posted
Herein, I hope to compile chronology across continental Africa.
...but for starters:
Back-to-back post, based on the 2003 compilations of Dr. Susan J. Herlin and Professor Emerita of the Department of History, at the University of Louisville -USA, but UPDATES inserted [as designated by Italicized pieces] by myself, to add relative precision to what would have well ended up being a relatively outmoded compilation as a result of the more recent revelations. I'm sure there will still be much room for further precision even after these initial insertions of mine, in which case feel free to add to that already provided; in the meantime, this is to just provide a general idea:
CHRONOLOGY OF ANCIENT WEST AFRICA
From 30,600 to 10,000 BC: "A cultural flow, from the southeast of Subsaharan Africa and to the Sahara, could explain the diffusion of the microlithic industries all the way through West Africa. We observe them initially in Cameroon at Shum Laka (30.600-29.000 BC), then at the Ivory Coast in Bingerville (14.100-13.400 BC), in Nigeria in Iwo Eleru (11.460-11.050 BC), and finally in Ounjougou (phase 1, 10th millennium BC)."[see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
23,000 BP ~ 25000 BC: "After a favourable climatic period, characterised by relatively dense and diversified Palaeolithic occupations, the arid Ogolian begins locally around 23000 years BP and is represented at Ounjougou by a significant depositional and archaeological hiatus." [see: Aziz Ballouche]
After 12,000 BCE: Beginning of a wetter phase in Africa north of the equator. Populations ancestral to most West Africans make up the foragers and hunters of these lands.
"by" 11,000 years BP ~ by 13,000 BC:
"The age of the sediment in which they were found suggests that the six ceramic fragments discovered between 2002 and 2005 are at least 11,400 years old. Most ancient ceramics from the Middle East and the central and eastern Sahara regions are 10,000 and between 9-10,000 years old, respectively." [see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
10th millennium BC: At Ounjougou - "It is not until the Holocene and the return of humid climatic conditions, beginning in the 10th millennium BC, that it is possible to again observe evidence of human occupation."[see: Aziz Ballouche]
"Consequently, it has to be seen in the context of heavy rainfalls and a resettlement of the vegetation cover, during the 10th millennium BC, that a new population arrives on the Plateau of Bandiagara."[see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
Between 10th and 9th millennia BC: "Some charcoal are present at the transition between the 10th and 9th millennia BC, but it is currently impossible to determine if it is of anthropic origin or natural."[see: Aziz Ballouche]
The 10,000 and 9,000 BC (Phase 1 of the Holocene in Ounjougou): "The first sedimentary sequence of the Holocene can be observed at the Ravin de la Mouche. It's a channel dug into yellow Pleistocene silt and filled with coarse grained sand and pebbles. As a chronological reference for the upper levels of this early Holocene site, we hold ten radiocarbon dates between 9400 and 8400 BCcal. The associated lithic industry evidences predominantly a unidirectional mode of debitage. But also other technologies, such as bipolar on anvil or multidirectional, have been applied by the Early Holocene population. The raw material mainly used was quartz. The typological range consists of small retouched flakes, geometric microliths and perçoirs, but also of continuously retouched bifacial arrowheads and backed points."[see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
by the 'beginning' of 8,000 BC: "Outstandingly, there has been evidence of the presence of pottery and seed grinding implements since at least the beginning of the 8th millennium BC. It is therefore the oldest siteThe eighth millennium (Phase 2 of the Holocene in Ounjougou) known of this socio-economic type in sub-Saharan Africa...
The pottery and the seed grinding implements of phase 2 of Ounjougou are the oldest artefacts of this type known at present in sub-Saharan Africa. To current knowledge, the pottery of Ounjougou could either have been invented in the actual sudano-sahelian zone or been imported from the Central Sahara, where there has been evidence since the ninth millennium BC. Still, the oldest pottery known in the Sahara, from the site of Tagalagal in Niger, is already quite diversified at the moment of its appearance, possibly meaning that the technique has been introduced.
The lithic industry of the phases 1 and 2 on the other hand shows similarities to both more southern and Saharan industries. Quartz microliths, obtained through bipolar debitage on anvil, are a characteristic of the Westafrican technocomplex according to Kevin MacDonald. Bifacially retouched arrowheads, in contrast, are specific for Saharan production." [see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
"The eighth millennium (Phase 2 of the Holocene in Ounjougou): The subsequent Holocene sequence is well documented by two principal sites, the Ravin du Hibou and Damatoumou. The archaeological levels can be quite clearly chronologically placed by means of a date obtained through OSL measurements (9420±410 Ka) and seven radiocarbon dates (between 8000 and 7000 BCcal). The lithic industry, exclusively quartz, is characterised by unidirectional, bidirectional and peripheral debitage, as well as by bipolar on anvil. There are essentially microlithic tools: perçoirs, backed points, notched pieces, denticulates, scrapers, retouched flakes and geometric microliths. Some small bifacially retouched arrowheads were also found on those sites. At the Ravin du Hibou, seven sherds have been found during excavation. They are heavily fragmented and thus preventing the reconstruction of the form of the vessels. Quartz has always been used as a temper. In just a single case, grog has been used in addition. Two shards show identifiable decorations. Two different techniques have been used: A rolled impression, possibly made with a peigne fileté souple or with a cordelette, and a simple comb impression. There were also seed grinding implements discovered at the Ravin du Hibou, a fragment of a seed grinding stone and a cylindrical upper grinding stone." [see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
By about 8,000 BCE: Great lakes formed in Niger Bend, Lake Chad and Upper Nile regions. Spread of 'African aquatic culture' through this 'great lakes' region. Sedentary fishing communities using pottery and microlithic tools become established long the shores of lakes and rivers. Saharan region enjoys savanna-type climate. Favorable conditions lead to population growth.
9,000 to 6,000 BCE: Saharan region in its wettest phases.
By 6,000 BCE: Evidence of domesticated 'humpless' cattle in the Saharan region. Also seed-cropping (or harvesting) of grains.
6,000-2,500 BCE: Spread of predominantly cattle-raising peoples throughout the Sahara. Probably ancestral to modern-day Berber groups.
By the 5,000 BC and 2,000 BC: The bifacially retouched arrowheads are exclusively made of quartzitic sandstone. Typologically, they can be associated to Saharan ones. These are usually very rarely found south of the Sahara, and give evidence of a North/South contact. Two phases can be distinguished: a first around the fifth millennium BC, and a second around the third and second millennium BC. The latter evidence of contact between the Sahara and sub-Saharan West Africa is most likely linked to the beginning of the current arid phase.
The analysis of the tools and debitage waste showed that it was a very specialized workshop. Only bifacially retouched arrowheads were produced. The entire chaîne opératoire could be reconstructed. [see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
By 4,000 BC: Ancestors of contemporary coastal Northwest African Afrasan/"Berber" speakers arrive in coastal Northwest Africa, Sahara and the Sahel.
Between 4000 BC and 1000 BC: At Tichitt-Walata - "Before 2000 BC, what is today the southern Sahara was inhabited by significant numbers of herders and farmers. On the rocky promontories of the Tichitt-Walata (Birou) and Tagant Plateaus in modern day Mauritania, they built what are considered among the earliest known civilizations in western Africa. Composed of more than 400 stone masonry settlements, with clear street layouts, some settlements had massive surrounding walls while others were less fortified. In a deteriorating environment, where arable land and pasturage were at a premium, the population grew and relatively large-scale political organizations emerged - factors which no doubt explain the homogeneity of architecture, settlement patterns, and material culture (e.g., lithic and ceramic traditions). This agro-pastoral society traded in jewelry and semi-precious stones from distant parts of the Sahara and Sahel, while crafts, hunting, and fishing were also important economic pursuits...Their elites built funerary monuments for themselves over a period extending from 4000 to 1000 BC." [sources: see Ray A. Kea, and Mauny, R. (1971), “The Western Sudan” in Shinnie: 66-87. Monteil, Charles (1953), “La Légende du Ouagadou et l’Origine des Soninke” in Mélanges Ethnologiques (Dakar: Bulletin del’Institut Francais del’Afrique Noir)]
By 3,000 BC: Evidence of iron working and production in West Africa.
"In fact, only in Africa do you find such a range of practices in the process of direct reduction [a method in which metal is obtained in a single operation without smelting],and metal workers who were so inventive that they could extract iron in furnaces made out of the trunks of banana trees," says Hamady Bocoum, one of the authors. [references: The Origins of Iron Metallurgy in Africa, 2002; "Iron Roads in Africa" project c/o UNESCO]
3,000-1,000 BCE: Farming spreads through the former fishing belt of the tropical woodland savannas and forest margins of West Africa. This Guinea Neolithic era saw the domestication of millets, rice, sorghum, yams, and palm trees among others.
After 2,500 BCE: Saharan region enters a period of rapid desertification, driving people and larger game animals to seek better watered lands to the north and south for habitation. Neolithic settlements spread along the Saharan borderlands and near rivers and lakes in the West.
1,200-700 BCE: Excavations at Dar Tichitt (modern Mauritania) reveal progression from large, un-walled lakeside villages to smaller walled hilltop villages in response to drier climate and increasing pressure from nomads.
After 2,000 BCE: Favorable climatic conditions and developing technology and socio-cultural systems lead to population growth in the Niger valleys. Neolithic farming spreading south and east from the area of modern-day Cameroon. Probably associated with speakers of proto-Bantu languages.
After 500 BCE: Advent of iron-smelting and iron use in West Africa. [outdated: see above] Height of the civilization known as Nok, which produced art work ancestral to that of later Yoruba and lgbo peoples.
"By" 250 BC: "The earliest occupants of Jenne-Jeno (c. 250 BC - 50 AD) possessed iron and had a subsistence base that was predominantly aquatic, e.g. waterfowl and fish, although bovids are also found that are possible those of the domestic Bos taurus (McIntosh & McIntosh 1981: 15" - courtesy of Mikey Brass
WEST AFRICA: C. 800 BCE TO 1591 AD/CE
By 800 BCE Neolithic agricultural peoples inhabit the best lands of the savanna and forest margins. Regional trade networks based on the exchange of salt, fish, pottery, and other regional specialties developing. Small, clan-based villages typical of agricultural areas. Nomads dominate in the drier areas.
-800 to -500 Development of Carthage in the north stimulates exchanges of products across the Sahara Desert, managed by desert Berbers using horses, oxen and chariots. Iron use psreads into the region from the north or east, or both. Larger scale settlements appearing in southern Mauritania. the middle Niger River basin, and the Jos plateau region. These areas correspond respectively to the probable ancestral homes of the modern Soninke (northern Mande); Songhai; and Yoruba peoples.
-500 to -200 Iron use spreads rapidly throughout West Africa, stimulating population growth, trade, and urbanization. Iron-age peoples of Nok (modern Nigeria) produce magnificent terra cotta sculptures stylistically ancestral to later Yoruba and Benin art. Indirect trade continues across increasingly well-marked Saharan trails, still traversed by horse or ox-drawn vehicles.
-800 to +200 Era of Nok civilization. Bantu expansion 'takes off' to the south and east. Earliest towns, such as Jenne, growing up along the Niger on its most northerly stretch.
-100 to +100 Camel use reaches the western Sahara via Berbers living in its southern reaches.
c.100 to 400 CE: Camel using Saharan Berber peoples, such as the Taureg and Sanhaja, develop trans-Saharan trade routes, linking the Maghrib and West Africa directly for the first time. Salt, copper, gold, dates, slaves, agricultural produce, manufactured goods and ivory among the goods exchanged. Soninke-led Ghana, Songhai-led Gao grow as middlemen for the expanding commerce. Trade routes also link Nigeria and Lake Chad to North Africa.
On a side note: "The historical records of Ghana come from Arab sources dating between 800 and 1650 AD, but Ghana had been in existence for long before then and was centred in the present-day Sahal region of south-eastern Mauritania and western Mali. (Munson 1980: 457)" - courtesy of Mikey Brass
^Truth is, Ghanaian complex actual age is still obscure, but by 100 CE it was already in place.
400 to 900 Ghana, with its capital at Kumbi Saleh, becomes the first regional "great power." With their control over the southern end of the trans-Saharan trade and the northern end of the gold trade, the Ghana of Wagadu can afford the cavalry necessary to enforce his rule throughout the lands between the Niger and the Senegal Rivers. The trans-Saharan boom stimulates the growth of regional trade in copper, iron and other goods, both agricultural and manufactured.
750 to 1000 Muslim merchants from the North become a major force in trans-Saharan and West African commerce. Islam spreads to Takrur and Ghana. Among the Kanuri of Lake Chad, the Sefawa family founds a dynasty who will rule Kanem for a thousand years. The trans-Saharan trade grows rapidly along with the expansion of the Islamic world. Artists of Igbo Ukwu in southern Nigeria produce fine works in bronze.
ca.1000 Foundation of Ife, the political and spiritual capital of the Yoruba.
1054 to 1070 Almoravid Sanhaja establish control over trans-Saharan routes from the borders of Ghana to Morocco, greatly weakening Ghana.
11th & 12th c. Several Sudannic kings convert to Islam. Commerce in the Sudan gradually comes to be dominated by Muslims, both of local and north African origin.
13th c. Rise of Mali under the great Mande hero, Sundiata Keita. Ghana incorporated into the new great power. From its new capital at Niane on the Niger, Mali develops trade with the developing gold fields of the Akan in modern-day Ghana.
14th c Empire of Mali dominates the Western half of West Africa, controlling the gold and salt trade; promoting Islam; and providing peace and prosperity to its region. Mansa Musa, the best known ruler of Mali, made the pilgrimage to Mecca.
15th c. Mali suffers dynastic difficulties and economic challenges as the gold fields move further south and east. Songhai gains strength. Portuguese merchants begin trading directly with the Akan along the coast of modern Ghana.
16th c. Songhai, with its capital at Gao replaces Mali as the imperial power of West Africa. Islamic learning flourishes with government patronage in the university town of Timbuktu.
posted
^But the above chronologies presented above only cover the West African region alone. Comes to show how vast the history is of the entire continent, a history that is often ignored by the West.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How accurate is the term "sub-Saharan"? It bothers me every time someone uses it because it implies that there are no Blacks in the Sahara, or that there never were in history. Also, the "sub" part of it suggests condescension to me. Maybe I am too sensitive or paranoid.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Only holds objective weight to the extent that one is referring to regions south of the Saharan desert belt; nothing more or less, but...
quote: Neith-Athena:
It bothers me every time someone uses it because it implies that there are no Blacks in the Sahara, or that there never were in history.
...the term has been highjacked by subjective politically driven ideology, to create an artificial rift between coastal North Africa and the rest of the continent. As you may have noticed in the chronology, the Saharan desert has not always been there, nor has the Sahara as a desert belt, prevented those "above" or "below" it from interacting. From sub-Saharan Africa to north Africa, there is no line which marks the genealogical or phenotypic demarcation, notwithstanding existence of observable trends based on the variable bio-historic demographic events in the region and the degree of proximity of populations with respect to the other.
quote: Neith-Athena:
Also, the "sub" part of it suggests condescension to me. Maybe I am too sensitive or paranoid.
The geographical term "sub-Saharan" has undoutedly been corrupted by reactionary Eurocentric politics. To acknowledge this, doesn't make one 'paranoid'; just means one is consciously alert to Eurocentric underhandedness.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^But the above chronologies presented above only cover the West African region alone. Comes to show how vast the history is of the entire continent, a history that is often ignored by the West.
In due time I’ll cover other parts of continental Africa, as I noted in the intro notes. I started with West Africa for the very reason you noted - about tendency of non-Africans to overlook the developments of this region.
Now, considering the following from the intro compilation…
1)After 12,000 BCE: Beginning of a wetter phase in Africa north of the equator. Populations ancestral to most West Africans make up the foragers and hunters of these lands.
"by" 11,000 years BP ~ by 13,000 BC:
"The age of the sediment in which they were found suggests that the six ceramic fragments discovered between 2002 and 2005 are at least 11,400 years old. Most ancient ceramics from the Middle East and the central and eastern Sahara regions are 10,000 and between 9-10,000 years old, respectively." [source: Simon Bradley, Swissinfo, Swiss Archaeologist Digs Up West Africa's Past ]
Considering that many contemporary West Africans are of the PN2 derived lineages, amongst which E3a is notable [arose ~18.8 +/- 2.4 ky ago according to Semino et al. 2004] , could these repopulation events have included not only earlier groups in the region, but new groups from perhaps central and eastern Sahara, and possibly sub-Saharan east Africa via central Africa, which was marked by new inventions in the region by these new communities as social adaptation in response to the new set of environmental conditions, which according to the above source, i.e. Swissinfo article, could have been(?):
Some 10,000 years ago, at the end of the ice age, the climate is thought to have fluctuated between warm and cold periods. This led to the formation of an 800 kilometre wide band of tropical vegetation extending northwards from the Sahel region, which attracted people who slowly moved north from southern and central Africa.
Wild grasses and pearl millet started sprouting on the former desert land. But for man to be able to eat and properly digest the new plants, they had to be stored and cooked in pots. - S. Bradley, Swissinfo
2)6,000-2,500 BCE: Spread of predominantly cattle-raising peoples throughout the Sahara. Probably ancestral to modern-day Berber groups.
According to various studies published in the recent past, the original “Berbers” developed in East Africa, likely in northeastern Africa [if we go by Cruciani et al. 2007] - in the southern reaches of the western desert of Egypt, at an upper limit of ca. 7000 years ago [Arredi et al.], with population expansions occurring in northwestern Africa by 2ky ago ~ 4th millennium BC or so [Luis et al.]. Semino et al. put the characteristic “Berber” haplotype [designated E-M81] at an age of ca. 8.6 +/- 2.3 ky ago; this age would correspond to the original “Berber” groups who expanded from northeast Africa.
With that said, here’s an earlier post from elsewhere with minor modification, with attention to dating on the “Berber” group development…
Goes to back-to-back posts like this:
Two other lessons have particular applicability to Afroasiatic. For one, the northerly Afroasiatic languages (Semitic, Berber, Egyptian) appear together to form just one sub-branch of the family, and if relied upon to the exclusion of the other, deeper, branchings of the family, give a misleading picture of overall Afroasiatic reconstruction. In addition, Afroasiatic is a family of much greater time depth than even most of its students realize; its first divergences trace back probably at least 15,000 years ago, not just 8,000 or 9,000 as many believe. - Ehret: Reflections on Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic: Vowels, Tone, Consonants, and Vocabulary
..and why not add, the following:
“The Semitic family can also trace their origins from this area in north-eastern Africa. Most modern experts hold the theory that the Semitic precursor-language must have at first existed in a cluster with ancient Egyptian and Berber, before exiting into its unique form. However the timing for these events is quite difficult to discern. The Semitic language-precursor being, for our purposes, the "last" language in formation, was somehow transported into Arabia and further east into central and northern Asia.”
Tonal languages appear in the Omotic, Chadic, and South and East Cushitic branches of Afro-Asiatic, according to Ehret (1996). The Semitic, Berber, and Egyptian branches do not use tones phonemically.
From what I can tell, they are indeed closely related; Beja seems to be grammatically more similar to the "Berber" languages than other Cushitic languages. This is understandable if "Berber" and "Beja" diverged from a branch of an already differentiated "Proto-Afrasan" language, with perhaps Beja being the older. Indeed, there might well be something to Sforza's observation that Tuaregs ["Berber" speakers] were least genetically distant to the Beja. The non-tonal languages of Egyptic, 'Berber' and 'Semitic' branches cluster relatively closely in comparison to other Afrasan languages, while they are more grammatically similar to Beja than other groups under the Cushitic sub-family. Omotic, Chadic and Cushitic sub-families largely consist of tonal languages, perhaps exemplifying [possibly older] branches relatively closer to the ancestral proto-Afrasan language. Chadic and Berber may have seen enough inter-influences via interactions of moving populations, to entice some scholars to closely associate them; however, again, Berber languages are considered non-tonal, while Chadic groups are largely considered otherwise. Ethio-Semitic languages too have heavily been influenced by Cushitic languages like say, the Agaw.
Jomo here, has mentioned something worth noting, about the E-M81 availability in Sudan, where according to him via correspondence with Underhill, occurred in two individuals who happened to be of Beja extraction. Given that certain genetic comparisons [C. Sforza, see genetic distances data] have been made between Tuaregs and Beja, revealing close genetic distance, this would be interesting in that light, 'cause the Tuaregs have the characteristic 'Berber' signature of M81. Where do most of Beja groups reside? Sudan. Given this piece of info, it is possible that the Beja and the West African Sahelian groups like the Tuaregs and the north-eastern Siwa ["Berber"] group, notably bearing E3b ancestry [amongst others], stem from a common ancestral population, having diverged somewhere in the Sahara, perhaps in the vicinity of its eastern end. I suspect somewhere between upper Egypt and Sudan; the eastern portion of Chad and south-eastern portion of Libya are not to be excluded in this assessment, imo.
Basically summing it up, aside from introduction of new UEPs, i.e. V36 and V65, the study shifts the origin of M78 northward [from my own inference, likely in the vicinity of Upper Egypt, based on the highest frequencies], having found high microsatellite diversity and frequency distribution both in "north-eastern Africa" and "eastern Africa", but deeming north-eastern Africa as having the upper-hand on those accounts, as well as in terms of M78 sub-clade diveristy in the comparative analysis, AFTER the removal of the DYS19 microsatellite locus, otherwise known by its gamma cluster [whose contribution was deemed to have lent bias towards the east African chromosomes]. The authors hypothesize that M78 in eastern Africa may reflect back-migration from north-east Africa, and hence, any wonder that the regions between Upper Egypt and sub-Saharan East Africa cannot be overlooked, as done in this piece. To this end, when one also looks at language distribution in the East African region, there seems to be a trend in loss of the 'tonal' feature of Afrasan sub-language families as one moves further north. If the proposals of this study are to be given weight, and going by the concentration of 'tonal' Afrasan languages in sub-Saharan East Africa, while the Sahara appears to be a host in a 'middle-of-the-road’ kind of way [with ’Berber’ [non-tonal], and Chadic groups [tonal]] to the 'tonal' and 'non-tonal' Afrasan languages, is it possible that the languages diverged in the vicinity of eastern Sahara ca. ~ 15 ky ago or so [from the proto-Afrasan language of the ancestral E3b (M35) carriers from [sub-Saharan] "eastern Africa", with the largely 'tonal' Afrasan speaking groups back-migrating southbound to sub-Saharan East Africa, while the fore-bearers of 'non-tonal' groups expanded north ward, and westward in north Africa and the Sahara, although some remained within the vicinity of eastern Sahara, and at some point a sub-set of this group back-migrated south-bound to the regions were the 'tonal' groups are largely located, in the African Horn? This would perhaps explain why some Semitic speaking groups in the African Horn have noticeable frequencies of ancient Y lineages like haplogroups A and B. In any case, the linguistic distribution and phylum is another reason that this expanse between Egypt [where M78 origins may lie according to this study], and [sub-Saharan] "eastern Africa" should not be overlooked. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004889;p=2
If we are to keep in mind the above mentioned language “nature” and divergence of the Afrasan groups [with the help of insights from linguists like Ehret], along with lineage expansions, as observed by the likes of Underhill, Luis et al. [“Nile Valley vs. the African Horn”] and Arredi et al., not to mention Cruciani’s latest ‘re-organization’ attempts, then it would appear that the ancestors of the “Berber” groups diverged from within the general vicinity of between Egypt and Sudan to the Chadic areas, or in the southern portions of the western [although the eastern desert cannot be ruled out in the assessment] desert of Egypt ca. 6-7ky ago or so, and thence, moved northward., while others moved westward in the Saharan-Sahelian belts. By ca. 2ky ago sections of these earlier “Berber” populations would have expanded westward in the north, whereby in what is known as founder effect, underwent considerable demographic expansion. Throughout prehistory and history, some of these more mobile “Berber” groups, like those in the Sahel and the Sahara, may have moved back and forth, i.e. from the north back to the Saharan regions and vice versa. For instance, it isn’t surprising that Saharan/Sahelian “Berber” groups like the Sanhaja closely resemble sections of northern-based groups like the Kesra of Tunisia, and indeed, the Sahelian “Berber” groups have a history of setting up socio-cultural complexes or “empires” in coastal North Africa by way of conquests. It would appear that the “Berber” groups likely diverged from the same populations ancestral to the contemporary Bedawi in the Red Hills regions of Sudan [e.g. see above: Underhill for indicators]. The Beja language, which is viewed by some linguists to be a somewhat distant relative of Cushitic languages, is perceived to be relatively closer to the non-tonal Egyptic, and other [generally perceived] younger non-tonal branches of “Berber” and “Semitic” than the largely tonal Afrasan groups in sub-Saharan east Africa. The Chadic branches, which are perceived to be largely tonal, undoubtedly have some level of closeness with “Berber” languages given the proximity and interactions of these groups in the Saharan-Sahel regions…just as Ethio-semitic languages have some level of closeness with the Cushitic languages therein due to years of interaction and cohabitation. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005020;p=1#000000Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: By 3,000 BC: Evidence of iron working and production in West Africa.
"In fact, only in Africa do you find such a range of practices in the process of direct reduction [a method in which metal is obtained in a single operation without smelting],and metal workers who were so inventive that they could extract iron in furnaces made out of the trunks of banana trees," says Hamady Bocoum, one of the authors. [references: The Origins of Iron Metallurgy in Africa, 2002; "Iron Roads in Africa" project c/o UNESCO]
Iron Age shows up in West Africa in 3000 BC.
quote: -800 to -500 Development of Carthage in the north stimulates exchanges of products across the Sahara Desert, managed by desert Berbers using horses, oxen and chariots. Iron use psreads into the region from the north or east, or both.
Iron use spreads into Carthage from the East or North
Ancient Libyans are not the modern day Berbers, please drop the Berber nonsense. Tamasheq (Taureg) show more similarities to the ancient Libyans versus those people living in some areas of North Africa, I'm speaking of the descendants of the Vandals,Romans,Arabs and Greeks. Lump the invading descendants as children of the Invaders and drop the Berber nonsense.
From what I can tell, they are indeed closely related; Beja seems to be grammatically more similar to the "Berber" languages than other Cushitic languages. This is understandable if "Berber" and "Beja" diverged from a branch of an already differentiated "Proto-Afrasan" language, with perhaps Beja being the older. Indeed, there might well be something to Sforza's observation that Tuaregs ["Berber" speakers] were least genetically distant to the Beja. The non-tonal languages of Egyptic, 'Berber' and 'Semitic' branches cluster relatively closely in comparison to other Afrasan languages, while they are more grammatically similar to Beja than other groups under the Cushitic sub-family. Omotic, Chadic and Cushitic sub-families largely consist of tonal languages, perhaps exemplifying [possibly older] branches relatively closer to the ancestral proto-Afrasan language. Chadic and Berber may have seen enough inter-influences via interactions of moving populations, to entice some scholars to closely associate them; however, again, Berber languages are considered non-tonal, while Chadic groups are largely considered otherwise. Ethio-Semitic languages too have heavily been influenced by Cushitic languages like say, the Agaw.
...or alternatively, the proto-Afrasan started out largely as a non-tonal language, and developed into tonal branches with diversification. If one were to use genetics as determining factor of which way the balance tips, certainly the carriers of the ancestral E3b lineages would be given primary consideration. Northeast Africans carry derivatives of E3b with tropical African origins. It also appears undifferentiated in sub-Saharan east Africa. As such, available material tends to favor development of the proto-Afrasan language in sub-Saharan East African groups carrying the ancestral E3b lineages, wherein tonal branches predominate.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: By 3,000 BC: Evidence of iron working and production in West Africa.
"In fact, only in Africa do you find such a range of practices in the process of direct reduction [a method in which metal is obtained in a single operation without smelting],and metal workers who were so inventive that they could extract iron in furnaces made out of the trunks of banana trees," says Hamady Bocoum, one of the authors. [references: The Origins of Iron Metallurgy in Africa, 2002; "Iron Roads in Africa" project c/o UNESCO]
Iron Age shows up in West Africa in 3000 BC.
quote: -800 to -500 Development of Carthage in the north stimulates exchanges of products across the Sahara Desert, managed by desert Berbers using horses, oxen and chariots. Iron use psreads into the region from the north or east, or both.
Iron use spreads into Carthage from the East or North
To avoid possible 'confusion', I did note in the intro notes that I made some insertions - as updates, in the chronology compiled by Dr. Susan J. Herlin and Professor Emerita in 2003, which didn't otherwise have the info relayed by the insertions in question [which were italicized]. The two citations you focused on above, are from two discrete sources. I also realize there is still tweaking to be done to the chronology as presented, which again as noted, would follow as I build on the thread.
quote:Hotep2u:
Ancient Libyans are not the modern day Berbers, please drop the Berber nonsense.
What languages did the "ancient Libyans" speak, and at what time frame are you contextualizing "ancient Libyans". I find it interesting that you take issue with "Berbers", which I can understand to the extent that the said people don't actually call themselves such - term imposed on them by foreigners, but that you find it convenient to use "Libyans"[presumably a development of the term 'Libou'], a term I highly doubt was known to the said ancient folks.
Why do you presume "ancient Libyans" are not to be linked with contemporary "Berber" speaking groups who occupy the same regions that these "ancient Libyans" occupied?
quote:Hotep2u:
Tamasheq (Taureg) show more similarities to the ancient Libyans versus those people living in some areas of North Africa, I'm speaking of the descendants of the Vandals,Romans,Arabs and Greeks. Lump the invading descendants as children of the Invaders and drop the Berber nonsense.
That is what contemporary "Berber" speakers call themselves in their respective dialects, "Tamazigh" - in one form of enunciation or another. If you are speaking of descendants of "Vandals, Romans, Arabs, and Greeks", I hope you realize that contemporary coastal north African "Berbers" are predominantly of East African paternal ancestry. Of the foreign elements, if there is any to be noteworthy in any sense, it would be migrants from "southwest Asia", the paternal ancestry from which follows that from Eastern Africa. Any genetic impact from Europe, has largely been on the maternal side. So, it is rather too simplistic to call contemporary "Berber" speakers, the "descendants of the Vandals, Romans, Arabs and Greeks." or lump them as "the invading descendants as children of the Invaders." This not only ignores their indigenous African genealogical base, but also ignores the indigenous African base of their language. In this day and age, "Berber" [presumably derived from al Barbar] is simply understood as a linguistic construct, to denote a group of closely related sub-Afrasan languages...which means the "Tamesheq Kels" [so-called "Tuareg"], whom you proclaimed as exhibiting more similarities with "ancient Libyans", are in fact related to other "Berber" speakers. The term "Berber" has no bearings on what the so-called peoples actually call themselves or on their 'Africanity'. You should drop the nonsense of making much more out of the term than what it actually is.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Indeed, 'Berber' like the word 'Egyptian' is a foreign innovation.
I appreciate the info, Mystery. Some of it is news to me. So ceramics and pottery in West Africa is older than those in the Middle-East? And exactly when did agriculture begin in West Africa?
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^Indeed, 'Berber' like the word 'Egyptian' is a foreign innovation.
I appreciate the info, Mystery. Some of it is news to me. So ceramics and pottery in West Africa is older than those in the Middle-East? And exactly when did agriculture begin in West Africa?
The Swissinfo article is pretty self-explanatory about the antiquity of West African pottery. As for agriculture, it is interesting when specific dates are attached to it as though it marks an 'event' as opposed to an evolution of ongoing social developments in an area. Taking the timeline of demographic events into consideration along with weather and environmental shifts, is necessary in examining the development of agriculture in any region. In some areas, agriculture arrived as a result of demic diffusion [e.g. in Europe], but in others, as in West Africa amongst other regions across the globe, agricultural economy arose 'independently' as an evolution of pre-existing social developments in the region. These go back to situations in the region during the late periods of certain industries like those of the Sangoan and the Lupemban industries - ~11 ky B.P. or so.
Some extracts I've gathered may prove to be inciteful...
From an old publication by Oliver Davies, 1968, we have:
“The Origins of Agriculture in West Africa (pg 479)
In the sub-tropical zone, it is easy to fix a line between pre-agricultural cultures and cultures which understood agriculture even if they didn’t widely practice it. The grains of cereal grasses and of food plants like rice and maize are of use as food only if collected in bulk, and they need preparation by grinding and cooking, which can also be practiced only in bulk. The yield from each plant is fairly small, so there would be little reward for labour if grain-ears and cobs had to be collected from among many other plants in an untilled countryside. It was therefore necessary to prepare a patch of ground, sow the seeds, keep the field reasonably free of weeds, and reap the crop. It is thought possible that the Middle East went through a proto-agricultural stage in which wild grasses were reaped. This would be feasible in dry savannah, where little save grasses would grow, and they would reach maturity at about the same time; but the food yield must have been meager.
In contrast, the wooded savannah and equatorial forest produce some useful seeds and fruits, but the bulk carbohydrate which forms the basis of modern diet can be obtained only from tubers, especially yams and Coleus. Since tubers are even less likely than cereal grains to leave traces in archeological deposits, the beginnings of tuber cultivation can be inferred only from the presence of tools and techniques which might have been used in the gathering and preparing of them.
The two prerequisites for the regular use of tubers as food - a digging tool for excavating them and fire to cook them (for they are indigestible raw) - were present in West Africa by Sangoan times. Fire is attested from the Late Acheulian (Oakley 1961). The Sangoan pick, in contrast to the delicate Acheulian biface which proceeded it, would be of little use for chopping or cutting and would be heavy and clumsy in any operation of hunting. One of its main purposes must have been digging - probably for tubers, since the digging of game-traps with such a tool would have been backbreaking work.
The Sangoan pick has descendants in the equatorial area throughout the Lupemban; with the development of the handle, it became a less clumsy tool. Though it is difficult to identify a serviceable pick in the latest Lupemban in the Congo and on the Guinea coast, picks are numerous in the so-called Tumbian or Para-tumbian, a culture of Lupemban affinity on the upper Niger and in southern Mauritania which seems to have lasted to a very late date (Davies 1964b). In the Congo the pick may ultimately have been replaced by the weighted digging stick (Doize 1948). On the Guinea coast there is little evidence for digging sticks; sticks weighted with a Kwe seem to have been used only for placer mining (Davies 1964a: 196-99).
The cultivation of tubers may have begun when it was observed that the hard, inedible head of the yam, which was cut off and thrown away, sometimes took root in the mess around an encampment or in the loose earth whence the tuber had been dug. At some stage, perhaps quite early, men would have deliberately placed it in a suitable soil, so that more yams would grow. It is likely that they did this around the large Late Lupemban settlements of the Northwest, a region at all times inclined to aridity, where yams would need encouragement. Certain modern tribes are reported to collect and plant wild yams of many species (Chevalier 1936).”
Courtesy of JSTOR
From M. A. Sowunmi, 1985, Department of Archeology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. 5 vii 84
…This paper, generated by recent Palynological data from West Africa, is aimed at dealing with aspects of three of the issues that arose from that symposium [that is, the 1972 symposium at Burg Wartenstein in Austria, sponsored by Wenner-Gren foundation] :
1)the antiquity of the two most important food crops in southern West Africa,
2)the earliest methods of cultivation, and
3)the palaeoecological context of plant domestication as indicated by direct botanical evidence.
The two most important food crops in southern West Africa are yams and the oil palm. Participants in the symposium, such as Harris (1976), Shaw (1976), highlighted a great deal of indirect evidence - botanical, ecological, archeological, and ethnographic - strongly indicating that these two crops were exploited together and that yam cultivation probably began ca. 11,000 BP. According to Harris (1976:338), there was hardly any “direct evidence for the antiquity of oil palm exploitation in West Africa.” He suggested (p 339) that the earliest methods of cultivations probably included both swidden and fixed-horticulture. Little was known about the Paleo-ecological context of early plant domestication in West Africa except by inference from geo-morphological and bio-geographical data (cf. van Zinderen Bakker 1976).
The oil palm is one of the most important tree crops in the forest zone of West Africa today (e.g., Harris 1976:326). Whilst its primary importance lies in its value as a source of cooking oils (obtained from both the pericarp and the kernel), practically every other part of the tree is used as well: the sap (later fermented) collected at the base of the inflorescences for palm wine, the shell and residual fibre of the pericarp for fuel, leaves for thatching, fine fibers of young leaflets for fishing lines, the trunk for rafters, fences, and bridges, and fibres from the base of the stem for cordage and fish traps (Dalziel 1948)…
The oil palm is undoubtedly West African in origin, its pollen having been recovered in Miocene deposits of the Niger delta (Zeven 1964). Hovever, palynological study of a core from the Niger delta has revealed that from sometime prior to 35,000 BP to just before 2,800 BP, the oil palm was only a minor component of the Nigerian (and, presumably, West African) vegetation. That it became more abundant after ca. 2,800 BP is evidenced by a sudden and notable increase its pollen. At the same time, there was a decrease in the pollen of some rain-forest components, such as Celtis sp. And Myrian-thus arboreus, at a time when the composition of other vegetation types didn’t indicate any environmental change, coupled with the appearance of the pollen of weeds of cultivated land or waste places, for example, Aspilia sp., Borreria verticillata, Cleome ciliata, and cf. Hilleria latifolia (Sowumni 1981 a,b). this sudden and remarkable increase in oil palm trees concurrently with a decrease in forest trees and the appearance of weed pollen strongly indicates that the oil palm expansion was due to the artificial opening up of forest for farming purposes. It is very likely that this increase in oil palm stands and the accompanying farming activities first occurred in the forest regions near stream valleys and in the forest-savanna ecotone, that is near the natural habitats of the oil palm. Admittedly, gaps in tropical forests can be created by agencies or factors other than man. Floods, rainstorms, and old age are some of the natural factors that can cause trees to fall (Gomez-Pompa, Vazquez-Yanes, Guevara 1972). Elephants kill under-storey trees and shrubs, thereby creating gaps (Buechner and Dawkins 1961). In addition, lightning, wind, and tornadoes destroy trees, and old trees as they fall smash other in their way (Jones 1956). However, the combined pollen evidence points to deforestation by man for agricultural purposes.
In West Africa today, the oil palm is found in open or secondary forests, river valleys, or inhabited areas of forest zones (Hutchinson and Dalziel 1968). It is shade-intolerant, regenerating only where abundant sunlight reaches the ground, as is the case in open forests or in gaps created in otherwise dense forests. With slash-and-burn agricultural technique employed today in the forest zone of West Africa, the oil palm is protected, and habitats suitable for its regeneration and subsequent expansion are created by the destruction of forest trees. Extensive sub spontaneous stands of oil palm then become established (Harlan et al. 1976 b). Consequently, dense stands of oil palm in the forest are an indication of both a former opening up of such a forest and human occupation. Large expanses of what are referred to as “oil palm bush” have replaced the greater part of the rain forest in southern eastern Nigeria, for example (Shaw 1976: 131).
I suggest that at least by 2,800 BP, a farming technique involving forest clearance preparatory to planting was being practiced in Nigeria’s yam and oil palm belts and presumably in other parts of southern West Africa within these belts (see fig. 1). This was before the introduction of ironworking into West Africa ca. 2,500 BP. (Shaw 1978; 82)…Furthermore, Lawrence (in Gray 1962: 183) experimented with [b]“Neolithic axes” - large numbers of which have been found in the forest regions of Ghana - and found them “quite adequate for chopping off branches.”
Courtesy of JSTOR
...and from Ehret, we have:
In the eighteenth century, the British New World colony of South Carolina prospered from the raising and exporting of rice. What does this have to do with linguistics, agriculture and development in the modern day? The answer is a salutary warning against unexamined assumptions: African agricultural technology created the prosperity of colonial Carolina.
Many centuries before, peoples of the Guinea Coast of Africa evolved a sophisticated and highly efficient technology for growing abundant crops of African rice, Oryza glaberima. Taking advantage of the tidal estuaries of rivers flowing into the Atlantic, they built levees and channels to redirect the ebb and flow of the tides onto their fields. Before the planting season, African farmers channeled to their fields salty seawater flowing into the estuaries at high tide. Some days or weeks later, they let fresh water flow onto the plots: the salty water had killed the weeds and seeds, and then the fresh water washed away the salty water and leached the salt from the soil. At the same time, it deposited a fresh layer of silt, enriching the soil for the rice crop to be planted.
Carolina planters gained access to this technology in the eighteenth century by importing experts from the Guinea Coast. But unlike modern-day expatriate advisers, these experts crossed the Atlantic not as a privileged group but as slaves, and so their seminal role in colonial Carolina agriculture long remained unnoticed. Only in the past twenty years, through the work of scholars, such as Professor Judith Carney and Dr. Edda Fields, has their contribution finally begun to gain the recognition it has long deserved.
The story of the Guinea Coast rice farmers is simply one example of the immense diversity of African agricultural inventiveness over the long course of history-and a relatively late example at that. We now know that the history of cultivation and livestock-raising in Africa extends almost 11,000 years ago. By 8500 BCE, at about the same time as peoples in the Middle East began for the first time to cultivate wheat and barley, African communities living more than 1,000 kilometres to the south separately and independently became the earliest known raisers of cattle in the world. By around 7000-6000 BCE, the descendants of these first cattle keepers started also to cultivate crops. The early staple of their "Sudanic" agriculture was sorghum, now a crop of almost worldwide importance (see photos, courtesy of the author).
Still another independent invention of agriculture took place in West Africa among early inhabitants speaking languages of the Niger-Congo family. The West African cultivation ideas are also very old, possibly dating as long ago as 9000-7000 BCE. The early staple of this agriculture was probably the Guinea yam, but West African farmers also domesticated a number of other crops, now well known outside Africa, including okra and black-eyed peas (cow-peas). Over the past 4,000 years in the more western parts of West Africa, another crop, African rice, replaced yams in importance.
Archaeology provides part of our knowledge of this history, but a great many areas of Africa remain still poorly known to archaeologists. So, in African historical studies, scholars have turned increasingly to linguistic reconstruction of the past.
How does language evidence reveal history? Every language, by its very nature, is a historical archive. The documents in this archive are the words that make up the vocabulary of the language and each word has a history of its own. A particular word may have been in use through many ancestral stages in the language's history, or it may have come into use only at some intermediate stage. In that case, it might derive from an existing older word in the language: for example, in English, "worker" was coined by adding a suffix to the much older verb, "work". Alternatively, a word might first have come into use as a word borrowed (adopted) from another language.
Every language has a huge vocabulary capable of expressing the full range of the knowledge and culture of its speakers. If, for example, we can show that a word meaning "cow" goes far back in a language's history, we then know that the people have known about cows for all that time. Conversely, when a word is borrowed from one language to another, the reason may be that the item named by the word is also new. For instance, the English term banana was borrowed from Portuguese, which in turned came from one of several African languages of the Guinea Coast that have this word. The history of the word banana reveals the route of the spread of the fruit: from West Africa via the Portuguese to the English and other Europeans. The job of the linguistically-trained historian is to uncover large numbers of such individual word histories and then meld their testimony into a coherent story about the past.
Let us turn back to African rice. Botanists tell us that the cultivated kinds of Oryza glaberima originated in the regions of the Inland Delta of the Niger River, in modern-day Mali. On the linguistic side, the oldest root words for rice cultivation in West Africa go back to the proto-Mande language. "Proto-Mande" is our name for the common ancestor language of the widespread Mande branch of the Niger-Congo family. Modern-day Mande languages include Kpelle in Liberia, Mende in Sierra Leone, and Bamana, Malinke and Soninke in Mali. Scholars believe that the proto-Mande language was spoken by a society that lived somewhere in or close to the Inland Delta, just where rice cultivation originated.
- Christopher Ehret, Implications for Agriculture and Development
On that note, the idea of pottery going along with the idea of cultivation contemporaneously should be explored, especially if these pottery are deemed to include types used for cooking purposes...to be taken into consideration with evidential material for cultivating, including tools of various sorts and preserved sites with indicators of cultivating activity.
Ps - Take note that the above weren't casually cited: the first piece largely looks at tooling evidence; the second piece while aware of tooling evidence, looks at the botanical/plantational/floral evidence; and the third piece, while possibly aware of the sort of evidential material that the two aforementioned pieces discuss, gives us a take from a linguistic angle.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
2700-1500BC*..... Gash Group. Agro-pastoral people who cultivate barley along the Gash river up to the Red Sea Hills.
2000 B.C. .......First empire in Northeast Africa: Meluhha Africa is mentioned in Sumerian and Akkadian text .
1500-1200BC......Tihama cultural complex which had sites from Adulis to Saudi Arabia. The pottery indicates that these people were related to the Kerma and C-Croup people of the Middle Nile Valley.
1500-900BC.......Jebel Mokran Group agro-pastoral people enter area and cultivate sorghum.
1370 BC........Rise of Arwe Kingdom includes parts of northeast Africa and Saudi Arabia, probably Punt empire.
1076BC......Za Sebado father of Makeda Ascends throne (of Arwe).
1005BC.....Queen Makeda ascends throne of Arwe.
955BC Ebna Hakim , son of Solomon acends the throne and helps spread Hebrewism.
700/500BC.....Da'amat or Diamet Empire founded. The leaders probably spoke Tigrinya. Introduction of the plough.
100BC......Founding of the Aksum/Axumite Empire.
400AD.....Ezana helps establish Christianity in Ethiopia.
(*It also appears that Puntite speakers lived in Libya. As early as 2500 B.C. , Puntite people migrated into North Africa.
Josephus maintained in Antiquities, that the people of Punt founded Libya. The Bible says "...[T]he Libyans that handle the shield" (Jeremiah 46:9); "Persia, Ethiopia and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet". (Ezekiel 38:5) The Puntites (ancestors of the Semitic speakers??? are mentioned in Egyptian literature as invading this area around 2400 B.C., according to the text of Herkhut, found at Aswan, written during the VIth Dynasty of Egypt.
Some of these early Semitic speaking people probably were the ancestors of the Akkadians, who went on to displace some Sumerian speakers in Mesopotamia.)
posted
^^You need to make that "East Africa", for you've included "sub-Saharan" East African developments in the above. Don't follow skewed works of reactionary Eurocentrism of dividing West Africa into North Africa and "West Africa" with the latter presumably implying "sub-Saharan" West Africa...while not applying the same rule for the eastern corner. Can't be overemphasized!
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ^^You need to make that "East Africa", for you've included "sub-Saharan" East African developments in the above. Don't follow skewed works of reactionary Eurocentrism of dividing West Africa into North Africa and "West Africa" with the latter presumably implying "sub-Saharan" West Africa...while not applying the same rule for the eastern corner. Can't be overemphasized!
A agree in many respects to your comments. I did not make it East Africa because historical events in the countries below Ethiopia and Somalia were somewhat different from events in Northeast Africa.
The only reason I included discussion of Nubia was the fact that much of the archaeology for the area has the present inhabitants moving into the country from Nubia-Sudan.
It is my personal opinion that much of Ethiopia-Somalia was early settled by Cushite speakers. This is supported by the fact that the Semitic word for plough is of Cushitic origin.
It is clear that the people of the Middle East have usually adopted what ever language was popular in the region. When the Sumerians ruled, they adopted Sumerian. Upon Akkadian rule it was Akkadian. Now they speak Arabic. For this reason many people make a mistake when they see Semitic speakers as inhabiting the Middle East 15,000 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ^^You need to make that "East Africa", for you've included "sub-Saharan" East African developments in the above. Don't follow skewed works of reactionary Eurocentrism of dividing West Africa into North Africa and "West Africa" with the latter presumably implying "sub-Saharan" West Africa...while not applying the same rule for the eastern corner. Can't be overemphasized!
A agree in many respects to your comments. I did not make it East Africa because historical events in the countries below Ethiopia and Somalia were somewhat different from events in Northeast Africa.
You've just agreed to something you didn't understand. I'm telling you that Ethiopia and Somalia are in the "sub-Saharan" region!
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yes, 'Northeast' Africa is east Africa north of the Sahara, is all that Mystery was pointing out.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^Yes, 'Northeast' Africa is east Africa north of the Sahara, is all that Mystery was pointing out.
I would call that East North Africa. Northeast Africa is a synonym for the Horn of Africa and just means the part of Africa in its "upper right corner" (i.e. it can be used as a synonym or to mean Egypt, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa, or more broadly including Chad and Libya).
quote:Concluding Remarks: Horn of Africa or Northeast Africa!
It remains for me now to bring up a final matter that I tabled at the beginning of this discourse. It has to do with the nomenclature, “ Horn of Africa”. First, I acknowledge my own mea culpa for having used it for decades without critical examination or reflection. But now, on second thought I am of the view that “ Horn of Africa” is a term that caricatures the history, dignity and identity of the peoples of the region. Let me indulge the audience with an on the spot question to participants here who hail originally form Northeast Africa. Who goes about saying proudly, “I am or come from the Horn of Africa?” If so, would you raise your hands? Let the record show that no hands were raised. Horn of Africa is NOT a designation freely chosen by the indigenous peoples of Northeast Africa. Its origins are external. It may sound catchy or cute for others but it is meaningless for Africans. It is not even a historical, geographic or cartographic descriptive term. Africa has rhinoceros, but it has no horn or horns. Florida is not called the Tail of America; so, why is Northeast Africa called the “horn” of Africa? As Reverend Jesse Jackson puts it, “Who ever defines you also confines you!” It is time for the people of Northeast Africa to define or redefine themselves as well as their region as some have done with names of their countries at times of independence from colonial rule. It is understandable that for the course and conduct of this conference, the sorry expression, “Horn of Africa” is being used. However, here and now I respectfully propose that henceforth, those of us who deal with the region as academics, cease and desist from using the jinx known as “Horn of Africa”. Until such time that the peoples of the region adopt a mutually acceptable geographical appellation for their locale, let us refer to it simply as Northeast Africa. At least this is an innocuous geographic/ cartographic reference to the region. Meanwhile, to paraphrase Debela Olana, commenting recently on the mushrooming controversy on holding this conference, “Let the children of Lucy” talk freely with one another in Tampa on confederation in Northeast Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It is my personal opinion that much of Ethiopia-Somalia was early settled by Cushite speakers. This is supported by the fact that the Semitic word for plough is of Cushitic origin.
It is not, actually. I'm not sure where Stuart Munro-Hay got this from (I recall him stating this, and I might have seen it elsewhere, but I can't remember), but the EthioSemitic root Ḥ-R-Ś is Semitic in origin. It is cognate, for instance, to Akkadian eresh.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
^Yes, 'Northeast' Africa is east Africa north of the Sahara, is all that Mystery was pointing out.
I would call that East North Africa. Northeast Africa is a synonym for the Horn of Africa and just means the part of Africa in its "upper right corner" (i.e. it can be used as a synonym or to mean Egypt, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa, or more broadly including Chad and Libya).
So you then agree that "sub-Saharan" west African countries in the same latitudes, many of which are actually in higher latitudes than the African horn are Northwest African countries? If not, why the double standard?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
2700-1500BC*..... Gash Group. Agro-pastoral people who cultivate barley along the Gash river up to the Red Sea Hills.
2000 B.C. .......First empire in Northeast Africa: Meluhha Africa is mentioned in Sumerian and Akkadian text .
1500-1200BC......Tihama cultural complex which had sites from Adulis to Saudi Arabia. The pottery indicates that these people were related to the Kerma and C-Croup people of the Middle Nile Valley.
1500-900BC.......Jebel Mokran Group agro-pastoral people enter area and cultivate sorghum.
1370 BC........Rise of Arwe Kingdom includes parts of northeast Africa and Saudi Arabia, probably Punt empire.
1076BC......Za Sebado father of Makeda Ascends throne (of Arwe).
1005BC.....Queen Makeda ascends throne of Arwe.
955BC Ebna Hakim , son of Solomon acends the throne and helps spread Hebrewism.
700/500BC.....Da'amat or Diamet Empire founded. The leaders probably spoke Tigrinya. Introduction of the plough.
100BC......Founding of the Aksum/Axumite Empire.
400AD.....Ezana helps establish Christianity in Ethiopia.
(*It also appears that Puntite speakers lived in Libya. As early as 2500 B.C. , Puntite people migrated into North Africa.
Josephus maintained in Antiquities, that the people of Punt founded Libya. The Bible says "...[T]he Libyans that handle the shield" (Jeremiah 46:9); "Persia, Ethiopia and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet". (Ezekiel 38:5) The Puntites (ancestors of the Semitic speakers??? are mentioned in Egyptian literature as invading this area around 2400 B.C., according to the text of Herkhut, found at Aswan, written during the VIth Dynasty of Egypt.
Some of these early Semitic speaking people probably were the ancestors of the Akkadians, who went on to displace some Sumerian speakers in Mesopotamia.)
.
Is there actual evidence outside of biblical accounts, of Solomon, and by extension, of this figure having a son? The same could probably be asked about Makeda. It would be best to stick to as much archeologically or scientifically corroborated timeline events or processes as possible.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
^Yes, 'Northeast' Africa is east Africa north of the Sahara, is all that Mystery was pointing out.
I would call that East North Africa. Northeast Africa is a synonym for the Horn of Africa and just means the part of Africa in its "upper right corner" (i.e. it can be used as a synonym or to mean Egypt, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa, or more broadly including Chad and Libya).
So you then agree that "sub-Saharan" west African countries in the same latitudes, many of which are actually in higher latitudes than the African horn are Northwest African countries? If not, why the double standard?
Yes and no. All West African countries are Northwest African countries, thanks to the Bay of Benin/Biafra & the South Atlantic. Whereas in East Africa, there's no such chunk taken out of Africa by the Indian Ocean. You can travel due south from Gonder to central Mozambique without hitting water, whereas West Africa is all north of the equator; the southernmost part of Ethiopia lies below all of it (and much of Somalia does).
Edit: Clyde, the Tihama Cultural Complex, if it is to be maintained (it's Fattovich's suggestion and some disagree) includes not only Adulis but all of Eritrea and Tigray.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adjustments or corrections to my earlier presentation:
Taking info from here and there, undoubtedly the E-M215 (E3b) occurred before the branching off either E-M2 (E3a) and E-M78 (E3b1), with E3a splitting relatively earlie prior to E3b1, presumably somewhere in the Sahara, perhaps central or eastern Sahara.
I'll use Semino et al. 2004 as an example, simply because they provide dates for E-M96 family. According to them, E3a split ~ 18.8 ky ago, while E3b1 ~ 14.9 ky ago.
From Cruciani et al. 2007, we are told:
"A north-eastern African origin for haplogroup E-M78 implies that E-M215 (E3b) chromosomes were introduced in north-eastern Africa from eastern Africa in the Upper Paleolithic, between 23.9ky ago (the upper bound for E-M215 TMRCA in eastern Africa) and 17.3ky ago (the lower bound for E-M78 TMRCA here estimated)"
So that...
CHRONOLOGY OF ANCIENT WEST AFRICA
From 30,600 to 10,000 BC: "A cultural flow, from the southeast of Subsaharan Africa and to the Sahara, could explain the diffusion of the microlithic industries all the way through West Africa. We observe them initially in Cameroon at Shum Laka (30.600-29.000 BC), then at the Ivory Coast in Bingerville (14.100-13.400 BC), in Nigeria in Iwo Eleru (11.460-11.050 BC), and finally in Ounjougou (phase 1, 10th millennium BC)."[see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
23,000 BP ~ 25000 BC: "After a favourable climatic period, characterised by relatively dense and diversified Palaeolithic occupations, the arid Ogolian begins locally around 23000 years BP and is represented at Ounjougou by a significant depositional and archaeological hiatus." [see: Aziz Ballouche]
At some time at more or less 18.8 ky ago, E3a carriers trace their common recent ancestor back to this period. In the meantime, if Goncalves et al.'s words are any indicator go by, E-M33 (E1) carriers, also ancestral to contemporary West Africans, were likely already in Western regions of the Sahara and the Sahel prior to any significant presence of E3a carriers in west Africa...
The prescence in Portugal of both the A and E1 haplogroups may be independent from the slave trade (otherwise E3a would be well represented since it comprises the majority of West African lineages). These findings either suggest a pre-neolithic migration from North Africa or a more recent origin from a founder population of small size that did not carry haplogroup E3a, which is a major component in North African populations today. TMRCA for Portuguese E1 lineages estimated as 22.9 +/- 7.2 ky favors the first scenario..." - Goncalves et al
After 12,000 BCE: Beginning of a wetter phase in Africa north of the equator. Populations ancestral to most West Africans make up the foragers and hunters of these lands.
10th millennium BC: At Ounjougou - "It is not until the Holocene and the return of humid climatic conditions, beginning in the 10th millennium BC, that it is possible to again observe evidence of human occupation."[see: Aziz Ballouche]
"Consequently, it has to be seen in the context of heavy rainfalls and a resettlement of the vegetation cover, during the 10th millennium BC, that a new population arrives on the Plateau of Bandiagara."[see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
Between 10th and 9th millennia BC: "Some charcoal are present at the transition between the 10th and 9th millennia BC, but it is currently impossible to determine if it is of anthropic origin or natural."[see: Aziz Ballouche]
The 10,000 and 9,000 BC (Phase 1 of the Holocene in Ounjougou): "The first sedimentary sequence of the Holocene can be observed at the Ravin de la Mouche. It's a channel dug into yellow Pleistocene silt and filled with coarse grained sand and pebbles. As a chronological reference for the upper levels of this early Holocene site, we hold ten radiocarbon dates between 9400 and 8400 BCcal. The associated lithic industry evidences predominantly a unidirectional mode of debitage. But also other technologies, such as bipolar on anvil or multidirectional, have been applied by the Early Holocene population. The raw material mainly used was quartz. The typological range consists of small retouched flakes, geometric microliths and perçoirs, but also of continuously retouched bifacial arrowheads and backed points."[see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
"by" 11,000 years BP ~ by 9000 BC:
"The age of the sediment in which they were found suggests that the six ceramic fragments discovered between 2002 and 2005 are at least 11,400 years old. Most ancient ceramics from the Middle East and the central and eastern Sahara regions are 10,000 and between 9-10,000 years old, respectively." [see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
by the 'beginning' of 8,000 BC: "Outstandingly, there has been evidence of the presence of pottery and seed grinding implements since at least the beginning of the 8th millennium BC. It is therefore the oldest siteThe eighth millennium (Phase 2 of the Holocene in Ounjougou) known of this socio-economic type in sub-Saharan Africa...
The pottery and the seed grinding implements of phase 2 of Ounjougou are the oldest artefacts of this type known at present in sub-Saharan Africa. To current knowledge, the pottery of Ounjougou could either have been invented in the actual sudano-sahelian zone or been imported from the Central Sahara, where there has been evidence since the ninth millennium BC. Still, the oldest pottery known in the Sahara, from the site of Tagalagal in Niger, is already quite diversified at the moment of its appearance, possibly meaning that the technique has been introduced.
The lithic industry of the phases 1 and 2 on the other hand shows similarities to both more southern and Saharan industries. Quartz microliths, obtained through bipolar debitage on anvil, are a characteristic of the Westafrican technocomplex according to Kevin MacDonald. Bifacially retouched arrowheads, in contrast, are specific for Saharan production." [see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
"The eighth millennium (Phase 2 of the Holocene in Ounjougou): The subsequent Holocene sequence is well documented by two principal sites, the Ravin du Hibou and Damatoumou. The archaeological levels can be quite clearly chronologically placed by means of a date obtained through OSL measurements (9420±410 Ka) and seven radiocarbon dates (between 8000 and 7000 BCcal). The lithic industry, exclusively quartz, is characterised by unidirectional, bidirectional and peripheral debitage, as well as by bipolar on anvil. There are essentially microlithic tools: perçoirs, backed points, notched pieces, denticulates, scrapers, retouched flakes and geometric microliths. Some small bifacially retouched arrowheads were also found on those sites. At the Ravin du Hibou, seven sherds have been found during excavation. They are heavily fragmented and thus preventing the reconstruction of the form of the vessels. Quartz has always been used as a temper. In just a single case, grog has been used in addition. Two shards show identifiable decorations. Two different techniques have been used: A rolled impression, possibly made with a peigne fileté souple or with a cordelette, and a simple comb impression. There were also seed grinding implements discovered at the Ravin du Hibou, a fragment of a seed grinding stone and a cylindrical upper grinding stone." [see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
By about 8,000 BCE: Great lakes formed in Niger Bend, Lake Chad and Upper Nile regions. Spread of 'African aquatic culture' through this 'great lakes' region. Sedentary fishing communities using pottery and microlithic tools become established long the shores of lakes and rivers. Saharan region enjoys savanna-type climate. Favorable conditions lead to population growth.
9,000 to 6,000 BCE: Saharan region in its wettest phases.
By 6,000 BCE: Evidence of domesticated 'humpless' cattle in the Saharan region. Also seed-cropping (or harvesting) of grains.
6,000-2,500 BCE: Spread of predominantly cattle-raising peoples throughout the Sahara. Probably ancestral to modern-day Berber groups.
By the 5,000 BC and 2,000 BC: The bifacially retouched arrowheads are exclusively made of quartzitic sandstone. Typologically, they can be associated to Saharan ones. These are usually very rarely found south of the Sahara, and give evidence of a North/South contact. Two phases can be distinguished: a first around the fifth millennium BC, and a second around the third and second millennium BC. The latter evidence of contact between the Sahara and sub-Saharan West Africa is most likely linked to the beginning of the current arid phase.
The analysis of the tools and debitage waste showed that it was a very specialized workshop. Only bifacially retouched arrowheads were produced. The entire chaîne opératoire could be reconstructed. [see: Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa]
Between 4000 BC and 1000 BC: At Tichitt-Walata - "Before 2000 BC, what is today the southern Sahara was inhabited by significant numbers of herders and farmers. On the rocky promontories of the Tichitt-Walata (Birou) and Tagant Plateaus in modern day Mauritania, they built what are considered among the earliest known civilizations in western Africa. Composed of more than 400 stone masonry settlements, with clear street layouts, some settlements had massive surrounding walls while others were less fortified. In a deteriorating environment, where arable land and pasturage were at a premium, the population grew and relatively large-scale political organizations emerged - factors which no doubt explain the homogeneity of architecture, settlement patterns, and material culture (e.g., lithic and ceramic traditions). This agro-pastoral society traded in jewelry and semi-precious stones from distant parts of the Sahara and Sahel, while crafts, hunting, and fishing were also important economic pursuits...Their elites built funerary monuments for themselves over a period extending from 4000 to 1000 BC." [sources: see Ray A. Kea, and Mauny, R. (1971), “The Western Sudan” in Shinnie: 66-87. Monteil, Charles (1953), “La Légende du Ouagadou et l’Origine des Soninke” in Mélanges Ethnologiques (Dakar: Bulletin del’Institut Francais del’Afrique Noir)]
By 3,000 BC: Evidence of iron working and production in West Africa.
"In fact, only in Africa do you find such a range of practices in the process of direct reduction [a method in which metal is obtained in a single operation without smelting],and metal workers who were so inventive that they could extract iron in furnaces made out of the trunks of banana trees," says Hamady Bocoum, one of the authors. [references: The Origins of Iron Metallurgy in Africa, 2002; "Iron Roads in Africa" project c/o UNESCO]
3,000-1,000 BCE: Farming spreads through the former fishing belt of the tropical woodland savannas and forest margins of West Africa. This Guinea Neolithic era saw the domestication of millets, rice, sorghum, yams, and palm trees among others.
From ca. 3,000 BCE: Proto-Bantu speakers having originated in the Nigerian-Cameroon border region expand to the equatorial forests of the Congo region. There were supposedly two streams of this expansion: Presumably the western [and earlier movement] stream and the eastern one.
After 2,500 BCE: Saharan region enters a period of rapid desertification, driving people and larger game animals to seek better watered lands to the north and south for habitation. Neolithic settlements spread along the Saharan borderlands and near rivers and lakes in the West.
1,200-700 BCE: Excavations at Dar Tichitt (modern Mauritania) reveal progression from large, un-walled lakeside villages to smaller walled hilltop villages in response to drier climate and increasing pressure from nomads.
After 2,000 BCE: Favorable climatic conditions and developing technology and socio-cultural systems lead to population growth in the Niger valleys. Neolithic farming spreading south and east from the area of modern-day Cameroon. Probably associated with speakers of proto-Bantu languages.
After 500 BCE: Height of the civilization known as Nok, which produced art work ancestral to that of later Yoruba and lgbo peoples.
"By" 250 BC: "The earliest occupants of Jenne-Jeno (c. 250 BC - 50 AD) possessed iron and had a subsistence base that was predominantly aquatic, e.g. waterfowl and fish, although bovids are also found that are possible those of the domestic Bos taurus (McIntosh & McIntosh 1981: 15" - courtesy of Mikey Brass
By ca. 1 BC: Ancestors of contemporary coastal Northwest African Afrasan/"Berber" speakers arrive in coastal Northwest Africa.[see Luis et al., 2004- but rather questionable, given pictographic and textual accounts of AEs]
WEST AFRICA: C. 800 BCE TO 1591 AD/CE
By 800 BCE Neolithic agricultural peoples inhabit the best lands of the savanna and forest margins. Regional trade networks based on the exchange of salt, fish, pottery, and other regional specialties developing. Small, clan-based villages typical of agricultural areas. Nomads dominate in the drier areas.
-800 to -500 Development of Carthage in the north stimulates exchanges of products across the Sahara Desert, managed by desert Berbers using horses, oxen and chariots. Iron use psreads into the region from the north or east, or both. Larger scale settlements appearing in southern Mauritania. the middle Niger River basin, and the Jos plateau region. These areas correspond respectively to the probable ancestral homes of the modern Soninke (northern Mande); Songhai; and Yoruba peoples.
-500 to -200 Iron use spreads rapidly throughout West Africa, stimulating population growth, trade, and urbanization. Iron-age peoples of Nok (modern Nigeria) produce magnificent terra cotta sculptures stylistically ancestral to later Yoruba and Benin art. Indirect trade continues across increasingly well-marked Saharan trails, still traversed by horse or ox-drawn vehicles.
-800 to +200 Era of Nok civilization. Bantu expansion 'takes off' to the south and east. Earliest towns, such as Jenne, growing up along the Niger on its most northerly stretch.
-100 to +100 Camel use reaches the western Sahara via Berbers living in its southern reaches.
c.100 to 400 CE: Camel using Saharan Berber peoples, such as the Taureg and Sanhaja, develop trans-Saharan trade routes, linking the Maghrib and West Africa directly for the first time. Salt, copper, gold, dates, slaves, agricultural produce, manufactured goods and ivory among the goods exchanged. Soninke-led Ghana, Songhai-led Gao grow as middlemen for the expanding commerce. Trade routes also link Nigeria and Lake Chad to North Africa.
On a side note: "The historical records of Ghana come from Arab sources dating between 800 and 1650 AD, but Ghana had been in existence for long before then and was centred in the present-day Sahal region of south-eastern Mauritania and western Mali. (Munson 1980: 457)" - courtesy of Mikey Brass
^Truth is, Ghanaian complex actual age is still obscure, but by 100 CE it was already in place.
400 to 900 Ghana, with its capital at Kumbi Saleh, becomes the first regional "great power." With their control over the southern end of the trans-Saharan trade and the northern end of the gold trade, the Ghana of Wagadu can afford the cavalry necessary to enforce his rule throughout the lands between the Niger and the Senegal Rivers. The trans-Saharan boom stimulates the growth of regional trade in copper, iron and other goods, both agricultural and manufactured.
750 to 1000 Muslim merchants from the North become a major force in trans-Saharan and West African commerce. Islam spreads to Takrur and Ghana. Among the Kanuri of Lake Chad, the Sefawa family founds a dynasty who will rule Kanem for a thousand years. The trans-Saharan trade grows rapidly along with the expansion of the Islamic world. Artists of Igbo Ukwu in southern Nigeria produce fine works in bronze.
ca.1000 Foundation of Ife, the political and spiritual capital of the Yoruba.
1054 to 1070 Almoravid Sanhaja establish control over trans-Saharan routes from the borders of Ghana to Morocco, greatly weakening Ghana.
11th & 12th c. Several Sudannic kings convert to Islam. Commerce in the Sudan gradually comes to be dominated by Muslims, both of local and north African origin.
13th c. Rise of Mali under the great Mande hero, Sundiata Keita. Ghana incorporated into the new great power. From its new capital at Niane on the Niger, Mali develops trade with the developing gold fields of the Akan in modern-day Ghana.
14th c Empire of Mali dominates the Western half of West Africa, controlling the gold and salt trade; promoting Islam; and providing peace and prosperity to its region. Mansa Musa, the best known ruler of Mali, made the pilgrimage to Mecca.
15th c. Mali suffers dynastic difficulties and economic challenges as the gold fields move further south and east. Songhai gains strength. Portuguese merchants begin trading directly with the Akan along the coast of modern Ghana.
16th c. Songhai, with its capital at Gao replaces Mali as the imperial power of West Africa. Islamic learning flourishes with government patronage in the university town of Timbuktu.
However long it takes, I'll keep building on the above, and put together sequence of processes and events in other parts of the continent.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
It is not, actually. I'm not sure where Stuart Munro-Hay got this from (I recall him stating this, and I might have seen it elsewhere, but I can't remember), but the EthioSemitic root Ḥ-R-Ś is Semitic in origin. It is cognate, for instance, to Akkadian eresh.
Ehret claimed that the Semitic people got the word for plow from the Cushitic speakers.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I thought Ehret's premise was that Semitic-speaking people developed their own word for plow in Africa (where they originated) since they developed agriculture there.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
"It was not possible to get a radiometric age for any style: the chemical tests on some samples of paintings did not detect enough organic material to allow 14C dates. So we did not continue with the samplings. We have dated the paintings on the basis of depicted weapons and texts (Fig. 11)."
...and go onto say:
"The most ancient, the Dancers’ Style, belongs to an early or medium Bronze Age (3,800-3,200 BP), as the depiction of halberds shows. The most recent, the Lineal Style, should be dated between 2,400 BP and the beginning of the Christian era (or still later) because of the presence of Lybico-Berber texts and the lack of camels. The chronology of the Shaped, Stroked and Dark Figure styles lies between the ages of the Dancers and the Lineal styles. Finally, there is also a unique ancient Arabic text, which might represent the historic ages after the XVth century AD.
All but the Lineal Style depict similar subjects although not the same themes. In the Dancers’ Style, the processions of people, which carry throwing-sticks and seem to dance, constitute the most typical theme. There are also people with bovines depicted and meetings in which children are also present. In the Shaped Style, depictions of very dynamic people and very realistic bicolour antelopes are found. In its Outlined sub-style, only antelopes, giraffes, bovines and ostriches are depicted, always in large dimensions (more than one meter long). The same kinds of animals and with similar sizes are depicted in the Stroked Style in which series of giraffes are the most typical theme. In the Dark Figures style, men, women, gazelles, elephants and small quadrupeds (maybe dogs) are depicted. The compositions are always organized in lines of these main subjects. The main theme is a series of small gazelles (each one being about 10cm long). Another common theme among the Dark Figures style is the hunting of an elephant. Some bicolour gazelles longer than one meter belong to this style too. Finally, in the Lineal Style, non-figurative images and very schematized humans and quadrupeds are depicted. In this style, the typical pan-Saharan theme of an ostrich hunted by two horsemen is also found. The Lybico-Berber texts belong to this latest style.
Regarding the relation between paintings and engravings in the Western Sahara, we think that it is possible to link a pictorial style with a style of engravings. As the comparison of the images shows, the Dancers’ Style, the most ancient, can be related to the Tazina Style of engravings on the basis of the human depictions, morphologically very similar in both styles. In the examples coming from the Wadi Ben Sacca (Milburn 1971) and the Meicateb well (Mateu 1945-46) all the figures have bent legs, always ahead of the body, and unstable positions, with L-shaped feet and fingers on their hands. Although the following are not strictly stylistic elements, in both cases humans carry similar weapons, skirts and headdress too. So the research on the paintings of the Zemmur indicates that the Tazina engravings might also be dated to the early Bronze Age.
Discussion and conclusions
At the beginning of the research we assumed that most of the pictures belonged to prehistoric times because they depicted elephants and rhinoceros and people were carrying bows. We thought so because many researchers tend to use the presence of those animals and weapons as evidence to consider these kinds of depictions as very ancient ones, anterior to 4,000 BP. Around that period, a progressive aridification might have begun and those researchers guess that those animals could not live in the Western Sahara anymore. Our later research has shown that most of the images of the Zemmur are certainly prehistoric but also demonstrate that the use of those species as dating elements could be misleading. It is true that many of them were extinct in the area many centuries ago, some of them before the Christian era, as we know from the classic and Arabic sources. But it is also true that they still lived in the Western Sahara in the Bronze Age and later. For example, an elephant and a rhinoceros appear in a panel with people carrying swords, which are recent weapons.
So we must conclude that in the Western Sahara the presence of those species does not automatically assign a date previous to 4,000 BP to the style in which they are depicted. At least in the Western Sahara, we should not use the depictions of those wild animals as reliable dating elements.
The depiction of some weapons like bows and throwing sticks has been used in a similar way. In our opinion this should be avoided too, at least in the Western Sahara, where people using throwing sticks and bows appear at the same time and later than people carrying halberds. On the other hand, swords, spears and shields always appear related to the most recent style, the Lineal Style, itself related to Lybico-Berber inscriptions.
Because very few archaeological excavations have been done in the Western Sahara, we still have no clear and safe sequence of the prehistoric cultures that occupied the region. As a consequence, it is difficult to link any of the rock art remains with a prehistoric culture. If we could obtain an absolute radiometric age for any of the styles, it would still be difficult to relate it with any cultural period or other material remains. Thus, two of the major problems concerning the Zemmur paintings – the interpretation and the cultural identity of their authors – still remain unresolved.
We can also conclude that most of the prehistoric painting styles of the Western Sahara are different from those in the central Sahara. However this mainly applies to the technical side of the styles. On the other hand, the subjects and some themes are similar to those depicted in some Écoles du Bovidien Final (Iheren-Tahilahi, Ouan Amil and Ti-n-Anneuin) in the central Sahara (Muzzolini 1995). The dates we propose here for the rock-paintings of the Zemmur agree with the ones Muzzolini proposed for the Écoles du Bovidien Final too.
Some of these newly-defined styles are found only in the Zemmur rock-shelters but this fact could change soon as the research continues further.
quote: What languages did the "ancient Libyans" speak, and at what time frame are you contextualizing "ancient Libyans". I find it interesting that you take issue with "Berbers", which I can understand to the extent that the said people don't actually call themselves such - term imposed on them by foreigners, but that you find it convenient to use "Libyans"[presumably a development of the term 'Libou'], a term I highly doubt was known to the said ancient folks.
Why do you presume "ancient Libyans" are not to be linked with contemporary "Berber" speaking groups who occupy the same regions that these "ancient Libyans" occupied?
Mande,Tamasheq,Tebu,Kemetic,Kushite,Greek, Phoenician and others. These languages would definately have to be spoken by the inhabitants of Ancient Northwest Africa which was called Libya back then.
Herodotus wrote:
quote:Libya indeed is said by most of the Hellenes to have its name from Libya a woman of that country , and Asia from the wife of Prometheus: but this last name is claimed by the Lydians, who say that Asia has been called after Asias the son of Cotys the son of Manes, and not from Asia the wife of Prometheus; and from him too they say the Asian tribe in Sardis has its name
Wikipedia quote
quote:To the Ancient Greeks, Libya was one of the three known continents besides, Asia and Europe. In this sense, Libya was the whole African continent to the west of the Nile Valley. Herodotus distinguished the inhabitants of Libya into two people: The libyans in North Africa and the Etheopians [sic] in the south. According to Herodotus, Libya begins where the Ancient Egypt ends, and ends in Cape Spartel in the south of Tangier on the Atlantic coast.
Libya was a landmass so the native inhabitants of Libya would be called LIBYANS. When the Romans invaded they divided the landmass on a political basis. Libyans cannot all be lumped under the 'Berber' ruse because we know that the inhabitants of the landmass called Libya back then were NOT all Berbers noting today that Berber is considered a language group, no historical writer makes the claim that all Libyans speak the same language.
Tamasheq speakers (Tuareg) via writing script similarities and lifestyle behavior, show connections to Numida though the modern day Tebou peoples of Chad show a strong connection to the Garamantees and Nasammonians via lifestyle similarities. Tebu and Tamasheq (Tuareg) DO NOT speak the same language, though they show lifestyle similarities with two groups of Libyans. The Mazigh is said to be a derivative of Maxyes Libyans though the Maxyes Libyans claimed to be descended from ancient Trojans.
Herodotus
quote: On the West of the river Triton next after the Auseans come Libyans who are tillers of the soil, and whose custom it is to possess fixed habitations; and they are called Maxyans . They grow their hair long on the right side of their heads and cut it short upon the left, and smear their bodies over with red ochre. These say that they are of the men who came from Troy .
Berberism is a ignorant concept and cannot be used for Ancient Northwest Afrika called Libya back then. Northwest Afrika before the Roman invasion was called Libya, so we should call the inhabitants of this area before the Roman invasion, Ancient Libyans and not Berbers.
quote: On the West of the river Triton next after the Auseans come Libyans who are tillers of the soil, and whose custom it is to possess fixed habitations; and they are called Maxyans . They grow their hair long on the right side of their heads and cut it short upon the left, and smear their bodies over with red ochre. These say that they are of the men who came from Troy .
Berberism is a ignorant concept and cannot be used for Ancient Northwest Afrika called Libya back then. Northwest Afrika before the Roman invasion was called Libya, so we should call the inhabitants of this area before the Roman invasion, Ancient Libyans and not Berbers.
Hotep
These legends of Trojan invasions would probably correspond with the invasions of the Sea peoples as recorded in Km.t.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the West of the river Triton next after the Auseans come Libyans who are tillers of the soil, and whose custom it is to possess fixed habitations; and they are called Maxyans . They grow their hair long on the right side of their heads and cut it short upon the left, and smear their bodies over with red ochre. These say that they are of the men who came from Troy .
Berberism is a ignorant concept and cannot be used for Ancient Northwest Afrika called Libya back then. Northwest Afrika before the Roman invasion was called Libya, so we should call the inhabitants of this area before the Roman invasion, Ancient Libyans and not Berbers.
Hotep
These legends of Trojan invasions would probably correspond with the invasions of the Sea peoples as recorded in Km.t.
They may not necessarily been Sea peoples, if you remember there was a contingent of Kushites that fought at Troy led by Memnon. They could be representatives of these folks
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: What languages did the "ancient Libyans" speak, and at what time frame are you contextualizing "ancient Libyans". I find it interesting that you take issue with "Berbers", which I can understand to the extent that the said people don't actually call themselves such - term imposed on them by foreigners, but that you find it convenient to use "Libyans"[presumably a development of the term 'Libou'], a term I highly doubt was known to the said ancient folks.
Why do you presume "ancient Libyans" are not to be linked with contemporary "Berber" speaking groups who occupy the same regions that these "ancient Libyans" occupied?
Mande,Tamasheq,Tebu,Kemetic,Kushite,Greek, Phoenician and others. These languages would definately have to be spoken by the inhabitants of Ancient Northwest Africa which was called Libya back then.
So then you are saying that ancient North Africans can be linked to modern "Berber" speakers, right?
What evidence do you have, that "Egyptic" was spoken West of "Kemet", the nation?
What specific timeframe and primary text(s) are you basing the other language groups in the said region?
quote:Hotep2u:
Herodotus wrote:
quote:Libya indeed is said by most of the Hellenes to have its name from Libya a woman of that country , and Asia from the wife of Prometheus: but this last name is claimed by the Lydians, who say that Asia has been called after Asias the son of Cotys the son of Manes, and not from Asia the wife of Prometheus; and from him too they say the Asian tribe in Sardis has its name
Wikipedia quote
quote:To the Ancient Greeks, Libya was one of the three known continents besides, Asia and Europe. In this sense, Libya was the whole African continent to the west of the Nile Valley. Herodotus distinguished the inhabitants of Libya into two people: The libyans in North Africa and the Etheopians [sic] in the south. According to Herodotus, Libya begins where the Ancient Egypt ends, and ends in Cape Spartel in the south of Tangier on the Atlantic coast.
Libya was a landmass so the native inhabitants of Libya would be called LIBYANS. When the Romans invaded they divided the landmass on a political basis.
"Libya" would have been part of the the landmass now known as "Africa". The question which your entire post never addressed was this: ...at what time frame are you contextualizing "ancient Libyans"?
What specific primary ancient text(s) attests to the word "Libya" as you have spelt it, and specifically by whom? I highly doubt even the ancient Greeks, including Herodotus used "Libyans". Who coined the term, Africans themselves or outsiders?
quote:Hotep2u:
Libyans cannot all be lumped under the 'Berber' ruse because we know that the inhabitants of the landmass called Libya back then were NOT all Berbers noting today that Berber is considered a language group, no historical writer makes the claim that all Libyans speak the same language.
"Libyans" cannot be contextualized without timeframe specifics, and the specific terms used within these specified timeframes. In none of your statements, have you yet contextualized accordingly, even though "Libya" is repeatedly stated. "Berber" is a linguistic construct of the Eurocentric world; thinking out of this context for the term, would cause one to misinform him/herself and mistake it for a 'ruse', unless one is prepared to disagree with the whole concept of closely related Afrasan 'languages' brought under the "Berber" umbrella.
quote:Hotep2u:
Tamasheq speakers (Tuareg) via writing script similarities and lifestyle behavior, show connections to Numida though the modern day Tebou peoples of Chad show a strong connection to the Garamantees and Nasammonians via lifestyle similarities.
Tuaregs, who you acknowledge as Tamasheq speakers, belong to the same language family as the northcoastal "Berbers", who generally refer to themselves Tamazigh/mazigh in some enunciation or another, something that you seem to ignore for an unexplained reason. These coastal "Berber" groups in the past used scripts that shared the same structure and form as the ancestral script to the Tuareg Tifinagh. So naturally, all these people in question must have had connections with "Numidians".
quote:Hotep2u:
Herodotus
quote: On the West of the river Triton next after the Auseans come Libyans who are tillers of the soil, and whose custom it is to possess fixed habitations; and they are called Maxyans . They grow their hair long on the right side of their heads and cut it short upon the left, and smear their bodies over with red ochre. These say that they are of the men who came from Troy .
Berberism is a ignorant concept and cannot be used for Ancient Northwest Afrika called Libya back then. Northwest Afrika before the Roman invasion was called Libya, so we should call the inhabitants of this area before the Roman invasion, Ancient Libyans and not Berbers.
Hotep
Please demonstrate why "Berber" as a linguistic concept is 'ignorant'. The term is used purely in a linguistic sense, although it obviously didn't come from nowhere; it has an etymology, with origins contextualized quite differently from the linguistic term now used. In that this term denotes a linguistic sub-family, why can't it be used to refer to the history of the groups that belong to this linguistic unit? Do the people who are grouped under this linguistic branch have an 'ancient northwest African' history or not?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Thankyou Takruri. Again, we have speech from those of pure (biased) emotional rhetoric.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: These legends of Trojan invasions would probably correspond with the invasions of the Sea peoples as recorded in Km.t.
Actually, there is evidence that the invasion of Troy which occurred in the Bronze Age was conducted by the Greeks just as described in their Iliad, however you are correct that this event did correspond with the Sea People as there is also evidence mainly from historical accounts of the Greeks themselves that after the assault on Troy some ships of the Greek navy went on pirating raids throughout the eastern Mediterranean to replenish their stock!
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: They may not necessarily been Sea peoples, if you remember there was a contingent of Kushites that fought at Troy led by Memnon. They could be representatives of these folks
Actually Clyde, it's highly unlikely that Memnon and his men were 'Kushites' since as far as we know of Greeks at that time had not direct contact with peoples to the south of the Egyptians. Memnon and his men are only described as 'Ethiopians' or 'Libyans' which only meant African to the Greeks, and since Greeks only had relations with those of the North African coast we can only surmise that Memnon and his men were either Egyptian, or from Libya proper, or even possibly some North African colony in the Aegean.
Besides, by your claims of "Kushite origins" for Anatolians wouldn't the Trojans be 'Kushites' also?! LOLPosts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Thankyou Takruri. Again, we have speech from those of pure (biased) emotional rhetoric.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: These legends of Trojan invasions would probably correspond with the invasions of the Sea peoples as recorded in Km.t.
Actually, there is evidence that the invasion of Troy which occurred in the Bronze Age was conducted by the Greeks just as described in their Iliad, however you are correct that this event did correspond with the Sea People as there is also evidence mainly from historical accounts of the Greeks themselves that after the assault on Troy some ships of the Greek navy went on pirating raids throughout the eastern Mediterranean to replenish their stock!
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: They may not necessarily been Sea peoples, if you remember there was a contingent of Kushites that fought at Troy led by Memnon. They could be representatives of these folks
Actually Clyde, it's highly unlikely that Memnon and his men were 'Kushites' since as far as we know of Greeks at that time had not direct contact with peoples to the south of the Egyptians. Memnon and his men are only described as 'Ethiopians' or 'Libyans' which only meant African to the Greeks, and since Greeks only had relations with those of the North African coast we can only surmise that Memnon and his men were either Egyptian, or from Libya proper, or even possibly some North African colony in the Aegean.
Besides, by your claims of "Kushite origins" for Anatolians wouldn't the Trojans be 'Kushites' also?! LOL
They were Kushites. Finally you got something right about ancient diasperic Black History.
posted
"Libya" is not an English word. It is ultimately a corruption of a word read as "Libou". Matter of fact, this late bastardized version of the latter, was initially applied to the contemporary nation of Libya by not the English, but by the Italians. I wouldn't be surprised if no primary ancient texts ever referred to the term "Libya" or "Libia" - that is to say, in that form.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Jomo here, has mentioned something worth noting, about the E-M81 availability in Sudan, where according to him via correspondence with Underhill, occurred in two individuals who happened to be of Beja extraction...
Apparently, Arredi et al. also took note of this finding, as relayed by Underhill:
Second, just two haplogroups predominate within North Africa, together making up almost two-thirds of the male lineages: E3b2 and J* (42% and 20%, respectively). E3b2 is rare outside North Africa (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004 and references therein), and is otherwise known only from Mali, Niger, and Sudan to the immediate south, and the Near East and Southern Europe at very low frequencies....
The M35 lineage (see the phylogeny in fig. 1A for marker locations) is thought to have arisen in East Africa, on the basis of its high frequency and diversity there (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004), and to have given rise to M81 in North Africa. The TMRCA....E3b2 (2.8-8.2 KY) should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa.....Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, no populations within the North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution.....In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is rare in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.
- Arredi et al., A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa
First let me start with the fact that I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE LINGUISTIC CLASSIFICATION CALLED AFRO-ASIATIC OR AFRASAN.
Linguist have used a word 'Berber' which meant Barbarians in the past to define a area known as Libya in the past, the name Libya evolved into Afrika NOT Barbaria or Barbares. Linguist such as Christopher Ehret are ARROGANT because they go to Africa and try to rename ethnic groups, rewriting the history of Afrikan peoples and distinct Afrikan ethnic groups in the process.
Here is a example of the problem posed by modern day Eurocentrics masquearading as geneticist and linguists.
Excerpt from the book: When We Ruled by Robin Walker
quote: Anthropologist have studied skeletons from the Carthaginian cemeteries. Professor Eugene Pittard, then at the University of Geneva, reported that: "Other bones discovered in Punic Carthage, and housed in the Lavigerie Museum, come from personages found in special sarcophagi and probably belonging to the Carthaginian elite. Almost all the skulls are dolichocephalic." Futhermore, the sarcophagus of the highly venerated Priestess of Tanit, "the most ornate" and "the most artistic yet found," is also housed in the Lavigerie Museum. Pittard says "The woman buried there had Negro features. She belonged to the African race!" Professor Stephane Gsell was the author of the voluminous Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord. Also based on anthropological studies conducted on Carthaginian skeletons, he declared that: "The so called Semitic type, characterised by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not [yet] been found in Carthage".
DNA test and linguistic classification being conducted on populations that inhabit North Afrika today does not take accounts for population movements or displacement, from a historical perspective this failure will only confuse the results obtained. I would agree with Obenga and ignore the nonsense called Afro-Asiatic grouping.
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: Tuaregs, who you acknowledge as Tamasheq speakers, belong to the same language family as the northcoastal "Berbers", who generally refer to themselves Tamazigh/mazigh in some enunciation or another, something that you seem to ignore for an unexplained reason. These coastal "Berber" groups in the past used scripts that shared the same structure and form as the ancestral script to the Tuareg Tifinagh. So naturally, all these people in question must have had connections with "Numidians".
Population displacement has occured in North Africa, so the fact that Tifinagh is found amongst Tamasheq exclusively means the Tamasheq speakers (Imouhar) occupied the area, this is what I take into account, Berbers don't exist in my opinion. I don't accept the Afrasan classification so Berber grouping doesn't exist.
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: Libyans" cannot be contextualized without timeframe specifics, and the specific terms used within these specified timeframes. In none of your statements, have you yet contextualized accordingly, even though "Libya" is repeatedly stated. "Berber" is a linguistic construct of the Eurocentric world; thinking out of this context for the term, would cause one to misinform him/herself and mistake it for a 'ruse', unless one is prepared to disagree with the whole concept of closely related Afrasan 'languages' brought under the "Berber" umbrella
Libya or Libue was a pre-Roman construct, the post-Roman era saw Libue or Libya being divided into other political teritorial entities. North Afrika up until the 2nd Century B.C gave us Libya or Libue while the time period after the 2nd Century B.C. gave us Numidia, Africa etc. Strangely enough Berberia has yet to materialize.
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: Libya" would have been part of the the landmass now known as "Africa". The question which your entire post never addressed was this: ...at what time frame are you contextualizing "ancient Libyans"?
What specific primary ancient text(s) attests to the word "Libya" as you have spelt it, and specifically by whom? I highly doubt even the ancient Greeks, including Herodotus used "Libyans". Who coined the term, Africans themselves or outsiders
Ancient Libyans were the native inhabitants before the 2nd Century B.C. Greeks used Libyes, strangely enough the word Berber was used also to describe Barbarians. according to Herodotus the Greeks were given the name by the natives themselves.
Herodotus wrote:
quote: Libya indeed is said by most of the Hellenes to have its name from Libya a woman of that country
Natives named it after a woman, this should remind you of Timbuctu.
Wikipedia quote:
quote: Timbuktu was established by the nomadic Tuareg perhaps as early as the 10th century. According to a popular etymology its name is made up of: tin which means « place » and buktu, the name of an old Malian woman known for her honesty and who once upon a time lived in the region .
Tamasheq naming conventions showing cultural similarities with Ancient Libyans (Libyes).
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: So then you are saying that ancient North Africans can be linked to modern "Berber" speakers, right?
What evidence do you have, that "Egyptic" was spoken West of "Kemet", the nation?
What specific timeframe and primary text(s) are you basing the other language groups in the said region?
I don't acknowledge Berbers because the name Berbers originally meant Barbarians.
Wikipedia
quote:The fact that the name Berber is a strange name to the Berbers led to confusion. Some sources claimed that the Berbers are several ethnic groups who are not related to each other. That is not accurate, because the Berbers refer to themselves as Imazighen in Morocco, as well as Libya, Egypt (Siwa) and other parts in North Africa.
Not only the origin of the name Berber is unclear, but also the name Amazigh. The most common explanation is that the name goes back to the Egyptian period when the Ancient Egyptians mentioned an ancient Libyan tribe called Meshwesh. Those Meshwesh are supposed by some scholars to be the same ancient Libyan tribe that was mentioned as Maxyans by the Greek historian Herodotus.
Berber is a ignorant concept.
Kemetic was spoken in the west by a group called they Liby Egyptians by Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Elder
quote: If we pass through the interior of Africa in a southerly direction, beyond the Gætuli, after having traversed the intervening deserts, we shall find, first of all the Liby- Egyptians
Traveling south through the desert would lead to area occupying Modern day Algeria and Mali home of the ancient Liby-Egyptians.
The language groups noted above would be spoken in the areas before the Arabic invasions of North Afrika, which would give us a pre 7th Century A.D. era
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: "Libya" is not an English word. It is ultimately a corruption of a word read as "Libou". Matter of fact, this late bastardized version of the latter, was initially applied to the contemporary nation of Libya by not the English, but by the Italians. I wouldn't be surprised if no primary ancient texts ever referred to the term "Libya" or "Libia" - that is to say, in that form.
LBW, Lebue, Libou choose what ever form makes you happy just remember Berberia Barbaria or whatever is not Libue, LBW, Lebu. Libya evolved into Afrika not Barbaria, why didn't the linguistical writers call the ancient Libyans (Libyes) modern day Afrikans?
DNA test and linguistic classification being conducted on populations that inhabit North Afrika today does not take accounts for population movements or displacement, from a historical perspective this failure will only confuse the results obtained. I would agree with Obenga and ignore the nonsense called Afro-Asiatic grouping.
Agreed
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
DNA test and linguistic classification being conducted on populations that inhabit North Afrika today does not take accounts for population movements or displacement, from a historical perspective this failure will only confuse the results obtained. I would agree with Obenga and ignore the nonsense called Afro-Asiatic grouping.
Agreed
I hope this was an honest mistake; the post you are attributing to me, isn't mine. Please retract my alias from it.
As for Hotep2u, I'll undoubtedly respond to your post later on, on my free time.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
DNA test and linguistic classification being conducted on populations that inhabit North Afrika today does not take accounts for population movements or displacement, from a historical perspective this failure will only confuse the results obtained. I would agree with Obenga and ignore the nonsense called Afro-Asiatic grouping.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: They were Kushites. Finally you got something right about ancient diasperic Black History.
LOL And pray tell, what evidence shows the Trojans or their Hittite predecessors or even their Hattian predecessors as "Kushites"??
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Greetings:
First let me start with the fact that I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE LINGUISTIC CLASSIFICATION CALLED AFRO-ASIATIC OR AFRASAN.
Linguist have used a word 'Berber' which meant Barbarians in the past to define a area known as Libya in the past, the name Libya evolved into Afrika NOT Barbaria or Barbares. Linguist such as Christopher Ehret are ARROGANT because they go to Africa and try to rename ethnic groups, rewriting the history of Afrikan peoples and distinct Afrikan ethnic groups in the process.
So you don't like the language classification simply because of the name 'Berber'?? Names can always be changed; besides, the original meaning of barbarian (Greek barbaroi) simply meant stranger or foreigner and thus no explicitly negative about the term.
Also, since when did Christopher Erhet or any linguist "rename" ethnic groups?? Their only job was to catalouge the languages ethnic groups speak and ascertain the relationships between them. You, or Clyde (or even Obenga) have failed to refute the simple fact that linguistically 'Berber' languages or whatever name you choose are genetically related to Semitic as well as Egyptian and that all three make up a genetic phylum along with Cushitic, Chadic, and Omotic. The exact naming can be issue yes, since the names are obviously given by non-Africans, but how does that refute the linguistic studies themselves?
quote:Here is a example of the problem posed by modern day Eurocentrics masquearading as geneticist and linguists.
Excerpt from the book:
When We Ruled by Robin Walker
Anthropologist have studied skeletons from the Carthaginian cemeteries. Professor Eugene Pittard, then at the University of Geneva, reported that: "Other bones discovered in Punic Carthage, and housed in the Lavigerie Museum, come from personages found in special sarcophagi and probably belonging to the Carthaginian elite. Almost all the skulls are dolichocephalic." Futhermore, the sarcophagus of the highly venerated Priestess of Tanit, "the most ornate" and "the most artistic yet found," is also housed in the Lavigerie Museum. Pittard says "The woman buried there had Negro features. She belonged to the African race!" Professor Stephane Gsell was the author of the voluminous Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord. Also based on anthropological studies conducted on Carthaginian skeletons, he declared that: "The so called Semitic type, characterised by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not [yet] been found in Carthage".
Okay, and what does the above have anything to do with the valid linguistic constructions of Afrasian? You are correct that the excerpt above shows inaccurage anthropological bias as even many of the features attributed to the Semitic type such as "perfectly oval face" and "aquiline nose" is also found among many black Africans!
quote:DNA test and linguistic classification being conducted on populations that inhabit North Afrika today does not take accounts for population movements or displacement, from a historical perspective this failure will only confuse the results obtained. I would agree with Obenga and ignore the nonsense called Afro-Asiatic grouping.
The only nonsense is your agreement with Obenga on a linguistic classification based mainly on racialised wishful thinking. Linguistic classification deals soley with language and not population history or movement, let alone genetics which is another discipline. Hence, black-skinned Sinhalese aand other Indians speak Indo-European languages yet obviously the classification of their language has no bearing on their population history or their genetic lineages.
Also, genetics does take into account population movements as genetics establishes the origins of certain lineages. Thus the majority of North Africans possess E3b indigenous to the continent and originated from East Africa!
quote:Population displacement has occured in North Africa, so the fact that Tifinagh is found amongst Tamasheq exclusively means the Tamasheq speakers (Imouhar) occupied the area, this is what I take into account, Berbers don't exist in my opinion. I don't accept the Afrasan classification so Berber grouping doesn't exist.
And yet that is exactly what the Tamasheq language of the Tuareg are classified as-- 'Berber'! Call it by any other name, but they are still a part of this grouping. What languages do you propose they are closer related to? Igbo, or Zulu? Why, because all are black peoples?
quote:Libya or Libue was a pre-Roman construct, the post-Roman era saw Libue or Libya being divided into other political teritorial entities. North Afrika up until the 2nd Century B.C gave us Libya or Libue while the time period after the 2nd Century B.C. gave us Numidia, Africa etc. Strangely enough Berberia has yet to materialize.
Correct, but 'Berber' or 'Barbar' was coined by the Greeks to describe their language or any non-Greek language that sounded like jibberish to them. Again, if you don't like the name, you can always protest to the academic establishment to change it, but you cannot make this your basis for refuting the existence of a linguistic group!
quote:Ancient Libyans were the native inhabitants before the 2nd Century B.C. Greeks used Libyes, strangely enough the word Berber was used also to describe Barbarians. according to Herodotus the Greeks were given the name by the natives themselves.
Herodotus wrote: Libya indeed is said by most of the Hellenes to have its name from Libya a woman of that country Natives named it after a woman, this should remind you of Timbuctu.
Strange, I thought the name was derived from the Egyptian or the native's term Libu. Besides, I noticed you ignored the other part of the citation which said Asia was also named after a woman, specifically a goddess. The Greeks also claimed that "Aegyptus" was the name given to the son of the first king of Egypt and twin brother of Danaus!
quote:Wikipedia quote:
Timbuktu was established by the nomadic Tuareg perhaps as early as the 10th century. According to a popular etymology its name is made up of: tin which means « place » and buktu, the name of an old Malian woman known for her honesty and who once upon a time lived in the region .
Tamasheq naming conventions showing cultural similarities with Ancient Libyans (Libyes).
How so? Also, there are many examples of places being named after women in many other African languages or groups.
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote:I don't acknowledge Berbers because the name Berbers originally meant Barbarians.
Wikipedia
The fact that the name Berber is a strange name to the Berbers led to confusion. Some sources claimed that the Berbers are several ethnic groups who are not related to each other. That is not accurate, because the Berbers refer to themselves as Imazighen in Morocco, as well as Libya, Egypt (Siwa) and other parts in North Africa.
Not only the origin of the name Berber is unclear, but also the name Amazigh. The most common explanation is that the name goes back to the Egyptian period when the Ancient Egyptians mentioned an ancient Libyan tribe called Meshwesh. Those Meshwesh are supposed by some scholars to be the same ancient Libyan tribe that was mentioned as Maxyans by the Greek historian Herodotus.
Berber is a ignorant concept.
The name maybe but the linguistic grouping it denotes is valid. Again, call it by whatever name you want. It still won't change facts.
quote:Kemetic was spoken in the west by a group called they Liby Egyptians by Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Elder
If we pass through the interior of Africa in a southerly direction, beyond the Gætuli, after having traversed the intervening deserts, we shall find, first of all the Liby- Egyptians
Traveling south through the desert would lead to area occupying Modern day Algeria and Mali home of the ancient Liby-Egyptians.
The language groups noted above would be spoken in the areas before the Arabic invasions of North Afrika, which would give us a pre 7th Century A.D. era
All that still doesn't tell us that those groups actually spoke the same Kemetic language as the Egyptians. A closely related language perhaps which is what Afroasiatic entails-- a close genetic relation between so-called 'Berber' languages and Egyptian (as well as Semitic).
quote:LBW, Lebue, Libou choose what ever form makes you happy just remember Berberia Barbaria or whatever is not Libue, LBW, Lebu. Libya evolved into Afrika not Barbaria, why didn't the linguistical writers call the ancient Libyans (Libyes) modern day Afrikans?
Hotep
^LMAO My exact compliments to YOU. Call the language group whatever you will, it still does not refute the existence of Afrasian!
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
First let me start with the fact that I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE LINGUISTIC CLASSIFICATION CALLED AFRO-ASIATIC OR AFRASAN.
Why...simply because you don't like the term "Berber", or it goes deeper than that? I hope it is the latter, but...
quote:Hotep2u:
Linguist have used a word 'Berber' which meant Barbarians in the past to define a area known as Libya in the past, the name Libya evolved into Afrika NOT Barbaria or Barbares.
It is possible that the word "Berber" has some connection with the term "Barbarian" , as used by Greeks, but it is questionable, pending objective substantiation backed by primary texts. The term "Berber" is more recent than some might be led to believe. Can you produce the complete etymology of "Berber", to demonstrate how it got to the form it is now presented, and how all of a sudden the context of the term changed, to now refer to a linguistic branch.
quote:Hotep2u:
Linguist such as Christopher Ehret are ARROGANT because they go to Africa and try to rename ethnic groups, rewriting the history of Afrikan peoples and distinct Afrikan ethnic groups in the process.
The objective is not to get emotional about a person, but to get to the substance of the person's work you are presumably rejecting. Surely, you are not saying you don't accept his work, simply because you have a problem with the person himself, that is to say, "his arrogance". Again, let's hope there is more to your argument than that.
quote:Hotep2u:
Here is a example of the problem posed by modern day Eurocentrics masquearading as geneticist and linguists.
Excerpt from the book: When We Ruled by Robin Walker
quote: Anthropologist have studied skeletons from the Carthaginian cemeteries. Professor Eugene Pittard, then at the University of Geneva, reported that: "Other bones discovered in Punic Carthage, and housed in the Lavigerie Museum, come from personages found in special sarcophagi and probably belonging to the Carthaginian elite. Almost all the skulls are dolichocephalic." Futhermore, the sarcophagus of the highly venerated Priestess of Tanit, "the most ornate" and "the most artistic yet found," is also housed in the Lavigerie Museum. Pittard says "The woman buried there had Negro features. She belonged to the African race!" Professor Stephane Gsell was the author of the voluminous Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord. Also based on anthropological studies conducted on Carthaginian skeletons, he declared that: "The so called Semitic type, characterised by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not [yet] been found in Carthage".
DNA test and linguistic classification being conducted on populations that inhabit North Afrika today does not take accounts for population movements or displacement, from a historical perspective this failure will only confuse the results obtained. I would agree with Obenga and ignore the nonsense called Afro-Asiatic grouping.
Can you give specific up-do-date DNA studies of coastal north Africa which do not take account of population movements, and the same with linguistics.
Linguistic family of Afrasan [Afro-Asiatic, as you call it] corresponds well with understanding from population genetics about the path of certain lineages that started to expand from sub-Saharan east Africa in the upper Paleolithic.
quote:Hotep2u:
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: Tuaregs, who you acknowledge as Tamasheq speakers, belong to the same language family as the northcoastal "Berbers", who generally refer to themselves Tamazigh/mazigh in some enunciation or another, something that you seem to ignore for an unexplained reason. These coastal "Berber" groups in the past used scripts that shared the same structure and form as the ancestral script to the Tuareg Tifinagh. So naturally, all these people in question must have had connections with "Numidians".
Population displacement has occured in North Africa, so the fact that Tifinagh is found amongst Tamasheq exclusively means the Tamasheq speakers (Imouhar) occupied the area, this is what I take into account, Berbers don't exist in my opinion. I don't accept the Afrasan classification so Berber grouping doesn't exist.
Well, when you say Tamasheq, I hope that you understand that this is actually what "Berbers", whether from the Sahel or coastal North Africa, generally refer to themselves in one form or another - can't be emphasized enough - but again, you refuse to hear this for a yet-to-be determined reason. The question is why do you not accept that "Berbers", who all refer to themselves as Tamazigh/Amazighs/mazighs/Kels [Tamazigh ("Tuaregs")] and so forth, are all part of the "Tamasheq" language family that you keep referring to...other than simply because some outsiders decided to call their language family "Berber"?
Tamasheq Kels of the Sahara, some may know them as Tuaregs, are definitely related to coastal northwest "Berbers", not only linguistically but genetically; they too carry the genetic signature that has come to characterize proto-"Berber" path - the E-M81 marker.
The Tifinagh script survived in "Tuaregs", because they were the groups that preserved it. It derives from the same ancestor as that used in northwest Africa, at the time when a portion of the region was part of the Phoenician sphere of influence. Northwest Africa of course, later on came under Islamic influence and some degree of Arabization. So in that part of the world, Arabic script became more favoured or widely used from the 'Middle Ages' onward, particularly by the thin layer of elites of these regions, but there are still sections of societies in the coastal northwest African region who choose to preserve only their "Tamazigh" heritage and exclusively go by this identity. Some outsiders who have rarely set foot in this part of the world, may make the mistake of assuming that "Berbers" of northwest Africa equals "Arabs". Want to know the real deal: go to the said regions, and see if everyone will think highly of you, if you refer to them as "Arabs".
You talk of population displacement, and undoubtedly a lot of demographic events have shaped north Africa as has done elsewhere in the continent and around the world, but again, you say this with lack of context: What population(s) was displaced, when, how, and according to what scientific/concrete evidence?
quote:Hotep2u:
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: Libyans" cannot be contextualized without timeframe specifics, and the specific terms used within these specified timeframes. In none of your statements, have you yet contextualized accordingly, even though "Libya" is repeatedly stated. "Berber" is a linguistic construct of the Eurocentric world; thinking out of this context for the term, would cause one to misinform him/herself and mistake it for a 'ruse', unless one is prepared to disagree with the whole concept of closely related Afrasan 'languages' brought under the "Berber" umbrella
Libya or Libue was a pre-Roman construct, the post-Roman era saw Libue or Libya being divided into other political teritorial entities. North Afrika up until the 2nd Century B.C gave us Libya or Libue while the time period after the 2nd Century B.C. gave us Numidia, Africa etc. Strangely enough Berberia has yet to materialize.
Again, who initially applied this "Libou" you keep referring to, but never answering question being asked. It has been said that AE texts attest to the term "Libou", but does this mean that the AE came up with the term, or could they have heard some other peoples refer to the said term in reference to a people/entity and thereby picked it up; what tells us about the origin of this term?
quote:Hotep2u:
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: Libya" would have been part of the the landmass now known as "Africa". The question which your entire post never addressed was this: ...at what time frame are you contextualizing "ancient Libyans"?
What specific primary ancient text(s) attests to the word "Libya" as you have spelt it, and specifically by whom? I highly doubt even the ancient Greeks, including Herodotus used "Libyans". Who coined the term, Africans themselves or outsiders
Ancient Libyans were the native inhabitants before the 2nd Century B.C. Greeks used Libyes, strangely enough the word Berber was used also to describe Barbarians. according to Herodotus the Greeks were given the name by the natives themselves.
See post above vis-à-vis etymology of "Libya", and several posts earlier, vis-à-vis etymology of "Berber", and see if you can deliver.
quote:Hotep2u:
Herodotus wrote:
quote: Libya indeed is said by most of the Hellenes to have its name from Libya a woman of that country
Natives named it after a woman, this should remind you of Timbuctu.
Which woman, initially according to whom? Surely her name would not have been "Libya", right?!
quote:Hotep2u:
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: So then you are saying that ancient North Africans can be linked to modern "Berber" speakers, right?
What evidence do you have, that "Egyptic" was spoken West of "Kemet", the nation?
What specific timeframe and primary text(s) are you basing the other language groups in the said region?
I don't acknowledge Berbers because the name Berbers originally meant Barbarians.
So, if these people were called "Tamazighs", which is what they actually call themselves, would you acknowledge both their existence and their north African heritage? Surely, you can't say that just because some outsiders choose to refer to the said peoples something else other than what they call themselves, that they cease to exist or that they have no indigenous north African heritage? "Berber" is a linguistic construct of foreign appellation, and as such, it should be understood as just that...a linguistic reference. As you have already been told by another poster - Djehuti, you can call the language family whatever you choose, but you'll have to do a lot more work to establish that the language family that it represents doesn't exist. And you have yet to establish the etymology of "Berber".
quote:Hotep2u:
Wikipedia
quote:The fact that the name Berber is a strange name to the Berbers led to confusion. Some sources claimed that the Berbers are several ethnic groups who are not related to each other. That is not accurate, because the Berbers refer to themselves as Imazighen in Morocco, as well as Libya, Egypt (Siwa) and other parts in North Africa.
Not only the origin of the name Berber is unclear, but also the name Amazigh. The most common explanation is that the name goes back to the Egyptian period when the Ancient Egyptians mentioned an ancient Libyan tribe called Meshwesh. Those Meshwesh are supposed by some scholars to be the same ancient Libyan tribe that was mentioned as Maxyans by the Greek historian Herodotus.
Berber is a ignorant concept.
The Wikipedia piece [a source I've notice you have so much enthusiasm for] says that the said people call themselves "Amazighs" and basically rejects the idea that the said peoples aren't related, which is reasonable, but still falls short of giving you legitimacy of rejecting "Berber" as simply a linguistic reference to a group of people, whose so-called relationship actually exists!
quote:Hotep2u:
Kemetic was spoken in the west by a group called they Liby Egyptians by Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Elder
quote: If we pass through the interior of Africa in a southerly direction, beyond the Gætuli, after having traversed the intervening deserts, we shall find, first of all the Liby- Egyptians
Traveling south through the desert would lead to area occupying Modern day Algeria and Mali home of the ancient Liby-Egyptians.
...and what evidence does Pliny say he is going by?
quote:Hotep2u:
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: "Libya" is not an English word. It is ultimately a corruption of a word read as "Libou". Matter of fact, this late bastardized version of the latter, was initially applied to the contemporary nation of Libya by not the English, but by the Italians. I wouldn't be surprised if no primary ancient texts ever referred to the term "Libya" or "Libia" - that is to say, in that form.
LBW, Lebue, Libou choose what ever form makes you happy just remember Berberia Barbaria or whatever is not Libue, LBW, Lebu.
I didn't say what I said above to make me happy, or because I chose to do so; I said it, because that's what objective reconstruction of the term has revealed. If you feel otherwise, present evidence to contrary. You should know by now that I don't go by 'feel-good' assessment, but by objective assessment. Well, I don't know if the Libou were "Berber"/Tamazigh speakers, but they certainly occupied the same region as contemporary "Berber"/Tamazigh groups. I'll be able to assess the link between Tamazighs/"Berbers" and "Libou" based on your contextualization of "Libou" via specific primary ancient texts, and the full etymology of the term.
quote:Hotep2u: Libya evolved into Afrika not Barbaria, why didn't the linguistical writers call the ancient Libyans (Libyes) modern day Afrikans?
Hotep
With regards to your question, maybe when you produce the full etymology of how "Libya evolved into Africa", we might arrive to a logical answer, but then again, I'm not even sure what the question is presumably asking - particularly the part about "ancient" Libyans being called "modern day" Africans.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The nomenclature of Strabo is neither so extensive, nor does it contain more precise or correct information. He mentions the celebrated oasis of Ammonium and the nation of the Nasamones. Farther west, behind Carthage and the Numidians, he also notices the Getulians, and after them the Garamantes, a people who appear to have colonized both the oasis of Ghadames and the oases of Fezzan. Ptolemy makes the whole of the Mauritania, including Algeria and Morocco, to be bounded on the south by tribes, called Gaetuliae and Melanogaeluti, on the south the latter evidently having contracted alliance of blood with the negroes.
According to Sallust, who supports himself upon the authority of Heimpsal, the Carthaginian historian, “North Africa was first occupied by Libyans and Getulians, who were a barbarous people, a heterogeneous mass, or agglomeration of people of different races, without any form of religion or government, nourishing themselves on herbs, or devouring the raw flesh of animals killed in the chase; for first amongst these were found Blacks, probably some from the interior of Africa, and belonging to the great negro family; then whites, issue of the Semitic stock, who apparently constituted, even at that early period, the dominant race or caste. Later, but at an epoch absolutely unknown, a new horde of Asiatics,” says Sallust, “of Medes, Persians, and Armenians, invaded the countries of the Atlas, and, led on by Hercules, pushed their conquests as far as Spain.” 48
The Persians, mixing themselves with the former inhabitants of the coast, formed the tribes called Numides, or Numidians (which embrace the provinces of Tunis and Constantina), whilst the Medes and the Armenians, allying themselves with the Libyans, nearer to Spain, it is pretended, gave existence to a race of Moors, the term Medes being changed into that of Moors. 49
As to the Getulians confined in the valleys of the Atlas, they resisted all alliance with the new immigrants, and formed the principal nucleus of those tribes who have ever remained in North Africa, rebels to a foreign civilization, or rather determined champions of national freedom, and whom, imitating the Romans and Arabs, we are pleased to call Barbarians or Berbers (Barbari Br�ber 50), and whence is derived the name of the Barbary States. But the Romans likewise called the aboriginal tribes of North Africa, Moors, or Mauri, and some contend that Moors and Berbers are but two different names for the aboriginal tribes, the former being of Greek and the latter of African origin. The Romans might, however, confound the African term berber with barbari, which latter they applied, like the Greeks, to all strangers and foreigners. The revolutions of Africa cast a new tribe of emigrants upon the North African coast, who, if we are to believe the Byzantine historian, Procopius, of the sixth century, were no other than Canaanites, expelled from Palestine by the victorious arms of Joshua, when he established the Israelites in that country. Procopius affirms that, in his time, there was a column standing at Tigisis, on which was this inscription: — “We are those who fled from the robber Joshua, son of Nun.” 51 Now whether Tigisis was in Algeria, or was modern Tangier, as some suppose, it is certain there are several traditions among the Berber tribes of Morocco, which relate that their ancestors were driven out of Palestine. Also, the Berber historian, Ebn–Khal-Doun, who flourished in the fourteenth century, makes all the Berbers descend from one Bar, the son of Mayigh, son of Canaan. However, what may be the truths of these traditions of Sallust or Procopius, there is no difficulty in believing that North Africa was peopled by fugitive and roving tribes, and that the first settlers should be exposed to be plundered by succeeding hordes; for such has been the history of the migrations of all the tribes of the human race.
But the most ancient historical fact on which we can depend is, the invasion, or more properly, the successive invasions of North Africa by the Phoenicians. Their definite establishment on these shores took place towards the foundation of Carthage, about 820 years before our era. Yet we know little of their intercourse or relations with the aboriginal tribes. When the Romans, a century and a half before Christ, received, or wrested, the rule of Africa from the Phoenicians, or Carthaginians, they found before them an indigenous people, whom they indifferently called Moors, Berbers, or Barbarians. A part of these people were called also Nudides, which is perhaps considered the same term as nomades.
Some ages later, the Romans, too weak to resist a vigorous invasion of other conquerors, were subjugated by the Vandals, who, during a century, held possession of North Africa; but, after this time, the Romans again raised their heads, and completely expelled or extirpated the Vandals, so that, as before, there were found only two people or races in Africa: the Romans and the Moors, or aborigines.
Towards the middle of the seventh century after Christ, and a few years after the death of Mahomet, the Romans, in the decline of their power, had to meet the shock of the victorious arms of the Arabians, who poured in upon them triumphant from the East; but, too weak to resist this new tide of invasion, they opposed to them the aborigines, which latter were soon obliged to continue alone the struggle.
The Arabian historians, who recount these wars, speak of Roumi or Romans (of the Byzantine empire) and the Br�ber — evidently the aboriginal tribes — who promptly submitted to the Arabs to rid themselves of the yoke of the Romans; but, after the retreat of their ancient masters, they revolted and remained a long time in arms against their new conquerors — a rule of action which all subjugated nations have been wont to follow. Were we English now to attempt to expel the French from Algeria, we, undoubtedly, should be joined by the Arabs; but who would, most probably, soon also revolt against us, were we to attempt to consolidate our dominion over them.
In the first years of the eighth century, and at the end of the first century of the Hegira, the conquering Arabs passed over to Spain, and, inasmuch as they came from Mauritania, the people of Spain gave them the name of Moors (that of the aborigines of North Africa), although they had, perhaps, nothing in common with them, if we except their Asiatic origin. Another and most singular name was also given to these Arab warriors in France and other parts of Europe — that of Saracens — whose etymology is extremely obscure. 52 From this time the Spaniards have always given the names of Moors (los Moros), not only to the Arabs of Spain, but to all the Arabs; and, confounding farther these two denominations, they have bestowed the name of Moros upon the Arabs of Morocco and those in the environs of Senegal.
The Arabs who invaded Northern Africa about 650, were all natives of Asia, belonging to various provinces of Arabia, and were divided into Ismaelites, Amalekites, Koushites, &c. They were all warriors; and it is considered a title of nobility to have belonged to their first irruption of the enthusiastic sons of the Prophet.
A second invasion took place towards the end of the ninth century — an epoch full of wars — during which, the Caliph Ka�m transported the seat of his government from Kairwan to Cairo, ending in the complete submission of Morocco to the power of Yousef Ben Tashfin. One cannnot now distinguish which tribe of Arabs belong to the first or the second invasion, but all who can shew the slightest proof, claim to belong to the first, as ranking among a band of noble and triumphant warriors.
After eight centuries of rule, the Arabs being expelled from Spain, took refuge in Barbary, but instead of finding the hospitality and protection of their brethren, the greater part of them were pillaged or massacred. The remnant of these wretched fugitives settled along the coast; and it is to their industry and intelligence that we owe the increase, or the foundation of many of the maritime cities. Here, considered as strangers and enemies by the natives, whom they detested, the new colonists sought for, and formed relations with Turks and renegades of all nations, whilst they kept themselves separate from the Arabs and Berbers. This, then, is the bon�-fide origin of the people whom we now generally call Moors. History furnishes us with a striking example of how the expelled Arabs of Spain united with various adventurers against the Berber and North African Arabs. In the year 1500, a thousand Andalusian cavaliers, who had emigrated to Algiers, formed an alliance with the Barbarossas and their fleet of pirates; and, after expelling the native prince, built the modern city of Algiers. And such was the origin of the Algerine Corsairs.
The general result of these observations would, therefore, lead us to consider the Moors of the Romans, as the Berbers or aborigines of North Africa, and the Moors of the Spaniards, as pure Arabians; and if, indeed, these Arabian cavaliers marshalled with them Berbers, as auxiliaries, for the conquest of Spain, this fact does not militate against the broad assumption.
The so-called Moors of Senegal and the Sahara, as well as those of Morocco, are chiefly a mixture of Berbers, Arabs and Negroes; but the present Moors located in the northern coast of Africa, are rather the descendants from the various conquering nations, and especially from renegades and Christian slaves.
The term Moors is not known to the natives themselves. The people speak definitely enough of Arabs and of various Berber tribes. The population of the towns and cities are called generally after the names of these towns and cities, whilst Tuniseen and Tripoline is applied to all the inhabitants of the great towns of Tunis and Tripoli. Europeans resident in Barbary, as a general rule, call all the inhabitants of towns — Moors, and the peasants or people residents in tents — Arabs. But, in Tripoli, I found whole villages inhabited by Arabs, and these I thought might be distinguished as town Arabs. Then the mountains of Tripoli are covered with Arab villages, and some few considerable towns are inhabited by people who are bon�-fide Arabs. Finally, the capitals of North Africa are filled with every class of people found in the country.
posted
^ And exactly how does any of that above refute what Mystery or I have said about 'Berber' languages or their heritages??
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And exactly how does any of that above refute what Mystery or I have said about 'Berber' languages or their heritages??
It clear shows that the North African populations are not all native to Africa. It shows that many of these people are very recent settlers of the area and that the Berbers are not the ancestors of the original Libyans and etc.
^ And exactly how does any of that above refute what Mystery or I have said about 'Berber' languages or their heritages??
It clear shows that the North African populations are not all native to Africa.
That is a non-sequitur. It presumes to answer something which has not been uttered. To say that just because some migrants from outside of the continent made their way into north Africa at some points in time, that "Berber" speakers of the region are therefore not indigenous Afrucans is incoherent...which I hope, is not what you are saying?
The article itself repeats a lot of discredited claims, not to mention pseudo-scientific racial typology. An example of such descredited claims, is recitation of the notion that "Berbers" originate in "Palestine". The article doesn't provide specific primary texts on reference to "pure Arabs" in Spain as "Moors", and gives the impression of its inability to distinguish between incursions spearheaded by "Berbers" [specifically the Almoravids, originating from the Sahel/sub-Saharan west Africa] into the Iberian peninsula via their base in North Africa and the earlier ones initiated by "southwest Asians" using North Africa as a base. An instance where it gives this impression, can be exemplified by the following:
A second invasion took place towards the end of the ninth century — an epoch full of wars — during which, the Caliph Ka�m transported the seat of his government from Kairwan to Cairo, ending in the complete submission of Morocco to the power of Yousef Ben Tashfin. One cannnot now distinguish which tribe of Arabs belong to the first or the second invasion, but all who can shew the slightest proof, claim to belong to the first, as ranking among a band of noble and triumphant warriors.
...not to mention:
Another and most singular name was also given to these Arab warriors in France and other parts of Europe — that of Saracens — whose etymology is extremely obscure. 52 From this time the Spaniards have always given the names of Moors (los Moros), not only to the Arabs of Spain, but to all the Arabs; and, confounding farther these two denominations, they have bestowed the name of Moros upon the Arabs of Morocco and those in the environs of Senegal.
...makes me wonder if the author is indeed confusing "Berbers" from both coastal North Africa and the south of the Sahara with "Arabs".
quote:Clyde Winters:
It shows that many of these people are very recent settlers of the area and that the Berbers are not the ancestors of the original Libyans and etc.
Who are many of these people?...would that be these people, as you called it: "North African populations are not all native to Africa"? > Does this include "Berbers"?
Who are the original "Libyans"? Were they a homogenous group, or multi-ethnic?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ And exactly how does any of that above refute what Mystery or I have said about 'Berber' languages or their heritages??
quote:Dr. Winters: It clear shows that the North African populations are not all native to Africa.
quote:Mystery Solver writes: That is a non-sequitur. It presumes to answer something which has not been uttered. To say that just because some migrants from outside of the continent made their way into north Africa at some points in time, that "Berber" speakers of the region are therefore not indigenous Afrucans is incoherent...which I hope, is not what you are saying?
That's exacrtly what he's saying and of course you're right that it is non-sequitur.
What he needs is proof of original Berber speakers *in Eurasia*, and that he does... not ... have.
So non-sequiturs is all you're ever going to get, by way of response.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I swear, Clyde and his followers are insane! They deny that Berber languages are African claim them to be Eurasian even though they are spoken exclusively in Africa, but at the same time deny that Dravidian languages are Eurasian and claim them to be African even though they are spoken exclusively in India!!
They are just as mentally mixed up as some of our trolls like Jaime!
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Wikipedia piece [a source I've notice you have so much enthusiasm for] says that the said people call themselves "Amazighs" and basically rejects the idea that the said peoples aren't related, which is reasonable, but still falls short of giving you legitimacy of rejecting "Berber" as simply a linguistic reference to a group of people, whose so-called relationship actually exists
Linguistic classification called 'Berber' is a ignorant concept because it disguises the fact that some speakers of these language groups are NOT native to Afrika, also some groups have more foreign loanwords within their language dialect versus other groups that speak this language which is classified as 'Berber' so the idea that Libyans=Berbers ignoring the foreign admixture amongst populations that are classified as 'Berbers', this further disguises the truth towards who were considered as Libyans by the historical writers.
Etomology for Barbarian.
quote: 1338, from M.L. barbarinus, from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant ," from PIE base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan"). Barbaric is first recorded 1490, from O.Fr. barbarique, from L. barbaricus "foreign, strange, outlandish." Barbarous is first attested 1526.
Imazaghen is a modern day construct, Ancient Libyans did not call themselves Imazaghen.
Wikipedia
quote: In the 1960s, a group of young Kabyle Berberists created the Académie berbère and put forward a new version of the script, nowadays called "Neo-Tifinagh", it is written left to right, marks vowels and has more letters. The Académie berbère published several texts and magazines in this script, since then it's been popular among the Kabyle movement first
Kabyle did not have the original Tifinagh script, they had to use a script from the Tamasheq speakers. 'Berberism' is a modern day political construct also and should NOT be viewed from a historical perspective because the Ancient Libyans are the same as modern day native Afrikans and not exclusively 'Berbers'. Modern day ethnic groups who are wrongly called Berbers were not the majority population that inhabitted ancient Libya.
Tebu speakers and Tamasheq speakers, show close cultural connections to ancient Libyan groups thought they do NOT speak the same language, this proves the fact that all Libyans did NOT speak the same language, thus Ancient Libyans should NOT be synonomous with 'Berber'
Today's so called 'Berbers' are claiming that Ancient Libyans are synonomous with Berbers which is not true, the historical writers stated that Libyans were synonomous with individuals that were native to the soil meaning modern day indigenous AFRIKANS.
This confusion that surrounds 'Berbers' only increases with the linguistical classification called 'Berber'.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
They are just as mentally mixed up as some of our trolls like Jaime!
Printer-friendly view of this topic