A lot of different theories have been conjured to try to explain the illusive origin and history of the hausa ethnic group of Northern Nigeria. But one that has recently caught my attention is the stipulation that hausas may have actually migrated from ancient egypt. for me it sounds like the most plausible, certainly sounds a lot more plausible than the Bayajidda legend which i believe was invented by Muhammad Bello, same person responsible for yorubas today thinking they originated from Mecca.
Anyways, for me, especially when it comes to the linguistic similarities, its quite striking, in the first place an afro asiatic language definitely makes more sense if it originated from Egypt. For instance, some curious researchers noticed these similarities between egyptian and hausa words.
"Hausa relationships with ancient egyptians is obvious since the first studies in the beginning of the twentieth century:
Werner Vicychl, 1938 made this relationship certain by making 200 to 300 comparisons with ancient egyptian.
Carleton T. Hodge,1966 , Indianna University wrote on Hausa-Egyptian establishment.
so also Greenberg, Lillias Homburger, Moustapha Gadalla, Skinner.
Mrs Lugard, historian and wife of Nigerian colonial Governor talked about This relation.
The term ” SERECK” which preceded pharaoh’s names is a mis intrepretation of ” SARAKI”, the legendary Serpent in Hausa History and Title of Hausa King till nowadays.
Sereck is somtimes said to be the book of kings, plural for king is “Saraaki” in Hausa."


"what is surprising is that hausa defines exactly words as do ancient egyptian:
The example of Qasr-El – Fara-frah called “white Desert” today in Egypt means litterally the same thing in Hausa” Earth white-white”.
Tutankhamon(Live image of Amon) in ancient egyptian ,has the same definition in Hausa: ” Your Representation Amon”
Tuta means “flag” Etandard” and ” Ka” means “yours”:
“Tutan ka ” signify in hausa ,” your representation/ your image/ your symbol of power”.
Kingship in Hausa derived from the bite of the serpent
“SARA” and the term of Kingship “Sarauta” = Qui coupe
court, like a serpent bite. may be why ancient egyptian kings had Crowns with a Serpent head. - "


Now, another point to note is that worship of the sun was definitely prominent in early hausa civilizations and we know what the sun god "RA" meant to the egyptians.

another comment

"Hausa is I think the only language in the world in which ” RA” means the Sun(RA-na).RAna means litterally “My RA or RA is mine” like proper name as RA-naw
:”na and naw” are first person possessive.
“Baka”as named some pharaohs is “the controler of the territory” and in ancient time people said”Qasar Baka:territory of Baka”. Baka can signify Arc like in the pharaoh name “ShaBaka”(endowed with arcs).
“Gada” means “bridge” , so Nagada means “The ones near the bridge”, it can be a town, persons or something. Narmer in his time had constructed a bridge.
Qasar- El -Farah-Frah (white desert) in the Siwa region are hausa words meaning”White land”.
I leave you with these few examples to judge by yourselves. "


NOTE: Recently, ancient pyramids have been discovered in Niger Republic, which was a part of hausa states.

Another similarity is this quote i picked out from wikipedia on the origin of hausa boxing called dambe

"The stances and single wrapped fist of Hausa boxers bear visual resemblance to illustrations of Ancient Egyptian and Hellenistic boxers. This has caused speculation that Hausa boxing is directly related to Ancient Egyptian boxing[8] and who influenced whom is always a contentious topic, but the argument is supported by theories that the Hausa people used to live farther east, toward Sudan, than they do today."

Heck im not sure about this, sounds like bogus, but a team researchers supposedly found that the biblical moses may have had some relationship with hausa, though im not really sure about this.

The theory that hausas migrated from Egypt definitely makes a lot more sense than the botched theory of some iraqi prince and apparently a lot of people agree with me on this but nonetheless, its still up for debate.

Kaura5000 Fulaman198 Radoillo and other interested parties, lets discuss.

Nice research op, you really tried
but this is what I call TARIHIHI
Only a true Hausa historian will know what I mean

dgalon:
Nice research op, you really tried
but this is what I call TARIHIHI
Only a true Hausa historian will know what I mean

Lool! Ni Kuwa zan gaya ma me tarihi, duk da dai ni dalibin tarihin hausa ne, ba malami ba.

Honestly, This makes sense. Linguistically I can believe that hausa are linked to ancient Egypt but culture nko? What cultural similarities exist?

I stil believe if any group in nigeria are linked to egypt it is Kanem-Borno or Hausa.
Not Yoruba as many delude themselves on

The Hausa language is, of course, related to the language of the Ancient Egyptians. But it is also related to the languages of the Berbers, the Cushitic languages of the Horn of Africa, Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, etc, all of them being Afro-Asiatic languages.

Because Hausa language is related to all these languages, I don't think it's correct to single out Ancient Egyptian as the language with a special relationship with Hausa, and the one which holds the key to Hausa origins. The Afro-Asiatic languages did not originate in Egypt, to start with. There are many theories about where the Afro-Asiatic parent language developed, but the best-accepted theory is that the parent-language first developed somewhere in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, most likely), and then spread by migrations and other kinds of contacts into North Africa (Ancient Egyptian and Berber), West Africa (Hausa and other Chadic languages like Angas) and Asia ( the Semitic languages).

There is a theory in linguistic circles that before they came in contact with Afro-Asiatic speakers, the ancestors of the Hausa were already living in Hausaland, and they spoke a Nilo-Saharan language (like Kanuri.) Then they intermingled with Afro-Asiatic speakers and adopted their language, ultimately giving rise to Hausa.

Radoillo:
The Hausa language is, of course, related to the language of the Ancient Egyptians. But it is also related to the languages of the Berbers, the Cushitic languages of the Horn of Africa, Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, etc, all of them being Afro-Asiatic languages.

Because Hausa language is related to all these languages, I don't think it's correct to single out Ancient Egyptian as the language with a special relationship with Hausa, and the one which holds the key to Hausa origins. The Afro-Asiatic languages did not originate in Egypt, to start with. There are many theories about where the Afro-Asiatic parent language developed, but the best-accepted theory is that the parent-language first developed somewhere in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, most likely), and then spread by migrations and other kinds of contacts into North Africa (Ancient Egyptian and Berber), West Africa (Hausa and other Chadic languages like Angas) and Asia ( the Semitic languages).

There is a theory in linguistic circles that before they came in contact with Afro-Asiatic speakers, the ancestors of the Hausa were already living in Hausaland, and they spoke a Nilo-Saharan language (like Kanuri.) Then they intermingled with Afro-Asiatic speakers and adopted their language, ultimately giving rise to Hausa.

Yes, I think there's this theory by the Dan masanin kano that hausas migrated from Ethiopia but there isn't enough evidence to support that, although the ancient Ethiopians also worshipped the sun.

Also the language isn't the only evidence to support this, but similarities like the prominence given to the sun god by hausas and the similar word for it and the wrestling, danbe definitely give this theory some credibility.

Finally, I agree that it is plausible that the language was adopted later on by the dwellers of what became the Hausa state. From where the original speakers came is the subject of the debate.

macof:
Honestly, This makes sense. Linguistically I can believe that hausa are linked to ancient Egypt but culture nko? What cultural similarities exist?

I stil believe if any group in nigeria are linked to egypt it is Kanem-Borno or Hausa.
Not Yoruba as many delude themselves on

Yeah, I mentioned religion, the local wrestling and even the modern day pyramids in Niger.

Oops

Interesting pictures and comparison. Egyptologists do believe that some of the wrestlers depicted in Egyptian art came from farther south - from Nubia. It is in fact known that Egyptians did hold wrestling contests with Nubians. Today, the people whose wrestling practices most resemble that of the ancient Egyptians are the Nuba people of Sudan. The Nuba speak a Nilo-Saharan language. So it is quite possible that in these wrestling practices, we are looking at an ancient institution shared by ancient Nilo-Saharans, which probably included the ancestors of the Hausa.

Please, can you share the link where you got the Egyptian drawing from? There is something about it that puzzles me. It doesn't quite look to me like the style is Ancient Egyptian. Something about it reminds me of Greek mural and ceramic painting.

MorrowCaligari:


Yeah, I mentioned religion, the local wrestling and even the modern day pyramids in Niger.

Oh, did you just add that?

Anyway, a sun God cult and local wrestling mean little.
What about hieroglyphics? Way of dressing? Hair style? Egyptian style art?

Radoillo:
Interesting pictures and comparison. Egyptologists do believe that some of the wrestlers depicted in Egyptian art came from farther south - from Nubia. It is in fact known that Egyptians did hold wrestling contests with Nubians. Today, the people whose wrestling practices most resemble that of the ancient Egyptians are the Nuba people of Sudan. The Nuba speak a Nilo-Saharan language. So it is quite possible that in these wrestling practices, we are looking at an ancient institution shared by ancient Nilo-Saharans, which probably included the ancestors of the Hausa.

Please, can you share the link where you got the Egyptian drawing from? There is something about it that puzzles me. It doesn't quite look to me like the style is Ancient Egyptian. Something about it reminds me of Greek mural and ceramic painting.

all I see there is greek

macof:


all I see there is greek

Yeah true. I committed a blunder. Various outlets relate the Hausa boxing to that of Egypt yet I'm yet to find a proper image for comparison. Maybe you can help with that.

Radoillo

MorrowCaligari:


Yeah true. I committed a blunder. Various outlets relate the Hausa boxing to that of Egypt yet I'm yet to find a proper image for comparison. Maybe you can help with that.

Radoillo

I've seen some pictures of ancient Egyptian wrestling, but I'm yet to see one that depicts boxing and boxing gloves. Mostly it's just wrestlers grappling at each other with their bare hands. You know, regular wrestling.

Radoillo:


I've seen some pictures of ancient Egyptian wrestling, but I'm yet to see one that depicts boxing and boxing gloves. Mostly it's just wrestlers grappling at each other with their bare hands. You know, regular wrestling.

Yeah, me too. Still working on it.

But it's not just the gloves. It's the stance as well.

The ancient egyptians were also engaged in organised stick fighting. Something very common in rural areas in Hausa states.

MorrowCaligari:


Lool! Ni Kuwa zan gaya ma me tarihi, duk da dai ni dalibin tarihin hausa ne, ba malami ba.

Hhh ka rufa min asiri..na roke ka.

Radoillo is always spot on with his statements. Well done my friend, well done.

Fulaman198:
Radoillo is always spot on with his statements. Well done my friend, well done.

*salutes*

Fulaman198:
Radoillo is always spot on with his statements. Well done my friend, well done.

He seems to be one of the few sane people in the culture section and he's well learned too. With the rate at which ludicrous claims are conjured up in this section people like him are needed.

MorrowCaligari:


He seems to be one of the few sane people in the culture section and he's well learned too. With the rate at which ludicrous claims are conjured up in this section people like him are needed.

I agree, I really enjoy reading his posts, because you can expect them to be accurate and on point (he doesn't shoot from his hip at all). He's also a very well-read individual.

MorrowCaligari:
A lot of different theories have been conjured to try to explain the illusive origin and history of the hausa ethnic group of Northern Nigeria. But one that has recently caught my attention is the stipulation that hausas may have actually migrated from ancient egypt. for me it sounds like the most plausible, certainly sounds a lot more plausible than the Bayajidda legend which i believe was invented by Muhammad Bello, same person responsible for yorubas today thinking they originated from Mecca.
Anyways, for me, especially when it comes to the linguistic similarities, its quite striking, in the first place an afro asiatic language definitely makes more sense if it originated from Egypt. For instance, some curious researchers noticed these similarities between egyptian and hausa words.
"Hausa relationships with ancient egyptians is obvious since the first studies in the beginning of the twentieth century:
Werner Vicychl, 1938 made this relationship certain by making 200 to 300 comparisons with ancient egyptian.
Carleton T. Hodge,1966 , Indianna University wrote on Hausa-Egyptian establishment.
so also Greenberg, Lillias Homburger, Moustapha Gadalla, Skinner.
Mrs Lugard, historian and wife of Nigerian colonial Governor talked about This relation.
The term ” SERECK” which preceded pharaoh’s names is a mis intrepretation of ” SARAKI”, the legendary Serpent in Hausa History and Title of Hausa King till nowadays.
Sereck is somtimes said to be the book of kings, plural for king is “Saraaki” in Hausa."


"what is surprising is that hausa defines exactly words as do ancient egyptian:
The example of Qasr-El – Fara-frah called “white Desert” today in Egypt means litterally the same thing in Hausa” Earth white-white”.
Tutankhamon(Live image of Amon) in ancient egyptian ,has the same definition in Hausa: ” Your Representation Amon”
Tuta means “flag” Etandard” and ” Ka” means “yours”:
“Tutan ka ” signify in hausa ,” your representation/ your image/ your symbol of power”.
Kingship in Hausa derived from the bite of the serpent
“SARA” and the term of Kingship “Sarauta” = Qui coupe
court, like a serpent bite. may be why ancient egyptian kings had Crowns with a Serpent head. - "


Now, another point to note is that worship of the sun was definitely prominent in early hausa civilizations and we know what the sun god "RA" meant to the egyptians.

another comment

"Hausa is I think the only language in the world in which ” RA” means the Sun(RA-na).RAna means litterally “My RA or RA is mine” like proper name as RA-naw
:”na and naw” are first person possessive.
“Baka”as named some pharaohs is “the controler of the territory” and in ancient time people said”Qasar Baka:territory of Baka”. Baka can signify Arc like in the pharaoh name “ShaBaka”(endowed with arcs).
“Gada” means “bridge” , so Nagada means “The ones near the bridge”, it can be a town, persons or something. Narmer in his time had constructed a bridge.
Qasar- El -Farah-Frah (white desert) in the Siwa region are hausa words meaning”White land”.
I leave you with these few examples to judge by yourselves. "


NOTE: Recently, ancient pyramids have been discovered in Niger Republic, which was a part of hausa states.

Another similarity is this quote i picked out from wikipedia on the origin of hausa boxing called dambe

"The stances and single wrapped fist of Hausa boxers bear visual resemblance to illustrations of Ancient Egyptian and Hellenistic boxers. This has caused speculation that Hausa boxing is directly related to Ancient Egyptian boxing[8] and who influenced whom is always a contentious topic, but the argument is supported by theories that the Hausa people used to live farther east, toward Sudan, than they do today."

Heck im not sure about this, sounds like bogus, but a team researchers supposedly found that the biblical moses may have had some relationship with hausa, though im not really sure about this.

The theory that hausas migrated from Egypt definitely makes a lot more sense than the botched theory of some iraqi prince and apparently a lot of people agree with me on this but nonetheless, its still up for debate.

Kaura5000 Fulaman198 Radoillo and other interested parties, lets discuss.

What you say on the history of Hausa is not my cup of tea, but i would like to correct your misunderstanding on the reference of Muhammadu Bello and Yoruba in your writing.

Muhammadu Bello referenced an external source in his popular narration about Yoruba. Did he not?

Also, try and understand the root and etymology of words before you throw out assumptions about knowledge. Forget about proximity of Hausa to Egypt, Yoruba contains in its culture, language, worship, far more symbols, tokens, arts, legends and lexicon than Hausa has or matches with Egypt.

Let me hint you on something deep. If you want to truly understand where Hausa came from, study Yoruba culture and antiquity. Its no joke! If you need more explaining let me know...I will provide guide.

OPCNAIRALAND:


What you say on the history of Hausa is not my cup of tea, but i would like to correct your misunderstanding on the reference of Muhammadu Bello and Yoruba in your writing.

Muhammadu Bello referenced an external source in his popular narration about Yoruba. Did he not?

Also, try and understand the root and etymology of words before you throw out assumptions about knowledge. Forget about proximity of Hausa to Egypt, Yoruba contains in its culture, language, worship, far more symbols, tokens, arts, legends and lexicon than Hausa has or matches with Egypt.

Let me hint you on something deep. If you want to truly understand where Hausa came from, study Yoruba culture and antiquity. Its no joke! If you need more explaining let me know...I will provide guide.

Okay.

Radoillo:
The Hausa language is, of course, related to the language of the Ancient Egyptians. But it is also related to the languages of the Berbers, the Cushitic languages of the Horn of Africa, Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, etc, all of them being Afro-Asiatic languages.

Because Hausa language is related to all these languages, I don't think it's correct to single out Ancient Egyptian as the language with a special relationship with Hausa, and the one which holds the key to Hausa origins. The Afro-Asiatic languages did not originate in Egypt, to start with. There are many theories about where the Afro-Asiatic parent language developed, but the best-accepted theory is that the parent-language first developed somewhere in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, most likely), and then spread by migrations and other kinds of contacts into North Africa (Ancient Egyptian and Berber), West Africa (Hausa and other Chadic languages like Angas) and Asia ( the Semitic languages).

There is a theory in linguistic circles that before they came in contact with Afro-Asiatic speakers, the ancestors of the Hausa were already living in Hausaland, and they spoke a Nilo-Saharan language (like Kanuri.) Then they intermingled with Afro-Asiatic speakers and adopted their language, ultimately giving rise to Hausa.

Radoillo,
The problem with linguists is that these claims are all theories supported by protocols formulated from best assumptions and anecdotal evidences...all lumped and given a standard bearing to act as time reference for historical interpretation...and are not actual reproduction of history. Do you not agree?

I present two very good examples for you...in fact three!

1. In the times before white explorers Africans had.no written account detailing their history, language or.roots. Explorers into Africa were pace setters in African history and its literatures. Since these explorers turned missionaries, turned.colonialists left the management of our history to us we have not made new.discoveries in African anthropology and every discourse on language and linguistics look back to the 1800s and early 1900s for citations. We are writing and interpreting african history in 21st century from the regerence and view expressed in 1800s by Eurocentrists.

2. There were two great rivers in Africa that the European explorers were interested in - Nile and Niger.
Hence when they classified us linguistically they used these rivers as anchors for our language groups and concluded that this is who were, neglecting ....or dumb to realize that to the African.a river is an extension of divinity, ....that a river is an utility or connection to his humanity, and has a cosmic meaning more than being a landmark for his roots.

3. This is why the negro is classified into Niger languages and Nilo languages. These are theoretic and artificial formations left for the black.man....the Afrocentrist to further explore and.put in their correct place to match more closely with his nature and , divinity than anything else.

OPCNAIRALAND:


Radoillo,
The problem with linguists is that these claims are all theories supported by protocols formulated from best assumptions and anecdotal evidences...all lumped and given a standard bearing to act as time reference for historical interpretation...and are not actual reproduction of history. Do you not agree?

I agree to an extent, but not entirely. For some languages, there are no exhaustive studies/information in support of their classifications. This is the case for the Meroitic language of the Ancient Nubians, which some linguists classify as Afro-Asiatic, while other linguists think it is more likely to have been Nilo-Saharan. Another example is the Songhai language which though routinely classified as Nilo-Saharan, but which classification remains not very certain. For these two languages (and some other languages - especially some classified under the Cushitic category), I'll agree that linguists have not made very strong cases for their classifications, and have made some 'assumptions' and relied on very 'slim' linguistic evidence.

With the exception of these few examples, however, I consider the modern classification of extant African languages to be pretty solid in general.

I present two very good examples for you...in fact three!

1. In the times before white explorers Africans had.no written account detailing their history, language or.roots. Explorers into Africa were pace setters in African history and its literatures. Since these explorers turned missionaries, turned.colonialists left the management of our history to us we have not made new.discoveries in African anthropology and every discourse on language and linguistics look back to the 1800s and early 1900s for citations. We are writing and interpreting african history in 21st century from the regerence and view expressed in 1800s by Eurocentrists.

This isn't entirely true. In fact, few, if any, modern scholars, still refer to material produced in the 1800s (1800s!) or the early 1900s. Such early works are well known to be error-ridden, and not based on any thorough understanding of African languages; some of the 'linguists' of that era were not even professionals. Granted, there are some European linguists from the latter part of the 20th century, (from about 1960s or so) whose works are still considered important - people like Armstrong and Greenberg. These writers are still important because subsequent studies of their materials have shown that they did thorough professional researches, substantiated by the work of linguists that came after them.

Also, even in this century, there are linguists who are actively working at a deeper understanding of our languages and the relationships between them. Nobody is just lying around accepting the works of old and dead colonial anthropologists as Holy Writ. Admittedly, many of the new scholars of African languages remain white (Roger Blench, for example - who by the way did an important work on Hausa language and its roots not too long ago.) While we would prefer more African linguists to put in their weights and make contributions, I do not necessarily think qualified non-Africans cannot make useful contributions. In any case there is a sizable crop of African linguists making unique contributions -Elugbe, Aniche-Ohiri, Adetugbo, etc.

Already, the mistakes of the early Eurocentric pseudo-scholars have been largely corrected. The early Europeans, for example, classified Fulani and Maasaai as 'Hamitic', because they believed the people do not look 'Negro' and could not possibly speak 'Negro' languages. Modern linguistics have not only corrected this wrong impression about Fulani and Maasaai languages, they've also shown that even the word 'Hamitic' makes no sense - linguistically speaking, at least. In the 1890s, they were not even using terms like 'Niger-Congo' and 'Nilo-Saharan'. What they used then was 'Sudanic', and they didn't even understand the relationship between Bantu languages and West African languages.

All these improvements in our understanding of African languages are the works of modern linguists; therefore it is entirely incorrect to say that modern anthropologists are not making original contributions but only 'parroting' the works of '1800s Eurocentrists'. That is not true.

2. There were two great rivers in Africa that the European explorers were interested in - Nile and Niger.
Hence when they classified us linguistically they used these rivers as anchors for our language groups and concluded that this is who were, neglecting ....or dumb to realize that to the African.a river is an extension of divinity, ....that a river is an utility or connection to his humanity, and has a cosmic meaning more than being a landmark for his roots.

3. This is why the negro is classified into Niger languages and Nilo languages. These are theoretic and artificial formations left for the black.man....the Afrocentrist to further explore and.put in their correct place to match more closely with his nature and , divinity than anything else.

This analysis is too simplistic, to be honest. Geographical landmarks are often used in naming language-groups. This is for sake of convenience, and nothing more. There's no reason to read too much into it. And it certainly isn't true that languages are arbitrarily classified into Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan based on whether the people live close to the Niger or close to the Nile. There are Bantu (Niger-Congo) groups closer to the Nile than the Niger; and there are Nilo-Saharan groups closer to the Niger than the Nile. It's just a name - do not read too much into it. Linguistic classification is based on more important things, like language cognacy, etc, than on geographic landmarks.

What are these elements of Culture, language, worship, far more symbols, tokens, arts, legends and lexicon shared between the ancient Egyptians and Yorubas.
I know few do exist but not strong enough to draw attention to the claim of an "Egyptian origin" for yoruba.

@OPCNAIRALAND

Radoillo:


I agree to an extent, but not entirely. For some languages, there are no exhaustive studies/information in support of their classifications. This is the case for the Meroitic language of the Ancient Nubians, which some linguists classify as Afro-Asiatic, while other linguists think it is more likely to have been Nilo-Saharan. Another example is the Songhai language which though routinely classified as Nilo-Saharan, but which classification remains not very certain. For these two languages (and some other languages - especially some classified under the Cushitic category), I'll agree that linguists have not made very strong cases for their classifications, and have made some 'assumptions' and relied on very 'slim' linguistic evidence.

With the exception of these few examples, however, I consider the modern classification of extant African languages to be pretty solid in general.



This isn't entirely true. In fact, few, if any, modern scholars, still refer to material produced in the 1800s (1800s!) or the early 1900s. Such early works are well known to be error-ridden, and not based on any thorough understanding of African languages; some of the 'linguists' of that era were not even professionals. Granted, there are some European linguists from the latter part of the 20th century, (from about 1960s or so) whose works are still considered important - people like Armstrong and Greenberg. These writers are still important because subsequent studies of their materials have shown that they did thorough professional researches, substantiated by the work of linguists that came after them.

Also, even in this century, there are linguists who are actively working at a deeper understanding of our languages and the relationships between them. Nobody is just lying around accepting the works of old and dead colonial anthropologists as Holy Writ. Admittedly, many of the new scholars of African languages remain white (Roger Blench, for example - who by the way did an important work on Hausa language and its roots not too long ago.) While we would prefer more African linguists to put in their weights and make contributions, I do not necessarily think qualified non-Africans cannot make useful contributions. In any case there is a sizable crop of African linguists making unique contributions -Elugbe, Aniche-Ohiri, Adetugbo, etc.

Already, the mistakes of the early Eurocentric pseudo-scholars have been largely corrected. The early Europeans, for example, classified Fulani and Maasaai as 'Hamitic', because they believed the people do not look 'Negro' and could not possibly speak 'Negro' languages. Modern linguistics have not only corrected this wrong impression about Fulani and Maasaai languages, they've also shown that even the word 'Hamitic' makes no sense - linguistically speaking, at least. In the 1890s, they were not even using terms like 'Niger-Congo' and 'Nilo-Saharan'. What they used then was 'Sudanic', and they didn't even understand the relationship between Bantu languages and West African languages.

All these improvements in our understanding of African languages are the works of modern linguists; therefore it is entirely incorrect to say that modern anthropologists are not making original contributions but only 'parroting' the works of '1800s Eurocentrists'. That is not true.



This analysis is too simplistic, to be honest. Geographical landmarks are often used in naming language-groups. This is for sake of convenience, and nothing more. There's no reason to read too much into it. And it certainly isn't true that languages are arbitrarily classified into Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan based on whether the people live close to the Niger or close to the Nile. There are Bantu (Niger-Congo) groups closer to the Nile than the Niger; and there are Nilo-Saharan groups closer to the Niger than the Nile. It's just a name - do not read too much into it. Linguistic classification is based on more important things, like language cognacy, etc, than on geographic landmarks.

Very well-written my brother

Fulaman198:


Very well-written my brother

Thank you, brother.

Radoillo:


I agree to an extent, but not entirely. For some languages, there are no exhaustive studies/information in support of their classifications. This is the case for the Meroitic language of the Ancient Nubians, which some linguists classify as Afro-Asiatic, while other linguists think it is more likely to have been Nilo-Saharan. Another example is the Songhai language which though routinely classified as Nilo-Saharan, but which classification remains not very certain. For these two languages (and some other languages - especially some classified under the Cushitic category), I'll agree that linguists have not made very strong cases for their classifications, and have made some 'assumptions' and relied on very 'slim' linguistic evidence.

With the exception of these few examples, however, I consider the modern classification of extant African languages to be pretty solid in general.



This isn't entirely true. In fact, few, if any, modern scholars, still refer to material produced in the 1800s (1800s!) or the early 1900s. Such early works are well known to be error-ridden, and not based on any thorough understanding of African languages; some of the 'linguists' of that era were not even professionals. Granted, there are some European linguists from the latter part of the 20th century, (from about 1960s or so) whose works are still considered important - people like Armstrong and Greenberg. These writers are still important because subsequent studies of their materials have shown that they did thorough professional researches, substantiated by the work of linguists that came after them.

Also, even in this century, there are linguists who are actively working at a deeper understanding of our languages and the relationships between them. Nobody is just lying around accepting the works of old and dead colonial anthropologists as Holy Writ. Admittedly, many of the new scholars of African languages remain white (Roger Blench, for example - who by the way did an important work on Hausa language and its roots not too long ago.) While we would prefer more African linguists to put in their weights and make contributions, I do not necessarily think qualified non-Africans cannot make useful contributions. In any case there is a sizable crop of African linguists making unique contributions -Elugbe, Aniche-Ohiri, Adetugbo, etc.

Already, the mistakes of the early Eurocentric pseudo-scholars have been largely corrected. The early Europeans, for example, classified Fulani and Maasaai as 'Hamitic', because they believed the people do not look 'Negro' and could not possibly speak 'Negro' languages. Modern linguistics have not only corrected this wrong impression about Fulani and Maasaai languages, they've also shown that even the word 'Hamitic' makes no sense - linguistically speaking, at least. In the 1890s, they were not even using terms like 'Niger-Congo' and 'Nilo-Saharan'. What they used then was 'Sudanic', and they didn't even understand the relationship between Bantu languages and West African languages.

All these improvements in our understanding of African languages are the works of modern linguists; therefore it is entirely incorrect to say that modern anthropologists are not making original contributions but only 'parroting' the works of '1800s Eurocentrists'. That is not true.



This analysis is too simplistic, to be honest. Geographical landmarks are often used in naming language-groups. This is for sake of convenience, and nothing more. There's no reason to read too much into it. And it certainly isn't true that languages are arbitrarily classified into Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan based on whether the people live close to the Niger or close to the Nile. There are Bantu (Niger-Congo) groups closer to the Nile than the Niger; and there are Nilo-Saharan groups closer to the Niger than the Nile. It's just a name - do not read too much into it. Linguistic classification is based on more important things, like language cognacy, etc, than on geographic landmarks.

Good job sharing and educating me on this. This makes sense.

On to other things on the subject of tongue and language.

If i post picture of a cat online and ask viewers to submit its name in their native tongue and tell us what cultural language and country they represent, after applying filters to isolate duplicates, we will find there are more native tongues represented than cultural language and that will even far exceed numberof countries. There are 95 countries in the world.

If we examine the names for similarities across countries, cultural language and native tongue, and count match in name similarity as one occurrence, we will discover that our previous count, where we had the country component included, will diminish far below what it was.

Cats were present in royal courts of old. So whatever name the court called a cat, if the people adopted that as standard nomenclature, then could it not be possible to trace everyone that called cat in a specific rootword as members or subjects , at one time in a long gone age , under a unitary sovereing order?

I know the scenario above is hypothetical but we can thread through the human diversity to find common beginnings. The more commonalities and match we discover between two or more societies carrying same code and meaning in their rootwords the more valid it is they were at one point cohabiters, irrespective of where they geographically reside at the current time.

In Yoruba language for example there are different names for cat - "ologinni", "ologbo", "akata", "mussu".

Ologinni, ologbo and mussu are domestic cats. Akata is Civet, a cousin of the household cat that hunts wild but domesticable when tamed.

macof:


What are these elements of Culture, language, worship, far more symbols, tokens, arts, legends and lexicon shared between the ancient Egyptians and Yorubas.
I know few do exist but not strong enough to draw attention to the claim of an "Egyptian origin" for yoruba.

@OPCNAIRALAND

I am not an expert on these things but i dont believe one necessarily need to have expertise to reason critically at these phenomenas and get a grip on how A connects with M in the alphabet chain.

In a fundamental approach I know that i have five senses, because my humanity lives through these senses. With them i am able to experience the full spectrum of human interaction and interchange, whether basic or complex. I share what I see, hear, touch, taste and smell by announcing an intent or by responding to one. The terms of exchange demand that I put this experience across in a format the listener can utilize it. This is communication. My five senses therefore enriches my capacity to communicate.

If one of the five senses is taken away, my capacity to interchange with society will be hampered. If two are taken away I am furthe degraded in my humanity to function properly.

The elements Im talking about are fundamental to society and our humanity.

I made acquanitance with three people here in culture a while back and one of them in particular blew my mind when he asked me to interprete a document in his posession. He is one of those who think if you read the Quran then you know Arabic. . I dont know jack in Arabic...but he had a pricey document he found online. There was a forum he visits with Arabs and Indians in it and they talked about Assyria. He mentioned the history of Yoruba and led to debate upon which in annoyance one guy posted this document detailing who Ubbad, an ancient Meccan, was and his connection to Yorubas. This is the kind of guy you need here. I already want to bring him anyway to teach Caligari the history of his forefathers back when they worshipped Obatala before fulaman terrorists forefathers invaded their history and demolished their Obatala shrine up there in Hausaland.

Anyway, as i was saying before the digression, this guy ...I need to send email to him to come and talk.....this dude believed that so called king of Mecca, Ubbad, is what became Oba in Yorubaland.
But I love these discussions on history and i like to throw my two pennies in but no im uncomfortable linking Olokun to Egypt. Now I am versatile about Olokun in Yorubaland....just not in Egypt, so dont let my lack ofcexpertise in Egyptology fool you.

OPCNAIRALAND:


I am not an expert on these things but i dont believe one necessarily need to have expertise to reason critically at these phenomenas and get a grip on how A connects with M in the alphabet chain.

In a fundamental approach I know that i have five senses, because my humanity lives through these senses. With them i am able to experience the full spectrum of human interaction and interchange, whether basic or complex. I share what I see, hear, touch, taste and smell by announcing an intent or by responding to one. The terms of exchange demand that I put this experience across in a format the listener can utilize it. This is communication. My five senses therefore enriches my capacity to communicate.

If one of the five senses is taken away, my capacity to interchange with society will be hampered. If two are taken away I am furthe degraded in my humanity to function properly.

The elements Im talking about are fundamental to society and our humanity.

I made acquanitance with three people here in culture a while back and one of them in particular blew my mind when he asked me to interprete a document in his posession. He is one of those who think if you read the Quran then you know Arabic. . I dont know jack in Arabic...but he had a pricey document he found online. There was a forum he visits with Arabs and Indians in it and they talked about Assyria. He mentioned the history of Yoruba and led to debate upon which in annoyance one guy posted this document detailing who Ubbad, an ancient Meccan, was and his connection to Yorubas. This is the kind of guy you need here. I already want to bring him anyway to teach Caligari the history of his forefathers back when they worshipped Obatala before fulaman terrorists forefathers invaded their history and demolished their Obatala shrine up there in Hausaland.

Anyway, as i was saying before the digression, this guy ...I need to send email to him to come and talk.....this dude believed that so called king of Mecca, Ubbad, is what became Oba in Yorubaland.
But I love these discussions on history and i like to throw my two pennies in but no im uncomfortable linking Olokun to Egypt. Now I am versatile about Olokun in Yorubaland....just not in Egypt, so dont let my lack ofcexpertise in Egyptology fool you.

I'll I could gather from that is that you're not an expert, so Stfu.

MorrowCaligari:


I'll I could gather from that is that you're not an expert, so Stfu.

Its a waste of space for you to repeat what i already admitted. Let Yoruba know when you have guts to tell fulani to go to he11 and bring Obatala shrine back to your land. OPC will come up there and help.

OPCNAIRALAND:


Its a waste of space for you to repeat what i already admitted. Let Yoruba know when you have guts to tell fulani to go to he11 and bring Obatala shrine back to your land. OPC will come up there and help.

What in God's name is Obatala?