This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Explanation: I don't think we need to be too neutral here. These "entradas" were raids: the Christians went in, captured some slaves, and left. I think "incursions" is the right word. Obviously in the early sixteenth century Cisneros made some more substantial military incursions and captured a series of coastal enclaves, but apart from that the "entradas", as I say, were short-lived raids, in and out; the Christians didn't stay any longer than necessary.
At least, it will depend a bit on what the article is actually about, but the expression "entradas en Berbería" was used in the fifteenth and sixteenth century to refer to this.
As long ago as 1773, Joseph de Viera y Clavijo wrote (a propos of the Canaries):
"En el siglo octavo, y noveno (dice un célebre Autor) eran los barbaros los que hacian incursiones sobre los Pueblos civilizados : en el 15. y el 16. fueron los pueblos civilizados los que hicieron incursiones sobre los barbaros". http://books.google.es/books?id=b28OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=PA...
"Cuando Felipe II volvió a permitir las entradas en Berbería, después de haberlas prohibido en 1572 por «conveniencias políticas», una de las razones para permitir su reanudación fue, precisamente, el acopio que se hacía de esclavos negros como consecuencia de los rescates" http://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/7835177-post7.html
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 3 hrs (2013-06-12 14:31:49 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
I think either, in principle. Perhaps "Incursions of Christians" might be slightly more suitable in that these are typically isolated incidents rather than organised campaigns (and "Christian incursions" could sound a bit like religiously-motivated expeditions), but on the other hand "Christian Incursions" is neater. I think I'd choose the latter, as David suggests, but it's marginal.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 11 hrs (2013-06-12 22:59:00 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
"Entradas" does not refer to friendly or peaceful visits; it refers to uninvited incursions. The Berbers returned the compliment, making repeated incursions into the Canaries in the sixteenth century. Naturally enough relations between Spain and North Africa during these centuries were mostly hostile, with a period of armed conflict during the early sixteenth century. There was a peaceful period under Philip II, who went out of his way to try to win the favour of the Berbers for a period in the 1560s-70s, in order to try to avoid them joining forces with the Turks. It was precisely then, during the peaceful period, that the "entradas" ceased.
So I think "incursions" is definitely the right word. As I say, "entradas" does not refer at all to peaceful visits, and the only ongoing Spanish presence in North Africa was in the enclaves captured by Cisneros, where it was maintained by armed force.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 12 hrs (2013-06-12 23:58:01 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
The reason I've stated so categorically that the "entradas" were raids or incursions is that the term "entradas en Berbería" was used in those centuries with that meaning and is used nowadays by historians to refer to that phenomenon. It is used thus, for example, by the distinguished historian of Spanish-Moroccan relations (very pro-Franco, it must be said), Tomás García Figueras, in his article "Cabalgadas, correrías y entradas de los andaluces en el litoral africano, en la segunda mitad del siglo XV", which you can read here, if you wish (pp. 51-79). They were military raids. García Figueras rightly mentions evidence of more friendly relations at times, but that's not what "entradas" refers to.
Well now, I don't think the article you're dealing with is available online; I've only seen the title in a conference programme. But the author, Juan José Iglesias Rodríguez of the University of Seville, has spoken on this subject:
"En su charla, Juan José Iglesias catedrático de Historia Moderna de la Universidad de Sevilla, explicó las relaciones existentes entre el litoral andaluz y el litoral norteafricano en los siglos XVI y XVII, donde El Puerto tuvo protagonismo, manteniendo unas relaciones con los pueblos de dichas costas que a veces fueron pacíficas y en ocasiones violentas. En cuanto a las relaciones amistosas, destacó el conferenciante cómo entonces, al igual que en la actualidad, los pesqueros iban a faenar al norte de África (Sáhara y litoral Atlántico), y en cuanto a los contactos de tipo violentos destacó las incursiones que se producían tanto en el litoral andaluz como en el litoral africano (Berbería), por ambas partes para la captura de cautivos y el saqueo, además de le existencia del corso, bajo licencia de los reyes de Castilla, cuyas naves tenían su base en los puertos de la Bahía." http://www.diariodecadiz.es/article/elpuerto/1446741/aula/me...
So it wasn't all hostility; they fished in each other's waters too. But I don't think he can be using "entradas" to refer to that. The phrase, as I say, is well established and denotes the usual raids. What he is apparently saying is that the famous "entradas", incursions, were not the whole story; the people on the coasts of Cadiz and Barbary were capable of getting along.
One last point. He says "entradas de cristianos", not "españoles". He is thereby invoking, I presume deliberately, the crusading element and the otherness of the Islamic Berbers vis-a-vis the Christian Spaniards. The Cadiz fishermen were Christians, but they weren't concerned with religion when they went fishing.
There was certainly an element of doubt about what the author meant by "entradas", given the second half of the title, and it occurred to me that the simplest way to settle the matter was to ask him, so the other day I wrote him an email briefly setting out the issue. I have just had his reply:
"Estimado amigo:
El término "entradas", en efecto, se refiere a incursiones violentas. Las "entradas" de cristianos en el norte de África durante los siglos XV-XVI tenían la finalidad de saquear y tomar cautivos en poblaciones litorales o próximas al litoral, o bien de conquistar plazas y, en general, de hacer la guerra a los "moros". "Entrar", en el léxico militar de la época equivalía a irrumpir o invadir. El significado se conserva actualmente. La acepción nº 22 del DRAE para la palabra "entrada" es la siguiente:
22. f. Invasión que hace el enemigo en un país, ciudad, etc.
Y la 28 de "entrar":
28. tr. Invadir u ocupar a fuerza de armas algo. Entrar la tierra, la ciudad, un castillo.
Su interpretación del título de mi artículo es básicamente correcta.
Following the debate and Charles´s excellent explanations, I have looked into the topic more profoundly than before and I must concede that my disagree to his answer is unfair, so I have removed it. The term "entradas a Berbería" (can be found more often than "en Berbería"), and which appears in the academic literature, refers to "warlike raids", something that was pretty clear to me from the beginning. But we have here two problems. The major concern is the absolute lack of context. Yes, it is true that "entradas en/a Berbería" were hostile raids, mainly to capture slaves on the African coast, but then, second obstacle, the title of the article continues with "relaciones pacíficas y violentas". This is what really puzzles me, and unless a contact to the author is feasible to clarify, we can only speculate about what he means by "relaciones pacíficas", so I am not really sure what the best approach here is on how to proceed to solve the riddle. I personally believe that in such cases a good deal of caution from the translator is advisable, so although I agree on "incursions" for "entradas", I am not sure of its convenience as a translation regarding the full title.
I retract my comments and bow to your eminently superior knowledge and research efforts, Charles. I had no idea "Entradas en Berbería" was a set phrase.
I don’t know exactly what he says in the article, but it is presumably along the same lines as his talk reported in the Diario de Cádiz, which I’ve quoted. He’s talking about these incursions: “en cuanto a los contactos de tipo violentos destacó las incursiones que se producían tanto en el litoral andaluz como en el litoral africano (Berbería), por ambas partes para la captura de cautivos y el saqueo”, but also saying that this wasn’t the whole story; there were also peaceful contacts, with Andalusian fishermen fishing off the North African coast. So he’s considering the well known “entradas”, the incursions, but offering a corrective to the standard view that these hostile, violent contacts were the only sort. Fishing off the coast is not an “entrada” in any sense. What he’s saying is effectively: “Let’s reconsider the “entradas en Berbería”, the incursions into Barbary. Yes, they took place, and I’ll talk about them, but those hostile relations we all know about were not the whole story; there were also peaceful contacts.” This doesn’t mean that he’s using “entradas” in a sense different from the usual one, but simply saying that contacts were not confined to the “entradas”.
This sense of “entrada” is still in the RAE dictionary, by the way (currently definition 22).
That’s what “entrada” inevitably meant in this context, and when historians refer to “entradas en Berbería” that is what they’re referring to. This is well illustrated by the article I’ve referred to by García Figueras, “Cabalgadas, correrías y entradas de los andaluces en el litoral africano, en la segunda mitad del siglo XV”. Note “correrías y entradas”: the very phrase Mariana uses in the passage quoted in the RAE definition. If you look at this article you’ll see that it refers exclusively to military “entradas”, small-scale incursions in the run-up to the Cisneros campaigns. I forgot to give the reference to this article when I cited it in my answer; it is http://www.portalcultura.mde.es/Galerias/revistas/ficheros/R... (pp. 51-79).
That’s the background, and that’s why I say that when the author of this article, Juan José Iglesias Rodríguez, uses this expression, that is what any historian will understand him to mean.
Moreover, in the crusading euphoria which followed the fall of Granada there was a drive to carry the fight to the infidel, which led to Cardinal Cisneros’ campaigns in North Africa in the early sixteenth century. The author is deliberately invoking this aspect also by referring to “entradas de cristianos”, not “entradas de españoles”, for example.
Throughout this period there was a series of incursions by each side into the other’s territory. The motive, on both sides, was primarily economic, especially capturing slaves, mostly for ransom. These incursions were known at the time and have been referred to ever since as “entradas”. The word “incursión” was not in common use until later.
The meaning of “entrada” in this context is defined in the first Royal Academy dictionary (1732):
“ENTRADA del enemigo. La invasion ò irrupcion que hace en alguna Provincia, Reino ù País, entrando en él con sus tropas y gentes para dañarle y ofenderle. Lat Irruptio. Excussus. Marian. Hist.Esp.lib.3.cap.2. Hacian correrías y entrádas por aquellas partes. Mex. Hist. Imper.Vid. de Galieno, cap. 1. Tambien hicieron otra entrada en estos tiempos los Godos.”
I must apologise in advance for what will have to be a fairly lengthy response to the points recently made.
I can quite understand why several of you feel that a more neutral word than “incursions” should be used for “entradas”. Since the second half of the title refers to “relaciones pacíficas y violentas”, it seems only reasonable to suppose that the “entradas” mentioned in the first half include both peaceful and violent “entries”.
However, I am quite certain that this view is mistaken. The main reason, as I have tried to explain, is that “entradas en Berbería” is a familiar historical term which carries a specific meaning, and any historian using that term is inevitably invoking that meaning. Therefore it is inconceivable that this historian is not doing so. That meaning is violent, or at least hostile, raids.
Spain and “Barbary” were political and religious enemies in this period. Up to 1492 the Berbers were allies of the Nasrids. After that they were always liable to foment unrest among the Moorish population, and by the mid-sixteenth century they were natural allies of the Turks and liable to facilitate the feared Turkish invasion. So relations were basically hostile.
about using 'incursion' because I'm sure the writer would have used 'incursión' in Spanish, which has exactly the same meaning as in English. In the case here, I understand 'entrada' to mean 'entry' as in 'entering into the scene'.
I don't agree, in a historical context a 'Christian incursion' can be taken to mean an 'incursion by Christians'. However, an incursion is an invasion or an attack, and here a more neutral term is needed, since it needs to encompass both peaceful and violent relations.
If you were to say "Christian incursion," you would be describing the incursion as being Christian, but that can't be because these raids are not Christ-like. It would have to be incursion(s) of people who called themselves Christians. I realize that for the accuracy of translation you probably can't say it correctly, just only "incursion of Christians."
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
9 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
presence
Explanation: I've been trying to think of something neutral (foray, intrusion etc. imply violence) and I think this works.
The Christian presence in Barbary (15th to 16th centuries)
Simon Bruni United Kingdom Local time: 06:11 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 146
Not much factual history is known previous to the arrival of the Christians to Ireland as they had become the first people to actually document historic events here.
Christianity first arrived in North Africa, in the 1st or early 2nd century AD. The Christian communities in North Africa were among the earliest in the world.
peer agreement (net): +1
