Original inhabitants of the Sahara back when it was still wet and fertile were a group of veritable giants (reaching 2 meters) who lived in complex, sedentary fisher-societies alongside the banks of the various lakes, among them Lake Megachad, then the size of the Caspian Sea.
The lakeside plains they inhabited often flooded, so they built large mounds to live upon. They also had advanced canoes with which they traversed the waterways. Through vast spans of the Sahara, a unified 'wavy line' style of pottery dominated, evidencing a shared culture
In time, the climate began to shift, and the waters retreated. When this happened, the great lagoons and floodplains became for a time wide, fertile pastures. This drew the attention of incoming pastoralists, whose hitherto home further north was quickly drying.
Ultimately, the cultures of these giant, aboriginal North Africans ("Mechtoids") were assimilated by the incoming pastoralists, and from their union arose probably the first Chadic and Berber peoples as we know them.
The Sahara's final desertification had a shattering, knock-on effect on the peoples of the region. One group whose very origins may lie in this event is that of the Nilo-Saharans, whose original homeland may have been along the Yellow Nile, a now-vanished tributary of the Nile.
When the great pasturelands of Northern Africa turned to sand, many people were forced north, towards the Barbary Coast.
Others, however, moved south. Nilotic peoples from South Sudan, though visually distinctly Sub-Saharan, carry North African genetic signatures.
The Fulani are another possibly result of this exodus. Denizens of the Sahel and West Africa and speakers of a sub-Saharan Niger–Congo language, they nevertheless maintain a heavily pastoralist lifestyle, and show male-line ties with Afroasiatics and Nilo-Saharans.
It seems plausible to theorise that the knock-on effect of the drying Sahara led, in a sort of African Völkerwanderung, to a large-scale invasion south of various pastoralist tribes. In time, many were effectively assimilated, but their lifestyle lives on, as does trace ancestry.
Not even mentioned in all this are the repeated ingressions of Eurasian ancestry into Chad & East Africa. Such ancestry seems to have come both from the Near East & Iberia, diffusing perhaps first along the northern shores before being thrust into the desert &, ultimately, south.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A striking takeaway of the last 10 years of the aDNA revolution - from the Indo-Europeans, to the Bantu, to the Swahili, to the Japanese - is that you might sooner trust a toddler to pick out a 50-meter target with a revolver than an archaeologist to identify an ancient migration
It should be self-evident that we cannot simply derive from this a reverse principle, and conclude that wherever contemporary archaeologists denied a purported migration, it really did take place - yet the scope of the discrediting is remarkable.
What are we to make of as-yet unresolved fine-grained questions, such as the Dorian invasion, the Hebrew conquest of Canaan or other traditional narratives long contested by the now-dubious consensus? Again, we cannot simply default to the inverse conclusion, but one wonders.
"Real, unembellished history" according to quite a number of historians seems to consist largely of ppl sitting around, munching bread and porridge, between periodic bursts of fighting over miscellaneous economic factors.
>Knight is recorded as composing a poem to persuade his captor lord to free him:
"Bet that happened lol"
>King gives a stirring speech before battle:
"Sure that happened"
>Viking is heads out to Constantinople, motivated by a dream:
"Definitely not embellished mhm"
Never underestimate a dusty historian's ability to regard as improbable literally any display of human spontaneity, whimsy or unconditioned willpower.
This is only half true. Rwanda is a cohesive, fairly well-run and (by regional standards) prosperous and stable country. The Congo, it is true, is essentially not a real state, hence why the massive size disparity between it and Rwanda confers no military advantage.
It is an interesting quirk of the global export of the nation state system that we aren't really able to account for "unorganized regions" anymore. With the exception of Antarctica, every plot of land *must* be attached to a specific polity with a government and a flag.
This works well enough in some parts of the world, but it obviously fails elsewhere, where the reality on the ground simply fails to match the internationally recognised construct. The Darién Gap is only "part" of Panama and Colombia in the most tenuously nominal sense.
There is a phenomenon I've noticed a lot in many contemporary walks of life - term it "introductionism": ppl never actually reading primary literature, or watching classical movies, or engaging directly with high art, but interacting with everything through "accessible" mediums
In a world of limited time, I've come around to the realisation that 8/10 times, instead of reading a book ABOUT Shakespeare, read Shakespeare. Read Plato. Just read that book you want to get to, don't read endless books ABOUT reading that book.
"You can just do things", but for literature and the other arts.
Sure, you might need some help to interpret, say, Aristotle or Hegel - so maybe get a complimentary book to help you, or read a brief introduction to the core concepts, but *do not* then stop there.
Unclear why so many seem to struggle to understand that just because the original speakers of Proto-Indo-European *were* a single, definable ethnogroup, that doesn't mean IE-speakers *today* are.
Obviously there's no such thing as an "Indo-European race" - Indians, Afghans, Kurds, Spaniards, Germans and Lithuanians are not all part of one esoteric, "hyperborean" identity. But the original PIE-speakers would indeed have been a particular tribe or cluster of related tribes.
"Indo-European-speaking peoples" is the correct term today, because thousands of years after the aboriginal PIE-speakers left their Urheimat, the correlation between steppe-ancestry and language is extremely small. But, again, that doesn't mean this retroactively applies as well.
One of the most frustrating tendencies in academic conversations around novel belief systems like Wicca or New Age spirituality is researchers caveating all their (invariably devastating) assessments of the historical claims with varieties of "-of course far be it from me to devalue people's deeply held beliefs, I don't want to say that anyone is wrong in their convictions..."
Rubbish. If somebody is claiming to be "reviving the authentic religious expression of the British Isles (or wherever)", and you are systematically demolishing every one of the assertions underpinning said religious system, then you patently ARE devaluing said misguided notions.
Truth claims are truth claims - it is not "kind" or "respectful" to treat these as ultimately irrelevant, and indeed doing so is ultimately a sign of supreme arrogance and contempt, since you don't even consider it worth *looking at* whether said beliefs are correct.
I ultimately have substantially more respect for both Richard Dawkins & Ray Comfort than I do for the dithering, obsequious academics who, in their attempts to be conscientious, end up treating ppl like you would a little girl being told that yes she is a princess.