| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Pre-colonial Madagascar
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Pre-colonial Madagascar

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Prince of Zeila View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 20 Mar 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 241
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Prince of Zeila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 21:38
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

... 
Why should the art of building in stone come from outsiders? ...
 
Why not?
 
LOL You make the claim so the onus is on you, not Chacharadon.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 22:30
To have contact with Indonesia,Malaysia,and other Polynesian/Austronesian

 peoples really means nothing. It takes alot more to build a civilization than contact. The burden of Proof is in your corner Pinguin,whether they adopted the musical instrument or not means nothing . It takes more than just influence for people to build a new structure or city.

The "OUTSIDERS" would actually teach alot to the Ndebele and Shona people on how to build Zimbabwe. Also we don't see any evidence of Austronesian blood in the Southern African gene pool so its not likely they settled there.

The Monomatapa Empire did had alot of preceeding stone settlements before Great Zimbabwe. great Zimbabwe just had to be one of its more famous city. Below is a link to one of the first Southern African Kingdoms.



http://www.mapungubwe.com/cultural.htm

Mapungubwe is the site of three royal graves and was the center of a terraced settlement. Stonewalls buttressed the slopes and homesteads were scattered about. The king and his soldiers lived near the top of the hill and were supported by the people on the lower levels. The neighbouring village of K2 indicates that the inhabitants were subsistence farmers, raising both stock and crops. A valuable feature of K2 is the large central refuse site, from which archaeologists have been able to glean a store of information. Human remains from various graves indicate that these communities enjoyed a healthy, varied diet. People were prosperous and kept domesticated cattle, sheep, goats and dogs. The charred remains of storage huts have also been found, showing that millet, sorghum and cotton were cultivated.


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 23:30
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Great Zimbabwe had precursors in Mapungubwe and other places that has similarities to it.
 
In Mapungubwe it was found allien jewerly. A proof that commerce with the outside already existed.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 23:34

Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

To have contact with Indonesia,Malaysia,and other Polynesian/Austronesian

 peoples really means nothing. It takes alot more to build a civilization than contact. The burden of Proof is in your corner Pinguin,whether they adopted the musical instrument or not means nothing . It takes more than just influence for people to build a new structure or city.

The "OUTSIDERS" would actually teach alot to the Ndebele and Shona people on how to build Zimbabwe. Also we don't see any evidence of Austronesian blood in the Southern African gene pool so its not likely they settled there.

The Monomatapa Empire did had alot of preceeding stone settlements before Great Zimbabwe. great Zimbabwe just had to be one of its more famous city. Below is a link to one of the first Southern African Kingdoms.

How come it means nothing? All these things came to Subsaharan Africa from abroad:

Cows, goats, bananas, xylophones, string instruments, the sail (navigation). Those are the ones that have a strong historical support, which doesn't discard other potential influences.

On the other hand there is no need to left a genetical imprint to left a cultural mark. Gunpowder was imported to Europe without the need to import a million of Chinese.
 
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 00:38
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

[QUOTE=pinguin]

How come it means nothing? All these things came to Subsaharan Africa from abroad:

Cows, goats, bananas, xylophones, string instruments, the sail (navigation). Those are the ones that have a strong historical support, which doesn't discard other potential influences.

On the other hand there is no need to left a genetical imprint to left a cultural mark. Gunpowder was imported to Europe without the need to import a million of Chinese.



Cows and goats are different historical matter and are not relative to the founding of Monomatapa Empire or Great Zimbabwe. String insruments play no effect on engineering and craftsmanship neither does sailing.

Now I'm just as sure the Malaysian/Indonesian Wayfinders had found their way to Madagascar ,they would of course  find their way to New Guinea. But did they have an impact of civilization there. Same instance with the Empires of the Andean. Caral ,Nazca,and Inca had contact with Amazon tribes but did it effect them or play an impact in development .
 

There is a genetic imprint of chinese in Americans, some can be found in in small portion of African Americans,one of them is Oprah who is 3% chinese (sounds funny but she did have autosomal test not kidding.) But if the Malaysians settled and built Great ZImbabwe there would be a genetic trail.

Back to Top
Prince of Zeila View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 20 Mar 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 241
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Prince of Zeila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 01:46
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

How come it means nothing? All these things came to Subsaharan Africa from abroad:

Cows, goats, bananas, xylophones, string instruments, the sail (navigation). Those are the ones that have a strong historical support, which doesn't discard other potential influences.

Are those the ingredients of Zimbabwean stone?LOL If not then it's completely irrelevant and therefore a red herring. 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 09:59

I agree with AksumVanguard and Prince of Zeila. Cows, goats, bananas, xylophones, string instruments, the sail (navigation) has no bearing of the development of complex societies and stone buildning architecture in what is now South Africa and Zimbabwe. Complex societies can rise because of local processes, concentration of power, social and economic change, increased population density combined with trade accumulation of weaalth. That kind of changes often are visible in material culture as architecture and similar. Mapungubwe, Thulamela, Great Zimbabwe and the other stone ruins in the neighbourhood show continuity with older building traditions, its just that increased population made it easier to amass people enough to express local building traditions in stone instead which was a more suitable material for monumental architecture reflecting societal and ideological changes.

 

One can really ponder over the fact that Great Zimbawe seems to be a magnet for diffusionistic and migrationistic theories. It of course has its ultimate ground in the racism of the 19th century westerners who did not want to belive that sub saharan Africans were able to create monumental architecture in stone (or create anything else of some grade of complexity). Instead the colonialists dreamed about ancient Egyptians, Fenicians, Sabeans, Jews (under Salomo), Greeks, Romans, Arabs and other foreign peoples living far away.

 

Even if archaeological research has rather clearly shown the local origins of the stone architecture that kind of theories has continued to pop up, even if they are expressed in a somewhat down played fashion. But still one can read about the influence of Arabs, Indians and now Indonesians.

One can also notice that it is not the archaeologists that usually work in the area, who do the surveys, the excavations and the investigations who promotes these ideas. Often it is other people, many times amateurs that are no experts on the archaeology of Zimbabwe or South Africa. It seems that these people really like to do some Heyerdahling of their own.

 

 
 
About cows. Some signs actually indicates a separate domestication of local aurochs populations in the Sahara and Nile valley for maybe 7000 years ago or more. So it is not neccecarily so that cows where imported (some races where but some variants could have been local) .

 

About sails: they have been around for a long time among East Africans, Egyptians, Middle Easterners, Arabs, Indians, Chinese, South East Asians and others. The time span of contact between East Africa and the outside world is so vast that it is hard to say when the sail arrived there. It is even possible with different local inventions of the sail.

 

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 13:35
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

...Cows and goats are different historical matter and are not relative to the founding of Monomatapa Empire or Great Zimbabwe. String insruments play no effect on engineering and craftsmanship neither does sailing.
 
It just shows Subsaharan Africa wasn't isolated from the outside world.
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

...
Now I'm just as sure the Malaysian/Indonesian Wayfinders had found their way to Madagascar ,they would of course  find their way to New Guinea. But did they have an impact of civilization there. Same instance with the Empires of the Andean. Caral ,Nazca,and Inca had contact with Amazon tribes but did it effect them or play an impact in development .
 
Absolutely wrong. Chavin culture of Peru is rooted in the Amazon.

 
 
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

...

There is a genetic imprint of chinese in Americans, some can be found in in small portion of African Americans,one of them is Oprah who is 3% chinese (sounds funny but she did have autosomal test not kidding.) But if the Malaysians settled and built Great ZImbabwe there would be a genetic trail.

 
I never say Indonesians settled in Zimbabwe, nor I say they build the stone buildings. I said Zimbabwe was a result of forein trade, and of course influences come with trade.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 13:44
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

I agree with AksumVanguard and Prince of Zeila. Cows, goats, bananas, xylophones, string instruments, the sail (navigation) has no bearing of the development of complex societies and stone buildning architecture in what is now South Africa and Zimbabwe. Complex societies can rise because of local processes, concentration of power, social and economic change, increased population density combined with trade accumulation of weaalth. That kind of changes often are visible in material culture as architecture and similar. Mapungubwe, Thulamela, Great Zimbabwe and the other stone ruins in the neighbourhood show continuity with older building traditions, its just that increased population made it easier to amass people enough to express local building traditions in stone instead which was a more suitable material for monumental architecture reflecting societal and ideological changes.

 

One can really ponder over the fact that Great Zimbawe seems to be a magnet for diffusionistic and migrationistic theories. It of course has its ultimate ground in the racism of the 19th century westerners who did not want to belive that sub saharan Africans were able to create monumental architecture in stone (or create anything else of some grade of complexity). Instead the colonialists dreamed about ancient Egyptians, Fenicians, Sabeans, Jews (under Salomo), Greeks, Romans, Arabs and other foreign peoples living far away.

 

Even if archaeological research has rather clearly shown the local origins of the stone architecture that kind of theories has continued to pop up, even if they are expressed in a somewhat down played fashion. But still one can read about the influence of Arabs, Indians and now Indonesians.

One can also notice that it is not the archaeologists that usually work in the area, who do the surveys, the excavations and the investigations who promotes these ideas. Often it is other people, many times amateurs that are no experts on the archaeology of Zimbabwe or South Africa. It seems that these people really like to do some Heyerdahling of their own.

 

 
 
About cows. Some signs actually indicates a separate domestication of local aurochs populations in the Sahara and Nile valley for maybe 7000 years ago or more. So it is not neccecarily so that cows where imported (some races where but some variants could have been local) .

 

About sails: they have been around for a long time among East Africans, Egyptians, Middle Easterners, Arabs, Indians, Chinese, South East Asians and others. The time span of contact between East Africa and the outside world is so vast that it is hard to say when the sail arrived there. It is even possible with different local inventions of the sail.

 
 
The problem, Carcha, is not racism or political correctness. The problem is that Subsaharan Africa was never isolated from the rest of the world. You can't compare that region to Australia, the Americas or the Pacific, because the situation was absolutely different. There has been "contacts" with Subsaharan Africa since thousand of years ago, and people like the Malay is just one of those. Now, It is not easy to prove parallel inventions when the influences from the outside is clearly seen. Also, when we know that Eurasia and the Mediterranean world was quite ahead of Subsaharan Africa, so makes sense the inventions and improvements went north to south.
 
With respect to the sail and writing, they never came to Subsaharan Africa nor were invented in Subsaharan Africa at all, no matter that in North and East Africa those techniques were known during thousand years. For instance, Cape Verde wasn't settled before the Europeans!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 13:45
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

I agree with AksumVanguard and Prince of Zeila. Cows, goats, bananas, xylophones, string instruments, the sail (navigation) has no bearing of the development of complex societies and stone buildning architecture in what is now South Africa and Zimbabwe. Complex societies can rise because of local processes, concentration of power, social and economic change, increased population density combined with trade accumulation of weaalth. That kind of changes often are visible in material culture as architecture and similar. Mapungubwe, Thulamela, Great Zimbabwe and the other stone ruins in the neighbourhood show continuity with older building traditions, its just that increased population made it easier to amass people enough to express local building traditions in stone instead which was a more suitable material for monumental architecture reflecting societal and ideological changes.

 

One can really ponder over the fact that Great Zimbawe seems to be a magnet for diffusionistic and migrationistic theories. It of course has its ultimate ground in the racism of the 19th century westerners who did not want to belive that sub saharan Africans were able to create monumental architecture in stone (or create anything else of some grade of complexity). Instead the colonialists dreamed about ancient Egyptians, Fenicians, Sabeans, Jews (under Salomo), Greeks, Romans, Arabs and other foreign peoples living far away.

 

Even if archaeological research has rather clearly shown the local origins of the stone architecture that kind of theories has continued to pop up, even if they are expressed in a somewhat down played fashion. But still one can read about the influence of Arabs, Indians and now Indonesians.

One can also notice that it is not the archaeologists that usually work in the area, who do the surveys, the excavations and the investigations who promotes these ideas. Often it is other people, many times amateurs that are no experts on the archaeology of Zimbabwe or South Africa. It seems that these people really like to do some Heyerdahling of their own.

 

 
 
About cows. Some signs actually indicates a separate domestication of local aurochs populations in the Sahara and Nile valley for maybe 7000 years ago or more. So it is not neccecarily so that cows where imported (some races where but some variants could have been local) .

 

About sails: they have been around for a long time among East Africans, Egyptians, Middle Easterners, Arabs, Indians, Chinese, South East Asians and others. The time span of contact between East Africa and the outside world is so vast that it is hard to say when the sail arrived there. It is even possible with different local inventions of the sail.

 
 
The problem, Carcha, is not racism or political correctness. The problem is that Subsaharan Africa was never isolated from the rest of the world. You can't compare that region to Australia, the Americas or the Pacific, because the situation was absolutely different. There has been "contacts" with Subsaharan Africa since thousand of years ago, and people like the Malay is just one of those. Now, It is not easy to prove parallel inventions when the influences from the outside is clearly seen. Also, when we know that Eurasia and the Mediterranean world was quite ahead of Subsaharan Africa, so makes sense the inventions and improvements went north to south.
 
With respect to the sail and writing, they never came to Subsaharan Africa nor were invented in Subsaharan Africa at all, no matter that in North and East Africa those techniques were known during thousand years. For instance, Cape Verde wasn't settled before the Europeans!
Back to Top
Prince of Zeila View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 20 Mar 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 241
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Prince of Zeila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 20:54
Ofcourse Subsaharan Africa was never isolated why should the Horn of Africa(as Subsaharan Africa as Congo) sitting on the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean block themselves from those busy waterways and their commercial opportunities and relations?. Secondly i didn't want to comment on those so-called influences you mentioned before because i didn't want you to divert from your responsibility to explain why 'foreign influence was the reason for Zimbabwean building in stone, seeing as you after several posts still haven't answered that question i'm going to accept the fact that you can't prove it.
 
When studying History the term 'Sub saharan Africa' is meaningless as there was trade for millenia's between the Horn and the North and it's very easy to look at Africa's relation with it's neighbours and pretend the influences came through a one way street, but  things like Coffee, the Camel, the Zar religion, the Shax Boardgame, gum, Khat originate from the Horn. The oldest form of Ethiopic/Yemenic writings are found on the Eritrean coast, in Somalia there are inscriptions of a writing system that according to one scholar has no similarity to anything else in the region. In terms of navigation we never needed outside help to get to where we want to be. Local projects such as the Beden ship were sufficient.  
 
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 21:14

That's a good question. Is the Horn part of Subsaharan Africa? Or part of "Black" Africa as it was formerly known. This definition is important because the Horn, or "Ethiopia" as was known since the beginnings of time, was always in contact with the civilizations of the fertil crescent, as much as Arabia that is just across the Red Sea. Even more, the Horn is an Afroasiatic region, at least by language, as much as any country of North Africa and the Near East.

I was thinking that when refering to Subsaharan Africa we were talking about the region south of the Sahara and east of Ethiopia, where Bantu and other languages are spoken.

Back to Top
Prince of Zeila View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 20 Mar 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 241
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Prince of Zeila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 21:16
Plenty of countries in West Africa that are Afro-asiatic, pinguin.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 21:23

The Afroasiatic languages are in yellow. All those regions were in contact with the Mediterranean, Fertil Crescent and Eurasian civilizations since the beginning.
Let's talk about the Nigger-Congo regions as Subsaharan Africa, or let's change the terminology.
 


Edited by pinguin - 26 Aug 2009 at 21:25
Back to Top
Prince of Zeila View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 20 Mar 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 241
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Prince of Zeila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 21:36
Where will this convenient slicing and dicing of Africa lead us then? will it bring the discussion back to Madagascar?
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 21:50
Originally posted by Prince of Zeila Prince of Zeila wrote:

Where will this convenient slicing and dicing of Africa lead us then? will it bring the discussion back to Madagascar?
 
I hope so. What is not convenient is to put all people of a continent together, just because they live in the same continent. Otherwise, you will explain the culture of Palestineans looking to Japan, the culture of Guatemala looking to Quebec, and the culture of the Sami looking at the Albanians...
 
That's simply RIDICULOUS.
Back to Top
Prince of Zeila View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 20 Mar 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 241
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Prince of Zeila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 22:12
I agree, there are clear distinct cultural regions in Africa who developed differently from eachother historically but that doesn't mean there wasn't interaction especially along the frontiers of those cultural realms. China and Korea are clearly part of a distinct cultural region in Asia this however doesn't change the fact they had interaction with another distinct region of Asia - the Indian subcontinent for a considerable amount of time. 
 
In Africa similarly there are regions such as the Horn and the North that are unique and populated by a diverse stock of indigenous ethnic groups and languages but there was interaction with other parts of Africa aswell. The type of monolitic treatment of Africa that you are referring to is when people want to use Ancient Egypt the way Rome is used in Europe i.e a civilization that touched the majority of the continent, but the African continent is over 30 million km² and we know Egypt never covered that much land or had the same impact on Africa Rome had on Europe.
 
On the flipside of this coin are those that want to pretend there is only 'one version of Africa' and that version is neatly positioned in a part of the African continent that saw less interaction with the rest of the world. Is this side of the coin familiar to you, pinguin?
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 22:25
First, Rome didn't cover all Europe either. Iberians could claim some important influence, for instance, but hardly Swedish or Russians. Second, Egypt covered just Egypt and no much else.
 
With respect to a supposed "One version of Africa" I believe that's a dream of Omar Kaddafi and Van Sertima but I found it absolutely ridiculous. I don't see anything in common between the Maghreb and Madagascar or between Afrikaneers and Nubians, for instance.
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 22:45



Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Absolutely wrong. Chavin culture of Peru is rooted in the Amazon.


What I was trying to convey is that the Andean civilizations did not create a stratum of accquired knowledge for the development of native tribes in the  Amazon.Now of course they had contact but did the migrants from the Amazon leave traces of civilization behind in the Amazon. It would be just like the Oromo ethnic group who have their roots in Kenya and Western Somalia who really have not left remnants of civilization or structure behind in their place of "true origin".

And as for Zimbabwe having influences by foreign cultures,there is no doubt they had interacted with foreign cultures.But it takes more than just interaction for the development and evolution of civilization. For instance,  the Persians had interaction with tribes of the Steppe in Central Asia very few of these tribes built cities most of them did not. The Romans had interacted with the Gauls and Goths but they never built any empire or city structures of their own,they only became assimilated into Roman culture.

The name Ethiopia was given by the Greeks who claimed during the "Illiad" that  great "semi
 mythological warriors " belonging to a king called  Mennon were seen to be most firece and tall warriors of their day. Greeks  claimed they came from Nubia, ancient greeks often referred to the Nubians as Ethiopians.  The "Greeks new next to nothing of the tribes located south of Nubia.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 23:44
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

And as for Zimbabwe having influences by foreign cultures,there is no doubt they had interacted with foreign cultures.But it takes more than just interaction for the development and evolution of civilization. For instance,  the Persians had interaction with tribes of the Steppe in Central Asia very few of these tribes built cities most of them did not. The Romans had interacted with the Gauls and Goths but they never built any empire or city structures of their own,they only became assimilated into Roman culture....
 
Complex topic. Gypsies (who are usually nomadic people) have been in contact with Western civilization during lot of time, but they are still nomadic. No matter they have been very influenced by religion and material culture, too.
 
Nobody denies that Zimbabwe's culture was partially original as well. My only point is that without external influences (commerce) they probably won't have a large scale society that required stonework. A theory? I bet some Zimbabwean ruler, or someone of power,  travelled abroad and had the chance to see large structures elsewhere, then it though we couldn't do this as well.
 
That kind of borrowing was very common. For instance, one of the hypotesis about the origin of Easter Island's writing is simply that the natives though Europeans writting... and they imitate the idea in theirs own way.
 


Edited by pinguin - 26 Aug 2009 at 23:47
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2009 at 01:12

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 The problem, Carcha, is not racism or political correctness. The problem is that Subsaharan Africa was never isolated from the rest of the world. You can't compare that region to Australia, the Americas or the Pacific, because the situation was absolutely different. There has been "contacts" with Subsaharan Africa since thousand of years ago, and people like the Malay is just one of those. Now, It is not easy to prove parallel inventions when the influences from the outside is clearly seen. Also, when we know that Eurasia and the Mediterranean world was quite ahead of Subsaharan Africa, so makes sense the inventions and improvements went north to south.

 

With respect to isolation or not, even if Sub Saharan Africa was never isolated there was still internal developments in different regions. Trade with the surrounding world do not exclude internal developments. And actually one can see a line of continuity between older forms of architecture and later forms in the areas here discussed.

But the diffusionists seem just to want to dismiss the archaeological research (and its results) that actually is done in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

 

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

With respect to the sail and writing, they never came to Subsaharan Africa nor were invented in Subsaharan Africa at all, no matter that in North and East Africa those techniques were known during thousand years. For instance, Cape Verde wasn't settled before the Europeans!

 

On the East coast of Africa down to Mosambique sails has been in use for thousand of years too. But of course it is not easy to exactly discern the origin of these sails since the coastal area has been in contact with surrounding areas for such a long time.

 

Writing I did not mention in my previous post. And Cape Verde do not lie along the coast of east Africa.

 

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nobody denies that Zimbabwe's culture was partially original as well. My only point is that without external influences (commerce) they probably won't have a large scale society that required stonework. A theory? I bet some Zimbabwean ruler, or someone of power,  travelled abroad and had the chance to see large structures elsewhere, then it though we couldn't do this as well.

 

Now you are back in the sort of thinking that were in fashion among some archeologists and historians during the 40ties and 50ties. Later research has shown that stone architecture and monumental building have developed independantly in many places of the world. There is no signs of someone who went abroad and came back with an impressions of monumental buildnings since the stone archtecture of the Zimbabwean plateau actually shows a development from small scale sturctures with stones incoprorated in them to larger stone structures (which also had elements of buildings of mud and similar incorporated).

 

This actually reminds me of some diffusionists here in Sweden believing that the big cairn of Kivik was the grave of someone who must have gone abroad (preferable to to Mediterranean, maybe todays Greece) and seen the world and then came back with a lot of ideas about cairn building and similar. Later analyzes has shown though that the Kivik cairn is just a continuation of other similar structures in Southern Scandinavia. And the culture bringer, the great king, actually turned out to be several people, including women that was buried in the cairn.

 



Edited by Carcharodon - 27 Aug 2009 at 01:34
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2009 at 01:33
This website has some useful links to a country study of Madagascar, and includes links to the pages on the various ethnic groups.

http://www.wildmadagascar.org/people/ethnic_groups.html

Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2009 at 02:33
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

With respect to isolation or not, even if Sub Saharan Africa was never isolated there was still internal developments in different regions. Trade with the surrounding world do not exclude internal developments.

 
Who said otherwise? What's your point? Strawman number 1
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

And actually one can see a line of continuity between older forms of architecture and later forms in the areas here discussed.
 
Who said otherwise? Strawman number 2. It's me who put the proof Zimbabwe has a fractal geometry, after all. Please, don't jump into the wagon LOL
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

But the diffusionists seem just to want to dismiss the archaeological research (and its results) that actually is done in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

 
Diffusion is proven in this case. Zulus didn't invented the cow. Wink
 

 

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

On the East coast of Africa down to Mosambique sails has been in use for thousand of years too.

 
Wrong!!
 
Actually, I see you aren't very scientifically minded, Carcha. You put your emotions and "sense of justice" before facts.
The fact is that the Arab dows are the standard Mozambiquean ship these days, and that ship was brough by the Arabs to the region, only a thousand year ago.
 
 
This ship is Arab in design and origin.
 
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

But of course it is not easy to exactly discern the origin of these sails since the coastal area has been in contact with surrounding areas for such a long time.
 
The first sails arrived with the Indonesians. The Niger-Congo region (Subsaharan Africa less the Horn) didn't know the sail before them.

 
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Writing I did not mention in my previous post. And Cape Verde do not lie along the coast of east Africa.

 
 
 
Of course it is not. Who said otherwise? Another strawman (number 3)
 
 
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Now you are back in the sort of thinking that were in fashion among some archeologists and historians during the 40ties and 50ties.

 
 
 
There is only one way to think: by reasoning. The rest is spreading lies.
 
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Later research has shown that stone architecture and monumental building have developed independantly in many places of the world. There is no signs of someone who went abroad and came back with an impressions of monumental buildnings since the stone archtecture of the Zimbabwean plateau actually shows a development from small scale sturctures with stones incoprorated in them to larger stone structures (which also had elements of buildings of mud and similar incorporated).

 
 

 
There aren't many signs at all in the remaining of Zimbabwe. You know that. You also know it is impossible to prove there was lack of influence. What you can't deny, though, is that Zimbabwe was in contact with the outside world by a network of commerce. And you can't deny it, because those arqueological remains do exist.
 
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

This actually reminds me of some diffusionists here in Sweden believing that the big cairn of Kivik was the grave of someone who must have gone abroad (preferable to to Mediterranean, maybe todays Greece) and seen the world and then came back with a lot of ideas about cairn building and similar. Later analyzes has shown though that the Kivik cairn is just a continuation of other similar structures in Southern Scandinavia. And the culture bringer, the great king, actually turned out to be several people, including women that was buried in the cairn

I don't know why you compare me with your fellow countrypeople. You are just making a new strawman: the number 4.
 
I am not hyperdiffusionist, but I am not naive, either. I just don't believe Bacon invented gunpowder, or Guttenberg the printing press... they came from China!! Wink


Edited by pinguin - 27 Aug 2009 at 02:43
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2009 at 03:14

 

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Diffusion is proven in this case. Zulus didn't invented the cow.

 

Zulus and Great Zimbabwe is not the same.

  

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Wrong!!

 

Actually, I see you aren't very scientifically minded, Carcha. You put your emotions and "sense of justice" before facts.

The fact is that the Arab dows are the standard Mozambiquean ship these days, and that ship was brough by the Arabs to the region, only a thousand year ago.

 

This ship is Arab in design and origin.

 

 

Dhows were not the first ships in these regions. Other ship types with square sails had sailed here for centuries even before the dhows. Even Chinese ships where in these neighbourhoods very early.

 

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The first sails arrived with the Indonesians. The Niger-Congo region (Subsaharan Africa less the Horn) didn't know the sail before them.

 

Do not confuse Niger Kongo region with the east coast of Africa.

On the east coast square sails have been seen for millenia.

 

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

There aren't many signs at all in the remaining of Zimbabwe. You know that. You also know it is impossible to prove there was lack of influence. What you can't deny, though, is that Zimbabwe was in contact with the outside world by a network of commerce. And you can't deny it, because those arqueological remains do exist.

 

What you do not seem to realize is that Great Zimbabwe is not alone. It is just one in a whole complex of around 300 ruined stone structures. And several archaeologists are working with excavations, surveys and investigations of these remains and also about their precursors and development.

 


Edited by Carcharodon - 27 Aug 2009 at 03:40
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2009 at 03:58
 
Who said they were the same? Strawman number 5

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 

Dhows were not the first ships in these regions. Ships with square sails had sailed here for centuries as early or even before the dhows. Even Chinese ships where in these neighbourhoods very early.

 
 
I perfectly know who sailed there. Just stop your Strawman (number 6)
 
 
I don't confusse anything. I know the Horn had sails from millenia. Strawman 7
 
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

What you do not seem to realize is that Great Zimbabwe is not alone. It is just one in a whole complex of around 300 ruined stone structures. And several archaeologists are working with excavations, surveys and investigations of these remains and also about their precursors and development.

 
I never say so either. I just show a picture of the main buildings.
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2009 at 04:15

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 

Strawman number 5 

 

 

About the so called strawmen. Since you brought up those subjects in this context I commented on them.

 

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

There is not contradiction in both concepts.

 

 

One can guess about different influences, but if that shall be meanigful one has to show them too. And so far noone has really shown that the stone ruins should have been influnced by foreigners.

 

 



Edited by Carcharodon - 27 Aug 2009 at 04:16
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2009 at 04:35

Well, actually you are right on your last point. That was an speculation on my side. It may be the case that stoneworking was discovered or invented independently in Zimbabwe.

This thread is about Madagascar, though, and the influence of the island spread to most of South East Africa and beyond. That's is seen clearly in musical instruments, for instance. That's was all the point.
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2009 at 18:00
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:



Complex topic. Gypsies (who are usually nomadic people) have been in contact with Western civilization during lot of time, but they are still nomadic. No matter they have been very influenced by religion and material culture, too.

Nobody denies that Zimbabwe's culture was partially original as well. My only point is that without external influences (commerce) they probably won't have a large scale society that required stonework. A theory? I bet some Zimbabwean ruler, or someone of power,  travelled abroad and had the chance to see large structures elsewhere, then it though we couldn't do this as well.

 

 Well you said it yourself,the Gypsies have traveresd and migrated time and time again but they nevwr actually copied or replicated some the stone structures they encountered. They Romas are believed to orginate in Northern Pakistan and never brought with them stone building techniques they saw,they only seem to have brought the linguistics with them.


As I said it takes alot of studying  to obtain knowledge in masonry and civil building engineering. So hypothetically if a ruler or" whomever" went to anotherfar distant land and just saw structures or was taken  as a pupil to learn about building skills is very unlikely. For one he would have to do alot of memorization,and this would be hard even if he somehow that person did have photographic memory. He would of probably have to bring back records of this knowledge of masonry,and that would of contained writing. And since we know the Monomatapa Empire didn't have a writing system or even use of writing system as East Asians or the Arabians did,it is unlikely the obtained knowledge from a distant land.

As for the Eastern Island writing system it still has yet to be proven, that it has  sprouted from an European system.

 

 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 02:41
Easter Island system was invented by natives themselves, but they had the inspiration seen westerners writing, and repeating the writing aloud. The idea they captured was to record words with marks; not the alphabetic system at all.
 
With respect to rulers, it is not necesarily to elaborate much complex theories. If a person of Zimbabwe took a ride to the Horn at ancient time, it could perfectly brough the idea. In any case, perhaps the trigger was simply the comments of outsiders about buildings made in stone.
 
In any case, in Anciet times, stone workers used to work for different kings and rulers. The Solomon Temple was build by Phoenicians, for instance. I have no doubt that given a commercial relation ideas came and went everywhere, and Zimbabwe was part of a international trade hub, that spread from there to Mozambique, Madagascar and up north to the Horn, Arabia, India and even the South East Asia. The main product of export was gold.
The only thing I know there is lot to study and discover as yet in this fascinating topic.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2009 at 07:45
The thing with Zimbabwe is that it did not appear out of thin air. There is a continuity from elder forms of architecture where stones were just a part of the architecture (as in platforms where huts were placed on, some lower walls that separated different spaces between parts of villages and similar). Out of such traditions the larger complexes rose when population density increased and the societies grew more complex. It was a rather natural development that need no outer influences or travels to foreign countries to be explained.

Edited by Carcharodon - 28 Aug 2009 at 07:46
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.