U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-17-2011, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 11,880,039 times
Reputation: 9953

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
jk, if you happen to have the time and inclination to read an interesting bit (pages 211-216) of Mauritanian/western Saharan history, I have a favor to ask.

I'm interested in learning about the veiled Zenaga speaking Amazigh of that region, especially the tribe known as the Anbat/Idaw'ish. Unfortunately the text is in French. There are many gaps and missing pieces of the puzzle for mono-Anglophones such as myself.

So, like I said, if you have the time and inclination could you give me a gist of what those pages are saying. Any help would be much appreciated.
No problem. In digested form, with apologies for my limited French:

This Hamidoun [a mukhtar, basically someone important, presumably a scholar] has made helpful comment about what the story of Khouna reveals about relations between Idaw'Ali and Idaw'ish. The former were arbiters between Hassan and Lemtouna [don't know who those are], and could provide sanctuary to people like Khouna. "Shinqitienne" [no idea] tradition says the Idaw'Ali are Sharifian, explaining why Udeike looked to their Muslim holy men rather than someone else's. The I'A of Tagant called the I'i 'our holy men' [I think this means spiritual arbiters and teachers], and the I'i called the I'A 'our Arabs', meaning 'our warriors'. Hamidoun claims the two tribes had an ancient friendship.

The I'i coalesced as an entity [something to do with Khouna, abbreviations make this hard] around 1600 CE, during an era called 'the movement of peoples,' an era of conflict between tribes of differing means of survival. It talks about the relations and conflicts, naming names and alliances. One in particular talks about the Ouled M'Barak, with whom the I'i became [near as I can tell] junior partners in an alliance. The OM'B eventually asserted control over the area under discussion, bringing into vassalage a number of tribes including the I'i and I'A.

That gets us through para 2 of p.212. Is this at all helpful or coherent? If so, I'll go on.

 
Old 08-18-2011, 10:40 AM
 
4,990 posts, read 4,453,373 times
Reputation: 1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
No problem. In digested form, with apologies for my limited French:

This Hamidoun [a mukhtar, basically someone important, presumably a scholar] has made helpful comment about what the story of Khouna reveals about relations between Idaw'Ali and Idaw'ish. The former were arbiters between Hassan and Lemtouna [don't know who those are], and could provide sanctuary to people like Khouna. "Shinqitienne" [no idea] tradition says the Idaw'Ali are Sharifian, explaining why Udeike looked to their Muslim holy men rather than someone else's. The I'A of Tagant called the I'i 'our holy men' [I think this means spiritual arbiters and teachers], and the I'i called the I'A 'our Arabs', meaning 'our warriors'. Hamidoun claims the two tribes had an ancient friendship.

The I'i coalesced as an entity [something to do with Khouna, abbreviations make this hard] around 1600 CE, during an era called 'the movement of peoples,' an era of conflict between tribes of differing means of survival. It talks about the relations and conflicts, naming names and alliances. One in particular talks about the Ouled M'Barak, with whom the I'i became [near as I can tell] junior partners in an alliance. The OM'B eventually asserted control over the area under discussion, bringing into vassalage a number of tribes including the I'i and I'A.

That gets us through para 2 of p.212. Is this at all helpful or coherent? If so, I'll go on.
Thanks a lot buddy and yes it is helpful and makes sense.

The Hassan are a segment of the Maqil Arabs, who were part of the wave of Arab tribes pushed by the Fatimids out of the Arabian peninsula and the nile area. Around the same time as this invasion, the veiled Zenaga tribe of Lemtouna are most famous for starting the Almovarid empire which comprised much of the modern Maghrib along with islamic Spain.

Many of the Amazigh tribes of the western Sahara and Mauritania (such as the Anbat/Idaw'Ish who boasted of being the descendants of the Lemtouna) claim descent from the Almoravids.

Shinquiti roughly corresponds to the mountain in Mauritania called the Adrar but its exact boundaries are kinda vague.

Sharifian corresponds to those claiming descent (real or imagined) from the family of the Prophet Muhammed. One of the prophet's descendants fled to Morocco where he intermarried with an Amazigh tribe. His name was Idris and many of the sharifs throughout islamic African history claimed descent from Idris. The Idrisid empire encompassed both Morocco and parts of Algeria and even after it fell to the Ibadi Amazigh, the descendants of the Idrisid dynasty (heavily if not entirely intermarried with Amazigh tribes) spread throughout islamic Africa, Spain and Sicily.

Like most societies, these were very class conscious with different occupations having different degrees of social prestige. The religious class was just as spiritual as it was mercantilist. The warrior class often controlled trade routes, both as raiders and bandits and as protectors and body guards. There were other classes such as poets/entertainers, the smiths/artisans/tinkerers, nominally free serfs and slaves. Some families, clans and tribes specialized in one or several occupations and this often was subject to variation over time.

Ouled Mubarak is one of the Banu/Awlud/Wuld (sons of, people of) Hassan tribes and it seems through the support of the Moroccan dynasties and the Portugese and other Europeans, the Banu Hassan were able to conquer much of the area of modern Mauritania for about a century from the mid 1600's-the mid 1700's. After the death of Mulay Ismail of the Moroccan Filali dynasty (the main backers of the Banu Hassan at the time) in 1727, Amazigh tribes such as the Anba Zenaga/Idaw'Ish and the Meshduf/Mashtuf (descendants of the Massufa who were a brethren tribe of veiled Zenaga like the Lamtuna and who were also instrumental in the Almovarid movement) began to assert their independence and once again their rule. Unfortunately this part of the story is where I run into gaps and holes.

With the exception of bits and pieces from H.T. Norris, most Anglo works tend to erase the Amaizgh tribes out of history and solely focus on Arabs like the Maqil.

The French seem to have a more balanced approach to representation, so please continue on my friend.

Thanks a lot.

Last edited by kovert; 08-18-2011 at 12:10 PM..
 
Old 08-18-2011, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 11,880,039 times
Reputation: 9953
Okay, continuing:

All the marabout Tagant tribes [tribes with important scholars] suffered for nearly a century under the heavy Hassan yoke (including the latter's Kounta allies who delivered the Idaw-al-hajj to them). In the 16th century, they lived nomadically and peacefully between the Adrar and Reguieba. From 1660-1778, during which the I'i became more independent of the Hassan, the marabout tribes including the I'A grew closer to I'i [by the designs of] Mohammed [of the?] Khouna and his successors.

Mohammad Chein succeeded his father Bakkar O. Amar, and maintained the I'i coalition for another fifteen years, consolidating its forces and rallying old tributaries like the numerous, wealthy Mechdouf and Ladem (whose tribute to OM'B didn't impoverish them), and numerous other tribes. From 1776-78, he went into open rebellion against the OM'B by refusing to pay tribute. The latter gathered up their allies (Oulad Nacer, Brakna, Trarza, Oulad Ghailan and other warlike Adrar factions), blockading Mohammad Chein for six months at Lehneikat Baghdad. Other sources say this was four months, at the palmerie [oasis, I suspect] of Touesse Tijigja. [This is getting easier as I better understand what's going on.]

This long siege played an important role for the I'i. The Mghafra didn't attack, for one thing, figuring the I'i would be reprovisioned (defeating the siege). [Evidently the Mghafra were right, because...] The Ksar I'A snuck in lots of food, which we should remember as key in establishing friendship between the I'i and I'A. Tijigja tradition holds that during the blockade, an I'i delegation went to Sidi Abdallah O. Brahim al-hajj at night, offering gifts, asking for his prayers. At first he declined the gifts, citing Sharia. Then a very respected woman of I'i descent named Aicha mint L'Attrach, matriarch of an important I'A family, persuaded Sidi Abdallah [a marabout] to hear them out.

Tichite, one of the envoys, made their case. Sidi Abdallah agreed to pray for them if, after their victory, the I'i would apply Sharia and abolish the dependency and tribute [unsure here] of the I'A. Muhammad Chein declined, arguing that the I'i could not give up a benefit on which they depended economically. If they did this, they'd have a moral obligation to do the same for all the other Zwaya tribes of the Tagant. However, his son (standing in back) gave Sidi Abdallah a nod (not wanting to contradict Dad openly). Sidi Abdallah stepped up, laid a hand on the future emir, and invoked glory upon him and all his descendants. [One wonders if Chein didn't get a little suspicious about this turnabout.] Sidi Abdallah went with the I'i delegation to Baghdada. He prayed, took a stake, looked to the I'I delegation and said: "To secure a camel, you need only secure their jaws, correct?" "Yes," they replied. Sidi Abdallah stuck the stake in the sand and said: "The jaws are the Tagant cliffs of Baghdada that you're seeing. God willing, they are secure as long as you conform to your pact." He gave some advice to the notables, including Tichiti (d. 1789-90), Mohammed Chein (died of rabies January or February 1788, a month after this interview), and the young Mohammed O. Mohammed Chein. The latter succeeded his father after a few struggles with relatives, not of interest here.

Our sources, Sidi Abdallah's descendants, invoke his holiness to explain the I'i victory over the Mghafra. Some even attribute the 1905 French occupation of the Tagant to this bargain, for by this time Bakkar was too old and weak to enforce its terms. [There is more about tribute at the 19th century using words like ghaver and mudar, which I don't have time to hunt up. Maybe you know them offhand.]

The author then speculates on the reality underlying this hagiographic version. As best I can tell, he is suggesting that Sidi Abdallah became an advisor to Mohammed O. Mohammed Chein (the son who nodded). This marabout's wisdom may have done a lot to make him the greatest and most pious emir of Moorish lands.

He cites the scholar Amilhat as saying [and this makes little sense to me; maybe more to you]: "Moorish tradition holds that when encircled by the Arabs, the Berbers came up with a saving strategy. They sent an embassy to Ahmed, chief of the Oulad Abdallah, including 20 young warriors and some gifts (including a fine stallion stolen from the Oulad M'Barak). When they reached Ahmed Ould Haiba's tent, they rescued him. They ran to the Brakna emir's tent with the emir's cousin, whose mother was Znaga. He pretended great hate against the defenders, and was accepted as the OM'B's envoy. He said his plan was to kill all the young people and give the OM'B all their animals. Ahmed Ould Haib took great offense that he was believed capable of such an atrocity, so he struck his tents and left westward with all his warriors." The author then reiterates that the I'i got their strategic thinking from Sidi Abdallah (summed up).

MO.MC ruled from 1794-1822, a time of consolidation of emirate power. He built up the cavalry, asserted control over the Tagant and struck as far as the Trarza. The [writer] Botte says that the I'i strike force at the time of the rebellion against the OM'B included some Ahel Swayd and their Mechdouf vassals, including an elite camel cavalry unit. Scholar Mohamad Al-Chenafi describes it as a dynamic century for the I'i, dominating their region with a powerful camel corps and allowing nomadic freedom between the Tiris and the Bakel. Al-Chenafi considers MO.MC the last great emir to field such a camel corps.

[That gets us nearly to the end of p.216. Hope it helps!]
 
Old 09-06-2011, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 11,880,039 times
Reputation: 9953
I haven't gotten to the translation yet but haven't forgotten either.
 
Old 09-07-2011, 01:00 PM
 
4,990 posts, read 4,453,373 times
Reputation: 1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
In Sons of Ishmael, the author claims that oral traditions link the ancestress Sa'ad to the Zanatiya Amazigh tribal confederations which seem to be the most consistent trait from all the traditons from Cyrenica to the Nile.
This is further supported by Leo Africanus and Marmol, 16th century writers who both stated that the Leuta/Leveta/Lebeta (a faction of the Butr/Zenetiya speaking Amazigh) controlled the territory from the oasis of Aujila up to the Nile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
The earliest reference I have found so far lists them as the Nababes. The next is Muqaddasi's reference to the Banu Abbas taking over the country district (inhabited by the Amazigh tribes) of Qabishi.

Ibn Hazm regarded the Awtita (Ait Atta of which the Abbes are a part of) as being one of the Butr/Zanatiya tribes rather than the fraction of the Branes famously known as Sanhaja. The great Ibn Khaldun seems to have linked the Awtita to the Banu Tuzin, one of the top 3 most powerful tribes of Zenetiya who dominated the region of modern Algeria in his days.

Likewise John Ogilby in the late 17th century wrote that the Garib, a Zenetiya tribe ruled the territory of Itata.
I believe Cook, the author of the Hundred Years War for Morocco may have underestimated just how much a revolution the proliferation of gunpowder warfare was in regards to the furthest Maghrib.

Many scholars have taken note that there was a massive linguistic shift away from Zenega (tongue of the veiled Amazigh of the western Sahara) and Azer (a Soninke dialect and former lingua franca of this portion of the Sahara , legacy of their rule in Takrur, Ghana and Mali) to that of the Banu Hassan, Hassaniya (Hassan branch of the Banu Maqil arabs).

This is largely due to the support the Hassan received during the mid 1600-mid 1700 century from Europeans such as the Portugese (there were oral traditions recorded by enslaved Europeans that the Traza and Brakna Hassan rulers of the coastal Sahara were of Portugese ancestry. They fled into the Sahara along with Amazigh tribes that were in league with the Portugese. This was during the time of the sharifs of the Saadian dynasty). The Filali dynasty of sharifs that ruled after the Saadians also supported the Maqil and other Arab tribes since the Filali themselves were if not of Maqil origin (Ogilby stated the sharifs belonging to Arab tribes ruled Tafilet before the Saadian conquered that area), heavily intermarried with them (the famous Udayian tribe of warriors).

Basically the access to European arms dealers enabled the Filali/Hassan to control trade routes and thus establish their language as a lingua franca (I have to note this is the 1st and only reference I have come across, specifically stating that hassaniya was the Filali official language) and over the course of a few centuries, cause other languages and dialects to become virtually extinct.

I believe a similar phenomenon has occurred with the regards to the Shillah and Tamazight (in particular the dialect known as taberbert) around the same time period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
I haven't gotten to the translation yet but haven't forgotten either.
Welcome back to the funny farm!

Its all good man, and I appreciate all the help, you've been given me.

Remember though that info is for the Libya thread.

Though I warn you, the fact that you not only, , can read well above the fundamental 8th grade level, but, egads, do it in other languages as well, will get you tagged as an "evil liberal elitist".
 
Old 09-07-2011, 01:55 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 11,880,039 times
Reputation: 9953
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Remember though that info is for the Libya thread.

Though I warn you, the fact that you not only, , can read well above the fundamental 8th grade level, but, egads, do it in other languages as well, will get you tagged as an "evil liberal elitist".
Heh, evidently my literacy level doesn't do much to help me keep track of threads. As for the tags, I'm used to it. Since I have no US political affiliation, it's a simple equation: anyone who affixes one to me, I simply dismiss as not intelligent enough to waste time on. Political incontinence is the curse of my country--it was better when people confined their politics to the appropriate sanitation facilities rather than just leave political deuces everywhere.

To remain on topic, seems to me there is really no way to assess Cleopatra's lineage because of the inconsistencies and biases in defining 'black' or 'part black.' However, statistically, it's impossible that she didn't have black (as in, of or referring to descendancy from very dark-skinned, spirally haired, sub-Saharan traditional genes) heritage in the same way it's impossible that I don't (and I am pretty white-looking). Her family line simply spent too much time close to Africa for her to lack black heritage in some sense. She'd just about have to have been an Inupiat for us to even imagine she didn't.

The real question people are wondering about is this: did she look like a modern black woman or a modern white woman, or in between? Being of Greek Middle Eastern descent, she probably looked close to what we now think of as Mediterranean. Her coin images sure don't look very much like Queen Latifah or Oprah Winfrey. Here is some imagery from money and statuary.
 
Old 09-07-2011, 02:18 PM
 
4,990 posts, read 4,453,373 times
Reputation: 1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
To remain on topic, seems to me there is really no way to assess Cleopatra's lineage because of the inconsistencies and biases in defining 'black' or 'part black.' However, statistically, it's impossible that she didn't have black (as in, of or referring to descendancy from very dark-skinned, spirally haired, sub-Saharan traditional genes) heritage in the same way it's impossible that I don't (and I am pretty white-looking). Her family line simply spent too much time close to Africa for her to lack black heritage in some sense. She'd just about have to have been an Inupiat for us to even imagine she didn't.

The real question people are wondering about is this: did she look like a modern black woman or a modern white woman, or in between? Being of Greek Middle Eastern descent, she probably looked close to what we now think of as Mediterranean. Her coin images sure don't look very much like Queen Latifah or Oprah Winfrey. Here is some imagery from money and statuary.
Thompson is one of the best sources I have come across that examines how the Hellenes and the Latins described themselves and others physically.

Goldenberg really draws on the legacy of Snowden and Thompson and takes this scholastic exploration to the next level.

Unless there are finds of her genetic remains, I have and will continue to hold that Cleo is of Hellene Macedonia origin. Does anyone have any records of her genealogy? Given the low opinion the hellene elites had toward the conquered Egyptians, I don't see why the hellenes would allow someone of their descent to rise to such a position of power.
 
Old 09-09-2011, 03:44 AM
 
2,227 posts, read 4,284,438 times
Reputation: 1019
She was Macedonian, from the Ptolemaic lineage. Macedonian were at that time Celtics under Hellenic cultural influence. According to some descriptions, she had a large nose, very unattractive traits and she was bald, but she was very intellectual.

Ptolemaics never mixed with Egyptians, they were famous inbreeders.

Macedonians were not Greeks, they were considered barbarians by Greeks.
 
Old 09-10-2011, 09:05 PM
 
253 posts, read 413,958 times
Reputation: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manolón View Post
She was Macedonian, from the Ptolemaic lineage. Macedonian were at that time Celtics under Hellenic cultural influence. According to some descriptions, she had a large nose, very unattractive traits and she was bald, but she was very intellectual.

Ptolemaics never mixed with Egyptians, they were famous inbreeders.

Macedonians were not Greeks, they were considered barbarians by Greeks.
If Macedonians were considered barbarians by Greeks why were they permitted to compete in the Olympic Games which excluded non-Greeks?

I would read what Herodotus has to say about the Macedonians in "The Histories."
 
Old 09-10-2011, 09:40 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,385 posts, read 9,947,952 times
Reputation: 5230
At the least she had a mixed of Native Egyptian and Greek ancestry. But to say that she was 100% white with absolutely no possibility of having any African ancestry is just ignorant and very Eurocentric.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top