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.
More adjustments for the precision of the above are expected to follow!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^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.
Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
Thanks Mystery
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena:
How accurate is the term "sub-Saharan"?
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#000000 Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings:
Berber ruse has to go here is why.
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.
Hotep
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
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.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u:
Greetings:
Berber ruse has to go here is why.
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^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?
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
^Ceramics yes Agriculture, no.
quote:Supercar: Chronology of ancient Africa
Sweet!
quote: - for dummies
YAY, haha ha!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Northeast Africa CHRONOLOGY
YEAR.............EVENT
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 by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^^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!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
.
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
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!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^Yes, 'Northeast' Africa is east Africa north of the Sahara, is all that Mystery was pointing out.
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
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.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yom:
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).
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?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Northeast Africa CHRONOLOGY
YEAR.............EVENT
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.
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Yom:
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).
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.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Yom
quote:
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.
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
"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.
Hotep
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by 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
These legends of Trojan invasions would probably correspond with the invasions of the Sea peoples as recorded in Km.t.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by 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
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
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u:
Greetings:
Mystery Solver wrote:
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?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Libya => Lebue => Libu/Rebu English => Greek => AEL
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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 Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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 by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
[Nevermind]
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
"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.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
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?
Hotep
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Supercar
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.
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
^Sorry
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
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.
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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:
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.
^ And exactly how does any of that above refute what Mystery or I have said about 'Berber' languages or their heritages??
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
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.
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?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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??
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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!
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings:
Mystery Solver wrote:
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'.
Hotep
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Please provide us with your complete etymology of the word used in the English language that is written as "Libya."
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: "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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Greetings:
Mystery Solver wrote:
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'.
Hotep
Great point. Some ignorant people believe that just because a language is spoken in an area today it has been spoken in that area since ancient times. This is false. Take English for instance.
Today the majority of Americans speak English. The English language was not spoken in the United States until the founding of the Jamestown colony around 400 years ago. Clearly English was not spoken in the U.S., in ancient times, but if we just looked at the dominant language spoken in the region without study of the history we would believe that English was always spoken here.
We know for a fact that the Sea Peoples, Vandals, Greeks, Romans, etc have all invaded North Africa over the past 3000 years. Moreover we know that the Garamante/Garamande (>Mande) people early migrated from Libya to the Niger Delta. And given 1)the diverse populations that lived in the region,2) Germanic (Vandal ???) substratum in the Berber language, 3) and the fact that some Berber claim a Yemeni origin make, it clear that we can not positively claim that the Berbers are native sons of North Africa as pointed out above by Hotep2U.
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Please provide us with your complete etymology of the word used in the English language that is written as "Libya."
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [qb] "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.
It is not an English word, that is the part you seemed to have missed in the above. You are asking me to prove a negative. However...please provide your complete etymology of the word "Libya"/"Libia" that suggests it's of English extraction, rather than adoption of the term given to the modern nation so-called.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
All I'm asking you to do without twisting or fanfare is to
quote:Please provide us with YOUR complete etymology of the word used in the English language that is written as "Libya."
nothing else but that will satisfy my kind request, thank you.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
Clyde wrote:
quote:Moreover we know that the Garamante/Garamande (>Mande) people early migrated from Libya to the Niger Delta.
Just to be clear. The Garamante are just a different name for the Mande. When did they migrate to the Niger Delta?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u:
Greetings:
Mystery Solver wrote:
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
According to which linguist(s)'s work?
You didn't answer this the 2nd/3rd time around, and so I reiterate:
What bearing does foreign immigration have on the understanding that the language family, denoted as "Berber", exists?
quote:Hotep2u:
, 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'
Who are "some groups"? It goes back to the question just asked above. Please reference it, and see if you can actually answer it this time around.
quote:Hotep2u:
, this further disguises the truth towards who were considered as Libyans by the historical writers.
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.
Non-sequitur. You were asked to produce the etymology for "Berber" [not "Barbarian"], along with that of "Libyans".
quote:Hotep2u:
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.
1)What does "Tamasheq speakers" entail to you, and 2)does it belong to the family so-called "Berber"?
Tifinagh, as you were told but chose to ignore without explanation, is a development of script used in Northwest Africa and the Sahara-Sahel [by "Berber" speaking groups] some time during the Phoenician involvement in the region.
quote:Hotep2u:
'Berberism' is a modern day political construct
If you are referring to the so-called linguistic family, naturally you'd be wrong: that would be a linguistic construct.
quote:Hotep2u:
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'.
Remember the question about etymology of "ancient Libyans" equating to "modern day Africans"; Where is the answer?
...and even if "ancient Libyans" doesn't "exclusively" entail 'Berbers', another non-sequitur, what bearing does that have on the closely related family of languages denoted by "Berber", or that these languages are of African provenance?
quote:Hotep2u:
Modern day ethnic groups who are wrongly called Berbers were not the majority population that inhabitted ancient Libya.
Relevance...to the questions above!
quote:Hotep2u:
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'
So you say, but what does this have to do with what anyone else sans yourself has thus far said herein?
quote:Hotep2u:
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.
...which is why I've asked you to produce an elaborate etymology on "Libyans" to determine its origin, by whom and exposed to where, but you haven't delivered.
quote:Hotep2u:
This confusion that surrounds 'Berbers' only increases with the linguistical classification called 'Berber'.
Hotep
Fail to see confusion about "Berber" strictly as a reference to a language family spoken by groups who share a common recent 'proto-"Berber"' ancestor, especially since you have provided nothing to suggest why it has to be so!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
All I'm asking you to do without twisting or fanfare is to
quote:Please provide us with YOUR complete etymology of the word used in the English language that is written as "Libya."
nothing else but that will satisfy my kind request, thank you.
And I am asking you to do without grandstanding or fanfare to first read and understand what was said, to avoid asking immaterial questions. You said "Libya" is English. Prove it.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Great point. Some ignorant people believe that just because a language is spoken in an area today it has been spoken in that area since ancient times. This is false. Take English for instance.
I beg to differ: What is ignorant, is to pre-determine that "Berber" languages haven't been spoken in North Africa since "ancient times" [tossed around without context]. What evidence do you have that ancestors of modern "Berber" speakers weren't in north Africa in the "ancient times"?
quote:Clyde Winters:
We know for a fact that the Sea Peoples, Vandals, Greeks, Romans, etc have all invaded North Africa over the past 3000 years. Moreover we know that the Garamante/Garamande (>Mande) people early migrated from Libya to the Niger Delta. And given 1)the diverse populations that lived in the region,2) Germanic (Vandal ???) substratum in the Berber language, 3) and the fact that some Berber claim a Yemeni origin make, it clear that we can not positively claim that the Berbers are native sons of North Africa as pointed out above by Hotep2U.
1)What is "Germanic" about "Berber" languages?
2)Considering that it certainly isn't linguistic or genetic [the same could be said about "Germanic"], what evidence do you have that suggests "Berbers" come from "Yemen"?
We've been down this road before, and you were discredited then. So I guess, history shall repeat itself.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Clyde wrote:
quote:Moreover we know that the Garamante/Garamande (>Mande) people early migrated from Libya to the Niger Delta.
Just to be clear. The Garamante are just a different name for the Mande. When did they migrate to the Niger Delta?
The reason I asked is because on your web site you wrote:
These Proto-Saharans came to Mexico in papyrus boats. A stone stela from Izapa, Chiapas in southern Mexico show the boats these Proto-Saharans used to sail to America. The voyagers manning these boats probably sailed down TAFASSASSET, to Lake Chad and thence down the Lower Niger River which emptied into the Atlantic. This provided the Mande a river route from the Sahara to the coast. These rivers, long dried up, once emptied into the Atlantic. Once in the Atlantic Ocean to Mexico and Brazil, by the North Equatorial Current which meets the Canaries Current off the Senegambian coast.
Did the Mande go both places? Did they go at the same time?
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings:
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: According to which linguist(s)'s work?
You didn't answer this the 2nd/3rd time around, and so I reiterate:
What bearing does foreign immigration have on the understanding that the language family, denoted as "Berber", exists?
Etomology of Berber
quote: Berber 1842, from Arabic name for aboriginal people west and south of Egypt; perhaps ult. from Gk. Barbaros "barbarians
Etomology of Barbarians
quote: c.1300, "foreign lands" (especially non-Christian lands," from L. barbarus "barbarous" (see barbarian). Meaning "Saracens living in coastal North Africa" is attested from 1596, via Fr. (O.Fr. Barbarie), from Arabic Barbar, Berber, ancient Arabic name for the inhabitants of N.Africa beyond Egypt. Perhaps a native Arabic word, from barbara "to babble confusedly," which may be ult. from Gk. barbaria (see barbarian). "The actual relations (if any) of the Arabic and Gr[eek] words cannot be settled; but in European langs. barbaria, Barbarie, Barbary, have from the first been treated as identical with L. barbaria, Byzantine Gr[eek] barbaria land of barbarians .
The Etomology is quite clear towards 'Berber', the people who speak this group of languages choose to identify the language group as Tamasheq. Linguist should name the language group based on what the speakers call their own language and not rename it 'Berber'.
Hotep
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u:
Greetings:
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote: According to which linguist(s)'s work?
You didn't answer this the 2nd/3rd time around, and so I reiterate:
What bearing does foreign immigration have on the understanding that the language family, denoted as "Berber", exists?
Etomology of Berber
quote: Berber 1842, from Arabic name for aboriginal people west and south of Egypt; perhaps ult. from Gk. Barbaros "barbarians
Etomology of Barbarians
quote: c.1300, "foreign lands" (especially non-Christian lands," from L. barbarus "barbarous" (see barbarian). Meaning "Saracens living in coastal North Africa" is attested from 1596, via Fr. (O.Fr. Barbarie), from Arabic Barbar, Berber, ancient Arabic name for the inhabitants of N.Africa beyond Egypt. Perhaps a native Arabic word, from barbara "to babble confusedly," which may be ult. from Gk. barbaria (see barbarian). "The actual relations (if any) of the Arabic and Gr[eek] words cannot be settled; but in European langs. barbaria, Barbarie, Barbary, have from the first been treated as identical with L. barbaria, Byzantine Gr[eek] barbaria land of barbarians .
The Etomology is quite clear towards 'Berber', the people who speak this group of languages choose to identify the language group as Tamasheq. Linguist should name the language group based on what the speakers call their own language and not rename it 'Berber'.
Hotep
Even your source, likely Wikipedia, cannot link "Berber" with Greek "Barbarian", other than assuming so. However, it seems to be onto something when it says that Arabs had made references to northwest Africa in terms of "barbar", specifically as "bilad al barbar", which is indeed attested to even by at least one "Berber" historian, essentially meaning land of the "Berbers". I can see how this terminology diffused into Europe during the Islamic involvement in the region, and from that period onwards adopted by Europeans; I highly doubt the modern European concept of "Berbers" had anything to do with being mindful of ancient Greek reference to certain "foreigners" as "Barbarians". This, I believe, is how the term "Berber" stuck with north African natives of northwest Africa. There are some guesses as to how the Arabs came up with that reference: some like your Wiki presentation, assume that it might have evolved from 'Greek' term 'barbarian', others presume it came from native [Tamazight] North African appellation stemming from supposed oral traditions of 'origin', and then there is another one with places the origin of the term with native Tamazights of north Africa but was somehow later on identified or equated by Greeks [by way of the somewhat similar sounding of the two but distinct terms] with their own term of "Barbarian".
I agree that what the natives identify themselves with should be given primary consideration, particularly if such appellation is consistent among the discrete but related sub-groups, as is the case with Tamazight speakers. However, again, once it is understood that "Berber" is just a European appellation to a language family that actually exists, then such trivial matter isn't given much weight, as the actual substance - which happens to be the language family. The language family from the native African perspective would be Tamazight/Amazighan (Amazigh)...but to say that just because some sections of outsiders call the said speakers "Berbers", that they cease to be legimately native Africans or that their languages cease to be legimately indigenous to Africa, is nonsensical.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mystery Solver
quote:
I beg to differ: What is ignorant, is to pre-determine that "Berber" languages haven't been spoken in North Africa since "ancient times" [tossed around without context]. What evidence do you have that ancestors of modern "Berber" speakers weren't in north Africa in the "ancient times"?
What evidence do you have that they were?
The Libyco-Berber writing is evidence that the Berbers were not the ancient Libyans. The Libyco-Berber writing is in Mande--not Berber. The other early writing in North Africa was Punic, there are no ancient Berber records.
The Berbers are just trying to claim a history--they had nothing to do with. These people are mainly the descendents of the Vandals and Yemeni people.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Clyde wrote:
quote:Moreover we know that the Garamante/Garamande (>Mande) people early migrated from Libya to the Niger Delta.
Just to be clear. The Garamante are just a different name for the Mande. When did they migrate to the Niger Delta?
The reason I asked is because on your web site you wrote:
These Proto-Saharans came to Mexico in papyrus boats. A stone stela from Izapa, Chiapas in southern Mexico show the boats these Proto-Saharans used to sail to America. The voyagers manning these boats probably sailed down TAFASSASSET, to Lake Chad and thence down the Lower Niger River which emptied into the Atlantic. This provided the Mande a river route from the Sahara to the coast. These rivers, long dried up, once emptied into the Atlantic. Once in the Atlantic Ocean to Mexico and Brazil, by the North Equatorial Current which meets the Canaries Current off the Senegambian coast.
Did the Mande go both places? Did they go at the same time?
In the Sahelian zone there was a short wet phase during the Holocene (c. 7500-4400 BC), which led to the formation of large lakes and marshes in Mauritania, the Niger massifs and Chad. The Inland Niger Delta was unoccupied. In other parts of the Niger area the wet phase existed in the eight/seventh and fourth/third millennia BC (McIntosh & McIntosh 1986:417).
There were few habitable sites in West Africa during the Holocene wet phase. McIntosh and McIntosh (1986) have illustrated that the only human occupation of the Sahara during this period were the Saharan massifs along wadis. By the 8th millennium BC Saharan-Sudanese pottery was used in the Air (Roset 1983). Ceramics of this style have also been found at sites in the Hoggar (McIntosh & McIntosh 1983b:230).
Archaeological research over the past decade in Africa illustrates that until the second millennium BC the Inland Niger Delta was sparsely populated (McIntosh & McIntosh 1981 ,1986). As a result, most of the Mande speakers in West Africa, were living in the Fezzan, Mauretania and Chad. McIntosh and McIntosh believe the area was not settled until around 250 BC. This was 1000 years after the Xi had founded the Olmec civilization.
According to Graves, The Greek Myths v.1 (p.33), the Garamante moved into the Niger Valley after the 2nd Century AD.
References:
McIntosh,S.K. & McIntosh,R.J. 1979. "Initial Perspectives on Pre-
historic subsistence in the Inland Niger Delta (Mali)". World
Archaeology, 2(2):240-45.
______________1981. "West African Prehistory". American Scientist
,69:602-613.
______________. 1983. "Forgotten Tells of Mali". Expedition,38.
_____________.1986. "Archaeological Research and dates from
West Africa". Journal of African History, 27:413-42.
_____________.1988a. "From stone to metal:New Perspectives on the
later Prehistory of West Africa". Journal of World Prehistory, 2(1):89-109.
____________.1988b. "From Sciecles Obscurs to Revolutionary Centuries on the Middle Niger". World Archaeology, 20(1):141-165.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad.1983. "The Ancient Manding Script". In Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern, (ed.) by Ivan van Sertima, (London: Transaction Books) Pp.208-214.
____________.1981a. "Are the Dravidians of African Origin". Proc. of the Second International Symposium on Asian Studies (ISAS),(Hong Kong:Asian Research Service) Vol.3:789-807.
_____________.1981b. "The African influence on Indian Agriculture ". Journal of African Civilization, 3(1):100-111.
____________.1983."Possible Relationship between Manding and Japanese". Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 9:151-158.
____________.1983b. "Further Notes on Japanese and Tamil". International Jour. of Dravidian Linguistics,13(2):347-53.
____________.1985a."The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians,Manding, and Sumerians". Tamil Civilization, 3(1):1-9.
____________.1985b. "The Genetic Unity between the Dravidian,Elamite and Sumerian Languages". PROC. 6th ISAS 1984,vol.5 :1413-1425.
____________.1986."The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande". The Mankind Quarterly, 27(1):77-96.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: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
^ The above statement makes no sense.
Parodying: Linguistic classification called 'English' is a ignorant concept because it disguises the fact that some speakers of these language groups are not native to Europe.
This is nonsensical because languages are not classified based on the geographic origin of all the people who speak the language.
Hotep - your statement only demonstrates the fallacy of Winters approach, which we pointed out long ago on this forum, but which Winters does not seem to be able to grow beyound.
It is a fallacy of a racial-ideology of history which attempts to make language concord with 'race.'
That all the speakers of language families do not have the same lineage is the *rule*, not the exception.
Here we sit, at our computers communicating in English, though none of us are from Europe - where English originates...yet you can't understand this. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:. However, again, once it is understood that "Berber" is just a European appellation to a language family that actually exists
Correct. The term itself is found wanting, as is the term Ethiopia, or Libya, or Nubia....but that is superfluous.
This group of related *NATIVE* North African languages exist.
Now...if one wants to posit a better name for them, I'm highly receptive to any suggestions.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Supercar: What evidence do you have that ancestors of modern "Berber" speakers weren't in north Africa in the "ancient times"?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: What evidence do you have that they were?
E-M81 (E3b2; referred to as the "Berber marker," but probably arising first in East Africa [5000kya], which reaches frequencies of up to 80% in North Africa.
It is thought of primarily as a Berber haplogroup, and is most common throughout the Maghreb region of North Africa and is absent in Europe, except for the Iberian peninsula and Sicily.
It is considered to have entered the European continent as a result of Islamic domination over these regions of Southern Europe.
ref: Shomarka Keita Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]I Archaeological research over the past decade in Africa illustrates that until the second millennium BC the Inland Niger Delta was sparsely populated (McIntosh & McIntosh 1981 ,1986). As a result, most of the Mande speakers in West Africa, were living in the Fezzan, Mauretania and Chad. McIntosh and McIntosh believe the area was not settled until around 250 BC. This was 1000 years after the Xi had founded the Olmec civilization.
According to Graves, The Greek Myths v.1 (p.33), the Garamante moved into the Niger Valley after the 2nd Century AD.
. [/QB]
Thanks.
Then, the Garamantes moved down the Tafassassett to the Atlantic and on to the New World around 1250 B.C. and then later, about 250 B.C. moved to the Inland Niger Delta? Did the other, Mande speakers living in Chad and Mauritania also move to the Niger Delta in the late first Century B.C.?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Supercar: What evidence do you have that ancestors of modern "Berber" speakers weren't in north Africa in the "ancient times"?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: What evidence do you have that they were?
E-M81 (E3b2; referred to as the "Berber marker," but probably arising first in East Africa [5000kya], which reaches frequencies of up to 80% in North Africa.
It is thought of primarily as a Berber haplogroup, and is most common throughout the Maghreb region of North Africa and is absent in Europe, except for the Iberian peninsula and Sicily.
It is considered to have entered the European continent as a result of Islamic domination over these regions of Southern Europe.
Genes can not tell us the language a population speaks. We have ancient textual evidence written by the ancient Saharan Africans--it is not in Berber. This proves they were not in the region.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]I Archaeological research over the past decade in Africa illustrates that until the second millennium BC the Inland Niger Delta was sparsely populated (McIntosh & McIntosh 1981 ,1986). As a result, most of the Mande speakers in West Africa, were living in the Fezzan, Mauretania and Chad. McIntosh and McIntosh believe the area was not settled until around 250 BC. This was 1000 years after the Xi had founded the Olmec civilization.
According to Graves, The Greek Myths v.1 (p.33), the Garamante moved into the Niger Valley after the 2nd Century AD.
.
Thanks.
Then, the Garamantes moved down the Tafassassett to the Atlantic and on to the New World around 1250 B.C. and then later, about 250 B.C. moved to the Inland Niger Delta? Did the other, Mande speakers living in Chad and Mauritania also move to the Niger Delta in the late first Century B.C.? [/QB]
I have never identified the Olmecs as Garamante. You asked when the Garamante reached the Niger. They did not enter the area until after 250 AD.
The Olmec spoke a language related to Malinke Bambara. This language was probably spoken by other people in the Fezzan.
Most of the Mande speakers in Mauretania around 1200 BC, where probably Soninke speaking Mande people. This view is supported by the fact that it was the Soninke who founded the ancient empire of Ghana/Gana.
From reading the Olmec inscriptions I have not be able to establish the particular clans associated with Olmecs except for the royals and the Craftsman clans that usually served as governors of some Olmec towns. I do know that the Olmec were predominately Malinke-Bambara because they called themselves Xi< Si/Shi which means race, and black in Malinke.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Supercar: What evidence do you have that ancestors of modern "Berber" speakers weren't in north Africa in the "ancient times"?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: What evidence do you have that they were?
quote:Yes: E-M81 (E3b2; referred to as the "Berber marker," but probably arising first in East Africa [5000kya], which reaches frequencies of up to 80% in North Africa.
It is thought of primarily as a Berber haplogroup, and is most common throughout the Maghreb region of North Africa and is absent in Europe, except for the Iberian peninsula and Sicily.
It is considered to have entered the European continent as a result of Islamic domination over these regions of Southern Europe.
quote:Winters: Genes can not tell us the language a population speaks.
Non sequitur. You asked for evidence that ancestors of modern Berber speakers were in Africa - and that is *exactly* what you were provided with.
quote:Winters: We have ancient textual evidence written by the ancient Saharan Africans--it is not in Berber. This proves they were not in the region.
That is also non sequitur. Writings would be evidence of who *is* in a region, but cannot prove a negative of who is *not* in a region.
For the last time....
What you need by way of writing is original Berber writings from *outside of Africa*. That would affirm your claims.
You don't have any, why?
Because none exists.
Your argument is illogical.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I have never identified the Olmecs as Garamante. You asked when the Garamante reached the Niger. They did not enter the area until after 250 AD.
The Olmec spoke a language related to Malinke Bambara. This language was probably spoken by other people in the Fezzan.
Most of the Mande speakers in Mauretania around 1200 BC, where probably Soninke speaking Mande people. This view is supported by the fact that it was the Soninke who founded the ancient empire of Ghana/Gana.
From reading the Olmec inscriptions I have not be able to establish the particular clans associated with Olmecs except for the royals and the Craftsman clans that usually served as governors of some Olmec towns. I do know that the Olmec were predominately Malinke-Bambara because they called themselves Xi< Si/Shi which means race, and black in Malinke.
. [/QB]
I see. The Garamantes were Mande speakers who moved to the Niger Delta in A.D. 250. Malinke-Bambara speakers who lived in the Fezzan were the ones who around 1250 B.C. sailed to the New World. Is this correct?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I have never identified the Olmecs as Garamante. You asked when the Garamante reached the Niger. They did not enter the area until after 250 AD.
The Olmec spoke a language related to Malinke Bambara. This language was probably spoken by other people in the Fezzan.
Most of the Mande speakers in Mauretania around 1200 BC, where probably Soninke speaking Mande people. This view is supported by the fact that it was the Soninke who founded the ancient empire of Ghana/Gana.
From reading the Olmec inscriptions I have not be able to establish the particular clans associated with Olmecs except for the royals and the Craftsman clans that usually served as governors of some Olmec towns. I do know that the Olmec were predominately Malinke-Bambara because they called themselves Xi< Si/Shi which means race, and black in Malinke.
.
I see. The Garamantes were Mande speakers who moved to the Niger Delta in A.D. 250. Malinke-Bambara speakers who lived in the Fezzan were the ones who around 1250 B.C. sailed to the New World. Is this correct? [/QB]
Yes
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Supercar: What evidence do you have that ancestors of modern "Berber" speakers weren't in north Africa in the "ancient times"?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: What evidence do you have that they were?
quote:Yes: E-M81 (E3b2; referred to as the "Berber marker," but probably arising first in East Africa [5000kya], which reaches frequencies of up to 80% in North Africa.
It is thought of primarily as a Berber haplogroup, and is most common throughout the Maghreb region of North Africa and is absent in Europe, except for the Iberian peninsula and Sicily.
It is considered to have entered the European continent as a result of Islamic domination over these regions of Southern Europe.
quote:Winters: Genes can not tell us the language a population speaks.
Non sequitur. You asked for evidence that ancestors of modern Berber speakers were in Africa - and that is *exactly* what you were provided with.
It is a good thing a topic concerning timeline was opened, with timeline of northwest Africa being the first to be presented; it is unfortunate though, that Clyde hadn't bothered to read it, which would have saved him the trouble of even asking that irrelevant question.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Winters: We have ancient textual evidence written by the ancient Saharan Africans--it is not in Berber. This proves they were not in the region.
That is also non sequitur. Writings would be evidence of who *is* in a region, but cannot prove a negative of who is *not* in a region.
For the last time....
What you need by way of writing is original Berber writings from *outside of Africa*. That would affirm your claims.
You don't have any, why?
Because none exists.
Your argument is illogical.
Proto-Tamazight scripture is another thing which wouldn't have evaded Clyde, had he bothered to do even minimal research. What does Clyde understand by the origins of these scripts, if they don't attest back to "ancient times" of north Africa. What about the Phoenician presence in northwest Africa; none of these things occurred? and who were already living there prior to the coming Phoenicians; were these not in the "ancient times"? Knowing Clyde's modus operandi, he may well say that the "Berbers" ancestors were these foreign groups, that is - the Phoenicians et al., while at the same time claiming that they didn't exist in north Africa in the "ancient times", not to mention leaving out the most striking detail about contemporary "Berber"/Tamazight speakers [yes, including those light skin ones], which is their E-M81 signature, that the Phoenicians et al. [meaning extra-African foreigners] wouldn't have carried!
For minimal research, you don't even need to look too much further than the words of the Tamazight speakers themselves, naturally not without interpretation with some hints of potential ethno-biases - which can be filtered out from verifiable information, on Tamazight sites...
Tifinagh sur une une gravure millénaire à Yagwer (Haut Atlas): Tifinagh on an engraving 1st millennium in Yagwer (High Atlas)
“The Tifinagh express berber words . Mr. Henri Lhote, in his book of The Tuareg of Hoggar, speaking about the Ti-finar inscription, says: “the oldest ones comprise of signs which are no longer used and remain incomprehensible to the Tuareg. They begin ordinarily with three or four lined up dots, followed by a circle, which in turn is followed by three parallel hyphens drawn longitudinally:
^They are located in the "Tassili", in Hoggar , Adrar of Iforas.
He goes on further : "inscriptions of the middle era contain initial signs which are a hyphens followed by three dots in triangle:
^And the meaning of which it still understood by the Tuaregs. they mean : "nek" or "wanek" that mean "me".
He adds : the most recent inscriptions are materialized by the beginning:
^The improved version of the following:
^And which has the same significance as the one above it, followed by proper noun :
"tenet" = said, I say and expressing a wish or idea, It seems undoubtedly that the Ti-finagh are means of expression of the berber language and may be amongst the first human signs, expressing man’s idea in writing.
These sign are so elementary and archaic that they can’t emanate from any other form of writing. They are represented with geometric signs :
quote:Supercar: What evidence do you have that ancestors of modern "Berber" speakers weren't in north Africa in the "ancient times"?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: What evidence do you have that they were?
quote:Yes: E-M81 (E3b2; referred to as the "Berber marker," but probably arising first in East Africa [5000kya], which reaches frequencies of up to 80% in North Africa.
It is thought of primarily as a Berber haplogroup, and is most common throughout the Maghreb region of North Africa and is absent in Europe, except for the Iberian peninsula and Sicily.
It is considered to have entered the European continent as a result of Islamic domination over these regions of Southern Europe.
quote:Winters: Genes can not tell us the language a population speaks.
Non sequitur. You asked for evidence that ancestors of modern Berber speakers were in Africa - and that is *exactly* what you were provided with.
It is a good thing a topic concerning timeline was opened, with timeline of northwest Africa being the first to be presented; it is unfortunate though, that Clyde hadn't bothered to read it, which would have saved him the trouble of even asking that irrelevant question.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Winters: We have ancient textual evidence written by the ancient Saharan Africans--it is not in Berber. This proves they were not in the region.
That is also non sequitur. Writings would be evidence of who *is* in a region, but cannot prove a negative of who is *not* in a region.
For the last time....
What you need by way of writing is original Berber writings from *outside of Africa*. That would affirm your claims.
You don't have any, why?
Because none exists.
Your argument is illogical.
Proto-Tamazight scripture is another thing which wouldn't have evaded Clyde, had he bothered to do even minimal research. What does Clyde understand by the origins of these scripts, if they don't attest back to "ancient times" of north Africa. What about the Phoenician presence in northwest Africa; none of these things occurred? and who were already living there prior to the coming Phoenicians; were these not in the "ancient times"? Knowing Clyde's modus operandi, he may well say that the "Berbers" ancestors were these foreign groups, that is - the Phoenicians et al., while at the same time claiming that they didn't exist in north Africa in the "ancient times", not to mention leaving out the most striking detail about contemporary "Berber"/Tamazight speakers [yes, including those light skin ones], which is their E-M81 signature, that the Phoenicians et al. [meaning extra-African foreigners] wouldn't have carried!
For minimal research, you don't even need to look too much further than the words of the Tamazight speakers themselves, naturally not without interpretation with some hints of potential ethno-biases - which can be filtered out from verifiable information, on Tamazight sites...
Tifinagh sur une une gravure millénaire à Yagwer (Haut Atlas): Tifinagh on an engraving 1st millennium in Yagwer (High Atlas)
“The Tifinagh express berber words . Mr. Henri Lhote, in his book of The Tuareg of Hoggar, speaking about the Ti-finar inscription, says: “the oldest ones comprise of signs which are no longer used and remain incomprehensible to the Tuareg. They begin ordinarily with three or four lined up dots, followed by a circle, which in turn is followed by three parallel hyphens drawn longitudinally:
^They are located in the "Tassili", in Hoggar , Adrar of Iforas.
He goes on further : "inscriptions of the middle era contain initial signs which are a hyphens followed by three dots in triangle:
^And the meaning of which it still understood by the Tuaregs. they mean : "nek" or "wanek" that mean "me".
He adds : the most recent inscriptions are materialized by the beginning:
^The improved version of the following:
^And which has the same significance as the one above it, followed by proper noun :
"tenet" = said, I say and expressing a wish or idea, It seems undoubtedly that the Ti-finagh are means of expression of the berber language and may be amongst the first human signs, expressing man’s idea in writing.
These sign are so elementary and archaic that they can’t emanate from any other form of writing. They are represented with geometric signs :
These inscriptions are written in the Mande language. They are not Tifinagh. The script is Libyco-Berber one of the Mande scripts like Vai. Vai Script
This is why Lhote noted:
quote: “The Tifinagh express berber words . Mr. Henri Lhote, in his book of The Tuareg of Hoggar, speaking about the Ti-finar inscription, says: “the oldest ones comprise of signs which are no longer used and remain incomprehensible to the Tuareg.
If they are written in Berber invite you to decipher them.
These inscriptions are written in the Mande language. They are not Tifinagh. The script is Libyco-Berber one of the Mande scripts like Vai. Vai Script
This is why Lhote noted:
quote: “The Tifinagh express berber words . Mr. Henri Lhote, in his book of The Tuareg of Hoggar, speaking about the Ti-finar inscription, says: “the oldest ones comprise of signs which are no longer used and remain incomprehensible to the Tuareg.
If they are written in Berber invite you to decipher them.
Cherry-picking from the citations; that is, ignoring that which you don't like. The same author you are using to your defense, is the one attributing the script to Tuareg - Tamazight/"Berber" speakers. The point of the pictorial demonstration, which apparently evaded you, was to show structural connections between the said scripts, and while the first "word" is not comprehensible to Tamasheqs/Tuaregs, the structure is still consistent with the more recent examples shown. Have you even bothered to look at the Tifinagh script in the comparative table? Of course not.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
These inscriptions are written in the Mande language. They are not Tifinagh. The script is Libyco-Berber one of the Mande scripts like Vai. Vai Script
This is why Lhote noted:
quote: “The Tifinagh express berber words . Mr. Henri Lhote, in his book of The Tuareg of Hoggar, speaking about the Ti-finar inscription, says: “the oldest ones comprise of signs which are no longer used and remain incomprehensible to the Tuareg.
If they are written in Berber invite you to decipher them.
Cherry-picking from the citations; that is, ignoring that which you don't like. The same author you are using to your defense, is the one attributing the script to Tuareg - Tamazight/"Berber" speakers. The point of the pictorial demonstration, which apparently evaded you, was to show structural connections between the said scripts, and while the first "word" is not comprehensible to Tamasheqs/Tuaregs, the structure is still consistent with the more recent examples shown. Have you even bothered to look at the Tifinagh script in the comparative table? Of course not.
The question is not the identity of Tifinagh writing, we know it is a writing used by the Tuareg.
But Lhote makes it clear, like anyone else who has researched the issue, you can't read the ancient inscriptions in the Sahara from the Fezzan to the Niger Delta using Tuareg. This is because there were no Berbers in ancient Africa. The Berbers are descendents of the Vandals and Yemeni people.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mystery Solver
quote:
Cherry-picking from the citations; that is, ignoring that which you don't like. The same author you are using to your defense, is the one attributing the script to Tuareg - Tamazight/"Berber" speakers. The point of the pictorial demonstration, which apparently evaded you, was to show structural connections between the said scripts, and while the first "word" is not comprehensible to Tamasheqs/Tuaregs, the structure is still consistent with the more recent examples shown. Have you even bothered to look at the Tifinagh script in the comparative table? Of course not.
Of course it will relate to the ancient writing. This is due to the fact that the inventors of the script learned about writing from the Mande people who have numerous writing systems in addition to the Vai script.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The Berbers are descendents of the Vandals and Yemeni people.
Good job leading mystery solver on a wild goose chase while ignoring the only relevant question:
quote:rasol asks: What you need by way of writing is original Berber writings from *outside of Africa*. That would affirm your claims. Where is it? You don't have any, why?
They don't exist.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The question is not the identity of Tifinagh writing, we know it is a writing used by the Tuareg.
That is precisely the point of the post; to demonstrate continuity of the script, and to show that the ancestors of "Berbers" were in the region.
In fact, it's said that ancient "Berber" scriptures have been deciphered with the help of bilingual "Numidian" scripture in presumably "Libyan" and "Phoenician", located "notably at Dougga in Tunisia".
Matter of fact, which native Mande speaking person in this day and age, is said to be able to read the sign in question? Where is your evidence of that? Where is your evidence that the said script is even being used in Mande speakers, as seems to be the case with Tifinagh among Tamasheq groups?
quote:Clyde Winters:
But Lhote makes it clear, like anyone else who has researched the issue, you can't read the ancient inscriptions in the Sahara from the Fezzan to the Niger Delta using Tuareg. This is because there were no Berbers in ancient Africa.
You and Lhote are apparently speaking different languages. He uses the script to show evidence that "berbers" were in the region, and you proclaim that he isn't saying that. Who should we believe: you or Lhote?
quote:Clyde Winters:
The Berbers are descendents of the Vandals and Yemeni people.
Goes back to the question I asked you several threads ago; it remains unanswered undoubtedly.
I'll add that...
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Good job leading mystery solver on a wild goose chase while ignoring the only relevant question:
quote:rasol asks: What you need by way of writing is original Berber writings from *outside of Africa*. That would affirm your claims. Where is it? You don't have any, why?
They don't exist.
...will go unanswered, as other relevant questions have.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: These inscriptions are written in the Mande language. They are not Tifinagh. The script is Libyco-Berber one of the Mande scripts like Vai.
This coming from the same person who sees Mande script in Aegean Linear A script, Hurrian language, Sumerian, Dravidian script, and Olmec. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I provided an abbreviated etymology showing the word Libya, in current English usage, derives from an ancient Greek term Libue (supplied earlier by Midogbe and verified by perusing the Liddell & Scott Greek Lexicon) which in turn derives from the ancient Egyptian usage Libu/Rebu.
This is either correct or incorrect. I don't care which of the two above options you subscribe to.
I'm interested in Y O U R etymology of the word Libya and am asking for it the third time. Please provide it if you have one. Thank you.
----------------------------------- truth is prism refracted fact i'm just another point of view -----------------------------------
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
All I'm asking you to do without twisting or fanfare is to
quote:Please provide us with YOUR complete etymology of the word used in the English language that is written as "Libya."
nothing else but that will satisfy my kind request, thank you.
And I am asking you to do without grandstanding or fanfare to first read and understand what was said, to avoid asking immaterial questions. You said "Libya" is English. Prove it.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
BTW grandstanding is a logical fallacy or demagogue tactic of appealing to a crowd for verification and is not evident in the question put to you nor in the comment noting your avoidance in answering said question.
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings:
rasol wrote:
quote: ^ The above statement makes no sense.
Parodying: Linguistic classification called 'English' is a ignorant concept because it disguises the fact that some speakers of these language groups are not native to Europe.
This is nonsensical because languages are not classified based on the geographic origin of all the people who speak the language.
Hotep - your statement only demonstrates the fallacy of Winters approach, which we pointed out long ago on this forum, but which Winters does not seem to be able to grow beyound.
It is a fallacy of a racial-ideology of history which attempts to make language concord with 'race.'
That all the speakers of language families do not have the same lineage is the *rule*, not the exception.
Here we sit, at our computers communicating in English, though none of us are from Europe - where English originates...yet you can't understand this.
The Bantu and Mande classifications are a perfect example of the fact that languages can be classified based on the geoghrapical origins of speakers of the language.
We are NOT discussing the English language so remove the STRAW from the well. We are discussing the ignorant concept called 'berber' and the confusion that it breeds,
rasol wrote:
quote: I agree that it's a challenge to respect the struggle of the Berber for their own identity - mirroring the struggle of other Africans, while at the same time 'putting paid' to Berber ethnic mythologies, which piggy-back onto Eurocentrism.
I suggest to advocates of this brand of Berber-centrism that they consider carefully the faulty nature of their thesis.
* On the one hand they seek the broadest possible definition of Berber, in order to link peoples like the Kabyle to everyone from the Siwa Oasis Libyans called Tehennu, to the Moors.
* On the other hand they seek and ethnically exclusionary definition of Berber, in which the Berber are white, or k-zoid, and in which Black Berber are marginalised or made illigitimate. This is a false dichotomy, and moreover, it's easy to discredit. It is poor strategy and doomed to failure.
Berber is best viewed as and African language group, spoken by ethnically diverse people.
These people and their languages originate in the East African Neolithic, and spread to NorthWest Africa. Many of their most notable traditions such as the Tifinagh Berber script, often written without vowels much like mdw.ntr, are best represented by the Touareg.
This Berber expansion was male biased - no different than many other migrations - including Bantu, and various Semitic [Lemba, Arab, etc..] expansions, only - it was more extreme because it expansed great tracks of sahara dessert.
Because of this the female ancestry of the Berber ranges from predominently East African - in East Africa, to substantially West African in parts of the Western Sahel, to predominently European on the North West African coast.
The Berber physical appearance varies accordingly - and *naturally*. In order for people like the Kabyles to claim and affinity with people like the Tehennu and Touareg, they *must* embrace, and not deny, the multi-ethnic historical reality of Berber speaking peoples .
rasol those are your own words in the bold, Clyde Winters did not invent the LIES being trumpeted by Eurocentrics concerning groups living in North Afrika, Kabyles have fully racialized Berberism. Students of Afrikan history need TRUTH not LIES towards who were the original inhabitants of North Afrika.
Now if you didn't read it the last time then let me repeat this posting.
quote: 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 ".
These findings were quite clear that the original inhabitants of Northern Afrika were Afrikan people, the main population of Carthage were Native Afrikan people.
The confusion that comes from Berberism leads any one to ask questions such as these:
Neith Athena wrote:
quote: Were all the NATIVE North Africans Black Africans in earliest times?
Tyrannosaurus wrote:
quote: Numidians probably had the "coastal North African" appearance. This is intermediate between European (i.e. "Caucasoid") and Saharo-tropical African phenotypes, though both "Caucasoid" and "tropical African" appearances may occur occasionally among them. I don't think they were entirely black.
These are valid questions and assumptions based on the ignorant 'berber' ruse, which does nothing more than hide the fact that Ancient Libyans were equated with idigenous Afrikans and not a Language group. Berber is a ignorant and confusing concept. Tamasheq speakers are not Berbers seeing the fact that they never called themselves 'Berbers'.
rasol can you tell me which group of Tamasheq speakers call themselves berbers?
Hotep
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Everything was already answered by Rasol, so what else do you want to know?
Again, you can argue against the usage of the term 'Berber' all you want, it still does not refute the fact that the language group exists nor does it refute the fact that it is closely related to Egyptian and Semitic and all compose an Afrasian (call it what you will) language family.
Language does NOT necessarily reflect geography let alone race. Rasol's point about English is not a strawman because it is a perfect illustration of how people like us (non-whites) can speak a European language even though we are not from Europe let alone England. White Kabyle speak African langauges and live in Africa. No one said that is where they originated, but their language surely originated there. And their langauge is classified as 'Berber' (call it what you will).
Why this is so hard for you absorb into your brain is beyond me.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
I provided an abbreviated etymology showing the word Libya, in current English usage, derives from an ancient Greek term Libue (supplied earlier by Midogbe and verified by perusing the Liddell & Scott Greek Lexicon) which in turn derives from the ancient Egyptian usage Libu/Rebu.
You've shown zip about "Libya" being an English word.
quote:al Takruri:
I'm interested in Y O U R etymology of the word Libya and am asking for it the third time. Please provide it if you have one. Thank you.
Not until I have your etymology of "Libya" as an English word.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
BTW grandstanding is a logical fallacy or demagogue tactic of appealing to a crowd for verification and is not evident in the question put to you nor in the comment noting your avoidance in answering said question.
^This juvenile display has gotten you the attention you wanted. Let's stay on-topic now, shall we.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Moving onto the timeline and signs of domestication in the Saharan expanse, with a recap of this dated/old but perhaps still instructive study [my insertions - bolded dates in brackets]:
Are the early Holocene cattle in the Eastern Sahara domestic or wild?
Fred Wendorf & Romuald Schild (Evolutionary Anthropology 3(4), 1994)
[Note: The references and diagrams are not included. Please consult the original article]
Questions relating to the antiquity of domestic cattle in the Sahara are among the most controversial in North African prehistory. It is generally believed that cattle were first domesticated in southwest Asia, particularly Anatolia, or in southeast Europe, where their remains have been found in several sites dated between 9,000 and 8,000 years ago. The discovery, in several small sites in the Western Desert of Egypt, of large bovid bones identified as domestic cattle and having radiocarbon dates ranging between 9,500 and 8,000 B.P. has raised the possibility that there was a separate, independent center for cattle domestication in northeast Africa. However, it has not been universally accepted that these bones are from cattle or, if so, that the cattle were domestic.
Disputes about the large bovid remains and whether or not they represent domestic cattle do not have to do only with issues of primacy and the multiple independent developments of pastoralism and food production. Of greater importance, perhaps, is the possible role of pastoralism in facilitating human exploitation of harsh, unfavorable environments and the adjustments people made to live in them. Examination of the data may help us understand the processes involved in the development of pastoralist societies.
The evidence from the Eastern Sahara Today the Eastern Sahara is a desert with a rainfall of less than 1 mm per year. It is almost completely devoid of life. Until recently, when paved roads were built and several deep water-wells were dug, the desert was unpopulated except at a few large oases such as Farafra, Dakhla, and Kharga, where artesian water was available.
In the early Holocene, the Eastern Sahara had more rainfall, probably between 100 and 200 mm per year in its Egyptian area The rain probably fell during the summer. This inference is drawn from the fact that the plant remains in the early Holocene archeological sites are the same as those growing today several hundred kilometers to the south, on the northern margin of the Sahel and the adjacent Sahara, which are in a summer rain-fall regime. The quantity of rainfall was sufficient for seasonal pools or playas to form in large depressions. There may also have been permanent water about 250 km farther south at Sehima, and there certainly were permanent lakes near Merga in northern Sudan about 500 km south of the Egyptian border. Nevertheless, the Eastern Sahara was, at best, a marginal and highly unstable environment with frequent droughts and episodes of hyper-aridity.
The Eastern Sahara in Egypt was not an environment that could have supported wild cattle nor one where the earliest domestication of cattle would have been like likely to occur. Cattle need to drink every day or at least every other day and there was no permanent water anywhere in the area.
[ca. 11ky - 12ky BP]
Early Neolithic
Radiocarbon dates indicate that the early Holocene rains began sometime before 10,000 B.P., perhaps as early as 11,000 or 12,000 B.P. However, there is no evidence of human presence before 9,500 B.P. except for a radiocarbon date of around 10,000 years ago from a hearth west of Dakhla. The earliest sites with large bovid remains are imbedded in playa sediments that overlay several meters of still older Holocene playa deposits.
All of these sites contain well-made, bladelet-based lithic assemblages. Straight-backed pointed bladelets, perforators, and large endscrapers made on reused Middle Paleolithic artifacts are the characteristic tools. A few grinding stones and rare sherds of pottery also occur. The pottery is well made; the pieces are decorated over their entire exterior surfaces with deep impressions formed with a comb or wand in what is sometimes referred to as the Early Khartoum style.
[ca. 8,200y - 9,500y BP]
These assemblages have been classified as the El Adam type of the Early Neolithic. Several radiocarbon dates place the complex between 9,500 and 8,900 B.P. There is no evidence that there were wells during this period. It is assumed, then, that these sites represent occupations that took place after the summer rains and before the driest time of the year when surface water was no anger available. Three of these sites, E-77-7, E-79-8, and E-80-4, all having only El Adam archeology and all located between km and 250 km west of Abu Simbel, have yielded, through excavation, more than 20 bones and teeth of large bovids that have been identified as Bos. These occurred along with several hundred bones of gazelle (Gazella dorcas and G. dama) and hare (Lepus capensis); a few bones of jackal (Canis aureus), turtle (Testudo sp.); and birds (Otis tarda and Anas querquedula); the large shell of a bivalve (Aspatharia rubens), probably of Nilotic origin; and various snail shells (Bulinus truncatus and Zoorecus insularis).
After a period of aridity around 8,800 years ago, when the desert may have been abandoned, the area was re-occupied by groups with a lithic tool-kit that emphasized elongated scalene triangles. The grinding stones, scrapers, and rare pieces of pottery that are present characterize the El Ghorab type of Early Neolithic and have been dated between 8,600 and 8,200 B.P. Oval slab-lined houses occur during this phase; all of them located in the lower pans of natural drainage basins. However, there are no known wells, suggesting that the desert still was not occupied during the driest part of the year. Faunal remains are poorly preserved in these sites and indeed, only one bone of a large bovid was recovered from the four sites with fauna in these sites the Dorcas gazelle is the most numerous, followed by hare, together with single bones of wild cat (Felis silvestris), porcupine (Hystrix cristata), desert hedge-hog (Paraechinus aethiopicus) an amphibian, and a bird.
[ca. 7,900y - 8,200k BP]
Another brief period of aridity be-tween 8.200 and 8,100 B.P. coincides with the end of the El Ghorab type of Early Neolithic in the desert. With the return of greater rainfall between 8.100 and 8+000 B.P., a new variety of Early Neolithic, the El Nabta type, appeared in the area. El Nabta sites are often larger than the previous Early Neolithic sites and usually have several large, deep wells, some with adjacent shallow basins that might have been used to water stock. A variety of lithic and bone tools occur in these sites, including stemmed points with pointed and retouched bases, perforators, burins, scrapers. notched pieces, bone points, and scalene triangles measuring about one centimeter. Grinding stones and shreds of pottery are more numerous than in the earlier sites, but still are not abundant. Their deeply impressed designs are similar to those on objects recovered from sites of the El Adam and El Ghorab types of Early Neolithic. Occasional pieces have "dotted wavy line" decoration.
Radiocarbon dates place the El Nabta sites between 8,100 and 7,900 B.P. One of these, E-75-6, is much larger than the others and consists of a series of shallow, oval hut floors arranged in two, possibly three, parallel lines. Beside each house was one or more bell-shaped storage pits; nearby were several deep (2.5 m) and shallow (1.5 m) water-wells. This site, located near the bottom of a large basin, was flooded by the summer rains. The houses were repeatedly used, probably during harvests in fall and winter Several thousand remains of edible plants have been recovered from these house floors. They include seeds, fruits, and tubers representing 44 different kinds of plants, including sorghum and millets. All of the plants are morphologically wild, but chemical analysis by infrared spectroscopy of the lipids in the sorghum indicates that this plant may have been cultivated. Of the four El Nabta sites that have yielded fauna, two contained bones of a large bovid identified as Bos. The faunal samples from the other two sites are very small.
[ca. 7,700y - 6,500y BP]
Middle Neolithic
Another brief period of aridity separated the El Nabta Early Neolithic from the succeeding Middle Neolithic, which is marked by the much greater abundance of pottery. In addition, each piece of pottery is decorated over its entire exterior surface with closely packed comb- or paddle-impressed designs. Some of the pots are large, and analysis of the clays indicates that they were made locally. There were also some changes in lithic tools. More of them were made of local rocks, but there was sufficient continuity in lithic typology to suggest that the preceding Nabta population was also involved.
Radiocarbon dates indicated an age for the Middle Neolithic between 7,700 and 6,500 B.P. The sites from the early part of this period range from one or two house homesteads in some of the smaller playas to multi-house villages in the larger basins. There is also one very large settlement along the beach line of the largest playa in the area, as well as, small camps on the sandsheets and the plateaus beyond the basins. This variation in site size has been interpreted as reflecting a seasonally responsive settlement system in which the population dispersed into small villages in the lower pans of the basins during most of the year, particularly the dry season, then, during the wet season, aggregated into a large community along the edge of the high-water stand of the largest playa.
Various house types are represented in the villages: some are circular and semi-subterranean (30 to 40 cm deep), some slab-lined, and others appear to have had walls of sticks and clay (wattle and daub). All of the sites have large, deep walk-in wells and storage pits. Except for the small camps, most of the sites appear to have been reused many times, with new house floors placed on top of the silt deposited during the preceding flood.
Excavations at five Middle Neolithic sites have yielded more than 50 bones from large bovids. Most of these bones came from the large "aggregation" site (E-75-8) at the margin of the largest playa in the area and from the early Middle Neolithic site E-77-l, dated before 7,000 B.P., which is located on a dune adjacent to another large playa. Each of the other three Middle Neolithic sites yielded only one to three large bovid bones.
Around 7,000 B.P., the remains of small livestock (sheep or goats) appear in several Middle Neolithic sites at Nabta. Because there are no progenitors for sheep or goats in Africa, these caprovines were almost certainly introduced from southwest Asia.
The faunal remains in many of these sites are extensive, including not only the same species recovered from the Early Neolithic sites, but also lizards (Lacertilia sp.) ground squirrel (Euxerus erythropus), field rat (Aricanthis nioloticus), hyena (Hyaena hyaena), and sand fox (Vulpes rueppelii). One bone is from either orstx (Oryx dammah) or addax (Addax nasosulcatus), The most nurmerous remains are those of hare and the Dorcas gazelle. Nevertheless, the paucity of the fauna and the absence, except for cattle and small livestock, of animals that require permanent water suggests a rather poor environment, most likely comparable to the northernmost Sahel today with about 200 mm of rain or less annually.
The Middle Neolithic was brought to an end by another major but brief period of aridity slightly before 6,500 B.P., when the water table fell several meters and the floors of many basins were deflated and reshaped, The area probably was abandoned at this time.
[ca. 6,500y - 5,300y BP]
Late Neolithic
With the increase in rainfall that began around 6,500 years ago. human groups again appeared in the area, but this time with ceramic and lithic traditions that differed from those of the preceding Middle Neolithic. This new complex, identified as Late Neolithic, is distinguished by pottery that is polished and sometimes smudged on the interiors. This pottery resembles that found in the slightly later (about 5,400 or, possibly, 6,300 B.P.) Baderian sites in the Nile Valley of Upper Egypt. [12, 13] It seems likely that an as yet undiscovered early pre-Badarian Neolithic was present in that area and either stimulated or was the source of the Late Neolithic pottery in the Sahara. It is unlikely, however, that this hypothetical early Nilotic Neolithic will date much earlier than 6,500 B.P. There are terminal Paleolithic sites along the Nile that are dated to around 7,000 B.P. and it is highly improbable that two such different life-ways could co-exist exist for long in the closely constrained environment of the Nile Valley.
Late Neolithic sites in the Egyptian Sahara consist mostly of numerous hearths representing many separate episodes of occupation. The hearths are long and oval, dug slightly into the surface of the ground, and filled with charcoal and fire-cracked rocks. No houses are known. Most of the sites are dry-season camps located in the lower parts of basins that were flooded by the seasonal rains. Many of the sites are associated with several large, deep wells. Many of the Late Neolithic tools are made on "side-blow flakes" that have been retouched into denticulates and notched pieces There are also a few bifacial arrowheads, often with tapering stems, or, rarely with concave bases similar to those found in the Fayum Neolithic where they date between 6,400 and 5,7OO years ago. The end of the Late Neolithic in the Eastern Sahara is not well established.The period may have tasted until around 5,300 B.P. when this part of the Sahara was abandoned.
Due to poor preservation faunal remains in Late Neolithic sites are not as abundant as those from the Middle Neolithic. However, the Late and Middle Neolithic samples generally include the same animals suggesting that the environment was also generally similar during these periods. Although large bovids are also present in three Late Nealithic sites, and more frequently than in the faunal assemblages of the preceding period, they still are a minor component of the sample.
The Late Neolithic Nabta is marked by interesting signs of increased social complexity, including several alignments of updght slabs (2 x 3 m) imbedded in, and sometimes almost covered by, the playa sediments. Circles of smaller uptight stabs may calendrical devices. Stone-covered tumuli are also present; two of the smaller ones contain cow burials, one in a prepared and sealed pit. none of the more than 30 large tumuli thus far located, which are by large, roughly shaped blocks of stone, has been excavated.
Even the earliest of these early Holocene Eastern Sahara sites have been attributed to cattle pastoralists. It is presumed that these Early Neolithic groups came into the desert from an as yet unidentified area where wild cattle were present and the initial steps toward their domestication been taken.
This area may have been the Nile Valley between the First and Second Cataracts, where wild cattle were present. Moreover, lithic industries were closely similar to those in the earliest Saharan sites. It has been suggested that cattle may have facilitated human use of the Sahara by providing a mobile, dependable, and renewable source of food in the font of milk and blood. The use of cattle as a renewable resource rather than for meat is seen as a possible explanation for the paucity of cattle remains in most of the Saharan sites. Such use in a desert, where other foods were so limited, may have initiated the modern East African pattern of cattle pastonlism in which cattle are important as a symbol of prestige, are primarily used for milk and blood, and rarely are killed for meat.
It is assumed, because of the apparrent absence of wells at the earliest sites, that the first pastoralists used the desert only after the summer rains, when water was still present in the larger drainage basins. After 8,000 years ago, when large, deep wells were dug, the pastoralists probably resided in the desert year-round.
Linguistic evidence
In addition to the archeological and paleontological evidence, recent linguistic studies indicate the presence of early pastoralists in the Eastern Sahara. Detailed analysis of Nilo-Saharan root words has provided "convincing evidence" that the early cultural history of that language family included a pastoralist and food producing way of life, and that this occurred in what is today the south-western Sahara and Sahel belt.
The Nilo-Saharan family of languages is divided into a complex array of branches and subgroups that reflect an enormous time depth. Just one of the subgroups, Kir is as internally complex as the lndo-European family of languages and is believed to have a comparable age. The Sudanese branch is of special interest here. This is particularly true of the Northern Sudanese subfamily that includes a Saharo-Sahelian subgroup, the early homeland of which is placed in nonh-west Sudan and northeast Chad. Today, the groups that speak Saharo-Sahelian are dispersed from the Niger river eastward to northwestern Ethiopian highlands.
The Proto-Northern Sudanic language contains root words such as "to drive," "cow, "grain,""ear of grain," and "grindstone." Any of these might apply to food production, but another root word meaning "to milk" is cetainly the most convincing evidence of incipient pastoralism.
There are also root words for "temporary shelter" and "to make a pot." In the succeeding Proto-Saharo-Sahelian language, there are root words for "to cultivate", "to prepare field", to "clear" (of weeds), and "cultivated field." this is the first unambiguous linguistic evidence of cultivation. There are also words for "thombush cattle pen," "fence," "yard," "grannary," as well as "to herd" and "cattle." In the following Proto-Sahelian period, there are root words for "goat," "sheep," "ram," and "lamb," indicating the presence of small livestock.
There are root words for "cow," "bull," "ox," and "young cow" or "heifer" and, indeed, a variety of terms relating to cultivation and permanent houses.
On the basis of known historical changes in some of the language, Ehret estimates that the Proto-Northern Sudanic language family, which includes the first root words indicating cattle pastoralism, should be dated about 10,000 years ago. He also estimates that the Proto-Saharan-Sahelian language family, which has words indicating not only more complex cattle pastroalism, but the first indications of cultivation, occurred around 9,000 years ago[/]. He places the Proto-Sahelian language at about 8,500 years ago.
These age estimates are just that, and should not be used to suggest any other chronology. Nevertheless, the sequence of cultural changes is remarkably similar to that in the archeology of the Eastern Sahara and, with some minor adjustments for the beginning of cultivation and for' the inclusion of "sheep" and "goat," reasonably closely to the radiocarbon chronology.
Evidence from other parts of North Africa The antiquity of the known domes-tic cattle elsewhere in North Africa does not offer much encouragement with regard to the presence of early domestic cattle in the Eastern Sahara. Gautier recently summarized the available data, noting that domestic cattle were present in coastal Maurita-nia and Mali around [b]4,200 years ago and at Capeletti in the mountains of northern Algeria about 6,500 years ago. At about that same time, they may have been present in the Coastal Neolithic of the Maghreb. Farther south in the Central Sahara, domestic cattle were present at Meniet and Erg d'Admco, both of which date around 5,400 years ago, and at Adrar Rous, where a complete skeleton of a domestic cow is dated 5,760 +/- 500 years B.P ].
Domestic cattle have been found in western Libya at Ti-n-torha North and Uan Muhuggiag, where the lowest level with domestic cattle and small livestock (sheep and goats) dated at 7,438 t 1,200 B.P. At Uan Muhuggiag, there is also a skull of a domestic cow dated 5,950 +/- 120 years. In northern Chad at Gabrong and in the Serir Tibesti, cattle and small livestock were certainly present by 6,000 B.P. and may have been there as early as 7,500 B.P. We are skeptical, however, about the presence of livestock at Uan Muhuggiag and the Serir Tibesti before 7,OO0 B.P., when small livestock first appear in the Eastern Sahara, if we must assume that these animals reached the central Sahara by way of Egypt and the Nile Valley. This also casts doubt on the 7,500 B.P. dates for cattle in these sites.
The earliest domestic cattle in the lower Nile Valley have been found at Merimda, in levels that have several radiocarbon dates ranging between 6,000 and 5,400 B.P. and in the Fayum Neolithic, which dates from 6,400 to 5, 400 B.P. These sites also have domestic pigs and either sheep or goats. In Upper Egypt, the earliest confirmed domestic cattle are in the Predynastic site of El Khattara, dated at 5,300 B.P. However, domestic cattle were almost certainly present in the earliest Badarian Neolithic, which dates before 5,400 B.P. and possibly were there as early as 6,300 B.P. Farther south, in Sudan near Khartoum, the first do-mestic cattle and small livestock oc-curred together in the Khartoum Neolithic, which began around 6,000 B.P.
It is probably significant that none of the early Holocene faunal assemblages in the Nile Valley from the Fayum south to Khartoum that date between 9,000 and 7,000 B.P contains the remains of cattle that have been identified as domestic It is this absence of any evidence of recognizable incipient cattle domestication in the Nile Valley or elsewhere in North Africa that cautions us to consider carefully the evidence of early domestic cattle in the Eastern Sahara.
Other opinions
Numerous scholars, including Clutton-Brock, Robertshaw, Muzolini, and Smith, have debated about whether the large bovids are cattle or buffalo and stated that if they are cattle, they probably were wild.
It has also been suggested, because the large bovid bones are so rare, that the Bos were possibly intrusive and not associated with the dated occupations where they occurred That argument is not convincing The occupations at many of the sites with large bovids were limited to only one type of Early Neolithic. Moreover, the bovids were recovered from excavations at 15 Neolithic sites dating before 6,500 years ago and, in fact, were found at every site that yielded more than 41 specimens of identifiable faunal remains. Unfortunately, it is not possible to date these large bovid hones directly. Several attempts have been made and each was unsuccessful. Apparently, collagen is not preserved in bones found in hyper-arid environments. It should also be noted that the large bovid hones are not fossilized, and thus are not geological intrusions. Also, there are no large bovids living in the Eastern Sahara today nor have there been for several thousands of years.
It has been suggested that the faunal samples from the archeological sites do not reflect the range of animals that existed in that environment. However, Gautier has identified a long list of animals from these sites and, except for gazelles and hares, none is common. Beyond that, all are small and desert-adjusted. These faunal samples probably reflect the expected range of animals living in the desert at that time.
Smith made the most detailed criticism of Gautier's hypothesis about domestic cattle, basing his objections on two major points. The first is environmental. He noted that Churcher identified wild cattle, African buffalo, hartebeests zebras, and gazelles from an "Early Neolithic" context at Dakhleh Oasis, 300 km north of Bir Kiseiba. If this is a true Early Neolithic faunal assemblage, however, the area would have required a much wetter environment than is indicated by the geological evidence. In fact, this Dakhleh assemblage includes species that require much more moisture than do the species that were in the Nile Valley at this time. This suggests that the environment at Dakhleh was richer and more hospitable than that along the Nile, which is highly unlikely, to say the least. Also, Equus, even in the Late Paleolithic, seems to have been confined to the Red Sea Hills and the east bank of the Nile. [39] The Dakhleh fauna closely resembles that found with lacustrine deposits in the Eastern Sahara and dating to the Last Interglacial, while they are associated with Middle Paleolithic artifacts. It seems likely that this Dakhleh fauna was derived born deposits of the Middle Paleolithic and was somehow mixed with Neolithic artifacts. Churcher (personal communication) accepts this as a possible explanation.
Smith also noted that the Eastern Sahara faunal assemblages do not include the addax, which is still found today in the Central Sahara, or the oryx, giraffe, rhinoceros, or elephant he would expect to see in even the driest environments. There are, of course, two bones of either addax or oryx in the collections. Also, giraffes survived until recently in areas of the Gilf Kebir where there was water. There is, however, no evidence of giraffe on the plains of the Eastern Sahara after the lakes of the Last Interglacial became dry between 70,000 and 65,000 years ago. Occasional elephant teeth and a partial skull have been found in the Neolithic sites, but the elephant skull is more mineralized than are the bones of other fauna recovered from the same site. That skull, as well as the elephant teeth found in other sites, are regarded as Middle Paleolithic or earlier fossils collected by Neolithic people. In our view, the Eastern Sahara was simply too dry for these larger mammals, all of which, except the ele-phant, require nearby water. (The elephant is known to range considerable distances away from water)
Smith's other argument is osteological. He noted that Gautier was very cautious in his identifications, using circumstantial evidence to establish the identity of species. Smith observed that large bovid remains from the Eastern Sahara are within the size range of wild cattle in both Europe and North Africa, but that some are larger than known domestic cattle. He suggested that these large bovids could just as well be African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) or giant buffalo (Pelorovis antiquus). Both possibilities, however, can be rejected on osteometric and morphological grounds. The entire collection was carefully re-examined to resolve this particular question and the initial identification of the hones as those of Bus was confirmed.
It seems possible that we have not been adequately clear in our discussion of the sedimentary and other geological data that support the argument that there was no permanent water in this part of the Sahara. Perhaps, also, our critics' personal experience in the Sahara has been limited to its more tropical and luxurious areas where permanent lakes existed in the Early Holocene. If so, this may have left them with a distorted view of the environment in the Eastern Sahara, where there are numerous deflated basins. In the center of many of these basins are extensive remnants of typical playa clays, which grade to silts and sands toward their margins. Diatomites, freshwater limestones, and other organogenic evidence of permanent water do not occur. There are no aquatic species of invertebrates and none of the fauna except large bovids requires permanent water. It is for these reasons that we reject the hypothesis that cattle were an integral part of the natural, wild fauna of the Eastern Sahara in the early Holocene. In this area under these conditions, cattle had to have been under human control, and thus at least incipiently domestic. The cattle had to have been moved from one grazing area and water hole to another and then, when the drainage basins became dry returned to a place with permanent water.
Wild cattle were numerous in the Nile Valley at this time. It might be hypothesized that after the summer rains the cattle ranged westward on their own to graze and the new grass then returned to the valley before the dry season. Although it is possible that this could have happened at Nabta, which is only 100 km from the Nile, it is extremely unlikely to have occurred at Bir Kiseiba, about 250 km west of the Nile. Also, this hypothesis makes little ecological sense. If large cattle went far out into the desert, why didn't medium-size animals do the same? This is a particularly important question with regard to the hartebeest, which is also common in the Nile Valley and is better adapted to aridity than are cattle.
We have also considered the possibility that the cattle bones are remnants of food brought to the desert from the Nile Valley by groups of hunters. However, this is unlikely, for almost all of the bones recovered are lower limb elements, which have little or no meat and frequently are discarded at killing and butchery sites.
Conclusion
How can we accommodate the conflicting evidence regarding cattle pas-toralists during the early Holocene in the Eastern Sahara? In particular, how can we propose that the first steps to-ward cattle domestication began in the Nile Valley, perhaps during the Late Pleistocene, when there is so little faunal evidence to support that hypothesis? The answer may lie in the identification of the cattle remains found in the Late Paleolithic sites in Sudanese and Egyptian Nubia. It has been suggested that it would be very difficult to separate the bones of the incipiently domestic cattle from those of wild cattle. When the first cattle were discovered in the Eastern Sahara, Gautier rechecked the Bos remains that had been found in all of the Late Paleolithic Nilotic sites. He gave particular attention to those from the Qadan site at Tushka, dated 14, 500 B.P., where cattle skulls were used as head markers for several human burials, and those from the Ark-inian site with a 14C date around 10,500 B.P. The Arkinian site was of special interest because the little lithic assemblage from there closely resembles the assemblages from the earliest El Nabta type Neolithic in the Eastern Sahara. Gautier found that the cattle in both the Qadan and Arkinian sites fell in two size groups one of which he considered to be males, the other females both groups were identified as being wild Bos primigenius.
Recently, however, work in a killing and butchery site near Esna, Egypt, dated 19,100 B.P., yielded the remains of six very large Bos, much larger than any other previously recovered in the Nile Valley. Indeed, these Bos are even larger than those from much older Middle Paleolithic sites. On the basis of this discovery, Gautier has suggested that Bos primigenius bulls in the Nile Valley may well have been much larger than was previously believed, and that the larger Bos from the Qadan and Arkinian sites were female wild Bos. If so, the smaller animals in those assemblages may have been these ones that were in an early stage of domestication. Morphologically, the Eastern Sahara cattle would then be well within the range of these incipiently domestic cattle. The additional work planned at the Esna butchery site may clarify this hypothesis.
By employing the method of "strong inferences," which involves formulating alternative hypotheses, testing them to exclude one or more, arid adopting those that remain, we have concluded that domestic cattle probably were present in the Eastern Sahara as early as 9,000 years ago and, perhaps earlier. At the same time, we recognize that there is no such thing as proof and that science advances only by disproofs. Future evidence may suggest a better hypothesis or indeed, this controversy may be conclusively resolved if DNA testing now under way determines that the Bos remains found in African and Southwest Asian archeological sites belong to the same closely related gene pool or that they represent two populations that have been separated for many thousands of years. Until then, Gautier's hypothesis of domestic cattle in the Eastern Sahara during the Early Holocene remains reasonable, if insecure.
Again, out come Solver's patented technique when backed into a corner, the flailing of ad hominem emotional keywords designed to provoke flaming.
But it's you who are the one displaying juvenile tactics: show me yours and i'll show you mine.
You deconstruct what you fail to understand. Yet, when asked, fail to provide any original input to replace what you think you've torn apart. Quite simply, you cannot show that the word Libya ultimately comes from any other word than Libue which in turn directly comes from Libu/Rebu. We all can see that.
I accept your conceded defeat evidenced by continued harping on inconsequentials rather than focusing on the derivation of the word Libya.
You will never be able to demonstrate any other etymology or derivation of the word Libya other than the historic fact that the AE noted Rebu/Libu living west of the THHNW and that Cyrene colonizing ancient Greeks adapted the AEL word Libu as Libue in their language from whence all Indo-European variants of Libya spring.
And indeed you have been wise not to dispute such facts.
Also, I do believe this thread has strayed far from its purpose and needs to return to the Chronology of ancient Africa, a formidable task but so far presented excellently until taken off track by the Berber/Libyan interlude not dealing in a chronology of said linguistic group/people or the land they came to occupy.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Again, out come Solver's patented technique when backed into a corner, the flailing of ad hominem emotional keywords designed to provoke flaming
But it's you who are the one displaying juvenile tactics: show me yours and i'll show you mine.
You deconstruct what you fail to understand. Yet, when asked, fail to provide any original input to replace what you think you've torn apart. Quite simply, you cannot show that the word Libya comes from any other word than Libue which in turn comes from Libu/Rebu. We all can see that.
I accept your conceded defeat evidenced by continued harping on inconsequentials to the derivation of the word Libya.
You will never be able to demonstrate any other etymology or derivation of the word Libya other than the historic fact that the AE noted Rebu/Libu living west of the THHNW and that Cyrene colonizing ancient Greeks adapted the AEL word Libu as Libue in their language from whence all Indo-European variants of Libya spring.
And indeed you have been wise not to dispute such facts.
Want to start a topic where we can watch your juvenile showmanship, then open up a topic on it, and can talk about it there. Please stop spamming the ongoing topic with irrelevant blabber.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Somehow the point of the derivation of the word Libya came up. I responded with a concise etymology. It was disputed without any contrary evidence.
Now we just get emotional ranting from the one who disputed but cannot backup his accusation.
So please enter something relevant to the etymology of Libya as requested. After all you were the only one to call its derivation into question. Until you present a scholarly countering I will continue to ask for YOUR full etymology of Libya just as YOU have asked others for the same.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mystery Solver
quote:
Matter of fact, which native Mande speaking person in this day and age, is said to be able to read the sign in question? Where is your evidence of that? Where is your evidence that the said script is even being used in Mande speakers, as seems to be the case with Tifinagh among Tamasheq groups?
The Mande speaking people have never stopped writing in their ancient script. It appears that the Mande are keeping alive use of the script in Secret Societies like the Poro Secret Society.
There is considerable evidence that the Vai writing was invented millennia before 1820. This view is supported by the presence of signs analogous to the Vai script being found on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger Valley and beyond that make up the corpus of the Vai script .
Controversy surrounds the invention of the Vai script. Delafosse claimed that Vai informants told him the writing system was invented in ancient times. S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849) claimed that the writing system was invented by Bukele in 1829 or 1839. David Diringer in The Alphabet (London,1968,pp.130-133) reported that there was a tradition that the writing was invented by a group of eight Vai. Marcel Cohen La grande invention de l'ecriture at son evolution (Paris,1958, p. 21) believed that the Vai writing system was not invented before the 18th century, but more probably at the beginning of the 19thth century.
The story about Bukele's dream is just a cover, used by Bukele to keep members of the Gola Poro society from being angered by Bukele's open teaching of the Vai script .
We know that the symbols associated with the Vai script existed prior to Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing because it was known to African slaves in Suriname. In 1936, M.J. Herskovits and his wife on a field trip to Suriname recorded a specimen of writing written by a man while he was possessed by the spirit winti. Mrs. Hau, who examined the specimen wrote that "Most of the component parts of are to be found in the syllabaries of West Africa which we have just discussed" (see: K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).
The British took over Suriname and ended slavery in 1799. Years before Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing. As a result, there is no way a descendant of a Suriname Maroon (runaway slave) could have produced the writing under possession by the spirit winti if the writing was invented by Bukele.
If you read the history of Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai script we discover that although Bukele dreamt of the Vai characters he was able to "reconstruct" the symbols not by deeply meditating on the dream, he: Later Dualu retired from his work as a steward and returned to his hometown in the Vai chiefdom. But he couldn’t forget the idea of having a means of writing. He asked himself, “Why can’t we have something like this for our own Vai people?” One night he had a vision in which he saw a tall white man who said, “Dualu, come. I have a book for you and your Vai people.” The man in the vision then proceeded to show him the shapes of the Vai characters used in the Vai writing system.
When Dualu awoke, he began to write down the characters he’d seen in his vision. Sadly, there were so many he could not remember them all, so he called together his friends and fellow elders and shared with them his vision and the characters he had written down. His fellow Vai elders caught his excitement and over time, they added more characters in place of those Dualu could not remember.
This is the main give-away that the writing existed before Bukele's alleged invention. Firstly, how could "his friends and fellow elders" help him recover the Vai signs, if the signs were not already invented--since these men had not had Bukele's dream.
Secondly, before Bukele popularized the Vai script he sought protection from King Fa Toro of Goturu in Tianimani for his school. The King granted protection to the inventors of the Vai script because "The king declared himself exceedly pleased with their discovery, which as he said would soon raise his people upon a level with the Porors and Mandingoes, who hitherto had been the only book-people" (see: S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)
Bukele needed a Kings support for the teaching of anyone the Vai writing because the first schools set up to teach the script at Dshondu and Bandakoro were burned down along with the Vai manuscripts found in the schools after 18 months .
If Bukele had invented the Vai script as he claimed, why did he need protection for his schools? The answer is that he didn't invent the writing he just popularized the script.
The Vai script was taught in the Mande secret societies. This is why eventhough the script is well known, it is cloaked in an aura of secrecy.
This view is supported by the fact that when Thomas Edward Beslow, a Vai prince who attended mission schools in Liberia and the Wesleyan Academy in Massachusetts was initiated into the Poro Society he mentions in his autobiography that many members of the secret society could write in Vai (see: T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).
What do we learn from this report. First, the Vai script was known to Vai elites. Obviously, members of Poro would not like non members of the society to know about this writing. Yet, Bukele was teaching the Vai writing to any one who desired to learn it , so the Vai would be recognized for their literacy just like Europeans. Secondly it was being taught in the Poro society, which King Fa Toro, did not belong too.
Today eventhough the Vai script is well known the writing is semi-secret. As a result. some commentators believe the Vai no longer write in the script. This led Christopher Fyfe in A History of Sierra Leone, to write that: "Though an English trader who spent some time among the Vai in the 1860's found schools where children were still learning it, it was almost forgotten by the early twentieth century, and today is only studied by linguist".
Fyfe was wrong. Gail Stewart, only five years later in Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia (African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71) found that the script was still very popular among many Vai.
David Dalby wrote about a Gola student of William Siegman, who allowed Siegman him to copy the inscription but he would not translate same. This student attributed the writing to the Poro Society, and said he was taught the writing by his grandfather. Dalby wrote: "After the present paper had gone to press, Mr. William Siegman of Indiana University gave me information on a fifteenth West African script, used in Liberia for writing Gola. Mr. Siegman had seen a young Gola student at Cuttingham College (Liberia) writing a letter in this script in 1968, but although the student allowed him to take a copy of the letter he declined to provide Mr. Siegman with a Key"(see:D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).
Dalby viewed the assertion of the student that the writing was used by members of the Poro Society with skepticism. But Dalby should not have been skeptical because Beslow had made the same claim.
In conclusion, Bukele probably did not invent the Vai writing. This is supported by the fact that 1) the symbols associated with the Vai script were well known to members of the Poro Secret Society; 2) descendants of Maroon Blacks in Suriname were familiar with the script; and 3) the Vai writing, for the most part remains in use but it is maintained in a semi-secret fashion and not usually shared with people who are not members or kin of members of a secret society, this is why the Gola student would not translate his letter for Mr.Siegman.
Finally it must be remembered that the symbols engraved on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger bend and other areas where the Mande live are identical to symbols associated with the Vai script. This shows the continuity of writing among the Mande speaking people over a period of 3000 plus years.
The evidence from Suriname, symbols on the rocks near Mande habitations, and the existence of the symbols relating to the Vai script in other Mande writing systems and their continued use by members of the Vai and members of secret societies support Delafosse's tradition that the Vai writing existed in ancient times.
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^This doesn't answer the question you cited. Try again, as per the specifics of the question.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ^This doesn't answer the question you cited. Try again, as per the specifics of the question.
You can't read. My post makes it perfectly clear that members of the Poro Secret Society continue to use Mande writing. The Poro are Mande speakers.
Mystery Solver
quote:
Matter of fact, which native Mande speaking person in this day and age, is said to be able to read the sign in question? Where is your evidence of that? Where is your evidence that the said script is even being used in Mande speakers, as seems to be the case with Tifinagh among Tamasheq groups?
I answered each one of these questions:
1. The people today who are able to read and write these signs are members of the Poro Society.
2. The evidence that Mande used the writing system is cited throughout the above piece. Dalafosse recorded the first tradition that the Vai writing was used in ancient times. Below are the references detailing the former and present use of Vai among the Mande :
S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849)
David Diringer,The Alphabet (London,1968, pp.130-133)
K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).
S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)
T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).
Gail Stewart,Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia (African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71)
D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).
.
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:^This doesn't answer the question you cited. Try again, as per the specifics of the question.
You can't read. My post makes it perfectly clear that members of the Poro Secret Society continue to use Mande writing. The Poro are Mande speakers.
Putting aside clowning and being a loud mouth without saying anything, demonstrate how your drawn out rant about Vai answers the 'specifics' of the questions you cited which were, if I need to literally spelt it out for you:
1)Matter of fact, which native Mande speaking person in this day and age, is said to be able to read the sign in question? Where is your evidence of that?
Show me evidence that any Mande speaker has been able to read any of the signs in North Africaassociated with “Berber” groups?
2)Where is your evidence that the said script is even being used in Mande speakers, as seems to be the case with Tifinagh among Tamasheq groups?
Drop the Vai claptrap and answer the questions.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:^This doesn't answer the question you cited. Try again, as per the specifics of the question.
You can't read. My post makes it perfectly clear that members of the Poro Secret Society continue to use Mande writing. The Poro are Mande speakers.
Putting aside clowning and being a loud mouth without saying anything, demonstrate how your drawn out rant about Vai answers the 'specifics' of the questions you cited which were, if I need to literally spelt it out for you:
1)Matter of fact, which native Mande speaking person in this day and age, is said to be able to read the sign in question? Where is your evidence of that?
Show me evidence that any Mande speaker has been able to read any of the signs in North Africaassociated with “Berber” groups?
2)Where is your evidence that the said script is even being used in Mande speakers, as seems to be the case with Tifinagh among Tamasheq groups?
Drop the Vai claptrap and answer the questions.
Vai Script
Here is a letter written in Vai
I answered each one of these questions:
1. The people today who are able to read and write these signs are members of the Poro Society.
It is also taught in some schools.
2. The evidence that Mande used the writing system is cited throughout the above piece. Dalafosse recorded the first tradition that the Vai writing was used in ancient times. Below are the references detailing the former and present use of Vai among the Mande :
S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849)
David Diringer,The Alphabet (London,1968, pp.130-133)
K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).
S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)
T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).
Gail Stewart,Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia (African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71)
D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Stop spamming the thread if you aren't going to answer the question as asked, point by point. Consider this the last attempt to give you a chance to deliver. If not, moving on.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mystery Solver
quote: Show me evidence that any Mande speaker has been able to read any of the signs in North Africa associated with “Berber” groups?
Show me evidence the Berbers can read the ancient inscriptions spread from the Fezzan to Niger Valley.
Above is the decipherment of an ancient inscription written in Mande.
Now you decipher one of the ancient inscriptions in Berber.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^Don't have to show you jack, when examples of actual scripts in question have already been laid out and described in terms of evolution into contemporary Tamazight scripts. Only you consider these Mande Scripts. Go read Henri Lhote for instance; you might learn a thing or two.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
^Just admit that you can't do it. I have shown you how Mande continue to use their native writing. Now you have learned a thing or two.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Stop spamming the thread if you aren't going to answer the question as asked, point by point. Consider this the last attempt to give you a chance to deliver. If not, moving on.
You should move on. Above I answered your questions yet you pretend they were not.
You are a sad case indeed. Why is it that you hate to admit when someone proves you wrong?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:^This doesn't answer the question you cited. Try again, as per the specifics of the question.
You can't read. My post makes it perfectly clear that members of the Poro Secret Society continue to use Mande writing. The Poro are Mande speakers.
Putting aside clowning and being a loud mouth without saying anything, demonstrate how your drawn out rant about Vai answers the 'specifics' of the questions you cited which were, if I need to literally spelt it out for you:
1)Matter of fact, which native Mande speaking person in this day and age, is said to be able to read the sign in question? Where is your evidence of that?
Show me evidence that any Mande speaker has been able to read any of the signs in North Africaassociated with “Berber” groups?
2)Where is your evidence that the said script is even being used in Mande speakers, as seems to be the case with Tifinagh among Tamasheq groups?
Drop the Vai claptrap and answer the questions.
Vai Script
Here is a letter written in Vai
I answered each one of these questions:
1. The people today who are able to read and write these signs are members of the Poro Society.
It is also taught in some schools.
2. The evidence that Mande used the writing system is cited throughout the above piece. Dalafosse recorded the first tradition that the Vai writing was used in ancient times. Below are the references detailing the former and present use of Vai among the Mande :
S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849)
David Diringer,The Alphabet (London,1968, pp.130-133)
K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).
S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)
T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).
Gail Stewart,Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia (African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71)
D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
You should move on.
You bet. I've moved on, having arrived at the conditions under which I warned earlier that I would do so. The rest of your post is of no significance.
So back on-topic:
Linguistic aspect of the post above, might well be relatively emphasized…
Linguistic evidence
In addition to the archeological and paleontological evidence, recent linguistic studies indicate the presence of early pastoralists in the Eastern Sahara. Detailed analysis of Nilo-Saharan root words has provided "convincing evidence" that the early cultural history of that language family included a pastoralist and food producing way of life, and that this occurred in what is today the south-western Sahara and Sahel belt.
The Nilo-Saharan family of languages is divided into a complex array of branches and subgroups that reflect an enormous time depth. Just one of the subgroups, Kir is as internally complex as the lndo-European family of languages and is believed to have a comparable age. The Sudanese branch is of special interest here. This is particularly true of the Northern Sudanese subfamily that includes a Saharo-Sahelian subgroup, the early homeland of which is placed in northwest Sudan and northeast Chad. Today, the groups that speak Saharo-Sahelian are dispersed from the Niger river eastward to northwestern Ethiopian highlands.
The Proto-Northern Sudanic language contains root words such as "to drive," "cow, "grain,""ear of grain," and "grindstone." Any of these might apply to food production, but another root word meaning "to milk" is cetainly the most convincing evidence of incipient pastoralism.
There are also root words for "temporary shelter" and "to make a pot." In the succeeding Proto-Saharo-Sahelian language, there are root words for "to cultivate", "to prepare field", to "clear" (of weeds), and "cultivated field." this is the first unambiguous linguistic evidence of cultivation. There are also words for "thombush cattle pen," "fence," "yard," "grannary," as well as "to herd" and "cattle." In the following Proto-Sahelian period, there are root words for "goat," "sheep," "ram," and "lamb," indicating the presence of small livestock.
There are root words for "cow," "bull," "ox," and "young cow" or "heifer" and, indeed, a variety of terms relating to cultivation and permanent houses.
On the basis of known historical changes in some of the language, Ehret estimates that the Proto-Northern Sudanic language family, which includes the first root words indicating cattle pastoralism, should be dated about 10,000 years ago. He also estimates that the Proto-Saharan-Sahelian language family, which has words indicating not only more complex cattle pastroalism, but the first indications of cultivation, occurred around 9,000 years ago. He places the Proto-Sahelian language at about 8,500 years ago.
These age estimates are just that, and should not be used to suggest any other chronology. Nevertheless, the sequence of cultural changes is remarkably similar to that in the archeology of the Eastern Sahara and, with some minor adjustments for the beginning of cultivation and for' the inclusion of "sheep" and "goat," reasonably closely to the radiocarbon chronology.
Evidence from other parts of North Africa The antiquity of the known domes-tic cattle elsewhere in North Africa does not offer much encouragement with regard to the presence of early domestic cattle in the Eastern Sahara. Gautier recently summarized the available data, noting that domestic cattle were present in coastal Maurita-nia and Mali around 4,200 years ago and at Capeletti in the mountains of northern Algeria about 6,500 years ago. At about that same time, they may have been present in the Coastal Neolithic of the Maghreb. Farther south in the Central Sahara, domestic cattle were present at Meniet and Erg d'Admco, both of which date around 5,400 years ago, and at Adrar Rous, where a complete skeleton of a domestic cow is dated 5,760 +/- 500 years B.P ].
Domestic cattle have been found in western Libya at Ti-n-torha North and Uan Muhuggiag, where the lowest level with domestic cattle and small livestock (sheep and goats) dated at 7,438 t 1,200 B.P. At Uan Muhuggiag, there is also a skull of a domestic cow dated 5,950 +/- 120 years. In northern Chad at Gabrong and in the Serir Tibesti, cattle and small livestock were certainly present by 6,000 B.P. and may have been there as early as 7,500 B.P. We are skeptical, however, about the presence of livestock at Uan Muhuggiag and the Serir Tibesti before 7,OO0 B.P., when small livestock first appear in the Eastern Sahara, if we must assume that these animals reached the central Sahara by way of Egypt and the Nile Valley. This also casts doubt on the 7,500 B.P. dates for cattle in these sites.
The earliest domestic cattle in the lower Nile Valley have been found at Merimda, in levels that have several radiocarbon dates ranging between 6,000 and 5,400 B.P. and in the Fayum Neolithic, which dates from 6,400 to 5, 400 B.P. These sites also have domestic pigs and either sheep or goats. In Upper Egypt, the earliest confirmed domestic cattle are in the Predynastic site of El Khattara, dated at 5,300 B.P. However, domestic cattle were almost certainly present in the earliest Badarian Neolithic, which dates before 5,400 B.P. and possibly were there as early as 6,300 B.P. Farther south, in Sudan near Khartoum, the first do-mestic cattle and small livestock oc-curred together in the Khartoum Neolithic, which began around 6,000 B.P.
It is probably significant that none of the early Holocene faunal assemblages in the Nile Valley from the Fayum south to Khartoum that date between 9,000 and 7,000 B.P contains the remains of cattle that have been identified as domestic It is this absence of any evidence of recognizable incipient cattle domestication in the Nile Valley or elsewhere in North Africa that cautions us to consider carefully the evidence of early domestic cattle in the Eastern Sahara...
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Rasol
quote:
It is probably significant that none of the early Holocene faunal assemblages in the Nile Valley from the Fayum south to Khartoum that date between 9,000 and 7,000 B.P contains the remains of cattle that have been identified as domestic It is this absence of any evidence of recognizable incipient cattle domestication in the Nile Valley or elsewhere in North Africa that cautions us to consider carefully the evidence of early domestic cattle in the Eastern Sahara...
Great post. Don't you think the same can be said for cattle in the Middle East?
Parodying: Linguistic classification called 'English' is a ignorant concept because it disguises the fact that some speakers of these language groups are not native to Europe.
This is nonsensical because languages are not classified based on the geographic origin of all the people who speak the language.
Hotep - your statement only demonstrates the fallacy of Winters approach, which we pointed out long ago on this forum, but which Winters does not seem to be able to grow beyound.
It is a fallacy of a racial-ideology of history which attempts to make language concord with 'race.'
That all the speakers of language families do not have the same lineage is the *rule*, not the exception.
Here we sit, at our computers communicating in English, though none of us are from Europe - where English originates...yet you can't understand this.
quote:Hotep: The Bantu and Mande classifications are a perfect example of the fact that languages can be classified based on the geoghrapical origins of speakers of the language.
No. Neither Bantu or Mande are classified based upon geography. They are classified based on common linguistic characteristics.
quote:Hotep. We are NOT discussing the English language so remove the STRAW from the well.
We *are* discussing how langauges are classified.
I used the English language as and example.
According to you English language classification as a European langauge makes no sense - given that millions in India and Nigeria speak the language. But this is ridiculous since English is classified based upon the origin of the language, and not the origins of all the people who presently speak it.
This is on point observation because it directly contradicts what you assert to be true. Therefore it is not a 'strawman'.
quote:We are discussing the ignorant concept called 'berber' and the confusion that it breeds.
No we are discussing your statement that berber langauge catagory is invalid because all it's speakers don't have the same origin.
I have simply shown you why that statement makes no sense.
quote:rasol: I agree that it's a challenge to respect the struggle of the Berber for their own identity - mirroring the struggle of other Africans, while at the same time 'putting paid' to Berber ethnic mythologies, which piggy-back onto Eurocentrism.
I suggest to advocates of this brand of Berber-centrism that they consider carefully the faulty nature of their thesis.
* On the one hand they seek the broadest possible definition of Berber, in order to link peoples like the Kabyle to everyone from the Siwa Oasis Libyans called Tehennu, to the Moors.
* On the other hand they seek and ethnically exclusionary definition of Berber, in which the Berber are white, or k-zoid, and in which Black Berber are marginalised or made illigitimate. This is a false dichotomy, and moreover, it's easy to discredit. It is poor strategy and doomed to failure.
Berber is best viewed as and African language group, spoken by ethnically diverse people.
These people and their languages originate in the East African Neolithic, and spread to NorthWest Africa. Many of their most notable traditions such as the Tifinagh Berber script, often written without vowels much like mdw.ntr, are best represented by the Touareg.
This Berber expansion was male biased - no different than many other migrations - including Bantu, and various Semitic [Lemba, Arab, etc..] expansions, only - it was more extreme because it expansed great tracks of sahara dessert.
Because of this the female ancestry of the Berber ranges from predominently East African - in East Africa, to substantially West African in parts of the Western Sahel, to predominently European on the North West African coast.
The Berber physical appearance varies accordingly - and *naturally*. In order for people like the Kabyles to claim and affinity with people like the Tehennu and Touareg, they *must* embrace, and not deny, the multi-ethnic historical reality of Berber speaking peoples .
quote:rasol those are your own words in the bold,
And you don't see that they reiterrate, well actually pre-itterate what I am explaining to you now?
Berber is best viewed as and African language group, spoken by ethnically diverse people.
This is in contradiction to *your* words....
Linguistic classification called 'Berber' is a ignorant concept.,
...not mine.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Didn't want to go on with this petty talk with the following poster, presumably to focus on bringing the topic back on track, but since the topic continues to derail anyway, what the heck...
quote:al takruri:
You deconstruct what you fail to understand. Yet, when asked, fail to provide any original input to replace what you think you've torn apart.
Wake up from the non-functioning mode that your head is in; seriously, what is there to "deconstruct" or "replace", other than to tell that you are full of hot air, to proclaim that "Libya" is of English extraction. Point blank, “Libya” isn’t English. If it was, instead of fussing, you’d have proven it already.
quote:al takruri:
Quite simply, you cannot show that the word Libya ultimately comes from any other word than Libue which in turn directly comes from Libu/Rebu. We all can see that.
Deluding yourself with a red herring makes you feel better, doesn’t it? What does the following say:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver: "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.
Let me help you: it tells you that your statement is just petty talk...non-issue to cover up your strange claim about “Libya” being English.
quote:al takruri:
I accept your conceded defeat evidenced by continued harping on inconsequentials rather than focusing on the derivation of the word Libya.
This remark underlies a condition which you share in common with Clyde - i.e. getting carried away by the wildest of imaginations. Hey, if it makes you feel better, I say go for it.
quote:al takruri:
You will never be able to demonstrate any other etymology or derivation of the word Libya other than the historic fact that the AE noted Rebu/Libu living west of the THHNW and that Cyrene colonizing ancient Greeks adapted the AEL word Libu as Libue in their language from whence all Indo-European variants of Libya spring.
….like your no-where-to-be-found etymology of “Libya” as an English extraction. Be my guest then, and help me out with what you’ve avoided for days now with this etymology [to show how “Libya” is supposed to be the “English” extraction of this ancient term ], by harping on pointlessly about my need to reply to a non-sequitur and bankrupt “request” to prove a negative - again which is, “Libya” isn’t English. If you have the etymology of how the English took the ancient word and became the first to massage it into “Libya”/”Libia”, then produce it; no need to fuss on pointlessly.
quote:al takruri:
And indeed you have been wise not to dispute such facts.
…which don’t exist as of yet, because you failed to produce one? You bet.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Somehow the point of the derivation of the word Libya came up. I responded with a concise etymology. It was disputed without any contrary evidence.
Of course, it was; I can only assume you didn’t get it, because you cannot read?…
Replay…
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
"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.
quote:al takruri:
Now we just get emotional ranting from the one who disputed but cannot backup his accusation.
Agreed. Stop impairing your judgment with being consumed by emotion; rather, be alert to what is being disputed and why.
quote: So please enter something relevant to the etymology of Libya as requested. After all you were the only one to call its derivation into question.
Yes, the English derivation of “Libya” presumably from the ancient term! Your impaired judgment is telling you that the burden of proof is placed with me, even in the face of what I said when I called your claim into question, and in effect, noting the obvious: which is that your claim is less evident, hence requiring corroboration, which you’ve been incapacitated to produce.
quote:al takruri: Until you present a scholarly countering I will continue to ask for YOUR full etymology of Libya just as YOU have asked others for the same.
…and I’ll continue to not mind you, until you come to grips with reality, and recognize your place, i.e. the burden of proof lies with you, and thereby fulfill your obligation to corroborate your - at best - “questionable” claim.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This is the most hilarious thing I've read since National Lampoon shut down. Such a comic genius!
And still not even the remotest attempt of a proof from you that the word Libya ultimately derives from the word Libue which in turn comes from Libu/Rebu.
Nor yet YOUR etymology of the word Libya.
Imponent venemous hatred is apparently all you're capable of spieling when asked a simple question. What a sad pitiable little boy you are who forgets to take his meds and consequently removes himself from the conversational norms of polite society while making up in his mind that his rudeness is quite appropriate.
Oh, and quite soundly defeated, I might add.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Didn't want to go on with this petty talk with the following poster, presumably to focus on bringing the topic back on track, but since the topic continues to derail anyway, what the heck...
quote:al takruri:
You deconstruct what you fail to understand. Yet, when asked, fail to provide any original input to replace what you think you've torn apart.
Wake up from the non-functioning mode that your head is in; seriously, what is there to "deconstruct" or "replace", other than to tell that you are full of hot air, to proclaim that "Libya" is of English extraction. Point blank, “Libya” isn’t English. If it was, instead of fussing, you’d have proven it already.
quote:al takruri:
Quite simply, you cannot show that the word Libya ultimately comes from any other word than Libue which in turn directly comes from Libu/Rebu. We all can see that.
Deluding yourself with a red herring makes you feel better, doesn’t it? What does the following say:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver: "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.
Let me help you: it tells you that your statement is just petty talk...non-issue to cover up your strange claim about “Libya” being English.
quote:al takruri:
I accept your conceded defeat evidenced by continued harping on inconsequentials rather than focusing on the derivation of the word Libya.
This remark underlies a condition which you share in common with Clyde - i.e. getting carried away by the wildest of imaginations. Hey, if it makes you feel better, I say go for it.
quote:al takruri:
You will never be able to demonstrate any other etymology or derivation of the word Libya other than the historic fact that the AE noted Rebu/Libu living west of the THHNW and that Cyrene colonizing ancient Greeks adapted the AEL word Libu as Libue in their language from whence all Indo-European variants of Libya spring.
….like your no-where-to-be-found etymology of “Libya” as an English extraction. Be my guest then, and help me out with what you’ve avoided for days now with this etymology [to show how “Libya” is supposed to be the “English” extraction of this ancient term ], by harping on pointlessly about my need to reply to a non-sequitur and bankrupt “request” to prove a negative - again which is, “Libya” isn’t English. If you have the etymology of how the English took the ancient word and became the first to massage it into “Libya”/”Libia”, then produce it; no need to fuss on pointlessly.
quote:al takruri:
And indeed you have been wise not to dispute such facts.
…which don’t exist as of yet, because you failed to produce one? You bet.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Somehow the point of the derivation of the word Libya came up. I responded with a concise etymology. It was disputed without any contrary evidence.
Of course, it was; I can only assume you didn’t get it, because you cannot read?…
Replay…
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
"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.
quote:al takruri:
Now we just get emotional ranting from the one who disputed but cannot backup his accusation.
quote: So please enter something relevant to the etymology of Libya as requested. After all you were the only one to call its derivation into question.
Yes, the English derivation of “Libya” presumably from the ancient term! Your impaired judgment is telling you that the burden of proof is placed with me, even in the face of what I said when I called your claim into question, and in effect, noting the obvious: which is that your claim is less evident, hence requiring corroboration, which you’ve been incapacitated to produce.
quote:al takruri: Until you present a scholarly countering I will continue to ask for YOUR full etymology of Libya just as YOU have asked others for the same.
…and I’ll continue to not mind you, until you come to grips with reality, and recognize your place, i.e. the burden of proof lies with you, and thereby fulfill your obligation to corroborate your - at best - “questionable” claim.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
This is the most hilarious thing I've read since National Lampoon shut down. Such a comic genius!
I'm glad you're now taking things light hearted, and that I'm assisting in this, because moments ago, it appeared that you were about to go into serious panic attack.
quote:al takruri:
And still not even the remotest attempt of a proof from you that the word Libya ultimately derives from the word Libue which in turn comes from Libu/Rebu.
...because you still cannot read. To add to injury, you are incapable of backing up spooky claims you spew carelessly.
quote:al takruri:
Nor yet YOUR etymology of the word Libya.
Solution: take reading classes. It avoids the sort of avoidable confusion that you are suffering from.
quote:al takruri:
Imponent venemous hatred is apparently all you're capable of spieling when asked a simple question.
...which is why 'you' are the one who comes at people with childish and cheap talk, instead addressing what was said with maturity? I dare you repost how our exchange evolved, and show it wasn't you who started turning a reasonably civil discussion into a circus, as you still continue to do. You are the sole troll of this thread. Everyone else disagreed at some point herein, but didn't get into the emotional bagage that you came with, disrupting the civility of the discussion.
quote: al takruri:
What a sad pitiable little boy you are who forgets to take his meds and consequently removes himself from the conversational norms of polite society while making up in his mind that his rudeness is quite appropriate.
Kid, don't kid yourself; now go to the corner; the adults are talking in here. Who let you off your collar?
quote:al takruri:
Oh, and quite soundly defeated, I might add.
Which is why 'you' are the one coming here as a lifeless petty troll, when the adults are exchanging comments and disagreeing like adults? Kid, you kid yourself too much. Now, get lost.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
How is Takruri acting trollish? So far no insults were hurled. Exactly what is the issue at hand you guys are arguing about? The etymology of Libu??
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings:
Here is a description of the original Libyans who lived in Carthage.
Excerpt from '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 ".
Does the modern population of the area mentioned above reflect this phenotype described above?
I have read information stating that the original inhabitants of Ancient Libya was not idigenous Afrikans, such assumptions are NOT based on facts and must be rejected. Ancient Libyans were Native Afrikan peoples.
Tamasheq speakers utilize the Tifinagh script which was borrowed by some Kabyle political groups though when they were given the script it posed a problem for the Kabyles proving it doesn't belong to them, Tifinagh is NOT native to Kabyles.
quote: Professor Chaker Speaks Out on the Tifinagh Script Issue
BY SAID CHEMAKH & MASIN FERKAL
Professor of Tamazight (Berber) and director of the Berber research center (CRB) in Inalco (Paris), Salem Chaker remains one of the architects of the standardization of Tamazight. He has organized several meetings of Amazigh language experts and other cultural figures (writers, artists...) from all over the world to discuss the standardization of the Tamazight writing system. When the Moroccan monarchy recently (see feature article) decided to impose the Tifinagh script as the only transcription for Tamazight in Morocco, we thought it would be important to get his opinion, as an expert, on the subject.
Kra Isallen : In an official statement King Mohamed VI announced the decision of IRCAM (French acronym for Royal Institute for Amazigh Culture) to adopt the Neo-Tifinagh alphabet as the only writing system for Tamazight in Morocco. As an Amazigh linguist, what is your reaction to this decision ?
Salem Chaker : I consider that it is at the same time a hasty and badly founded decision, and certainly a dangerous one for the future and development of Tamazight in Morocco. It also shows very clearly the confusion among those who are in charge of the Amazigh language in the North African countries. While no serious scientific debate on the question of the alphabet to use ever took place in Morocco or Algeria, the political leaders decided on an option that is totally disconnected from the current practice, both in Morocco and in the rest of the Amazigh world. Currently, as you know, the most functional Amazigh writing system is Latin character based. In Morocco, it is seconded by the Arabic character based alphabet .
K.I. : Isn’t this a pernicious move aiming at the domestication of Tamazight by imposing a graphical tool while the language to be transcribed is not even recognized constitutionally ?
S. C : Indeed, it’s the carriage before the horse ! The question of the legal status and, subsequently, the cultural and educational objectives of the teaching of Tamazight were neither clarified nor discussed. And graphic choices are imposed ! The goal can only be an attempt by the dominant spheres and their auxiliaries to take over the Amazigh field by driving this transitional period of Amazigh writing and teaching into a sure dead end.
K.I. : Do you think that in its current state, and taking into account the means available for research, that the choice of Tifinagh is the solution to the transcription of Tamazight ?
S. C : As you know, for all noted Amazigh experts who have dealt with this question, there is no doubt as to what the answer is. For my part, and I have explained my position during the past 20 years, the Tifinagh script is the historical writing system of Tamazight, but it has not been in effective use for centuries (certainly more than one millennium) in all of North Africa. Thus, it can only play an identity or emblematic role and cannot be used as a basis for a functional writing system that can easily be disseminated. Furthermore, no serious work has been done to bring it up to date and adapt it to the current needs, on the basis of a phonological study. The version currently in use, which is prevalent in certain Amazigh activist circles, is purely and simply aberrant since it is actually a phonetic notation of Kabyl based on Tifinagh characters. This was developed in 1970 in the Berber Academy circles by amateurs full of goodwill, but nonetheless without any linguistic training. The result is that the alphabet which is currently presented to us as the Amazigh alphabet is not an authentic one. It was strongly altered in order to transcribe the phonetic characteristics of Kabyl. It cannot thus be an Amazigh-wide alphabet .
K.I. : As the director of the Berber Research Center and as someone who has organized many meetings on the subject of standardization of the Amazigh transcription, don’t you think that this decision undermines the advances made with the Latin writing system ?
S. C : The result of nearly 50 years of research on Tamazight is a phonological system derived from the Latin characters which has shown significant progress in the Kabyl area. As far as Kabyl is concerned and more generally as far as Algerian Tamazight is concerned, the transition to the Latin based system is sufficiently advanced so that one may not fear either an obstruction or regression. There are many publications, a press, literature, associations’ newsletters and magazines which have gradually used the Latin based system. Started 40 to 50 years ago, it has seen some improvements and simplifications based on our recommendations during the past 20 years. In Morocco, however, where Tamazight writing is less extensive and unstable, and where competition between the Arabic and Latin based scripts exists, the decision to favor the Tifinagh script could have serious negative consequences. It may slow down or block the process of dissemination of the Amazigh written expression . The outcome will depend a lot on the users and in particular on the ability of the Moroccan Amazigh associations’ movement to persevere in the direction it has formerly taken.
K.I. : The two speeches in which King Mohamed VI referred to the Amazigh language took place right after Kabylia’s "Black Spring." Does this signal fear of seeing the Moroccan Amazigh raise the same questions as those raised by the Kabyls, and put pressure on the monarchy to attempt integration ?
S.C : I believe that this parameter is always present and can be used to answer this question, and this can be said about Morocco since 1980. It is clear that in this country, the monarchy, like all the established political forces, lives in fear of an evolution "Algerian style" as far as the Amazigh issue is concerned. In other words, they are afraid the Amazigh would become socially autonomous. This is made explicit in the political discourse of those close to the palace : "In this country, things do not happen the way they do in Kabylia because we do not typically address these issues through radical departures from past practice. The monarchy integrates and takes into account all of its subjects..." It is clear that the Moroccan authorities skillfully "anticipate" and take advantage of the fact that the Amazigh issue in Morocco does not have the same acuity and social anchoring as in Algeria. The goal is to try to defuse possible tensions by taking some preventive measures that would allow the government to control and take advantage of the situation. The creation of the IRCAM, as well as the adoption of the Tifinagh script are part of a strategy which aims at reducing the Amazigh social and political factor to nothing or close to nothing.
K.I. : Aren’t the approaches taken by Algeria and Morocco similar as far as their handling of the Amazigh issue ?
S. C : Yes, obviously, even if the chronology and, especially, the balance of power are not the same in the two countries. In Algeria, the Amazigh socio-political struggle is a reality that is solidly anchored, which is not the case in Morocco. But the authorities of the two countries often use the same ways and means of neutralization. These include disqualification of the social actors, manipulation, administrative obstruction, direct involvement of the political authority in the management of all aspects, and especially, the absolute refusal to recognize the Amazigh linguistic and cultural rights. The two countries have engaged in perpetual juggling acts and shams in order to avoid posing clearly and answering the question of the legal status of the Amazigh language. These two countries, in fact, simply refuse to admit the social-linguistic reality, i.e., Tamazight is the language of the Amazigh and the legal consequences this implies. In other words, the Amazigh people have the right to their language and culture and Tamazight must be recognized and granted a legal status identical to that of Arabic.
K.I. : What are your recommendations to the Amazigh movement as to what alphabet to use ?
S. C : Contrary to appearances, even in a country as centralized as France, in terms of language and script, it has always been the users and producers (writers, journalists, publishers, editors...) who have determined the graphical and orthographical standard, not the government or administrations. Thus, I hope that the Amazigh producers in Morocco, and the associations will continue their work, with determination and tenacity, following the same path they have already taken.
Berberism is a IGNORANT concept, children of invaders should recognize themselves as such and leave Afrikan history alone.
Hotep
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Greetings:
Here is a description of the original Libyans who lived in Carthage.
Excerpt from '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 ".
Does the modern population of the area mentioned above reflect this phenotype described above?
I have read information stating that the original inhabitants of Ancient Libya was not idigenous Afrikans, such assumptions are NOT based on facts and must be rejected. Ancient Libyans were Native Afrikan peoples.
Tamasheq speakers utilize the Tifinagh script which was borrowed by some Kabyle political groups though when they were given the script it posed a problem for the Kabyles proving it doesn't belong to them, Tifinagh is NOT native to Kabyles.
quote: Professor Chaker Speaks Out on the Tifinagh Script Issue
BY SAID CHEMAKH & MASIN FERKAL
Professor of Tamazight (Berber) and director of the Berber research center (CRB) in Inalco (Paris), Salem Chaker remains one of the architects of the standardization of Tamazight. He has organized several meetings of Amazigh language experts and other cultural figures (writers, artists...) from all over the world to discuss the standardization of the Tamazight writing system. When the Moroccan monarchy recently (see feature article) decided to impose the Tifinagh script as the only transcription for Tamazight in Morocco, we thought it would be important to get his opinion, as an expert, on the subject.
Kra Isallen : In an official statement King Mohamed VI announced the decision of IRCAM (French acronym for Royal Institute for Amazigh Culture) to adopt the Neo-Tifinagh alphabet as the only writing system for Tamazight in Morocco. As an Amazigh linguist, what is your reaction to this decision ?
Salem Chaker : I consider that it is at the same time a hasty and badly founded decision, and certainly a dangerous one for the future and development of Tamazight in Morocco. It also shows very clearly the confusion among those who are in charge of the Amazigh language in the North African countries. While no serious scientific debate on the question of the alphabet to use ever took place in Morocco or Algeria, the political leaders decided on an option that is totally disconnected from the current practice, both in Morocco and in the rest of the Amazigh world. Currently, as you know, the most functional Amazigh writing system is Latin character based. In Morocco, it is seconded by the Arabic character based alphabet .
K.I. : Isn’t this a pernicious move aiming at the domestication of Tamazight by imposing a graphical tool while the language to be transcribed is not even recognized constitutionally ?
S. C : Indeed, it’s the carriage before the horse ! The question of the legal status and, subsequently, the cultural and educational objectives of the teaching of Tamazight were neither clarified nor discussed. And graphic choices are imposed ! The goal can only be an attempt by the dominant spheres and their auxiliaries to take over the Amazigh field by driving this transitional period of Amazigh writing and teaching into a sure dead end.
K.I. : Do you think that in its current state, and taking into account the means available for research, that the choice of Tifinagh is the solution to the transcription of Tamazight ?
S. C : As you know, for all noted Amazigh experts who have dealt with this question, there is no doubt as to what the answer is. For my part, and I have explained my position during the past 20 years, the Tifinagh script is the historical writing system of Tamazight, but it has not been in effective use for centuries (certainly more than one millennium) in all of North Africa. Thus, it can only play an identity or emblematic role and cannot be used as a basis for a functional writing system that can easily be disseminated. Furthermore, no serious work has been done to bring it up to date and adapt it to the current needs, on the basis of a phonological study. The version currently in use, which is prevalent in certain Amazigh activist circles, is purely and simply aberrant since it is actually a phonetic notation of Kabyl based on Tifinagh characters. This was developed in 1970 in the Berber Academy circles by amateurs full of goodwill, but nonetheless without any linguistic training. The result is that the alphabet which is currently presented to us as the Amazigh alphabet is not an authentic one. It was strongly altered in order to transcribe the phonetic characteristics of Kabyl. It cannot thus be an Amazigh-wide alphabet .
K.I. : As the director of the Berber Research Center and as someone who has organized many meetings on the subject of standardization of the Amazigh transcription, don’t you think that this decision undermines the advances made with the Latin writing system ?
S. C : The result of nearly 50 years of research on Tamazight is a phonological system derived from the Latin characters which has shown significant progress in the Kabyl area. As far as Kabyl is concerned and more generally as far as Algerian Tamazight is concerned, the transition to the Latin based system is sufficiently advanced so that one may not fear either an obstruction or regression. There are many publications, a press, literature, associations’ newsletters and magazines which have gradually used the Latin based system. Started 40 to 50 years ago, it has seen some improvements and simplifications based on our recommendations during the past 20 years. In Morocco, however, where Tamazight writing is less extensive and unstable, and where competition between the Arabic and Latin based scripts exists, the decision to favor the Tifinagh script could have serious negative consequences. It may slow down or block the process of dissemination of the Amazigh written expression . The outcome will depend a lot on the users and in particular on the ability of the Moroccan Amazigh associations’ movement to persevere in the direction it has formerly taken.
K.I. : The two speeches in which King Mohamed VI referred to the Amazigh language took place right after Kabylia’s "Black Spring." Does this signal fear of seeing the Moroccan Amazigh raise the same questions as those raised by the Kabyls, and put pressure on the monarchy to attempt integration ?
S.C : I believe that this parameter is always present and can be used to answer this question, and this can be said about Morocco since 1980. It is clear that in this country, the monarchy, like all the established political forces, lives in fear of an evolution "Algerian style" as far as the Amazigh issue is concerned. In other words, they are afraid the Amazigh would become socially autonomous. This is made explicit in the political discourse of those close to the palace : "In this country, things do not happen the way they do in Kabylia because we do not typically address these issues through radical departures from past practice. The monarchy integrates and takes into account all of its subjects..." It is clear that the Moroccan authorities skillfully "anticipate" and take advantage of the fact that the Amazigh issue in Morocco does not have the same acuity and social anchoring as in Algeria. The goal is to try to defuse possible tensions by taking some preventive measures that would allow the government to control and take advantage of the situation. The creation of the IRCAM, as well as the adoption of the Tifinagh script are part of a strategy which aims at reducing the Amazigh social and political factor to nothing or close to nothing.
K.I. : Aren’t the approaches taken by Algeria and Morocco similar as far as their handling of the Amazigh issue ?
S. C : Yes, obviously, even if the chronology and, especially, the balance of power are not the same in the two countries. In Algeria, the Amazigh socio-political struggle is a reality that is solidly anchored, which is not the case in Morocco. But the authorities of the two countries often use the same ways and means of neutralization. These include disqualification of the social actors, manipulation, administrative obstruction, direct involvement of the political authority in the management of all aspects, and especially, the absolute refusal to recognize the Amazigh linguistic and cultural rights. The two countries have engaged in perpetual juggling acts and shams in order to avoid posing clearly and answering the question of the legal status of the Amazigh language. These two countries, in fact, simply refuse to admit the social-linguistic reality, i.e., Tamazight is the language of the Amazigh and the legal consequences this implies. In other words, the Amazigh people have the right to their language and culture and Tamazight must be recognized and granted a legal status identical to that of Arabic.
K.I. : What are your recommendations to the Amazigh movement as to what alphabet to use ?
S. C : Contrary to appearances, even in a country as centralized as France, in terms of language and script, it has always been the users and producers (writers, journalists, publishers, editors...) who have determined the graphical and orthographical standard, not the government or administrations. Thus, I hope that the Amazigh producers in Morocco, and the associations will continue their work, with determination and tenacity, following the same path they have already taken.
Berberism is a IGNORANT concept, children of invaders should recognize themselves as such and leave Afrikan history alone.
Hotep
It is interesting that whereas the Berbers have only recently aatempted to make the Tifinig writing suit their language, the Mande have been writing in their script continuously for over 4000 years.
Here is a letter written in Vai
It is also taught in some schools. Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
clyde wrote:
quote:It is interesting that whereas the Berbers have only recently aatempted to make the Tifinig writing suit their language, the Mande have been writing in their script [bold]continuously[/bold] for over 4000 years.
What is the evidence for "continous" usage? Do you have Mande writings with this script dated 2000 BC, 1000BC, AD 500, AD 1500 etc?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Djehuti
I'm not arguing anything and no argument's been made to counter the information I contributed.
In reply to someone's querying inference about the term Libya I offered the following abbreviated etymology:
Libya => Libue => Libu English => Greek => Egptian
which provoked the funniest series of Don Quixote windmill tilting strawmen, fisherman's catch red herrings, and sufferous non-sequitors I've seen on this forum.
All because Mr. Knowitall is in search of enemies.
And if you can't see the insults that've been hurled at me may I suggest an optometrist?
Meanwhile, the hilarious ad hominem bombardment continues as a coverup for the fact that there is no other etymology for the English -- or any other -- usage of Libya than the one I gave (else by now Enemy Maker would've posted it instead of stalling while continueing to search for what he'll never ever find).
Really? I'd rather wish he'd go back to incrementing and fleshing his chronology and stop sidewinding every which way the hot wind blows.
Oh, somewhere or other Bates opines on if Libu was used by the population so named or whether its an AEL word. Wally wrote something on that a couple of years ago. Continuing along those lines would be in order considering such point was brought to issue in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: How is Takruri acting trollish? So far no insults were hurled. Exactly what is the issue at hand you guys are arguing about? The etymology of Libu??
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: clyde wrote:
quote:It is interesting that whereas the Berbers have only recently aatempted to make the Tifinig writing suit their language, the Mande have been writing in their script [bold]continuously[/bold] for over 4000 years.
What is the evidence for "continous" usage? Do you have Mande writings with this script dated 2000 BC, 1000BC, AD 500, AD 1500 etc?
1200-1300 AD Sailor/Prince from mansa Abubakari's Voyage to America
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
Thanks
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [/qb]
Qued Mertoutek 2000BC
this is not in the Fezzan is it?
Fezzan 1500-500 BC
But previously you told me that the Garamantes did not go to the New World, and that the language used in the inscriptions was Malinke Bambara. Did the Garamantes speak Malinke Bambara?
1200-1300 AD Sailor/Prince from mansa Abubakari's Voyage to America
But the Mande are only 3% (according to wikipedia) of the population in Senegal where Wolof is the predominant ethnic group. and the symbols on the sculpture don't lok like the ones above or the Vai examples you gave us. What does the inscription say?
[/QB][/QUOTE]
could you reconcile these for me, please.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Thanks
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Qued Mertoutek 2000BC
this is not in the Fezzan is it?
Fezzan 1500-500 BC
But previously you told me that the Garamantes did not go to the New World, and that the language used in the inscriptions was Malinke Bambara. Did the Garamantes speak Malinke Bambara?
1200-1300 AD Sailor/Prince from mansa Abubakari's Voyage to America
But the Mande are only 3% (according to wikipedia) of the population in Senegal where Wolof is the predominant ethnic group. and the symbols on the sculpture don't lok like the ones above or the Vai examples you gave us. What does the inscription say?
[/QB]
could you reconcile these for me, please. [/QB][/QUOTE]
The Vai signs listed above are only a few of the signs associated with this writing system. I use the list of signs collected by Delafosse, M.(1899). "Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture", L'Anthropologie 10, .
Why are you so interested in Senegal?
If you are interested in African writing systems you may want to check out my website on African writing systems in Middle Africa. See: Writing Systems in Middle Africa
.
Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
Clyde wrote:
quote:The Vai signs listed above are only a few of the signs associated with this writing system. I use the list of signs collected by Delafosse, M.(1899). "Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture", L'Anthropologie 10, .
Why are you so interested in Senegal?
If you are interested in African writing systems you may want to check out my website on African writing systems in Middle Africa. See: Writing Systems in Middle Africa
You did not answer my question about the Garamantes speaking Malinke Bambara. You told me previously that the Garamantes were not the group that went to the New World. They nevertheless wrote Mande using Vai script?
Forget the Senegal statement-- I had a mental fart. However, can you read the inscription on the sailor?
Thanks
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Djehuti
I'm not arguing anything.
you bet; you are trolling.
quote:al takruri:
In reply to someone's querying inference about the term Libya I offered the following abbreviated etymology:
Libya => Libue => Libu English => Greek => Egptian
which provoked the funniest series of Don Quixote windmill tilting strawmen, fisherman's catch red herrings, and sufferous non-sequitors I've seen on this forum.
As a troll, I see that you've switched onto the amnesiac mode.
'You' specifically replied my statement [which undoubtedly contradicts your spooky claim about "Libya" being English] when your name hadn't even been uttered, much less your statement being cited. Pray tell, if you aren't the dishonestly impaired troll that you are, why then did you specifically reply 'me', citing 'me', if you hadn't felt that there was an argument to begin with? If I'm the one provoked, how come it was 'you' who replied me, undoubtedly with comical emotional bagage, specifically citing me, when I on the other, never even uttered yours?
quote: al takruri: All because Mr. Knowitall is in search of enemies.
mr. total-mental-shutdown, I'm afraid you are your own enemy. Severe intellectual impairment makes you your own enemy; however, 'growing up' might make it relatively less acute.
quote:al takruri:
And if you can't see the insults that've been hurled at me may I suggest an optometrist?
Lol @ the 'victim mentality'. Remember the challenge, to which you for a good reason, didn't arise: producing a full repro of our exchanges, thereby proving to us that you aren't the instigating lower form of life, who then whins 'victim' when beaten at her own game.
quote:al takruri:
Meanwhile, the hilarious ad hominem bombardment continues as a coverup for the fact that there is no other etymology for the English -- or any other -- usage of Libya than the one I gave (else by now Enemy Maker would've posted it instead of stalling while continueing to search for what he'll never ever find).
...perhaps, but not quite as hilarious as your spooky claim about Libya being English in the first place; a recap:
I can only assume you didn’t get it, because you cannot read?…
Replay…
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
"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.
^and of course, as far as this contemporary nation is concerned, "Libya" obviously has an etymology, which is clearly spelt out above for the literate.
quote:al takruri:
Really? I'd rather wish he'd go back to incrementing and fleshing his chronology and stop sidewinding every which way the hot wind blows.
Oh I tried to, until a low-life mr. mental-meltdown [aka tukruri], insisted on trolling to no avail, and so, now I'll see to it that this petty life form is dealt with. So mr. mental-meltdown, produce the etymology for your spooky claim: "Libya" as a word of English extraction...and get right to. Thanx.
Posted by Horus_Den_1 (Member # 12222) on :
Okay guys enough please stop the insults and set an example!
Thanks in advance!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Hah ha ha hah
You never ever wever will present a full etymology of Libya differing from what I presented.
Libya => Libye => Libye (cap over the e) English => Latin => Greek Webster's 3rd nEW Internnational Dictionary Unabridged
Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary informs us that Libia is the Italian for Libya
Besides the fact the John Pory's 1600 CE translation of Leo Africanus well precedes the Italian colonization of Libya er Libia.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by al takruri:
Hah ha ha hah
The sort of "eloquence" one would expect from a creature suffering from severe mental decay.
quote:al takruri:
You never ever wever will present a full etymology of Libya differing from what I presented.
...because you are too retarded to notice the difference, if it poked you in the eye.
quote:al takruri:
Libya => Libye => Libye (cap over the e) English => Latin => Greek Webster's 3rd nEW Internnational Dictionary Unabridged
This is not an 'etymology' of "Libya"...as a word of English origin, presumably from the ancient version, nor does it remotely support your spooky claim about "Libya" being an English word. It is however, evidence enough that the "muscle" in that vessel of yours, that you call "brains", is there as nothing else but as a vestigial organ, due to lack of function.
quote:al takruri:
Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary informs us that Libia is the Italian for Libya
You've been told this...not that you are bright enough to have noticed!
quote:al takruri:
Besides the fact the John Pory's 1600 CE translation of Leo Africanus well precedes the Italian colonization of Libya er Libia.
How does John Pory's translations help you in proving that "Libya" is an English word. How does the name of the modern state "Libya" being first applied to that nation by none other than the Italians before the English, help you either? As I said, you are an intellectual dud. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Something you can get from your nearest online dictionary:
See: how many times "Libya" in that spelling alone shows up. "Libia" is essentially the same thing as "Libya", notwithstanding trivial technicality of putting "y" in the place of "i", both of which perform basically the same functions in the word. With minor twists and turns here and there, the word is essentially the same in many of the languages shown above. "Libya" is no more English than the term "Ethiopia".
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You remain unable to show Libya entering English or any other Indo-European language except from the Greek Libue from the Egyptian Libu. What prevents you from seeing that?
All you can do is fuss fluff and flutter ad hominems (which I'm not bothering to read) the last refuge of a loser too senseless to concede his loss and move along.
Libya => Libue => Libu English => Greek => Egyptian
per myself, Liddel & Scott, Webster's and Random House.
From you zilch zip nadda damn thing and certainly not anything remotely resembling the FULL etymology you were asked for. Just the rude nasty tempermentalism you're notariously infamous for delivering to anyone who disagrees with you. Besides not taking your meds your past schedule for your distemper shots.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by altakruri:
You remain unable to show Libya entering English or any other Indo-European language except from the Greek Libue from the Egyptian Libu.
Not the point of contention, hence immaterial. Learn to read, and you'll be able to be perceptive to what is being said, what isn't, and the focus at hand.
quote:al takruri:
What prevents you from seeing that?
The question should be: what prevents you from understanding the real issue at hand?
quote:al takruri:
All you can do is fuss fluff and flutter ad hominems (which I'm not bothering to read) the last refuge of a loser too senseless to concede his loss and move along.
I have a feeling you are a lost little toddler, likely a prep-school dropout, pressing a keyboard in some dark basement. You can see this from the fact that you are actually engaging in what you are projecting onto more seasoned and adult posters.
per myself, Liddel & Scott, Webster's and Random House.
Immaterial. What you've shown can quite likely be produced in any number of dictionaries written in any of the aforementioned exemplary languages I listed [there's more of course], which essentially use the same term.
quote:al takruri:
From you zilch zip nadda damn thing and certainly not anything remotely resembling the FULL etymology
Can't help you, if you can't read. Learn to read first, and I promise you, you'll look back at your post and laugh at yourself for coming to the conclusion nothing specific had been said in the post that provoked you to troll.
quote:al takruri:
Just the rude nasty tempermentalism you're notariously infamous for delivering to anyone who disagrees with you.
Goes back to this:
I have a feeling you are a lost little toddler, likely a prep-school dropout, pressing a keyboard in some dark basement. You can see this from the fact that you are actually engaging in what you are projecting onto more seasoned and adult posters.
Case in point:
Originally posted by al takruri:
Besides not taking your meds your past schedule for your distemper shots.
...and case closed. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
How is Takruri acting trollish?
I initially decided to ignore this post, because I rightfully thought it underlies ignorance of not closely following the developments of the thread, and hence, avoidably irrelevant post, if not framed with an agenda. However, I'll answer it with a synopsis...
I make a post about "Libya" not being an Engish word without specifically addressing anyone or any one specific post. The point of doing so, of course, was contrary to what the resident troll al would have potential "fools" believe, which according to this "poster", was supposedly to target people to "make enemies". The point was rather, as can be evidenced from the highlighed above, to focus on the clarity of the idea in question, and not on any specific poster or character. I can only assume the "poster" in question, took it personally because it is this "poster" who actually has an agenda [an unsavory one at that]. It is this "poster" who is seeking an enemy, and seeks to silence potential dissidents [anyone who so much says anything that the said "poster" deems contradictory to the said "poster's own proclamation] by way of turning to denigrating language at posters whom the said poster is in disagreement with. So what does the said "poster" do? The said "poster" specifically quotes me, and asks me to produce an "etymology"; the first thing that goes to my mind, is what for, considering the specifics of my post. Those specifics would suggest that this etymology would presumably have to be essentially a way of proving a 'negative', which the aforementioned specifics would deem as "Libya not being an English word". The said specifics has already dealt with the history of the modern contextualization of the term as it applies to the so-called contemporary nation. As such, the said "poster" was asked to back up the less evident claim, which is the idea of "Libya" being English. Now, not only does this "poster" ask such immaterial questions, but goes onto to use denigrating and flame baiting language in what the said "poster" conveniently calls "request". Naturally, when spoken to a language that the said "poster" can only understand, given that the said "poster" was the one to iniate such language, the said "poster" then crys "victim" [the 'victim card' so to speak] as usual, as another unsubtle and apparently unsuccessful tactic of 'character assassination" attempt towards the said "poster's" potential opponents. Subsequent fuss and fumes was sustained by the said "poster", even as I attempted to bring the topic back to track into its initial goal - laying out chronology of the continent, apparently without success as the thread continued to devolve into trivial matters about "berber" appellation on the other hand. Simply put, the most polite term to describe the actions of the said "poster" would be "trolling".
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Somebody wake me when this guy learns what an etymology is and posts one on the word Libya. I make the rules, not get led around by fools. Strawmen? I don't address them. Why? It goes like this: * debater in search of enemies * fabricates an issue from out his rear * pretends its the imaginary opponent's major proposition * the foolish think so too * the attentive gasp, whut da fuch
aka
build a strawman, knock it down. A convient way to impress oneself with one's own ostentatiousness, is about all. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by al takruri:
Somebody wake me when this guy learns what an etymology is and posts one on the word Libya.
You are unmistakably an illiterate troll, and as such, you cannot be incited to be alert or educated.
What does a troll backed into the corner do?
Answer: more petty fumes devoid of intellectual substance.
...and so, I repeat:
Goes back to this:
I have a feeling you are a lost little toddler, likely a prep-school dropout, pressing a keyboard in some dark basement. You can see this from the fact that you are actually engaging in what you are projecting onto more seasoned and adult posters.
Case in point:
Originally posted by takruri:
I make the rules, not get led around by fools.
Strawmen? I don't address them. Why? It goes like this: * debater in search of enemies * fabricates an issue from out his rear * pretends its the imaginary opponent's major proposition * the foolish think so too * the attentive gasp, whut da fuch
aka
build a strawman, knock it down. A convient way to impress oneself with one's own ostentatiousness, is about all.
...and case closed.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Ho hum. More ad hominem, still no etymology differing from mine (because there is none). Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by al takruri: Ho hum. More ad hominem, still no etymology differing from mine (because there is none).
...and judging by this psychotic babbling, you are still:
....unmistakably an illiterate troll, and as such, you cannot be incited to be alert or educated.
What does a troll backed into the corner do?
Answer: more petty fumes devoid of intellectual substance.
Case in point:
Originally posted by al takruri:
Ho hum. More ad hominem, still no etymology differing from mine (because there is none).
...and you guessed it; case closed. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Not bothering to read the content of any mysterious posts devoid of the requested FULL etymology of Libya.
Waiting and waiting and waiting ...
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by al takruri: Not bothering to read the content of any mysterious posts devoid of the requested FULL etymology of Libya.
Waiting and waiting and waiting ...
Keep waiting, troll.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Guys, this thread was supposed to be about a simple yet concise chronology of ancient Africa! How did it get corrupted into a foul argument over something as trivial as the etymology of Libya??!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
They are just as mentally mixed up as some of our trolls like Jaime!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
