Lexical reconstruction and early African history: Insights from Bantu crafts vocabulary and plant names

1. Lexical reconstruction and early African history:Insights from Bantu crafts vocabulary and plant names Koen Bostoen Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren koen.bostoen@africamuseum.be

2. Bantu expansion • Bantu : Africa’s largest language group, in terms of number of speakers and languages as well as in terms of geographical spread • Number of speakers: ± 240 million (< ± 400m NC < ± 750m Africans) • Number of languages: 440 à 680 • Geographical spread: central + southern Africa

3. BENUE-CONGO BANTU Nurse & Philippson 2003:2

4. ‘Bantu Problem’ (Eggert 2005) • Striking contrast between shallow time depth and widespread distribution • Lower node in the Niger-Congo tree: sub-branch of a sub-branch of a sub-branch of a sub-branch of Benue-Congo • Niger-Congo expansion: at least 10.000 to 12.000 bp • Bantu dispersal: only 4.000 to 5.000 bp

5. Williamson & Blench 2000; Schadeberg 2003

6. Driving forces behind Bantu expansion • Source of multidisciplinary speculation since 1950’s (linguistics, archaeology, evolutionary genetics, …) • Farming/language dispersal hypothesis: Bantu as a textbook case of the concurrent dispersal of early agriculture, human genes and languages

7. Farming/language dispersal hypothesis Bantu expansion: one of the clearest examples of the concordance of five independent types of evidence for the replacement of local hunter-gatherers by expanding farmers, all traceable back to the farmers’ homeland of origin (Diamond & Bellwood 2003) • Own archaeologically visible culture • Domesticates • Skeletal types • Genes • Languages

8. Bantu expansion ≈ spread agriculture Holden (2002: 793): The Bantu language tree reflects the spread of farming across this part of sub-Saharan Africa between ca. 3000 BC and AD 500. Modern Bantu subgroups, ..., mirror the earliest farming traditions both geographically and temporally

9. Direct evidence for early ‘Bantu’ farming traditions • Independent archaeological evidence for food crop production in earliest Bantu speech communities is very sparse • Unambiguous data on crop remains or agricultural tools are largely missing • Central African rainforest: Banana phytoliths from Nkang, Cameroon (840 and 370 BC, Mbida et al. 2000)

10. Indirect evidence through lexical reconstruction • Comparative study of cultural vocabularies: important source of circumstantial evidence on the subsistence economy and socio-cultural organisation of early Bantu speech communities • Especially in areas where other historical sciences, such as archaeology or archaeobotany, are inadequate or have not yet been exploited to their full potential.

11. Proto-Bantu reconstructions for domesticates • Mainly restricted to ‘yam’ reconstructions: *-kʊ̀á,*-bàdá,*-kódò,*-dɪ̀gà (Maniacky 2005; Philippson & Bahuchet 1994/95) • Two Vigna species: *-kʊ́ndè (cowpea, Vigna unguiculata) + *-jʊ̀gʊ́ (Bambara groundnut, Vigna subterranea) (Philippson & Bahuchet 1994/95) • Most terms are reconstructable at different levels of Benue-Congo

12. Proto-Bantu reconstructions for domesticates • Banana: irregular reflexes of *-kòndè, probably not reconstructable into PB (De Langhe 1994/95; Philippson & Bahuchet 1994/95) • No PB-reconstructions for ancient domesticates, such as okra (Abelmoschus esculentus), roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa) or amaranth (Amaranthus sp.) (Blench 2006)

13. Lexically-based ideas on the subsistence economy earliest Bantu speakers • Root-crop centred agriculture based on different yam species • Probably supplemented with two Vigna species • Banana?

14. Ambiguity of crop name reconstructions • Crop name reconstructions not unproblematic as evidence for early plant food production • Domestication of an indigenous plant does not necessarily lead to lexical change • Yam family (Dioscoraceae): many species, both wild and domesticated, difficult to associate specific name to specific species  PB reconstructions = reliable indication of food production?

15. Analogy with Bantu crafts vocabulary • Semi-specialized verbs often constitute the conceptual center of the semantic field linked to crafts as pottery, metallurgy,… • Refer to the craft in its entirety, without being genuinely generic terms • More closely linked to the fashioning phase as prototypic centre of the chaîne opératoire • Several verbs/nouns linked to different steps of the production process are derived from these verbs

16. Analogy with Bantu crafts vocabulary • Bantu verbs meaning “to make pottery”, “to forge” originally had another, more general basic meaning; underwent semantic shift at ≠ chronological stages • Their dominant semantic core is quite general, and thus fairly vague in terms of historical information  technical changes do not necessarily lead to lexical changes • Peripheral, more technical meanings are more scattered and often created through common derivational procedures

17. Reliable lexical evidence for early agriculture • the reconstruction of vocabulary related to farming tools and techniques • PB reconstructions for utensils generated from food plants, e.g. containers from Lagenaria (Bulkens 1999a), and tools for exploiting food plants, such as grindstones, pestles, and mortars (Bulkens 1999b)

18. Reliable lexical evidence for early agriculture • PB reconstructions: *‑dɪ̀m‑ ‘to cultivate (especially with hoe)’, *‑tém- ‘to cut; cut down; clear for cultivation’, *‑gʊ̀ndà, ‘garden’  original meaning? • Absence of unquestionable PB reconstructions for typical farming practices, such as planting, sowing, making mounds, weeding and harvesting, or for typical farming utensils, such as the hoe, the digging stick and the bush-knife allows debate on the state of agricultural advancement at that time (Jacquot 1991)

19. Crop-centred lexical approaches • Biased focus on vocabulary for food crops • Little attention for wild or semi-domesticated food plants  their role in the subsistence systems of early Bantu speech communities often overlooked • More attention needed for mixed nature of these subsistence economies

20. Proto-Bantu lexical evidence for the exploitation of wild trees Bostoen (2005, forthcoming): • Elaeis guineensis (oil palm): *‑bídà +*‑téndé (Proto-BC) • Canarium schweinfurthii (safoutier): *‑pátù (Proto-East-BC) + *‑bɩ́dɩ́ (PB) • Dacryodes edulis (African plum): *-cákú(PB) • Cola spp. (cola nut): *-bɩ̀dú (Proto-BC?) • Parinari curatellifolia(mobola plum): *‑bʊda (PB?)

21. Subsistence strategies of early Bantu speech communities • Necessity to get off the beaten tracks instead of repeating weakly supported ideas on the driving forces behind the Bantu expansion • Use of lexical data to acquire a more refined idea of early Bantu subsistence strategies • Lexical ‘evidence’ should speak for itself and not purely serve as confirmation of (pre-established) historical theories

22. Proving the impossible: pearl millet cultivated by early Bantu speakers? • Common belief: pearl millet (grain cultivation in general) not part of original agricultural traditions of Bantu speakers • Challenged by discovery of archaeobotanical evidence of domesticated pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) in the rain forest of southern Cameroon, dated between 400 and 200 BC (Eggert et al. 2006)

23. Bantu pearl millet vocabulary as evidence for early agriculture • No wild pearl millet varieties attested in the Bantu area • Centre of early domestication: southern fringe of the Sahara (Brunken et al. 1977, Harlan 1971); southern Mauritania, Senegal and eastern Mali (Tostain 1998) • Bantu lexical reconstructions for ‘pearl millet’ certainly designate a domesticate having undergone man-induced spread

24. Earlier lexical approaches to ‘Bantu’ history of pearl millet • Unanimous on the fact that the first Bantu speakers leaving the Nigerian-Cameroonian borderland were not familiar with this cereal • Bantu speakers first acquired it when the crop started to spread in the eastern part of Central Africa, only from about the beginning of the first millennium AD (Ehret 1974, 1998; Vansina 1990, 1994/1995, 2004; Philippson & Bahuchet 1994/1995)

25. Earlier lexical approaches to ‘Bantu’ history of pearl millet • Introduced among Bantu speakers from a single eastern centre of origin • Either more or less concomitantly with part of the Bantu language dispersal after an ancestral Bantu speech community (Proto-East-Bantu) had adopted the cereal (Philippson & Bahuchet 1994/1995) • Or independently, from one Bantu group to the other, after Bantu languages had spread over large parts of their current distribution area (Ehret 1974)

26. The lexical evidence • Previous studies quote 2 very common ‘pearl millet’ terms reconstructed as *-bèdéand *-cángʊ́(Bastin & Schadeberg 2003; Ehret 1974; Guthrie 1967-1971; Homburger 1925; Philippson and Bahuchet 1994/1995;Vansina 1990, 1994/1995, 2004) • complementary geographic distribution • *-bèdé : the eastern part of the Bantu domain • *-cángʊ́: almost exclusively western distribution

28. The lexical evidence • Both terms may also refer to sorghum, finger millet and maize, but ‘pearl millet’ is in both cases the predominant meaning • None of them thought to have a distribution among Bantu subgroups that is representative enough to be reconstructable into PB • Both terms are very widespread • Reflexes are overall phonologically regular

29. Historical implications • Introduction pearl millet among Bantu speakers must be relatively old (e.g. sorghum and maize vocabulary much more diverse) • Its spread must have been concomitant with certain stages of the Bantu language dispersal (no loanwords diffused across languages) • Two terms: why assume a single eastern point of origin?

30. New look at the lexical evidence: *-bèdé • Reflexes in Guthrie’s zones D, E, F, G, J, K, L, M, N, P and S: East-Bantu • Reconstructable to Proto-East-Bantu • Spread of pearl millet coincided with spread of East-Bantu languages from the East African Great Lakes region(Philippson & Bahuchet 1994/1995) • Ultimate origin: Nilo-Saharan loanword > Central Sudanic (Ehret 1973, 1974), Sog (Eastern Sahelian) (Ehret 1998)

31. New look at the lexical evidence: *-bèdé

32. New look at the lexical evidence: *-bèdé • Widespread in West-Nilotic: also in Päri, Luwo, Shilluk, Adhola, Chopi, Labwor, Kuman, Lango, Acholi (Anne Storch pers. comm.) • Meaning: SORGHUM !!!! • Complicates the cultural historical interpretation of the comparative lexical data: did Bantu speakers adopted sorghum and/or pearl millet from Nilotic speakers?

33. New look at the lexical evidence: *-cángʊ́ • exclusively western Bantu distribution • most reflexes occur among South-West-Bantu languages • only area in the western Bantu half that is entirely savanna and where climatic and ecological conditions are generally favorable to pearl millet cultivation

34. New look at the lexical evidence: *-cángʊ́ • Phonologically regular reflexes meaning ‘pearl millet’ occur in more West-Coastal and Inner-Congo-Basin Bantu languages than has usually been accepted • Fewer in number: most often languages in transition areas between the rain forest and the savanna, such as the Bandundu and Lower Kasai areas in DRC

35. New look at the lexical evidence: *-cángʊ́ • South-West Bantu, West-Coastal Bantu Inner-Congo-Basin Bantu often seen as forming a larger unit, i.e. ‘Narrow West Bantu’ • Absolute time depth? • Relative time depth: possibility to reconstruct *-cángʊ́ in their most recent common ancestor

36. New look at the lexical evidence: *-cángʊ́ • (Phonologically regular?) reflex of *-cángʊ́ also attested more northerly in the western half, i.e. in the Lebonya/Boan Bantu subgroup • The evidence is weak (1 attestation), but this is rather unsurprising, since this subgroup is very poorly documented and mainly occurring in a rainforest environment • Kumu language: rain forest-savanna transition area in the Maniema and Orientale Provinces of DRC

37. West-Coastal Inner Congo Basin Lebonya/Boan

38. New look at the lexical evidence: *-cángʊ́ • Lebonya/Boan Bantu subgroup: status ambiguous, but possibly a primary offshoot of the Bantu nucleus • Relative time depth: *-cángʊ́ ‘pearl millet’ was part of Bantu vocabulary long before the Bantu languages started to spread over the south-western savannas • Reconstructable to Proto-Bantu? • Can be answered affirmatively if one finds cognates beyond Narrow Bantu

39. Non-Narrow Bantu reflexes of*-cángʊ́ • Bagangu, Bafut, Nkwen, Bambui, Awing languages of the Ngemba-cluster (Grassfields Bantu, S-Bantoid):-sāŋ ‘maize’ (Leroy 1980) • Proto-Eastern-Grassfields: -sáŋ ́‘maize’ (Hyman 1979) • Ring (Western Grassfields):-sáŋ/-ʃáŋ ‘maize’ in several languages (Hyman & Jisa 1977) • Reconstructable in Proto-Grassfields: which meaning?

40. Cross-River reflexes of *-cángʊ́? LeYigha (Upper-Cross) nsaŋe ‘maize’ Legbo (Upper-Cross) nzana ‘maize’ Usakade (Lower-Cross) úsân‘maize’ (Blench et al. 1994): ~ -caam (possibly Adamawa loanword)  link with *-cángʊ́ ?

41. New look at the lexical evidence: *-cángʊ́ • Existence of possible cognates beyond Narrow Bantu: Cross River attestations doubtful, but Grassfields Bantu attestations more promising • Problem: all signify ‘maize’  what was original meaning? Possibly ‘pearl millet’, but impossible to prove, as long as no ‘pearl millet’ attestations are found in the same groups • Do we have proper ‘pearl millet’ terms for these languages?

42. Historical implications • The term *-cángʊ́ for ‘pearl millet’ is definitely older than was supposed so far • Relative time depth: certainly ‘early western Bantu’, maybe Proto-Bantu • Unlikely that the current-day Bantu distribution of *-cángʊ́ reflects the introduction of pearl millet from the East • A independent early western introduction is more likely

43. Historical implications • Was pearl millet cultivation part of agricultural traditions of earliest Bantu speech communities? • Lexical evidence: possibly • Archaeobotanical evidence: possibly • More unequivocal evidence, both lexical and archaeological, is needed

44. Methodological lessons • Consider as many languages as possible instead of ‘representative’ sample • Do not solely rely on earlier large-scale lexical reconstruction databases as Guthrie (1967-71), Bastin & Schadeberg (2003) • Search data in all Bantu subgroups, also ‘Wide Bantu’ and if possible, wider Benue-Congo and Niger-Congo

45. Methodological lessons • Cultural vocabularies (plant names, crafts vocabulary, …) first need to be carefully studied in their own right, and only then be used as a means to reconstruct broader and encompassing human histories • An integrated onomasiological and semasiological approach of the diachronic evolution of a global lexical field instead of focussing on isolated individual words

46. Methodological lessons • Lexical ‘evidence’ should speak for itself and not purely serve as confirmation of (pre-established) historical theories • Take into account limits of lexical reconstruction and ‘W&T-method’: semantic vagueness, semantic shifts, lexical fragmentation

47. Methodological lessons • Realize that “… language [can] be used only as a diacritic, not as a primary source for reconstruction of early culture…” (Lehmann 1970)