly in the region of the sons of Ham (the African nations), thus it does not make logical sense for the language to be labelled Semitic. I understand your point regarding the related languages (moreso Amharic, than Geéz itself), but perhaps what may be required is a re-classification, or a partition within the language families to allow for the fact that the language is fully African, the influence was from Africa to Asia, and not the other was around. Semite acquisition of the language had (little or) no influence on the construction of the language, as seems to be supported by the surrounding studies (in as much as I've looked into it). Reply appreciated.
Posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I take it Philips is the editor of a book containing the given passage from Keita? Also, can you please post the footnotes as the article is incomplete without them.
Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass:
S.O.Y. Keita Afro-Asiatic Speakers: An Exploration
taken from the book,
Writing African History By John Edward Philips Published by Boydell & Brewer, 2006
OK, but I can't see "Semite acquisition" of Semitic. Without Semitic languages there are no Semites -- speakers of Semitic languages.
Semitic does not equate to "sons of Shem." Canaanitic is a Semitic but the biblical Canaanites were of the "sons of Hham."
Elam was of the "sons of Shem" but the language of the Elamites was not a Semitic language.
I can agree that Semitic stands in need of a name change and also agree to the proposed nomenclature Erythraic as that geographic body borders Ethiopia and Arabia the two homelands of primal speakers of the living Semitic languages.
Retaining Semitic is akin to the once usage of Hamitic.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Semitic is the name of a language family that does not likewise name a geographic region or area unlike say Niger-Congo which is not merely a name for a language family but a vast region encompassing a wide expanse of west and central Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: ... I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa.
Problem with that is connotations. Although Proto-Semitic is a language family, the term Semitic (as you know) was coined based on the Biblical description of nations in and surrounding Europe, Egypt, Africa and Asia. Cush (Ethiopia) is based firmly in the region of the sons of Ham (the African nations), thus it does not make logical sense for the language to be labelled Semitic. I understand your point regarding the related languages (moreso Amharic, than Geéz itself), but perhaps what may be required is a re-classification, or a partition within the language families to allow for the fact that the language is fully African, the influence was from Africa to Asia, and not the other was around. Semite acquisition of the language had (little or) no influence on the construction of the language, as seems to be supported by the surrounding studies (in as much as I've looked into it). Reply appreciated.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Thanks, but the reason I asked you to post the notes is because I lack the resources to screen copy them.
First of all, thank you for the welcomes, I really appreciate it... I was a patient observer for near a month whilst your registration was closed, and I've been quietly observing the very strong Egyptological intellects on this site. Very impressed and look forward to doing so real work with some of you in the near future.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: quote:''If you don't want to use the work of racist - you would have to dismiss virtually all of Egyptology.''
I agree, and I do (dismiss) to a large extent when it comes to hypothesisng the race of the Egyptians, as most Eurocentric research is usually a nonsense and should not be engaged seriously.
Diop, to a large degree used the study of racist Egyptologists to falsify and highlight contradiction.
^ No.
That isn't all he did so you are not being entirely honest.
We seem to have be drawn into a situation of nit-picking here, and that is exactly what I didn't want to happen. I'll just clear up the misunderstanding and be done, I respect a lot of your views, and as such won't attack them, just clarify my stance.
I never projected a statement that could be classified 'entirely' honest or 'entirely' dishonest. The term 'at large' suggests a majority quantity, not an absolute position.
An example that illustrates what I'm saying is when Diop says of Maspero's work "This thesis is the masterpiece of explanations based on pure imagination; it rests solely on emotion. I have cited it only for its ingenuity and determination to succed at any cost..." He may not have 'categorised' but certainly 'classified' Maspero as a racist and as a result he (Maspero) was never used for meaningful critique or quoted with seriousness, but only to offer a debunk/rebuttal and highlight the sheer desperation the Historical community had become regarding issues of 'race' in Ancient Egypt.
Also, I did say 'to a large degree' to offer a delimiter, as we all know that Diop was subject to the studies of racists as no 'afrocentric' (or I should say 'honestly approached') studies had gone before him. Therefore, this paragraph was slightly unnecessary as it was based on the assumption that I said or implied Diop NEVER used the works of racists in his studies, and I didn't.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] ...and then trying to attack "racist authors", rather than deal with specific merits or demerits of an *argument.*[/b]
I didn't 'attack' anyone, I made a statement of disapproval to a stance that was being suggested. Perhaps the term 'racialy motivated' you drew exception to. Fair enough, I have always prefered clear communication over implication.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] This involves citing Egyptologists where he agreed with them, which needs no external rationale, and regardless of whether he disagreed with them on other points.[/b]
We totally agree here, the disagreement is only based on how the citations are utilised. When a study is so biased/poor, should it be only be referred to for debunking, as Diop demonstrated?
In the same way Diop used materials that he deemed were the most objectively approached to prove his claims, I too am at liberty to exercise the same premise, discarding materials that I deem to be agenda-driven, and focus on studies that I deem to be approached with greater objectivity. It will be impossible to find a study that is wholly agenda free, but that is where one has the option of exercising selectiveness, as Diop and most other scholars do in their approach to synthesising sources. I said:
quote:My stance is that people approaching Egyptology objectively need to carry out their own research, or let the research of more objective Egyptologists take precedence.
Thats all. Standing by what I said, I understand your point and why you replied. Thanks for the reply.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ And vice versa. You are a good thinker, and welcome on EgyptSearch.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
I never projected a statement that could be classified 'entirely' honest or 'entirely' dishonest. The term 'at large' suggests a majority quantity, not an absolute position.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Can you explain to me why if Ge'ez is indeed proto-Semitic that would preclude its birth and development in Africa?
It seems to me that if anything that if Ge'ez is proto-Semitic and Ethiopia has the greatest number of Semitic languages that the birth (Ge'ez) and the development (Ethiopia's plethora of Semitic languages) adds up to nothing else than Semitic being African.
Semitic is the name of a language family that does not likewise name a geographic region or area unlike say Niger-Congo which is not merely a name for a language family but a vast region encompassing a wide expanse of west and central Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: ... I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa.
"It is always important to be wary of the traps of circular reasoning."
-> Semitic means *not African*, so, to say a language is proto-semitic, is to imply that it is not African.
The same is true for Berber.
So we must prove that Egyptian is unrelated to semitic and Berber, that Ethiopic is not semitic, and that Berber are not African.
^ Note the above is an example of - fallacy of circular reasoning.
Berber is uniformly acknowledged to be and African language [after all, it exists nowhere else, nor does it have any non African relatives]
Semitic is generally aknowledged to have been born in Africa by *most* linguists.
Therefore there is no need to de semiticize Ethiopian languages, or de Africanize Berber.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ehret's spelling is Afrasan which to me still has too much Asia in it and why I proposed Afrisan as a spelling that injects more of the sound of AFRIca into the descriptor.
Which reminds me... Are there still anymore scholars arguing for a name change? I remember one not very popular name used was the Erythrean language phylum as in the Erythrean (Red) Sea. Perhaps the Saharo-Erythrean language family would be more accurate(?)
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Note the above is an example of - fallacy of circular reasoning.
Berber is uniformly acknowledged to be and African language [after all, it exists nowhere else, nor does it have any non African relatives]
Semitic is generally aknowledged to have been born in Africa by *most* linguists.
Therefore there is no need to de semiticize Ethiopian languages, or de Africanize Berber.
As far as I can see, no one has disputed the African'ness' of the Berber. To do so would be propostorous. I earlier refuted the classification of 'afroasiatic' citing Berber as one of the language families that is clearly African and NOT Asian. Berber needs no Africanisation as it thoroughly African. If the Berber language is birthed in Africa (and it is) where does the dispute lie? I don't understand how criticising the terminology of proto-Semitic leads one to the necessity of deAfricanising the Berber... could you explain further?
Regarding Semitic being acknowledged as 'birthed in Africa', I haven't come accross any such acknowledgement, so I would appreciate a source so I could look into that further. Thanks. As far as I have seen one has to do much ''reading between the lines'' to realise this in a few scattered examples.
From my evaluation, if current language descriptors remain unchallenged, EVERY language of note of the African languages from South of the horn, right the way around to NorthWest Africa are classified with some kind of 'Asian' connection, in spite of how African they are (many were not spoken outside the continent). This would be fine if the application of this terminology was treated mutually in Asian languages, but the compliment is never returned. None of the Semitic languages are classified 'Afro Asian' or 'proto Ethiopic'. Even 'Hamitic' was not applied outside of Africa's borders, so why do the Asian 'prefixes' get a monopoly over the most important African linguistic developments of antiquity. This terminology must be challenged, as petty as it may seem. It's clearly a residual attitude from Eurocentric scholarship from the same school of thought that suggests the African continent never created anything meaningfully without Semitic (caucasoid (to use THEIR terminology)) or European influence. Much like the whole Mesopotamia-Egypt debate. Much of these classifications were created under misconceptions and prejudice regarding the Asia-Africa relationship, but it is fastly being acknowledged that most African languages were developed indepedant of Asian infludence, and that African scripts actually predate many of the Semite scripts (much as the case with Geéz and the now redundant Sabaen link). Following this there should be a reclassifcation as the fact remains, if these languages have been acknowledged as being birthed and developed on African soil, by Africans, where does the classification Semitic find its justification. Reclassification is certainly required as far as I know, language classifications should be based on the origin's of language.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ good observations re the residual Eurocentric scholarship reflected in "Afro-Asiatic". Hope you don't get baited into a semantic argument some in here are good at.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Retaining Semitic is akin to the once usage of Hamitic.
Agreed.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ good observations re the residual Eurocentric scholarship reflected in "Afro-Asiatic".
Thanks! Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Regarding Semitic being acknowledged as 'birthed in Africa', I haven't come accross any such acknowledgement, so I would appreciate a source so I could look into that further.
This was acknowledged in the parent post.
The Afro-Asiatic language family seems to have originated in, or near the horn or the Sahara. Linguists, while disagreeing on details construct family phylogenies that may be suggestive of successive speech communities. The development of the current members of AfroAsiatic passed through several stages of language diversification. One suggested construction postulates that common Afro-Asiatic diverged initially into Omotic and another group leading to the remainder of the family. This latter, in turn, split into Cushitic and a speech community that develops into Chadic and a group called "Boreafrasian". Eventually Egyptian (and some extinct related languages) Berber, and Semitic emerge from Boreafrasian. --S.O.Y Keita
You can also read this....
quote: WHC: You describe two other groups. One of them is the Afrasans. Can you talk about them for a moment?
Ehret: These are people who have been called Afro-Asiatic and also Afrasian. I'm saying "Afrasan" because I'm trying to get "Asia" out. There is still this idea that the Afro-Asiatic family had to come out of Asia. Once you realize that it's an African family with one little Asian offshoot, well, that itself is a very important lesson for world historians.
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northwestern African into southwestern Asia. The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Another thing about the Afrasans: their religious beliefs. Anciently, each local group had its own supreme deity. This is called "henotheism." In this kind of religion, you have your own god to whom you show your allegiance. But you realize that other groups have their own deities. The fact that they have deities different from yours doesn't mean their deities don't exist.
This kind of belief still exists. It's fading, maybe on its last legs, in southeastern Ethiopia, among people of the Omati group. They descend from the earliest split in the Semitic family. Way up in the mountains, they have this henotheism. They have a deity of their clan, or their small group of closely related clans. They have their priest-chief who has to see to the rites of that deity.
We see the same kind of thing in ancient Egypt. If we go to there, we discover that the Egyptian gods began as local gods. With Egyptian unification, we move from this henotheism to polytheism. To unify Egypt, after all, you have to co-opt the loyalty of local groups and recognize their gods. We have no direct evidence, but it's certainly implied by the things we learn about the gods in the written records we do have.
20
WHC: You seem to be suggesting that the Semitic monotheism Jewish, Christian and Islamic monotheism descends from African models. Is that fair?
Ehret: Yeah, actually it is. Look at the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." It's not like the Muslim creed, which is "There is no God but God." It's doesn't say "there is no god but Yahweh, and Moses is his prophet." It is an admittance that there are other gods. It is an example of henotheism. And the Hebrew tribes are like the Omati clan groups. The tribes are clans writ larger. Like the Omati clans, they track their ancestry back ten or fifteen generations to a common ancestor. And these common ancestors were twelve brothers. (Actually, there are thirteen. They have to turn two of them, Ephraim and Manasseh, into half tribes, because thirteen wasn't a good number. I always loved that. There are really thirteen tribes, but you have to combine two of them).
The Canaanite cities have an alternative Semitic structure: polytheism. There's Astarte and Baal and the various gods that you'll find in South Arabia. So it looks like in the early Semitic world, you have two coexisting religions. You have polytheism among the ones who are really more urbanized. Then you have henotheistic groups.
What I see here is that earlier Middle Eastern polytheism is influencing Semitic religion. After all, the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find a lot of other people already in the area. So they're going to have to accommodate. Some groups, maybe ones who live in peripheries, in areas with lower population densities, may be able to impose the henotheistic religion they arrived with.
21
WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?
Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people the Mushabaeans? are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.
Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.
And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
Or reference this thread which stays on top of the board....
quote:As far as I can see, no one has disputed the African'ness' of the Berber. To do so would be propostorous.
^ i agree. and you haven't. nor was it implied that you had.
however, Clyde Winters has, as has Theophille Obenga.
Winters may want to comment.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Regarding Semitic being acknowledged as 'birthed in Africa', I haven't come accross any such acknowledgement, so I would appreciate a source so I could look into that further.
-> After all, the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find a lot of other people already in the area.
See the thread Narmer Menes broached on language for the url to a tree of Erythraic languages. Iirc it lists Semitic as Boreafrasian or some such. I have no idea what 'Bore' is supposed to mean. But following the tree it looks like Semitic is in a line that would allow labeling it a North East Erythraic.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ehret's spelling is Afrasan which to me still has too much Asia in it and why I proposed Afrisan as a spelling that injects more of the sound of AFRIca into the descriptor.
Which reminds me... Are there still anymore scholars arguing for a name change? I remember one not very popular name used was the Erythrean language phylum as in the Erythrean (Red) Sea. Perhaps the Saharo-Erythrean language family would be more accurate(?)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: See the thread Narmer Menes broached on language for the url to a tree of Erythraic languages. Iirc it lists Semitic as Boreafrasian or some such. I have no idea what 'Bore' is supposed to mean. But following the tree it looks like Semitic is in a line that would allow labeling it a North East Erythraic.
I believe 'bore' here is the Greek word for 'north' as in Boreas the north wind or auroro borealis the northern lights. So basically Boreafrasian is northernafrasian and so falls in line with Carleton T. Hodge's theory as well for a northerly division from which Berber, Semitic, and Egyptian. So I guess the southerly division would be Omotic, Chadic, and Cushitic.
Posted by bint Ada(aka Nefar) (Member # 16185) on :
Shomarka keita?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, the paper Charles cited was written by him. What about him?
Posted by bint Ada(aka Nefar) (Member # 16185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, the paper Charles cited was written by him. What about him?
is that really him? on the video?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by bint Ada(aka Nefar):
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, the paper Charles cited was written by him. What about him?
is that really him? on the video?
In the Cambridge lecture video, yes.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Why yes! It did make me think of Hyperboreans, the furthest north people in Greek ethnic mythology.
I'll have to take a look at the tree and a map to see if the bore prefix makes any relative sense for all the languages it delineates.
But as a group exercise what would you all propose to replace Semitic as a label?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: See the thread Narmer Menes broached on language for the url to a tree of Erythraic languages. Iirc it lists Semitic as Boreafrasian or some such. I have no idea what 'Bore' is supposed to mean. But following the tree it looks like Semitic is in a line that would allow labeling it a North East Erythraic.
I believe 'bore' here is the Greek word for 'north' as in Boreas the north wind or auroro borealis the northern lights. So basically Boreafrasian is northernafrasian and so falls in line with Carleton T. Hodge's theory as well for a northerly division from which Berber, Semitic, and Egyptian. So I guess the southerly division would be Omotic, Chadic, and Cushitic.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ What's wrong with the label Semitic? If it is to be changed, the only thing that comes to mind is Afro-asiatic with the name of the phylum being something else entirely.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
How about Afro-Rift Valley (Afro-Great Rift Valley) Super language?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Wow!! Perfecto! I'd just tweak it a little as maybe "North(ern) Rift" for common parlance and precision.
The Rift extends from Mozambique to Syria.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Neat; then it shall be, Afro-North Rift Valley super language phylum as an entry for viable candidacy.
The "Semitic" term issue aside, the "Asiatic" in "Afro-Asiatic" has the effect of over-emphasizing Asia's role in the language complex, given that Asia is apparently a gigantic landmass, with the Afrisan derivatives being limited to just the Great Rift region. Thus originating in Africa, this language phylum spreads its wings to only as far as part of the Great Rift Valley on the other side of the Red Sea. Though generally counted as part of Asia in "Western" discourse, the Great Rift areas across the Red sea really more closely lean towards Africa geologically, culturally and even politically. The case can also be made that populations in this area are generally more genetically closer to Africans than those further away.
The "Rift Valley" or "Great Rift Valley" moniker addresses not only the geographical issue, but also the "Semitic" nick end of it.
Between say, "Afro-North Rift Valley" (Afro-Northern Rift Valley) and "Saharo-North Rift Valley" (Saharo-Northern Rift Valley) which is a better candidate?
^Why any consideration for the 'Sahara' at all? I mean technically, Afrisan languages are spoken both on the Sahara and in areas below the Sahara, in east and west Africa. But its spread westward on the continent, would have likely come about via the former wet-Saharan belt corridor.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I take it you're proposing Saharo-Northern Rift replace Afrisan. This is good because Asia doesn't have a damn thing to do with the super-phylum at all in the least and Afrisan retains the 's' of Asia.
Seeing that the speakers of this superphylum are all indigenous to the northern Great Rift Valley and the Sahara -- including its periphery to Lake Tschad, the Nile, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic -- it's the perfect geographic complement to Niger-Congo although it conflicts somewhat with Nilo-Saharan -- but 'Saharan' in that instance does not include the periphery. And yes the island of Malta is overlooked in the Saharo-Northern Rift label but that's just a tiny forgiveable oversight.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Well yes, I'm proposing Saharo-Northern Rift as another possible candidate, but I also wanted some opinion(s) on which would be a better fit of the two proposed: that is, "Afro-Northern Rift" or "Saharo-Northern Rift"?
I realize that Saharo in the "Saharo-Northern Rift" doesn't immediately speak to all the geographical 'peripheries' where the Afrisan language may well be spoken, but it is proposed for the reasons stated in my last post: that is to say, the major corridors for its historical or rather, pre-historic expansions. The Sahara would have proven to be a major corridor for its westward expansion on the continent; whereas East Africa is where the language phylum likely first emerged -- in the Northern Rift Valley region, and spread thereof across the Red Sea.
The "Afro-Northern Rift" speaks more to the general geographical reach of the Afrisan phylum than the former above, in that "Afro" compensates for any other areas where the language phylum mainly exists outside of the Northern Great Rift areas.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Saharo-Erythrean-Rift family? LOL I know it's long by why not make it longer than Indo-European, as the family is much older and much more historically extensive.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I don't think any of these names can replace Semitic, nor should they.
Semitic at least has the advantage of being a term rooted in the language family itself, like Tamashek with regards to "Berber", or Medu Nechter with regard to "Ancient EGyptians".
It is superior to Saharo-Erythrean-Rift.
Aside from being a mouthful of mush, Ertythrea is a *Greek* word meaning red. [red sea is presumably what you are going after here?]
I have to admit, I'm completely lost as to what this term would be trying to accomplish?
I do agree that we want a viable means of emphasising the African origin of the Afrisan language family.
I don't know that you can justly - completely eliminate Asia either, after all, some of these langauges - Akadian, Hebrew.... are Asian, even if derived from African langauges.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
edited
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
^ I don't think any of these names can replace Semitic, nor should they.
While one may not necessarily like my proposals, I do think Semitic should be replaced. Semitic is rooted in the Biblical term, from where it became associated with a non-African groups of people by European scholars, that is to say "Semites".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I agree, if a better name can be found.
To Rasol: The name I proposed in my last post was for the whole language phylum. As you can see the etymology is rooted solely in geography 'Saharo-Erythrean-Rift' describes the Sahara, Red Sea, and Rift which extends up to Syria-- all of which describes the basic expansion routes of Afrasian speakers. I just figure it should be somewhat like Indo-European except longer.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
The way I see it, if someone were to say that the 'Semitic' descriptive should not be an issue, then that same one should not have any issues with "Hamito-Semitic", the earlier descriptive given to the language family in question. Of course, the 'Hamito' end of it, implicates the Hamitic hypothesis. Hamites too, like Semites, is rooted in biblical jargon, but Eurocentrist scholars ran off with the term and applied it in bio-anthropological discourse; in some cases, we've seen the disastrous consequences of the Hamitic myth in European imperialism. Here, whereas Hamites were supposedly hybridized "Negroes", Semites were considered to be "non-African" groups from across the Red Sea. The earlier rational of "Hamito-Semitic", is the presumed notion that while these folks were distinct, that is to say -- Hamites and Semites, their language were somehow related; Why not?...after all, the rationale was that Hamites partly descended from "non-African" groups from across the Red Sea. The Semitic end of the language family was initially believed to be of "non-African" origin, amongst these "non-African" Semites. If "Hamites" can be dropped, why should "Semites" not be dropped as well? However, if the rationale is that "Afro-Asiatic", as used today, is a linguistic construct, and that Semitic too is the same, well hey, "Hamito-Semitic" too was a linguistic construct in its day; why have issue with it?
As for 'Saharo-Erythrean-Rift', this is my opinion on it: Why the invocation of "Erythrean"? The Great Rift Valley already includes the areas across the Red Sea from Africa.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
^ I don't think any of these names can replace Semitic, nor should they.
While one may not necessarily like my proposals, I do think Semitic should be replaced. Semitic is rooted in the Biblical term, from where it became associated with a non-African groups of people by European scholars, that is to say "Semites".
Indeed, it does derive from biblical reference. Also, the simple fact that when one is accused of being an anti-Semite, one immediately thinks of being against Jewish people. I once even heard someone say Arabs were anti-Semites etc etc.. So I do agree that a new name that ties it to the land where it originated would better suit this branch. Clear up the confusion.
Posted by Please call me MIDOGBE (Member # 9216) on :
No Obenga did not.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:As far as I can see, no one has disputed the African'ness' of the Berber. To do so would be propostorous.
^ i agree. and you haven't. nor was it implied that you had.
however, Clyde Winters has, as has Théophille Obenga.
Winters may want to comment.
Posted by Please call me MIDOGBE (Member # 9216) on :
The Explorer, alTakruri, Djehuti: In regard to your discussion about renaming Afrasian, (apparently White) French West Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin and his team now use the term "Ethio-Tchadic" to refer to this phylum, on the basis of a proposal once made by Somalian linguist M. Diriye Abdullahi.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: No Obenga did not.
^ Yes, Obenga did.
->
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Regarding Semitic being acknowledged as 'birthed in Africa', I haven't come accross any such acknowledgement, so I would appreciate a source so I could look into that further.
-> After all, the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find a lot of other people already in the area.
^ Yes, you're welcome.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Berbers are Africans of European origin as proven by Diop. The grammar of their language and vocabulary point to a European genesis for the speakers of this language. You may hate Diop and what he stands for but no one has yet to falsify his evidence that the Egyptians were Black and the Berber were "Northerners" who came from Europe. The 1) grammar of the Berber language,2) general unintelligibility between Berber dialects and 3) mixed vocabulary of the Berber language betray their European origin just like the Afrikaaner language of the Boers whos settled South Africa and Namibia.
The Berber languages as pointed out by numerous authors is full of vocabulary from other languages. Many Berbers may be descendants of the Vandels (Germanic) speaking people who ruled North Africa and Spain for 400 years.
Commenting on this reality Diop in The African Origin of Civilization noted that: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st . Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori, for German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain, and established an empire that they ruled for 400 years….Furthermore, the plural of 50 percent of Berber nouns is formed by adding en, as is the case with feminine nouns in German, while 40 percent form their plural in a , like neuter nouns in Latin. Since we know the Vandals conquered the country from the Romans, why should we not be more inclined to seek explanations for the Berbers in the direction, both linguistically and in physical appearance: blond hair, blue eyes, etc? But no! Disregarding all these facts, historians decree that there was no Vandal influence and that it would be impossible to attribute anything in Barbary to their occupation” (p.69).
The influence of European languages on the Berber languages and grammar indicate that the Berbers are probably of European, especially Vandal origin.
.
This is easy to explain, Europeans early used the Berbers as examples of the ancient "whites" that lived in North Africa, in their Eurocentric effort to make the Egyptians "brown skinned whites".
Having a population of ancient "white" Africans, i.e., the Berbers helped perpetuate the myth that North Africa was always inhabited by whites and the only Black North Africans were the Haritin the former slaves of the superior Berber people. This is typified by Fontanes who wrote: " In Egypt the Berber type is too mixed. According to this theory, the African Berber from the west, the brown Libyan, settled in the valley of the new Nile; but almost immediately, or shortly afterwards , an invasion of Europeans hybridized the North African Libyan. This Libyan mixed-blood "with white skin and blue eyes" may have modified the early Egyptians. By his European blood , this Egyptian could be related to the Indo-European race and to the Aryan. "(Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (1974)p.64).
Diop believes that the Berbers got their name from African people because they were not native to Africa. Diop wrote: "Moreover, the root Bar, in Wolof, means to speak rapidly, and Bar-Bar would designate a people that speaks an unknown language, therefore a foreign people" (p.55). He adds that "As a result of this hypothesis [Berbers found Egyptian civilization), efforts have been made to relate the Berber and Egyptian languages by claiming that the Berber is the descendant of the Libyan. But Berber is a strange tongue that can be related to all kinds of languages" (p.68).
Wow! Its interesting that now we have Germanic speaking people at both extremes of Africa: North Africa Berber and South Africa Afrikaans. Ain't History a Bitch.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE:
The Explorer, alTakruri, Djehuti: In regard to your discussion about renaming Afrasian, (apparently White) French West Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin and his team now use the term "Ethio-Tchadic" to refer to this phylum, on the basis of a proposal once made by Somalian linguist M. Diriye Abdullahi.
Midogbe, the problem I instantly see in that term, is that it assumes "Ethiopia" to be the place of origin for Afrasan, or presumably that it emerged amongst populations that now make up the modern nation of Ethiopia. While it is certainly plausible, it is not unequivocally so in all cases, especially where examination of sub-phyla is concerned. Some theorize that it could well have also emerged in the Sahara, before diversifying further in areas further south. I also understand that the "Ethio" in "Ethio-Tchadic" would have presumably accounted for the Semitic branch as well, which I imagine, the author assumes emerged in Ethiopian populations; but what about a phylum like say "Berber"/Tamazight, which is virtually absent amongst Ethiopian populations, or say, the defunct Ancient Egyptian? Neither of the latter are known to have been spoken amongst Ethiopian populations, or belong to the Chadic sub-phylum. While it is certainly plausible that proto-Afrasan ultimately emerged amongst the ancestors of groups that now make up Ethiopia, and on that premise, a descriptive of "Ethio" would have been reasonably appropriate, it can't be helped but to see that the descriptive "Ethio-Tchadic" also takes into account the Chadic, which is an Afrasan sub-phylum, but not necessarily the likes of Tamazight and Ancient Egyptian, which too, are Afrasan sub-phyla. By doing so, the "Ethio-Tchadic" descriptive assumes the sub-phylum to not be of Ethiopian origin, but doesn't give the same treatment to the other aforementioned sub-phyla, which too, are not deemed to be of Ethiopian origin.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Berbers are Africans of European origin as proven by Diop.
1st, thanks for your response.
Diop never proved that Berber was of European origin.
This claim is not supported by any line of *current* scholarship.
As there are no Berber in Europe, and there is no proof that there ever were.
to be contd....
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The grammar of their language and vocabulary point to a European genesis for the speakers of this language.
Current linguist classify Berber as and African language family. No one classifies Berber as a European language family.
Your methods of language study are disputed, and generally disregarded as pseudo-linguistic.
You classify, without sound reason - Dravidian as a African language, and Sudanese Meroitic text as Indo European,
Few linguists take you seriously.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: You may hate Diop and what he stands for
^ logical fallacy, well poisoning.
i relate the fact that Berber is and African language, which you fail to dispute.
you counter by accussing me of 'hatred' of Diop, which you hope will distract from and so hide the *lack of proof for -your- claims* that Berber langauge is not African.
logical fallacy is the hand maiden of fake scholarship.
come again with evidence please....if you have any.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The Berber languages as pointed out by numerous authors is full of vocabulary from other languages
^ also true of the English language.
pseudo linguistics does not prove the origins of languages. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Many Berbers may be descendants of the Vandels (Germanic) speaking people who ruled North Africa and Spain for 400 years.
^ based on genetics, the following is true.
* most Berber males are of haplotype E which is indigenous to Africa, and *not* to Europe.
* Berber females vary radically, dependant upon the population, some are primary of African origin, and some are Eurasian, since Berber male are native to Africa, and their langauges are related to other African languages, and so also native.... and certainly not Indo European, the real question is when and where Eurasian female lineages found in coastal Berber derive.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st . Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori,
^ even if this or the reverse is considered so, it neither proves that Berber originate in Europe, nor that Germanic originates in Africa.
again, that you rely on such a spurious form of reason, tainted by confirmation bias, which seeks tidbits of supporting 'evidence' while ignoring all countervailing evidence, [in ancient egyptian feminine nouns also end in t or st, example Km.st = kemsit = Black lady] is why your linguistic works remain marginal.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain
^ Berber langauges and lineages far predate the 5 century.
quote:Europeans early used the Berbers as examples of the ancient "whites" that lived in North Africa, in their Eurocentric effort to make the Egyptians "brown skinned whites".
^ True, but this argument is deflated by both genetics which shows the African origin of the Pn2 clade. [lineages of most male Africans], and by linguistics, which shows the East African origin of the entire langauge phylum under discussion in this thread.
The context in which you cite Diop, is pre PN2 clade, and pre aknolwedgement of the African origin of "Afro-Asiatic", therefore your citation is outdated.
ps - i doubt Diop would agree -today- with much of what you contend.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain
^ Berber langauges and lineages far predate the 5 century.
quote:Europeans early used the Berbers as examples of the ancient "whites" that lived in North Africa, in their Eurocentric effort to make the Egyptians "brown skinned whites".
^ True, but this argument is deflated by both genetics which shows the African origin of the Pn2 clade. [lineages of most male Africans], and by linguistics, which shows the East African origin of the entire langauge phylum under discussion in this thread.
The context in which you cite Diop, is pre PN2 clade, and pre aknolwedgement of the African origin of "Afro-Asiatic", therefore your citation is outdated.
ps - i doubt Diop would agree -today- with much of what you contend.
Please post the linguistic evidence of Berber language spoken in Africa before Vandal conquest.
Cite any article that supports this claim with specific linguistic examples dating back to the period.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st . Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori,
^ even if this or the reverse is considered so, it neither proves that Berber originate in Europe, nor that Germanic originates in Africa.
again, that you rely on such a spurious form of reason, tainted by confirmation bias, which seeks tidbits of supporting 'evidence' while ignoring all countervailing evidence, [in ancient egyptian feminine nouns also end in t or st, example Km.st = kemsit = Black lady] is why your linguistic works remain marginal.
The Berber speakers have been in contact with Semitic speakers for many years. As a result, they have adopted many Semitic terms into their language.
Berber is usually associated with Egyptian via Semitic roots. Since we can explain the relationship between Berber languages and Semitic, please provide lexical evidence of an Egyptian--Berber relationship.
.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Ah, serius discussion has lured you back I see!
I haven't read Abdullahi on this one point but Ethio-Tchadic seems a bit limited in geographic scope as a name of this widespread macrophylum.
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: The Explorer, alTakruri, Djehuti: In regard to your discussion about renaming Afrasian, (apparently White) French West Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin and his team now use the term "Ethio-Tchadic" to refer to this phylum, on the basis of a proposal once made by Somalian linguist M. Diriye Abdullahi.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Ok, this is where your trains are running askew though on parallel tracks. To Obenga the Berbers as a people are non-African but the Berber lects he sees as an African language group. Or at least that what I make out after reading Obenga.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: No Obenga did not.
^ Yes, Obenga did.
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: No Obenga did not.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:As far as I can see, no one has disputed the African'ness' of the Berber. To do so would be propostorous.
^ i agree. and you haven't. nor was it implied that you had.
however, Clyde Winters has, as has Théophille Obenga.
Winters may want to comment.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Your methods of language study are disputed, and generally disregarded as pseudo-linguistic.
You classify, without sound reason - Dravidian as a African language, and Sudanese Meroitic text as Indo European,
Few linguists take you seriously.
You don't know what you're talking about as usual. There are many linguist who support the existence of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages. Below are just a few of the articles written on this theme See:
Aravanan,K.P. (1976). Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans", Journal of Tamil Studies 10, 23-27.
Aravanan, K. P. (1979). Dravidians and Africans. Madras.
Sergent , Bernard (1992). Genèse de L'Inde. Paris: Payot .
Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P.(1979).Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques, Bulletin de L'IFAN, no.1, 1979, pp.100-132.
Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P.(1976). Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain, Bull.de L’IFAN,No.1, 1976,pp.127- 157.
Weber, S.A.(1998). Out of Africa: The initial impact of millets in South Asia. Current Anthropology, 39(2), 267-274.
Wigboldus,J.S. (1996). Early presence of African millets near the Indian Ocean. In J. Reade, The Indian Ocean (pp.75-86), London: The British Museum.
Winters, C. (1980). "The genetic unity of Dravidian and African languages and culture",Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Asian Studies (PIISAS) 1979, Hong Kong: Asian Research Service.
Winters, C. (1994). The Dravidian and African languages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (2), 34-52.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-28.
Winters, C.( May 2007). Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays,27(5):497-498.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: You classify, without sound reason - Dravidian as a African language, and Sudanese Meroitic text as Indo European,
Few linguists take you seriously.
My decipherment of Meroitic is based on the Kushana theory. The Kushana theory is that a group of "East Indian" scholars introduced the Meroitic writing system to the Meroites.
The Kushana hypothesis was based on the following evidence, 1) no African language has been found to be a cognate language of Meroitic 2) the Classical literature says that the Kushites lived in Asia and Africa; 3) the Gymnosophists, or "naked sages" of Meroe came from India.
Before I began work on Meroitic, other researchers had already falsified the African theory for Meroitic's cognate language. The fact that not even Nubian, a language spoken by a people who lived in the Meroitic empire, failed to be the cognate language of Meroitic made it clear that we must look elsewhere for the cognate language spoken by the Meroites. It also makes it impossible for us to accept Rilly's contention that he can read Meroitic using Proto-Eastern Sudanic.
Flavius Philostratus, the writer of the Vita Apollonii, Vol. 1,cliamed that the Gymnosophists of Meroe originally came from India (see F.C. Conybeare, Philostratus:The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (p.45),1950). Given the fact that the Kushana had formerly ruled India around the time that the Meroitic writing was introduced to the Kushite civilization, led to the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Gymnosophist may have been Kushana philosophers.
The historical evidence of the Kushana having ruled India made the Classical references to Indians in Meroe, an important source for the construction of alternative theories about the possible location of the cognate language of Meroitic.
There is external evidence, which supports my theory. A theory explains observed phenomena and has predictive power. I have theorized that due to the claims of the Classical writers that some of the Meroites came from India (F.C Conybeare (Trans.), Philostratus: The life of Apollonius of Tyana Vol.2, (1950) pg.271). According to the Life of Apollonius, the Indian Meroites were formerly led by a King Ganges, who had "repulsed the Scythians who invaded this land [India from] across the Caucasus" (Conybeare, Vol.1, Pg.273). Pilostratus also made it clear that the Indians of Meroe came to this country after their king was killed.
The presence of this tradition of an Indian King of the Indian-Meroites conquering the Scythians predicts that the Indian literature should record this historical episode. This prediction is supported by a Jaina text called the Kalakeharya-Kathanaka, which reports that when the Scythians invaded Malwa, the King of Malwa, called Vikramaditya defeated the Scythians (H. Kulke & D. Rothermund, History of India (London, Routledge: 1990, pg.73). This king Vikramaditya may be the Ganges mentioned in the Life of Apollonius.Confirmation of the Ganges story, supports the Classical literary evidence that their were Indianized-Meroites that could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites.
Moreover, there were other Indians in North Africa in addition to Kush/Meroe. For example, at Quseir al-Qadim there was a large Indian speaking community (see: R. Salomon, "Epigraphic remains of Indian traders in Egypt", Journal of the American oriental Society, (1991) pp.731-736; and R. Salomon, Addenda, Journal of the American Oriental Society, (1993) pg.593). These Indians were in Egypt writing messages in their own language, around the time we see a switch from Egyptian hieroglyphics to the Meroitic writing system.
The evidence that the Classical references to an Indian-Meroite King who conquered the Scythians is supported by the Indian literature, provides external corroboration of the tradition that some of the Meroites were of Indian origin. The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tokharian trade language did not introduce this writing to the Meroites who needed a neutral language to unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state. In relation to the history of linguistic change and bilingualism, it is a mistake to believe that linguistic transfer had to take place for the Meroites to have used Tokharian, when it did not take place when they wrote in Egyptian hieroglyphics.
In summary the classical literature makes it clear that there was a connection between the Gymnosophists (of Meroe) and the Indians. The fact that historical events mentioned in the classical sources are found in the Indian literature confirm the view that there were Indian-Meroites who could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites.
The fact that the Nubians who were part of the "Meroitic state", used hieroglyphics and Coptic to write their language without abandoning their native language support the view that they could have also used Tokharian to write Meroitic. And that eventhough they wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian, they would not have had to abandon Nubian.
The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed [i.e., there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence. The fact that the claims made by the Classical writers is supported by the Indians themselves if further strong confirmation of the Kushana hypothesis. The hypothesis based on the classical literature, was enough to support the original Kushana Hypothesis.
The predicting power of the original theory, matches the observed natural phenomena which was confirmed elsewhere by cognate place names, ethononyms, lexical items and grammatical features, indicate that my theory has not be falsified. The ability to reliably predict a linguistic relationship between Kushana and Meroitic, was further confirmation of the Kushana Hypothesis, because the linguistic connections were deducible from prediction.
I controlled the Kushana Hypothesis by comparing the statements of the classical writers, with historical, linguistic anthropological and toponymic evidence found not only in Africa, but also India and Central Asia [where the people also used Tokharian as a trade language to unify the various people in Central Asia]. I constructed five testable hypotheses in support of the Kushana theory, and it seems only fair that these five variables must be disconfirmed, to falsify the Kushana Hypothesis. Failure to disconfirm this theorem, implies validity of my prediction.
My confirmation of the above five variables: the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia; the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe; cognate lexical items; cognate verbs and cognate grammatical features indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language.
You can read more about my decipherment of Meroitic in the following articles: Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (Juin 1984b). "A Note on Tokharian and Meroitic", Meroitic Newsletter\Bulletin d"Information Meroitiques , No.23 , pages 18-21.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1989b). "Cheikh Anta Diop et le dechiffrement de l'ecriture meroitique",Cabet: Revue Martinique de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature 8, pp. 149-152.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1998). Meroitic funerary Text. Part1, Inscription Journal of Ancient Egypt 1,(1), pp. 29-34.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1998). Meroitic funerary Text. Part1, Inscription Journal of Ancient Egypt 1,(2), pp. 41-55.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1999). The inscriptions of Tanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V., pp.355-388.
You can read more about my decipherment at the following web site:
My most recent article discussing Meroitic history and deciphering Meroitic documents titled the Meroitic Evidence for a Blemmy Empire in the Dodekaschoinos can be found at the following site:
quote:German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain
^ Berber langauges and lineages far predate the 5 century.
quote:Europeans early used the Berbers as examples of the ancient "whites" that lived in North Africa, in their Eurocentric effort to make the Egyptians "brown skinned whites".
^ True, but this argument is deflated by both genetics which shows the African origin of the Pn2 clade. [lineages of most male Africans], and by linguistics, which shows the East African origin of the entire langauge phylum under discussion in this thread.
The context in which you cite Diop, is pre PN2 clade, and pre aknolwedgement of the African origin of "Afro-Asiatic", therefore your citation is outdated.
ps - i doubt Diop would agree -today- with much of what you contend.
Please post the linguistic evidence of Berber language spoken in Africa before Vandal conquest.
Cite any article that supports this claim with specific linguistic examples dating back to the period.
.
"Algeria) and Tashelhiyt (central Morocco). Tamazight has been a written language, on and off, for over 2000 years, although the tradition has been frequently disrupted by various invasions.
It was first written in the Tifinagh alphabet, still used by the Tuareg; the oldest dated inscription is from about 200 BC"
Now, please cite any evidence of Berber language being spoken in Europe -> EVER.
thank you
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st . Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori,
^ even if this or the reverse is considered so, it neither proves that Berber originate in Europe, nor that Germanic originates in Africa.
again, that you rely on such a spurious form of reason, tainted by confirmation bias, which seeks tidbits of supporting 'evidence' while ignoring all countervailing evidence, [in ancient egyptian feminine nouns also end in t or st, example Km.st = kemsit = Black lady] is why your linguistic works remain marginal.
quote:The Berber speakers have been in contact with Semitic speakers for many years. As a result, they have adopted many Semitic terms into their language.
Of course they have, the Berber languages originate in Africa, along with the Semitic languages and ancient Egyptian. Speakers of these languages have predominently African lineages - which proves their African origin, thus languages and lineages both originate in Africa.
quote:Berber is usually associated with Egyptian via Semitic roots.
Not necessesary, some consider Berber as having branched from Chadic.
But how does this help you. According to you, these relationships should not exist, since Berber is supposed to be "Germanic".
The absurdity of attributing languages of such far flung peoples as the Siwa of Egypt and the Toureg of Nigeria to *recent* influence from Vandals, is almost as bad as your claim that Japanese language originates in recent migrations from West Africa.
For you, the more outrageous the claim...the better, apparently.
quote: Since we can explain the relationship between Berber languages and Semitic
rotfl! You haven't explained anything.
quote: please provide lexical evidence of an Egyptian--Berber relationship.
Actually, the burdan is upon you to prove that such a relationship exists between Berber and Germanic.
What just happened is this:
You provid example of the use of .st for feminine nouns in Berber, which you tried to relate to Germanic, when a similar pattern is found in ancient Egyptian, and other African languages.
You would have us believe that the Siwa who have lived in Egypt for thousands of years, and speak Berber, get their language similarities to other African languages not from common African origins, but rather from the "Vandals" of Europe...and since 500 AD???
rotfl.
And you wonder why your stuff is so marginalised?
You then claim that the relationship between Egyptian and Berber in this case is superficial, even though it relates the same issue that you attempt to treat as some sort of profound evidence of recent Germanic influence.
Your position makes no sense, proves nothing, and is unsupported in current scholarship for this reason.
Therefore the burden of proof remains entirely upon you.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Duly noted.
Although this begs more questions than it answers for me, pertaining to Obenga's classification.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ok, this is where your trains are running askew though on parallel tracks. To Obenga the Berbers as a people are non-African but the Berber lects he sees as an African language group. Or at least that what I make out after reading Obenga.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: No Obenga did not.
^ Yes, Obenga did.
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: No Obenga did not.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:As far as I can see, no one has disputed the African'ness' of the Berber. To do so would be propostorous.
^ i agree. and you haven't. nor was it implied that you had.
however, Clyde Winters has, as has Théophille Obenga.
Winters may want to comment.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
There are many linguist who support the existence of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
^ literally this is an oxymoron -ie 'genetic' relationship between languages.
Let us ignore your slippery language and cut to the chase.
The general concensus is:
Dravidian is an Indian and not and African language.
Dravidians do not originate in Africa.
There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years - far predating the divergence of Dravidian language and culture.
Nothing you have ever presented has had any impact on this concensus, nor should it, as you combine faulty linguistic methodology, obsolete anthropology references, and genetic illiteracy, which is ironic given your foundess for claiming 'genetic' relationships between linguistically distant languages.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The absurdity of attributing languages of such far flung peoples as the Siwa of Egypt and the Toureg of Nigeria to *recent* influence from Vandals, is almost as bad as your claim that Japanese language originates in recent migrations from West Africa.
Lol. Oh man, Clyde you are deluded.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
There are many linguist who support the existence of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
^ literally this is an oxymoron -ie 'genetic' relationship between languages.
Let us ignore your slippery language and cut to the chase.
The general concensus is:
Dravidian is an Indian and not and African language.
Dravidians do not originate in Africa.
There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years - far predating the divergence of Dravidian language and culture.
Nothing you have ever presented has had any impact on this concensus, nor should it, as you combine faulty linguistic methodology, obsolete anthropology references, and genetic illiteracy, which is ironic given your foundess for claiming 'genetic' relationships between linguistically distant languages.
If this is true why don't you present research disputing the findings of the authors I posted.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st . Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori,
^ even if this or the reverse is considered so, it neither proves that Berber originate in Europe, nor that Germanic originates in Africa.
again, that you rely on such a spurious form of reason, tainted by confirmation bias, which seeks tidbits of supporting 'evidence' while ignoring all countervailing evidence, [in ancient egyptian feminine nouns also end in t or st, example Km.st = kemsit = Black lady] is why your linguistic works remain marginal.
quote:The Berber speakers have been in contact with Semitic speakers for many years. As a result, they have adopted many Semitic terms into their language.
Of course they have, the Berber languages originate in Africa, along with the Semitic languages and ancient Egyptian. Speakers of these languages have predominently African lineages - which proves their African origin, thus languages and lineages both originate in Africa.
quote:Berber is usually associated with Egyptian via Semitic roots.
Not necessesary, some consider Berber as having branched from Chadic.
But how does this help you. According to you, these relationships should not exist, since Berber is supposed to be "Germanic".
The absurdity of attributing languages of such far flung peoples as the Siwa of Egypt and the Toureg of Nigeria to *recent* influence from Vandals, is almost as bad as your claim that Japanese language originates in recent migrations from West Africa.
For you, the more outrageous the claim...the better, apparently.
quote: Since we can explain the relationship between Berber languages and Semitic
rotfl! You haven't explained anything.
quote: please provide lexical evidence of an Egyptian--Berber relationship.
Actually, the burdan is upon you to prove that such a relationship exists between Berber and Germanic.
What just happened is this:
You provid example of the use of .st for feminine nouns in Berber, which you tried to relate to Germanic, when a similar pattern is found in ancient Egyptian, and other African languages.
You would have us believe that the Siwa who have lived in Egypt for thousands of years, and speak Berber, get their language similarities to other African languages not from common African origins, but rather from the "Vandals" of Europe...and since 500 AD???
rotfl.
And you wonder why your stuff is so marginalised?
You then claim that the relationship between Egyptian and Berber in this case is superficial, even though it relates the same issue that you attempt to treat as some sort of profound evidence of recent Germanic influence.
Your position makes no sense, proves nothing, and is unsupported in current scholarship for this reason.
Therefore the burden of proof remains entirely upon you.
I am waiting for linguistic examples supporting your conclusions. I did not ask you what people think.
I asked you to show a relationship between Berber and any African language especially Egyptian if it is an African language.
.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Berbers are Africans of European origin as proven by Diop. The grammar of their language and vocabulary point to a European genesis for the speakers of this language. You may hate Diop and what he stands for but no one has yet to falsify his evidence that the Egyptians were Black and the Berber were "Northerners" who came from Europe. The 1) grammar of the Berber language,2) general unintelligibility between Berber dialects and 3) mixed vocabulary of the Berber language betray their European origin just like the Afrikaaner language of the Boers whos settled South Africa and Namibia.
Dubious. Most of the credible mainstream studies on this issue posted by Rasol et al. suggest that the Berbers are of African origin with some gene flow from Europe over various historic periods. The gene flow was affected by time period, maternal vs paternal lineages and other factors but the bottom line is that the Berbers are native Africans. Today's Berbers after centuries of gene flow, such as the Arabs, Phonecians, etc etc would certainly look different from the original, ancient stock.
Keita 1990, 1992 cites a number of Saharan tribes like the Haratin, so-called "black Berbers" that have been in place for a long time, and are indigenous. He also cites blood studies linking the ancient Egyptians more closely with the black northern Haratin (also Berbers) than with European populations. Throw in the PN2 data and you got an argument hard to substantiate- re Euro origin Berbers.
Commenting on this reality Diop in The African Origin of Civilization noted that: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st . Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori, for German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain, and established an empire that they ruled for 400 years….Furthermore, the plural of 50 percent of Berber nouns is formed by adding en, as is the case with feminine nouns in German, while 40 percent form their plural in a , like neuter nouns in Latin. Since we know the Vandals conquered the country from the Romans, why should we not be more inclined to seek explanations for the Berbers in the direction, both linguistically and in physical appearance: blond hair, blue eyes, etc? But no! Disregarding all these facts, historians decree that there was no Vandal influence and that it would be impossible to attribute anything in Barbary to their occupation” (p.69). The influence of European languages on the Berber languages and grammar indicate that the Berbers are probably of European, especially Vandal origin.
If Diop means modern Berbers, it could be said that gene flow by Arabs, Vandals etc may have shaped how present day peoples look, but Berbers are a very mixed breed, and of course, there is the ORIGINAL native stock in place, such as the black Haratin. Also the Berber languages are part of the Afro-Asiatic group originating in East Africa.
Wow! Its interesting that now we have Germanic speaking people at both extremes of Africa: North Africa Berber and South Africa Afrikaans. Ain't History a Bitch.
Dubious. Since the Berber languages are part of the Afro Asiatic then it is hard to see them as "Germanic speaking people".
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Poor Clyde, apparently he didn't even bother to read the initial post of this thread.
The Afro-Asiatic language family seems to have originated in, or near the horn or the Sahara. Linguists, while disagreeing on details construct family phylogenies that may be suggestive of successive speech communities. The development of the current members of AfroAsiatic passed through several stages of language diversification. One suggested construction postulates that common Afro-Asiatic diverged initially into Omotic and another group leading to the remainder of the family. This latter, in turn, split into Cushitic and a speech community that develops into Chadic and a group called "Boreafrasian". Eventually Egyptian (and some extinct related languages) Berber, and Semitic emerge from Boreafrasian.--S.O.Y Keita
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Given the fact that the Kushana had formerly ruled India around the time that the Meroitic writing was introduced to the Kushite civilization, led to the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Gymnosophist may have been Kushana philosophers.
OK, but you have provided little credible proof to support this hypothesis The Kushana by most verifable histories were of Central Asian origin and you have not presented any credible showing them in Meroe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire (see footnotes)
Indianized-Meroites that could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites..
Sure, but then any other number of alternative scenarios "could" have happened. What is needed is credible evidence supporting your hypothesis. Anyone can draw up hypotheses that "could" explain whatever they want to claim.
The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tokharian trade language did not introduce this writing to the Meroites who needed a neutral language to unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state.
Shaky. Again, anyone can produce a theory based on some fragmented fact. But it is doubtful that the rulers of Meroe needed a language from Central Asia to "unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state." That is a stretch. If anything, the influence of Egypt and surrounding locales is much closer.
Competing versions of the classification of Meriotic, whether AfroAsiatic, or Eastern Sudanic, both still point to African origins, not to distant Central Asia. You have to produce credible research and sources if you want to credibly join that classification mix.
The fact that the Nubians who were part of the "Meroitic state", used hieroglyphics and Coptic to write their language without abandoning their native language support the view that they could have also used Tokharian to write Meroitic. And that eventhough they wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian, they would not have had to abandon Nubian. But you also said that Tokharian was needed to unify the state. Why would they choose a distant Central Asian language to do so when they had hieroglyphics and other localized scripts close at hand? Sure they "could" have also used Tokharian, but then they "could" have also used Greek or Persian. Anything "could" have happened. You have to produce more solid evidence in support.
The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed [i.e., there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence. There are plenty of rival explanations already cited, from DNA to historical. Indians in North Africa or Kush do not make your case. Persians, Greeks, Egyptians Libyans, Phonecians etc etc were all there in varying forms, from traders, to diplomats to mercenaries. What you have done is take a slight fragment of something then expand it to say "it could" have been so. Sure. Anything "could" have happened. But the question becomes, where is your credible evidence?
My confirmation of the above five variables: the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia; the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe; cognate lexical items; cognate verbs and cognate grammatical features indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language.
All 5 variables or claims are very weak. Now perhaps you could make an argument based on the theories of C. Loring Brace whose 1993 "CLines and Clusters" study argued for links between Egyptians, Somalis and distant Indians. But as shown elsewhere on ES such far-flung matches are shaky.
You could also make an argument based on the the Nostratic hypothesis which attempts to group Dravdian into one super family with the Afro-Asiatic languages. Hence this broad umbrella might explain how the languages are linked together. But this too seems a stretch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Poor Clyde, apparently he didn't even bother to read the initial post of this thread.
The Afro-Asiatic language family seems to have originated in, or near the horn or the Sahara. Linguists, while disagreeing on details construct family phylogenies that may be suggestive of successive speech communities. The development of the current members of AfroAsiatic passed through several stages of language diversification. One suggested construction postulates that common Afro-Asiatic diverged initially into Omotic and another group leading to the remainder of the family. This latter, in turn, split into Cushitic and a speech community that develops into Chadic and a group called "Boreafrasian". Eventually Egyptian (and some extinct related languages) Berber, and Semitic emerge from Boreafrasian.--S.O.Y Keita
In theory, Clyde could tighten his hypothesis using Brace's "Indian connection" to take care of the physical connection part, and the Nostratic thing to claim a broad umbrella under which the languages can be hooked together. but it still won't yield much change against the excerpt you post above.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:In theory, Clyde could tighten his hypothesis using Brace's "Indian connection" to take care of the physical connection part
^ Brace does not regard Indians as closely related to Africans.
Clydes "theories" are ludicrous, pure sucker bait.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:But you also said that Tokharian was needed to unify the state. Why would they choose a distant Central Asian language to do so when they had hieroglyphics and other localized scripts close at hand?
^ most of the immature students of Winters, don't even understand that he is implying that Sudans Meroitic script is Asian [Indo European] actually, in origin, and *not* African.
instead they allow themselves to be sucker-distracted by his claims that Dravidians are really African and not Asian.
Somehow this is eventually supposed to make Meroitic African anyway, even though it originates -according to Winters- in Asia.
suckers. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
There are many linguist who support the existence of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
^ literally this is an oxymoron -ie 'genetic' relationship between languages.
Let us ignore your slippery language and cut to the chase.
The general concensus is:
Dravidian is an Indian and not and African language.
Dravidians do not originate in Africa.
There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years - far predating the divergence of Dravidian language and culture.
Nothing you have ever presented has had any impact on this concensus, nor should it, as you combine faulty linguistic methodology, obsolete anthropology references, and genetic illiteracy, which is ironic given your foundess for claiming 'genetic' relationships between linguistically distant languages.
If this is true why don't you present research disputing the findings of the authors I posted.
.
Because I don't chase strawmen.
Here, i'll show you what i mean.
You ask, if this is true?
What is "this"?
Could it be....
a) There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
b) Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years.
^ This is per geneticist Kivisild, who is one of your "sources."
Your sources don't agree with you.
What do you want me to refute then?
Your *utterly baseless* claims?
Then let's get back to specifics >
* Good luck finding African Dravidians.
* Good luck explaining why Dravidians have 40 thousand year old Asian lineages, and no African lineages, when they are supposed to have been living in the 'sahara' during Dyanastic Egypt, that is before they mysteriously and completely disppeared from Africa, leaving not a single archeology site behind to evidence what you insist upon as their origin.
Of course, you can always post bibligraphic citations from scholars who don't agree with you, and pretend it's a mass of support for your far fetched claims.
Since you have no actual evidence for African Dravidians, what choice do you have but to make fake claims?
But that is charlatanism, not scholarship. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st . Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori,
^ even if this or the reverse is considered so, it neither proves that Berber originate in Europe, nor that Germanic originates in Africa.
again, that you rely on such a spurious form of reason, tainted by confirmation bias, which seeks tidbits of supporting 'evidence' while ignoring all countervailing evidence, [in ancient egyptian feminine nouns also end in t or st, example Km.st = kemsit = Black lady] is why your linguistic works remain marginal.
quote:The Berber speakers have been in contact with Semitic speakers for many years. As a result, they have adopted many Semitic terms into their language.
Of course they have, the Berber languages originate in Africa, along with the Semitic languages and ancient Egyptian. Speakers of these languages have predominently African lineages - which proves their African origin, thus languages and lineages both originate in Africa.
quote:Berber is usually associated with Egyptian via Semitic roots.
Not necessesary, some consider Berber as having branched from Chadic.
But how does this help you. According to you, these relationships should not exist, since Berber is supposed to be "Germanic".
The absurdity of attributing languages of such far flung peoples as the Siwa of Egypt and the Toureg of Nigeria to *recent* influence from Vandals, is almost as bad as your claim that Japanese language originates in recent migrations from West Africa.
For you, the more outrageous the claim...the better, apparently.
quote: Since we can explain the relationship between Berber languages and Semitic
rotfl! You haven't explained anything.
quote: please provide lexical evidence of an Egyptian--Berber relationship.
Actually, the burdan is upon you to prove that such a relationship exists between Berber and Germanic.
What just happened is this:
You provid example of the use of .st for feminine nouns in Berber, which you tried to relate to Germanic, when a similar pattern is found in ancient Egyptian, and other African languages.
You would have us believe that the Siwa who have lived in Egypt for thousands of years, and speak Berber, get their language similarities to other African languages not from common African origins, but rather from the "Vandals" of Europe...and since 500 AD???
rotfl.
And you wonder why your stuff is so marginalised?
You then claim that the relationship between Egyptian and Berber in this case is superficial, even though it relates the same issue that you attempt to treat as some sort of profound evidence of recent Germanic influence.
Your position makes no sense, proves nothing, and is unsupported in current scholarship for this reason.
Therefore the burden of proof remains entirely upon you.
I am waiting for linguistic examples supporting your conclusions. I did not ask you what people think.
I asked you to show a relationship between Berber and any African language especially Egyptian if it is an African language.
.
The above post provides an example that directly refutes your conclusion.
Evidently you can't address it, and so resort to stalling.
Fine by me.
Unlike you, I'm not a "professional" linguist, yet I have no trouble reducing you to squirming evasions. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Shaky. Again, anyone can produce a theory based on some fragmented fact. But it is doubtful that the rulers of Meroe needed a language from Central Asia to "unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state." That is a stretch. If anything, the influence of Egypt and surrounding locales is much closer.
Winters is systematic in this respect.
He looks for improbable relationships between geographically distant peoples, and then ignores relationships between geographically close peoples.
For Winters, the place/name "tai" can somehow show a specific relationship between japan and nigeria.... it doesn't matter that the same word shows up in China and Mongolia.
For Winters, use of "st" as a feminine noun form ties Berber to German.... doesn't matter that this form of feminine noun can also be found in Ancient Egyptian.
This form of argument is called 'confirmation bias'.
Winters does this over and over again, and is as oblvious to this error as he is to the difference between X and Y chromosome as pertains to some of this 'genetic' claims.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote: OK, but you have provided little credible proof to support this hypothesis The Kushana by most verifable histories were of Central Asian origin and you have not presented any credible showing them in Meroe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire (see footnotes)
The Creditable evidence is that in the Classical literature it is mentioned that the Indians who came to Meroe left because of the murder of their king. I presented evidence that this story matches the history of the Kushana migration into India and Central Asia(H. Kulke & D. Rothermund, History of India (London, Routledge: 1990, pg.73).
quote: Indianized-Meroites that could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites..
Sure, but then any other number of alternative scenarios "could" have happened. What is needed is credible evidence supporting your hypothesis. Anyone can draw up hypotheses that "could" explain whatever they want to claim.
What are these alternative claims? What historical evidence supports these claims? Explain
quote:
The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tokharian trade language did not introduce this writing to the Meroites who needed a neutral language to unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state.
Shaky. Again, anyone can produce a theory based on some fragmented fact. But it is doubtful that the rulers of Meroe needed a language from Central Asia to "unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state." That is a stretch. If anything, the influence of Egypt and surrounding locales is much closer.
This is not shaky. The Classical writers said the Indians came to Meroe. Originally as you know, the Meroites did write in Egyptian. But after Roman rule thousands of Egyptians emigrated to Meroe. This made Egyptian speakers a large minority group in Meroe. As a result the Meroites introduced their own writing system which agrees with the writing system used by the Meroites.
The countries of Bactria, Afghanistan, Georgia, ancient Elam and Beluchistan were called Kush . The Armenian historians always named the eastern Parthians Kushan. The people living there called themselves Kushana , Kuisa or Kusa . Moses Chorene (/Xorenac'i) in Patmut'iwn Hayoc' (Venice,1881) claimed that the four divisions of Persia: Media, Elymais, Aria, and etc. as Kush. C. B. Rawlinson in "Notes on the Early History of Babylonia", Journal Royal Asiatic Society, 15, pp. 221-222 discussed the unity of Ethiopians in Asia and Africa.
This would explain the statement by Philostratus in Life of Appollonius and Jerom, that the Gymnosophists of Kush, who settled near the source of the Nile, descended from the Brahmins of India, having been forced to migrate after the murder of their king. Eustathius, also said that the Kushites (Meroites) came from India. We can also be sure that the Kushan were known in northeast Africa because a horde of Kushan coins were found in the floor of a cave at the present monastery-shrine at Debra Demo in modern Ethiopia in 1940.
It should be made evident that the people of Kush had long asserted their identity in using Egyptian scripts. T. Eide, T.Hagg, R.H. Pierce and L. Torok, in Fontes Historiae Nubiorum (1996), make it clear that there appears to be a break in the use of Egyptian grammatical structure in Kush, with the inscriptions of Nastasen (p.494).
First of all, the Meroitic script was totally derived from Kharosthi writing, I have said that around 17 Meroitic signs agree with Kharosthi both in shape and phonetic value. The fact that Demotic was purely phonetic, according to A. Loprieno in Ancient Egyptian :" the limited number of shapes it used to represent the language required a high degree of professional training on the part of the Late Period scribes…marks the beginning of a divorce between monumental and cursive writing". I believe that the linguistic changes caused by the introduction of Demotic, prepared Meroitic scribes for the use of a mixed Demotic-Kharosthi system of writing during the Meroitic period. The Meroites probably accepted this system, because it helped avoid the cultural nationalism and ethnic conflicts in Meroe, use of one of the languages already spoken by the Meroitie nationalities might have caused in the multiethnic Meroitic Empire. An analogous case is the present use of English in states like Nigeria, as the national language, instead of Hausa or Yoruba, because of the ethnic competition between these groups.
Use of Tocharian as a neutral language to write Meroitic would explain why the Meroitic script is markedly different from the Egyptian writing. This would explain Priese statement in your earlier post that: The Meroitic script served for the composition of texts in a non-Egyptian language,Meroitic.
This would not exclude that the Meroitic script could have been based on the Napatan script as a developmental stage,up till the point at which they began to use it for non-Egyptian texts. But however this is not the case. The two scripts are clearly so different from each other that one must describe the Meroitic script as a consciously created new thing, even if fully based on the system of its predecessor. "
The fact that Priese recognized the "the two scripts are clearly so different for each other that one must describe the Meroitic script as a consciously created new thing," support the tradition recorded by the classical writers that "Indians" introduced the Meroitic system into Kush.
quote: Competing versions of the classification of Meriotic, whether AfroAsiatic, or Eastern Sudanic, both still point to African origins, not to distant Central Asia. You have to produce credible research and sources if you want to credibly join that classification mix.
Most researchers agree that the Meroitic language was not related to the Afro-Asiatic group. . Scholars working on Meroitic do not believe Meroitic was an Afro-Asiatic language. Griffith and B.G. Haycock (1973), tried to read Meroitic using Nubian. Priese tried to read Eastern Sudanic in Meroitic; and Fr. Hintze attempted to compare Meroitic with the Ural Altaic languages. All of these attempts to read the Meroitic tablets failed.
quote:
The fact that the Nubians who were part of the "Meroitic state", used hieroglyphics and Coptic to write their language without abandoning their native language support the view that they could have also used Tokharian to write Meroitic. And that eventhough they wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian, they would not have had to abandon Nubian.
Nubians were never part of the Meroitic empire. The Nubians and Kushites were always warring with each other.
quote: The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed [i.e., there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence. There are plenty of rival explanations already cited, from DNA to historical. Indians in North Africa or Kush do not make your case. Persians, Greeks, Egyptians Libyans, Phonecians etc etc were all there in varying forms, from traders, to diplomats to mercenaries. What you have done is take a slight fragment of something then expand it to say "it could" have been so. Sure. Anything "could" have happened. But the question becomes, where is your credible evidence?
If you believe this to be true please discuss these evidences. Support them with historical evidence like the evidence I presented.
quote: My confirmation of the above five variables: the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia; the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe; cognate lexical items; cognate verbs and cognate grammatical features indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language.
All 5 variables or claims are very weak. Now perhaps you could make an argument based on the theories of C. Loring Brace whose 1993 "CLines and Clusters" study argued for links between Egyptians, Somalis and distant Indians. But as shown elsewhere on ES such far-flung matches are shaky.
You could also make an argument based on the the Nostratic hypothesis which attempts to group Dravdian into one super family with the Afro-Asiatic languages. Hence this broad umbrella might explain how the languages are linked together. But this too seems a stretch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic
You claim these variables are easy falsify but you have presented no evidence doing this. Nostratic is dated to 10,000 years ago. No Meroitic or even Egyptian civilization existed at this time.
[Chart] In recent years researchers were able to develop a grammar of Meroitic, without being able to read Meroitic. The research of Hintze (1979) and Hoffman (1981) made it possible for us to find the cognate language of Meroitic: Tokharian (Winters 1984 ,1989). The following words correspond to Tokharian words: Meroitic Tokharian 0 kadke / ktke # queen 0 katak # master of the house There are several recognized Meroitic words (Hintze 1979). 0 ato # water 0 ap # 0 s # 'race' 0 sah # 'man' 0 wide # youth 0 wir # 0 qor # monarch 0 oroce # 'the grand king' 0 parite # agent 0 parwe # 'first' 0 apote # 'envoy' 0 ap # 'father' It is obvious that apote and parite do not relate to Tokharian because these are Egyptian loan words adopted by the Meroites. But around 57% of these terms show agreement. This made it highly probable that Meroitic and Tokharian were cognate languages. The grammar of Meroitic determined by Hintze (1979) allowed us to also make comparisons with Tocharian to test the Kushana hypothesis for reading Meroitic. This comparison of grammatical structures showed cognition between this language and Meroitic. Hintze was sure that there were a number of Meroitic affixes including: p
ye -te -to -o B.G. Trigger in his "Commentary" (Hintze 1979) mentioned several other possible Meroitic affixes including: -n -te -b In addition , A. M. Abdalla in his "Commentary" (Hintze 1979) mentioned three possible verbal suffixes , including: -ñ -t -y These alleged Meroitic grammatical elements encouraged me to seek out a language that contained these typological features as the possible cognate language for Meroitic. The Kushana language includes all of these affixes. [/Chart]Dravidian languages are genetically related to Niger-Congo languages—not Afro-Asiatic.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Poor Clyde, apparently he didn't even bother to read the initial post of this thread.
The Afro-Asiatic language family seems to have originated in, or near the horn or the Sahara. Linguists, while disagreeing on details construct family phylogenies that may be suggestive of successive speech communities. The development of the current members of AfroAsiatic passed through several stages of language diversification. One suggested construction postulates that common Afro-Asiatic diverged initially into Omotic and another group leading to the remainder of the family. This latter, in turn, split into Cushitic and a speech community that develops into Chadic and a group called "Boreafrasian". Eventually Egyptian (and some extinct related languages) Berber, and Semitic emerge from Boreafrasian.--S.O.Y Keita
In theory, Clyde could tighten his hypothesis using Brace's "Indian connection" to take care of the physical connection part, and the Nostratic thing to claim a broad umbrella under which the languages can be hooked together. but it still won't yield much change against the excerpt you post above.
This is unnecessary the archaeological evidence showing that the Dravidians only arrived in India around 5000 years ago and the genetic linguistic relationship between the Niger-Congo and Dravidian languages is enough to support the relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
Winters CA 2007. Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays, 27(5): 497-498.
Winters CA 2007b. High Levels of Genetic Divergence across Indian Populations. PloS Genetics. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.plosgenetics.
What you are saying is that these are the ideas of your European masters. Dravidians do not believe these things.
Please post a paper written by a Dravidian speaker supporting these claims if you are correct. .
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
There are many linguist who support the existence of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
^ literally this is an oxymoron -ie 'genetic' relationship between languages.
Let us ignore your slippery language and cut to the chase.
The general concensus is:
Dravidian is an Indian and not and African language.
Dravidians do not originate in Africa.
There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years - far predating the divergence of Dravidian language and culture.
Nothing you have ever presented has had any impact on this concensus, nor should it, as you combine faulty linguistic methodology, obsolete anthropology references, and genetic illiteracy, which is ironic given your foundess for claiming 'genetic' relationships between linguistically distant languages.
If this is true why don't you present research disputing the findings of the authors I posted.
.
Because I don't chase strawmen.
Here, i'll show you what i mean.
You ask, if this is true?
What is "this"?
Could it be....
a) There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
b) Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years.
^ This is per geneticist Kivisild, who is one of your "sources."
Your sources don't agree with you.
What do you want me to refute then?
Your *utterly baseless* claims?
Then let's get back to specifics >
* Good luck finding African Dravidians.
* Good luck explaining why Dravidians have 40 thousand year old Asian lineages, and no African lineages, when they are supposed to have been living in the 'sahara' during Dyanastic Egypt, that is before they mysteriously and completely disppeared from Africa, leaving not a single archeology site behind to evidence what you insist upon as their origin.
Of course, you can always post bibligraphic citations from scholars who don't agree with you, and pretend it's a mass of support for your far fetched claims.
Since you have no actual evidence for African Dravidians, what choice do you have but to make fake claims?
But that is charlatanism, not scholarship.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: [qb] Unlike you, I'm not a "professional" linguist, yet I have no trouble reducing you to squirming evasions.
I am that's why you should stay in your place.
PUBLICATIONS Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The influence of the Mande scripts on ancient American Writing systems", Bulletin l'de IFAN, T39, serie b, no2, (1977), pages 941-967.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Islam in Early North and South America", Al-Ittihad, (November 1977a) .
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Trade between East Africa and China", Afrikan Mwalimu, (January 1979) pages 25-31.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"Manding Scripts in the New World", Journal of African Civilization 1, no1 (1979a), pages 61-97.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad,"The genetic unity of Dravidian and African languages and culture",Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Asian Studies (PIISAS) 1979, Hong Kong:Asian Research Service,1980a.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "A Note on the Unity of Black Civilizations in Africa, IndoChina, and China",PISAS 1979, Hong Kong :Asian Research Service,1980b.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Unity of African and Indian Agriculture", Journal of African Civilization 3, no1 (1981a),page 103.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Are Dravidians of African Origin", P.Second ISAS,1980,( Hong Kong:Asian Research Service, 1981b) pages 789- 807. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Further Thoughts on Japanese Dravidian Connection",Dravidian Language Association News 5, no9 (1981c) pages 1-4.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Mexico's Black Heritage", The Black Collegian,(December 1981/January 1982) pages 76-84.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Harappan script Deciphered:Proto- Dravidian Writing of the Indus Valley", P Third ISAS, 1981,(Hong Kong:Asian Research Service, 1982b) pages 925- 936.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"The Ancient Manding Script",In Blacks in Science:Ancient and Modern, (ed) by Ivan van Sertima, (New Brunswick:Transaction Books ,1983a) pages 208-214.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "Les fondateurs de la Grece venaient d'Afrique en passant par la Crete", Afrique Histoire, no8 (1983b), pages 13-18.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Blacks in Ancient China,Part 1:The Founders of Xia and Shang", Journal of Black Studies 1,no2 (1983c). Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Possible Relationship between the Manding and Japanese", Papers in Japanese Linguistics 9, (1983d) pages 151-158.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad Winters, "Magyar and Proto-Saharan Relationship",Fighter (Hungarian language Newspaper) Cleveland ,Ohio (January 1984).
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Indus Valley Writing is Proto- Dravidian",Journal of Tamil Studies , no 25 (June 1984a), pp.50-64.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "A Note on Tokharian and Meroitic", Meroitic Newsletter\Bulletin d"Information Meroitiques, No23 (Juin 1984b) , pages 18-21.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Further Notes on Japanese and Tamil" ,International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 13, no2 (June 1984c) pages 347-353.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Inspiration of the Harappan Talismanic Seals", Tamil Civilization 2, no1 (March 1984d), pages 1-8.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Harappan Writing of the Copper Tablets", Journal of Indian History LXll, nos.1-3 (1984), pages 1-5.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians ,Manding and Sumerians", Tamil Civilization 3, no1 (March 1985a) ,pages 1-9.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Indus Valley Writing and related Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC", India Past and Present 2, no1 ( 1985b), pages 13-19.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils", Journal of Tamil Studies , no27 (June 1985c), pages 65-92.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The genetic Unity between the Dravidian ,Elamite, Manding and Sumerian Languages", P Sixth ISAS ,1984, (Hong Kong:Asian Research Service,1985d) pages 1413-1425.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande", The Mankind Quarterly 27, no1 (1986a), pages 77-96.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Blacks in Ancient America", Colorlines 3, no.2 (1986b), pages 26-27.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia", India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986c)pages 225- 241.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad Winters ,"The Dravidian Origin of the Mountain and Water Toponyms in central Asia", Journal of Central Asia 9, no2 (1986d), pages 144-148.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Dravidian and Magyar/Hungarian", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 15, no2 ,(1986e).
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Rise of Islam in the Western Sahara" ,Topaz 2, no1 (1986f), pages 5-15.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Dravidian and Manding Substratum in Tokharian",Central Asiatic Journal 32, nos1-2,(1988)pages 131-141.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"Tamil,Sumerian and Manding and the Genetic Model",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,18,(1989) nol.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"Cheikh Anta Diop et le dechiffrement de l'ecriture meroitique",Cabet:Revue Martinique de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature 8, (1989b) pages 149-152.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Review of Dr. Asko Parpolas' "The Coming of the Aryans". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18, no2 (1989) , pages 98-127.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Dravido Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", Central Asiatic Journal 34, no1-2 (1990), pages 120-144.
-----------.1991. "Linguistic Evidence for Dravidian influence on Trade and Animal Domestication in Central and East Asia",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 20 (2): 91-102.
_______________.(1999a). ProtoDravidian terms for cattle. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98.
_______________.(1999b). Proto-Dravidian terms for sheep and goats.PILC Journal of Dravidian Studies, 9 (2), 183-87.
_______________.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-28.
_________.(1994b). The Dravidian and African laguages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (1), 34-52.
_________.(1994c). Ancient Dravidian: And introductory grammar of Harappan with Vocabularies , Journal Tamil Studies, No.41, 1-21.
_________.(1995a). Ancient Dravidian:The Harappan signs, Journal Tamil Studies, No.42, 1-23.
__________.(1995b). Ancient Dravidian: Harappan Grammar/Dictionary, Journal Tamil Studies, No.43-44, 59-130.
_________.(1996). Linguistic Continuity and African and Dravidian languages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (2), 34-52.
________________.1996a. Foundations of the Afrocentric Ancient History Curriculum, The Negro Educational Review, XLVII (3-4), 214-217.
_________.(1998a). Meroitic Funerary text: Temple architecture and mortuary practices, InScription: Journal of Ancient Egypt,1 (1), 29-33.
_________.(1998a). Meroitic Funerary text: Stelae and funerary tables, InScription: Journal of Ancient Egypt,1 (2), 41-55.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1998c). The inscriptions of Tanyidamani. forthcoming Nubica IV und Nubica V.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1998d). The meroitic chamber inscription. forthcoming Nubica IV und Nibica V.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (n.d.). Meroitic inscriptions from Karanog. forthcoming Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.
_______________.(1999a). ProtoDravidian terms for cattle. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98
. _______________.(1999b). Proto-Dravidian terms for sheep and goats. PILC Journal of Dravidian Studies, 9 (2), 183-87.
_______________.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-28.
Why don't you list some of your work. .
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: But that is charlatanism, not scholarship.
If this is true why do I have articles in peer reviewed journals.
Winters CA 2007. Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays, 27(5): 497-498.
Winters CA 2007b. High Levels of Genetic Divergence across Indian Populations. PloS Genetics. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.plosgenetics.
List some of your peer reviewed articles or articles period--instead of your uneducated comments.
.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ rasolowitz is "peer reviewed" by mindless and zarahan. lol
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ So says the mindless, idiotic, boy-raped one...
As for Clyde:
Here we go with saying Dravidian (a non-African language) is African while Berber (an African language) is not! Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I am that's why you should stay in your place.
^ If you think having no credibility in your chosen profession is something to brag about, then.... mo-powa, Dr. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: rabble rabble rabble rabble
You're cordially invited to substantiate your purported "refutation" of Professor James' book in here Mary. And something about classical "Greek" philosophy being "home grown" also needs clarification.
Posted by Please call me MIDOGBE (Member # 9216) on :
The Explorer & alTakruri:
quote:Originally posted by Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi:
quote:Semites emigrated from the African side of the Red sea anyway and exported an African language to Asia where they met Asians such as the Persians, Assyrians and others. This is the only logical way to account for the presence of an African branch in a place where it is surrounded by unrelated languages. And those who know the shortness of the crossing between Africa and Asia especially at Bab-el-mandab would probably agree with me. Moreover, the most conservative Semitic dialect or dialects (Jibali) with the so-called true DAD or hard DAD are situated in southern Arabia opposite historical Ethiopia (today's Ethiopia, Eriteria, Djibouti, and Somalia).
It would make sense to change the name of the group to something like Ethiopic or Ethio-Chadic.
I am not high either on the Ethio-Chadic, neither on Abdullahi’s other proposal “Ethiopic”. My opinion may be too neutral, but I have a hard time considering a phylum’s name favoring branches over others. In my opinion, the only viable approaches in those cases are either to name the phylum by its delimitating “geographical” frontiers (i.e. Indo-European), or by reference to a common feature of all the languages or their speakers. I think the approach of late American linguist C.T. Hodge about naming it lisramic, partly based on the common word for “tongue” in all those languages *l-s (I don't get why he put the "ram-ic" on it which is only derived from Kemetic rmT "man" though). However, since the current point seems to be to emphasizing of the African nature of the group, I guess Saharo-Rift or Rift-Sahara would be a perfect match (I don’t think one would need to specify which part of the Rift is concerned; Nilo-Saharan's Nile and Sahara components, as well as Indo-European's India & Europe are not specific to those languages).
If you agree with the latter proposals, how would you call the languages? Rift-Saharan? Saharo-Riftic?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE:
The Explorer & alTakruri:
quote:Originally posted by Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi:
quote:Semites emigrated from the African side of the Red sea anyway and exported an African language to Asia where they met Asians such as the Persians, Assyrians and others. This is the only logical way to account for the presence of an African branch in a place where it is surrounded by unrelated languages. And those who know the shortness of the crossing between Africa and Asia especially at Bab-el-mandab would probably agree with me. Moreover, the most conservative Semitic dialect or dialects (Jibali) with the so-called true DAD or hard DAD are situated in southern Arabia opposite historical Ethiopia (today's Ethiopia, Eriteria, Djibouti, and Somalia).
It would make sense to change the name of the group to something like Ethiopic or Ethio-Chadic.
I am not high either on the Ethio-Chadic, neither on Abdullahi’s other proposal “Ethiopic”.
Same here, and for reasons I had already stated, but I do agree with his premise about the African origins of the Semitic branch.
quote: In my opinion, the only viable approaches in those cases are either to name the phylum by its delimitating “geographical” frontiers (i.e. Indo-European), or by reference to a common feature of all the languages or their speakers. I think the approach of late American linguist C.T. Hodge about naming it lisramic, partly based on the common word for “tongue” in all those languages *l-s (I don't get why he put the "ram-ic" on it which is only derived from Kemetic rmT "man" though).
Using a presumably Pan-Afrisan terminology "*l-s" as a premise for a descriptive is an interesting one. And of course, there's that questionable "ram-ic" aspect of it that you mentioned. Other than that, it gives no minimal indication of geographic structuring of or the main geographical nodes for the language phylum's expansion.
quote: However, since the current point seems to be to emphasizing of the African nature of the group, I guess Saharo-Rift or Rift-Sahara would be a perfect match (I don’t think one would need to specify which part of the Rift is concerned; Nilo-Saharan's Nile and Sahara components, as well as Indo-European's India & Europe are not specific to those languages).
If you agree with the latter proposals, how would you call the languages? Rift-Saharan? Saharo-Riftic?
'Saharo-Rift/Saharo-Riftic' sounds more pleasing -- that is, its aesthetic value. A more pleasing version of Rift-Saharan might go something like "Rifto-Saharan". Such descriptives give more indication, if partially, of the main geographic structuring the of Afrisan super-phylum. Tacitly implied in the descriptive, is "North[ern]-Riftic" [language] speakers as the equivalent to "Semitic" - as a name for a sub-phylum. That's just my opinion, but I welcome inflow of other ideas.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
When I write about the African Semitic languages I call them Puntite languages since the people who speak these languages live in the area where the Puntite civilization formerly existed.
.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Clyde,
What primary text of the "Puntites" themselves, not other people's description of these folks, have you uncovered for the first time?
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
One thing that crossed my mind. If there is a need or an idea to change the name of the language Family "Semitic" is there also a parallel need to change the name of the group "Cushitic" ?
Posted by Alive (Member # 10819) on :
*exiting lurker status for this thread*
^Good question. Now I'm more solidly on the fence when it comes to changing the name of semetic, but it's not the best name and I could see changing it with the entire Afrasan phylum.
While all language groups get mistaken for "types" of people or even races (mainly by laymen), I don't like Semitic because IMO it's mis-leading.
It's an anglo bastardisation of the Hebrew derived word Shem (I think) but probably derives from Semi- meaning half (as in Mid-Eastern "half-breeds"). Semitic is still African, yet both Shem (Asia) and Sem (Near East half breed) imply non-Africanity, the latter even suggesting typological/racial thinking so... Cush at least corresponds to African characters. I'm just against anything relating african realities to mythical mumbo-jumbo of the Western/European variety.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
One thing that crossed my mind. If there is a need or an idea to change the name of the language Family "Semitic" is there also a parallel need to change the name of the group "Cushitic" ?
Not that I can think of, unless you can detail the reasons for that need for us.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive:
Now I'm more solidly on the fence when it comes to changing the name of semetic
Why would you "be on the fence"; it is clear cut: you either accept the word as it is, despite its defunct foundation as a linguist construct, or you are all for a more objective name for the phylum, keeping in touch with the times and development of linguistics.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I would say no, because the word Cush is derived from the a word, QEVS, which certain ancient Sudani people used to describe one of their kingdoms.
Then again, I would say yes because linguist identified Cushitic speakers for the most part are not Sudani but located in the Horn.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: One thing that crossed my mind. If there is a need or an idea to change the name of the language Family "Semitic" is there also a parallel need to change the name of the group "Cushitic" ?
Posted by Please call me MIDOGBE (Member # 9216) on :
Hmm... I am not sure I am understanding your point...Could you please expand on this?
Thanks in advance
quote:Originally posted by Alive: While all language groups get mistaken for "types" of people or even races (mainly by laymen), I don't like Semitic because IMO it's mis-leading.
It's an anglo bastardisation of the Hebrew derived word Shem (I think) but probably derives from Semi- meaning half (as in Mid-Eastern "half-breeds").
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I would say no, because the word Cush is derived from the a word, QEVS, which certain ancient Sudani people used to describe one of their kingdoms.
Then again, I would say yes because linguist identified Cushitic speakers for the most part are not Sudani but located in the Horn.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: One thing that crossed my mind. If there is a need or an idea to change the name of the language Family "Semitic" is there also a parallel need to change the name of the group "Cushitic" ?
Do we know if the word Shem or Semite was used before its bible usage?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The bi-literal root SH-M simply means "name/ "renown/fame" in Hebrew, and so it exists in Phoenician as well as Punic and Neo-Punic. It also exists in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Chaldaic scripts.
Semite is not a Hebrew word nor of biblical usage.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ so why do your people insist on the word?
Posted by Alive (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: Hmm... I am not sure I am understanding your point...Could you please expand on this?
Thanks in advance
quote:Originally posted by Alive: While all language groups get mistaken for "types" of people or even races (mainly by laymen), I don't like Semitic because IMO it's mis-leading.
It's an anglo bastardisation of the Hebrew derived word Shem (I think) but probably derives from Semi- meaning half (as in Mid-Eastern "half-breeds").
People are often caught saying things like "they weren't black they were Indo-Europeans or Berbers".
Both are really language groups, both spoken by people of wide ranging complexions.
Semitic implies son of "Shem" (non-Africa) or worse, "half-breed".
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
The appellative "Shem" is used in the bible.
Posted by Alive (Member # 10819) on :
Whoops, made a mistake:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The bi-literal root SH-M simply means "name/ "renown/fame" in Hebrew, and so it exists in Phoenician as well as Punic and Neo-Punic. It also exists in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Chaldaic scripts.
Semite is not a Hebrew word nor of biblical usage.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) Nuclear DNA studies as contributing to the deconstruction of race by showing their "Caucasoid" sample as consisting of specific percentages of their Chinese and Pygmy samples. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
The moderator should ban jackass akoben if he wants to have a serious thread instead of a silly one.
Don't litter![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
