posted
Who were the people of ancient Carthage? Were they primarily indigenous Africans or were they primarily Eurasian? If we carefully review the genetic and historic data we can see that the ancient people of Carthage were primarily indigenous Africans. The reason many modern NW Africans look so different from other Africans is due to the fact that African males mated with European women.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Who were the people of ancient Carthage? Were they primarily indigenous Africans or were they primarily Eurasian? If we carefully review the genetic and historic data we can see that the ancient people of Carthage were primarily indigenous Africans. The reason many modern NW Africans look so different from other Africans is due to the fact that African males mated with European women.
Evergreen Writes:
The primary male lineage among modern NW Africans is the African haplogroup E lineage. The other major NW African male haplogroup J1-M267 reflects "recent gene flow caused by the migration of Arabian tribes in the first millennium of the Common Era(700-800 A.D)." according to Nebel, etal.
Haplogroup J left a minimal imprint in NW Africa overall.
Evergreen Posts:
WHO WERE THE PHOENICIANS? NEW CLUES FROM ANCIENT BONES AND MODERN BLOOD by: Rick Gore, National Geographic, 00279358, Oct 2004, Vol. 206, Issue 4
The data from Tunisia also help redefine the legacy of the Phoenicians.
"They left only a small impact in North Africa," Wells says. "No more than 20 percent of the men we sampled had Y chromosomes that originated in the Middle East. Most carried the aboriginal North African M96 pattern."
That influx from the Middle East could have come in three waves: the arrival of farming in North Africa 10,000 years ago, the Phoenicians, and the Islamic expansion 1,300 years ago. Microsatellites will let the researchers estimate when people bearing those markers arrived. Even if they all turned out to be of Phoenician age, the impact on local people was relatively small.
"Apparently, they didn't interbreed much," Wells says. "They seem to have stuck mostly to themselves" Since they left so few markers, Wells must modify his plan to track Phoenician migrations around the Mediterranean--and perhaps even farther.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]Evergreen Writes:
The primary male lineage among modern NW Africans is the African haplogroup E lineage. The other major NW African male haplogroup J1-M267 reflects "recent gene flow caused by the migration of Arabian tribes in the first millennium of the Common Era(700-800 A.D)." according to Nebel, etal.
Haplogroup J left a minimal imprint in NW Africa overall.
Evergreen Writes:
However, the European female lineage MtDNA haplotype U5b1 did leave a major imprint in NW Africa. This is likely due to the trade in White female slaves from Northern Europe. U5b1 goes hand in hand with y-chromosome haplogroup N3. Haplogroup N3 is almost non-existant in NW Africa. This implies that U5b1 spread asymmetrically into NW Africa.
Evergreen Posts:
Saami and Berbers - An Unexpected Mitochondrial DNA Link. Achilli, A et al. American Journal of Human Genetics, 76:883-886, 2005.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A) When did this trade in white female slaves occur? B) How do you conclude that the carthaginians were not mainly phoenicans and thus composed of indigenous africans, even assuming little admixture?
Just questions that need asking.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: A) When did this trade in white female slaves occur? B) How do you conclude that the carthaginians were not mainly phoenicans?
During the Moorish occupation of Spain the Moors likely took Eurasian wives. After the Moors were pushed back into Africa the White Slave trade took place as well.
The Phoenician question has been addressed.
WHO WERE THE PHOENICIANS? NEW CLUES FROM ANCIENT BONES AND MODERN BLOOD by: Rick Gore, National Geographic, 00279358, Oct 2004, Vol. 206, Issue 4
The data from Tunisia also help redefine the legacy of the Phoenicians.
"They left only a small impact in North Africa," Wells says. "No more than 20 percent of the men we sampled had Y chromosomes that originated in the Middle East. Most carried the aboriginal North African M96 pattern."
That influx from the Middle East could have come in three waves: the arrival of farming in North Africa 10,000 years ago, the Phoenicians, and the Islamic expansion 1,300 years ago. Microsatellites will let the researchers estimate when people bearing those markers arrived. Even if they all turned out to be of Phoenician age, the impact on local people was relatively small.
"Apparently, they didn't interbreed much," Wells says. "They seem to have stuck mostly to themselves" Since they left so few markers, Wells must modify his plan to track Phoenician migrations around the Mediterranean--and perhaps even farther.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
What you are quoting is that the ancient Phoenicians from Carthage left little imprint on successive generations. But genetics shows they indeed are closely related to the Lebanese people.
The whole article is here: p://www.bloggingbeirut.com/archives/1263-Of-the-Origins-of-Lebanese-Part-Deux.html
Another poster summarized it nicely when quoting the same article
quote:Well I was referring to the genetic contribution to modern-day Tunisians. Carthage was founded by Phoenicians as we all know, but I thought that after the Punic Wars, Rome either killed the inhabitants or sold them into slavery. Also, Phoenician colonists were mainly males who intermarried with the native Berber women, so perhaps some Y-chromosomes with Levantine-specific markers are to be found in some Tunisian males, but I'd say that's about it. I'm not denying that some Tunisians have Phoenician ancestry, only that if we're really looking for a population with heavy Phoenician ancestry, it'd have to be the Lebanese.
quote:That influx from the Middle East could have come in three waves: the arrival of farming in North Africa 10,000 years ago,
Is there genetic evidence for this? This seems to be the standard National Geographic line as shown on their world migratory maps.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chimu - Actually it is you who is misrepresenting. Evergreen was speaking about North Africa, you are speaking about Lebanon (formally Canaan). But, the article that you cited is accurate and reflects the old and accepted view of Lebanon. However, what is NOT said, is that thought the Lebanese do have Canaanite blood, it is very diluted because of the overpowering admixture i.e. Todays Lebanese can NOT be called Black.
Encyclopedia article:
The population of Phoenicia (later Lebanon), also began to take its present form in the 7th century A.D. At some time during the earlier Byzantine period, a military group of uncertain origin, the Mardaites, had established themselves in the north among the indigenous population there. From the 7th century onward, another group entered the country, these were the Maronites, a Christian community adhering to the Monothelite doctrine. They had been forced by persecution, to leave their homes in northern Syria.
They settled in the northern part of Lebanon, and absorbed the Mardaites and the indigenous peasants, to form the present Maronite Church. Originally Syriac speaking (a Anatolian dialect of Aramaean), they gradually adopted the Arabic language although keeping Syriac for liturgical purposes. In the south of Lebanon, Arab tribesmen came in after the Muslim conquest, and settled among the indigenous people. In the 11th century A.D. many of these were converted to the Druze faith, an esoteric offshoot of Shi‘ite Islam.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Yeah I thought farming started in East Africa and went North as well as to western Asia and to the Levant? Why do they keep saying farming came into west Africa from middle east?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Chimu - Actually it is you who is misrepresenting. Evergreen was speaking about North Africa, you are speaking about Lebanon (formally Canaan). But, the article that you cited is accurate and reflects the old and accepted view of Lebanon. However, what is NOT said, is that thought the Lebanese do have Canaanite blood, it is very diluted because of the overpowering admixture i.e. Todays Lebanese can NOT be called Black.
You hacve yet to show those ancient Phoenicians were Black or that the genetics of the remains found link to any population considered as Black. TO show that Lebanese where Black Caananites and are now just diluted as you say, then you have to show the original remains classify closer to some African population you call black. Can you do that?
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: [QB] ^^^Yeah I thought farming started in East Africa and went North as well as to western Asia and to the Levant? Why do they keep saying farming came into west Africa from middle east?
Earliest forms of farming ever seen are not African but Near Eastern and Melanesian independently.
Doesn't mean that all African farming came from the Mid East. Some evolved locally.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chimu - Are you really so silly as to believe that ancient Canaanites or Hebrews were White? If you do, then perhaps the best place for you to post is on Stormfront.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Chimu - Are you really so silly as to believe that ancient Canaanites or Hebrews were White? If you do, then perhaps the best place for you to post is on Stormfront.
Nice example of stupidity. Since when are all humans Black or White? Only on your Anglo obsessed perception. Most Indigenous population s in the Americas don't consider themselves Black or White for example.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
What does the indigenous population of the americas (and what they "consider" themselves) have to do with the skin color and origins of the ancient hebrews?
clearly as it shows, relevance is not your strongpoint.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Chimu - Actually it is you who is misrepresenting. Evergreen was speaking about North Africa, you are speaking about Lebanon (formally Canaan). But, the article that you cited is accurate and reflects the old and accepted view of Lebanon. However, what is NOT said, is that thought the Lebanese do have Canaanite blood, it is very diluted because of the overpowering admixture i.e. Todays Lebanese can NOT be called Black.
You hacve yet to show those ancient Phoenicians were Black or that the genetics of the remains found link to any population considered as Black. TO show that Lebanese where Black Caananites and are now just diluted as you say, then you have to show the original remains classify closer to some African population you call black. Can you do that?
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: [QB] ^^^Yeah I thought farming started in East Africa and went North as well as to western Asia and to the Levant? Why do they keep saying farming came into west Africa from middle east?
Earliest forms of farming ever seen are not African but Near Eastern and Melanesian independently.
Doesn't mean that all African farming came from the Mid East. Some evolved locally.
Do you have support that says earliest forms of farming are not in Africa?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Chimu - Actually it is you who is misrepresenting. Evergreen was speaking about North Africa, you are speaking about Lebanon (formally Canaan).
Evergreen Writes:
Mike111, you are correct. Chimu atempted to misrepresent my statement.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Earliest forms of farming ever seen are not African but Near Eastern and Melanesian independently.
Evergreen Writes:
How are you defining "farming"? The **process** and technology of reaping and sowing plants dates back to the late pliestocene in Africa. It preceeds the morphological **event** known as "plant domestication" by thousands of years.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: [QUOTE]Do you have support that says earliest forms of farming are not in Africa?
Evergreen Writes:
I don't think he/she knows what the definition of "farming" is and is inappropriately applying the term. Or he/she may simply be uneducated on the topic of early African farming. He/she probably doesn't know that "Middle Eastern" farming is really an outgrowth of African farming in the late pleistocene Nile Valley.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
What does the indigenous population of the americas (and what they "consider" themselves) have to do with the skin color and origins of the ancient hebrews?
clearly as it shows, relevance is not your strongpoint.
Again, nice try. The qualification of populations by dark skin is supposedly global, by your foolish claims. So examples can be global as well.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Earliest forms of farming ever seen are not African but Near Eastern and Melanesian independently.
Evergreen Writes:
How are you defining "farming"? The **process** and technology of reaping and sowing plants dates back to the late pliestocene in Africa. It preceeds the morphological **event** known as "plant domestication" by thousands of years.
Reaping foragers, sure. No evidence of sowing that I know of.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: [QUOTE]Do you have support that says earliest forms of farming are not in Africa?
Evergreen Writes:
I don't think he/she knows what the definition of "farming" is and is inappropriately applying the term. Or he/she may simply be uneducated on the topic of early African farming. He/she probably doesn't know that "Middle Eastern" farming is really an outgrowth of African farming in the late pleistocene Nile Valley.
Not quite. Foraging, even in its'intricate seasonal process, is not farming.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: Evergreen do you have counter evidence for Africans being foragers and not farmers and farming being African and not Chinese?
Also is their any genetic data on the actual Phonecians themselves?
Evergreen Writes:
Yes, but first I would like Chimu to give us his/her definition of "farming" versus "foraging". Trolls often resist defining their terms because their positions are unsubstantiated. Foraging and farming are not mutually exclusive. This is a Eurocentric approach, somewhat like the "Greek Miracle". Farming is an evolutionary process that has taken place over thousands of years.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: yeah I would like to know the difference as well because I don't know
Evergreen Writes:
Chimu may adhere to the now discredited "Agricultural Revolution" theory espoused by Childes.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: yeah I would like to know the difference as well because I don't know
Foraging is making use of plants that grow in a certain region. Even if in advanced forms, like grinding and cooking them. Farming is actually the process of conserving the seeds planting them in some form and tending the land till they sprout.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
---------------------- Foraging is making use of plants that grow in a certain region. ----------------------
You mean in like the same way that you go into your girlfriends rectum in order to find leftover kernals of corn for the next nights dinner. LOL, LOL, LOL : )
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was waiting for someone to answer Chimu's question on the color of the Phoenicians/Canaanites. Shame on all of you. Of course with Chimu, you never know if he really doesn't know, or if he just wants to argue.
Chimu, I will give you a quick rundown, if there is something that you don't agree with, go read about it BEFORE you start arguing.
First for the circumstantial evidence. The world started off with ONLY Black people. They later produced White and Mongol people, (no one knows how). These White and Mongol people evolved in the plains that extend from east of the Caspian Sea to Manchuria in China (the Eurasian plains). The Hellenes (White Greeks) were the first of them to enter Europe (about 1,200 B.C.).
So just from that, what were the Canaanites, who had been there (next door to Egypt) for many thousands of years? Here are a few artifacts....
BTW - how can anyone prove where or when farming started? All anyone can say is that here is where we found indicators of farming. There is no way to know where in the process a particular site was. Farms are NOT like stone temples, the remains are easily hidden or lost, everyone is guessing!!!
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Farming is actually the process of conserving the seeds planting them in some form and tending the land till they sprout.
Evergreen Writes:
Chimu's self-designed defintion is partially correct. Farming is actually defined by Webster's Dictionary as-
1. Land cultivated for agricultural production. 2a. Land devoted to the raising and breeding of domestic animals.
Man need not plant the seeds of plant or fruit to farm. In fact many plants and fruit reseed themselves and are still "farmed" by man. The process of cultivating land for agricultural production purposes dates back to the Late Pleistocene in Africa. One of the oldest such complexes is Wadi Kubbaniya.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Chimu wrote:
---------------------- Foraging is making use of plants that grow in a certain region. ----------------------
You mean in like the same way that you go into your girlfriends rectum in order to find leftover kernals of corn for the next nights dinner. LOL, LOL, LOL : )
Could you please stop man.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] I was waiting for someone to answer Chimu's question on the color of the Phoenicians/Canaanites. Shame on all of you. Of course with Chimu, you never know if he really doesn't know, or if he just wants to argue.[quote] More like you guys have failed to support your claims
[quote]Chimu, I will give you a quick rundown, if there is something that you don't agree with, go read about it BEFORE you start arguing.
Try me.
quote:First for the circumstantial evidence. The world started off with ONLY Black people.
No such evidence. SOme people have hypothesized as such, but there is no genetic marker that proves that.
quote:They later produced White and Mongol people, (no one knows how).
LOL And how do you define White and Mongol? More importantly, how do you define Black? Are you going by skin color, facial features, what?
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Farming is actually the process of conserving the seeds planting them in some form and tending the land till they sprout.
Evergreen Writes:
Chimu's self-designed defintion is partially correct. Farming is actually defined by Webster's Dictionary as-
1. Land cultivated for agricultural production. 2a. Land devoted to the raising and breeding of domestic animals.
Man need not plant the seeds of plant or fruit to farm. In fact many plants and fruit reseed themselves and are still "farmed" by man. The process of cultivating land for agricultural production purposes dates back to the Late Pleistocene in Africa. One of the oldest such complexes is Wadi Kubbaniya.
Sorry, but Kubbaniya shows no land cultivated for agricultural production. It shows naturally growing plants that were harvested. Try again.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man I am so confused lol!!!!! I still don't understand the difference.
I mean you act as if fruits and vegetables didn't exist before humans did. So since they did exist before humans did and humans started to utilize their seeds to eat them specifically in a localized area...what the hell is the difference?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Earliest forms of farming ever seen are not African but Near Eastern and Melanesian independently.
Evergreen Writes:
How are you defining "farming"? The **process** and technology of reaping and sowing plants dates back to the late pliestocene in Africa. It preceeds the morphological **event** known as "plant domestication" by thousands of years.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Chimu - Are you really so silly as to believe that ancient Canaanites or Hebrews were White? If you do, then perhaps the best place for you to post is on Stormfront.
Where did Chimu say they were white? Renaissance paintings and silly movies starring Charleston Heston and James Caviezel aside, no non-racist person seriously considers the natives of the Levant to look like northern Europeans. Instead, most learned people think they were brown-skinned "Middle Easterners" like Arabs or Indians. True, some have claimed those as "Kaukazoid", but no one considers them white in the same sense as supra-Alpine Europeans.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Tyrann0saurus: I put the question to YOU. Are YOU so silly as to believe that the CURRENT inhabitants of North Africa and the Middle East are the same as the ORIGINAL inhabitants?????
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Sorry, but Kubbaniya shows no land cultivated for agricultural production. It shows naturally growing plants that were harvested. Try again.
Evergreen Writes:
Land cultivation takes many forms some more complex than others. You're thesis falls short because you limit farming to a narrowly prescibed list of activities not adhered to by many ancient and modern farming societies. Even modern forms of agricultural production vary in terms of complexity. You're missing the big-picture by focusing on a very limited list of tactical outcomes versus the evolutionary processes of farming and variety of farming methodologies and impact of technology and process development.
Modern "farming" and even neolithic farming are the result of evolutionary processes that began in Africa after the initial Out-of-Africa migration of homosapien. Clearly the people of Wadi Kubbaniya reached a stage of social progression known as sedentism. Sedentism is implicitly a form of land cultivation. Even
A variety of farming techniques from slash-and-burn to modern techniogical forms of agriculture. Yet, the basis and root of farming evolved from the techniques of flora and fauna management in Late Stone Age Africa.
Evergreen Posts:
The Prehistory of Egypt From the First Egyptians to the First Pharaohs By Beatrix Midant-Reynes
“It has already been pointed out, with regard to the Wadi Kubbaniya remains, that there are social and ideological implications resulting from the practice of deliberately delaying the consumption of a product. There is no doubt that the sense of security to be gained by keeping food in reserve for months of penury must have served as a motivation towards more intensive storage. The immediate corollary of this intensification was an increase in the available food resources, as well as a leap forward in the direction of a fully sedentary lifestyle. It appears, however….that, from both ethnological and archaeological points of view, the process of increasing sedentism played a fundamental role in population growth, the very fact of immobility having a beneficial effect on the birth-rate. “
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: Man I am so confused lol!!!!! I still don't understand the difference.
I mean you act as if fruits and vegetables didn't exist before humans did. So since they did exist before humans did and humans started to utilize their seeds to eat them specifically in a localized area...what the hell is the difference?
The difference is simple. Agriculture, is the process of cultivation, not just using available sources. Hunters did not become animal farmers till they started breeding and domesticating animals. Foragers did not become plant farmers until they started actually planting their food, not just visiting the regions that the plants grew naturally in.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: Man I am so confused lol!!!!! I still don't understand the difference.
I mean you act as if fruits and vegetables didn't exist before humans did. So since they did exist before humans did and humans started to utilize their seeds to eat them specifically in a localized area...what the hell is the difference?
The difference is simple. Agriculture, is the process of cultivation, not just using available sources. Hunters did not become animal farmers till they started breeding and domesticating animals. Foragers did not become plant farmers until they started actually planting their food, not just visiting the regions that the plants grew naturally in.
Evergreen Writes:
As I thought. Chimu adheres to the "Agricultural Revolution theory" espoused by Childes. Like the Eurocentric theory of the "Greek Miracle" it attempts to explain the development of processes such as agriculture and philosophy in non-evolutionary terms. The reason behind this non-evolutionary thesis is that Europeans were not major contributors to the early development of complex society. The wealth of modern European societies is based upon warfare, piracy, colonialism and slavery. However, there has been a concerted effort to rewrite the history of Europe and explain its advances in terms of European genius.
These theories ("Agricultural Revolution" and "Greek Miracle") defy the First law of thermodynamics: something cannot come from nothing.
"Since Kemet is the worlds 1st Nation state, whereas Greece post dates Nile Valley Civilisation by literally thousands of years.
Greece invented almost nothing fundamental to 'civilisation', and therefore Europe invented nothing fundamental to civilisation, and therefore whites invented nothing fundamental to civilisation.
This is much *unlike* the Black AFrican founders of Kemit, who preceded Greece and Europe and whites by thousands of years, and whose seminal influence on them is therefore inescapable."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^"Hunter gatherers" are indeed different from farmers.
Evergreen Writes:
You're working with a Eurocentric paradigm. Many "farming" societies also hunted and gathered. Terms like "hunter/gatherer" reveal a more simplistic understanding of how complex society evolved.
The Egyptians planted seed, reaped, hunted and gathered.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]Evergreen Posts:
The Prehistory of Egypt From the First Egyptians to the First Pharaohs By Beatrix Midant-Reynes
“It has already been pointed out, with regard to the Wadi Kubbaniya remains, that there are social and ideological implications resulting from the practice of deliberately delaying the consumption of a product. There is no doubt that the sense of security to be gained by keeping food in reserve for months of penury must have served as a motivation towards more intensive storage. The immediate corollary of this intensification was an increase in the available food resources, as well as a leap forward in the direction of a fully sedentary lifestyle. It appears, however….that, from both ethnological and archaeological points of view, the process of increasing sedentism played a fundamental role in population growth, the very fact of immobility having a beneficial effect on the birth-rate. “
Evergreen Posts:
The Prehistory of Egypt From the First Egyptians to the First Pharaohs By Beatrix Midant-Reynes
"The diversification of their exploitation of food resources (hunting large mammals and birds, catching fish, and gathering plant foods) was accompanied at Wadi Kubbaniya by the phenomenon of storage."
Testart (1982:45) discusses the implications of the use of storage:
There is an abandonment or transformation of the rules of distribution, a change in attitudes towards others: people rely less on links based on kinship, affinity or friendship in the course of preparing for the future. There is a change in attitude to time, with greater importance being attributed to the past(i.e., goods that have already been accumulated) rather than present, in terms of satisfying subsistence needs. There is a change in attitude to work, favouring work already done, invested in reserves, rather than work still to be done. There is a change in attitude to nature, which becomes a less important factor, compared to human labour."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]Evergreen Posts:
The Prehistory of Egypt From the First Egyptians to the First Pharaohs By Beatrix Midant-Reynes
“It has already been pointed out, with regard to the Wadi Kubbaniya remains, that there are social and ideological implications resulting from the practice of deliberately delaying the consumption of a product. There is no doubt that the sense of security to be gained by keeping food in reserve for months of penury must have served as a motivation towards more intensive storage. The immediate corollary of this intensification was an increase in the available food resources, as well as a leap forward in the direction of a fully sedentary lifestyle. It appears, however….that, from both ethnological and archaeological points of view, the process of increasing sedentism played a fundamental role in population growth, the very fact of immobility having a beneficial effect on the birth-rate. “
Evergreen Posts:
The Prehistory of Egypt From the First Egyptians to the First Pharaohs By Beatrix Midant-Reynes
"The diversification of their exploitation of food resources (hunting large mammals and birds, catching fish, and gathering plant foods) was accompanied at Wadi Kubbaniya by the phenomenon of storage."
Testart (1982:45) discusses the implications of the use of storage:
There is an abandonment or transformation of the rules of distribution, a change in attitudes towards others: people rely less on links based on kinship, affinity or friendship in the course of preparing for the future. There is a change in attitude to time, with greater importance being attributed to the past(i.e., goods that have already been accumulated) rather than present, in terms of satisfying subsistence needs. There is a change in attitude to work, favouring work already done, invested in reserves, rather than work still to be done. There is a change in attitude to nature, which becomes a less important factor, compared to human labour."
Evergreen Writes:
This semi-sedentary culture of Wadi Kubbaniya – Kom Ombo Basin led to population increase and density. This is especially true in relation to the low population densities of Europe and SW Asia at the time.
As noted by geneticist Fulvio Cruciani it is from the Kom Ombo Basin region that the male lineage haplogroup E chromosomes settled in situ to form the base of the Nile Valley populations and it is from here that these chromosome spread around the circum-Mediterranean basin with the Neolithic technological innovations pioneered in the Wadi Kubbaniya region. This lineage arose in Black Africa.
The spread of the Black Male tropical African haplogroup E lineage appears as one of the most important genetic movements from the African continent and around the circum-Mediterranean Basin. Haplogroup E unites groups with distinct physical features such as Berbers, Nigerians, Jews, Arabs, Zulu, Italians, Ethiopians, Mandingoes, Greeks and Ibo. These populations also tend to share characteristics such as increased melanin, dark eye color and hair color.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try. If they indeed were famers, instead of foragers. They would know how to cultivate and transport their harvest and replicate it. A forager, no matter how complex is still a forager.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Nice try. If they indeed were famers, instead of foragers. They would know how to cultivate and transport their harvest and replicate it. A forager, no matter how complex is still a forager.
Evergreen Writes:
You have ignored my position. Sedentism is implicitly a form of land cultivation.
About.com: Archaeology defines sedentism:
Definition: Sedentism is the term archaeologists use to describe the process of settling down. Hunter gatherers, by and large, are primarily mobile, moving from resource to resource, following herds of animals such as bison and reindeer or moving with normal seasonal climatic changes. By contrast, farmers tend to stay close to their fields for at least part of the year. Sedentism refers to that process of becoming more sedentary, no matter how one earns one's living.
Evergreen Writes:
It is obvious that they transported their harvest and replicated this process seasonally.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sedentism is the first step towards agriculturalism. It is not evidence of agriculturalism. And if they hadn't abandoned it, they probably would have taken the next step. For whatever reason, they did not.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
1. Hunter gather is one that migrates to game and flora fauna to eat
2. Forager is one that takes the food and the game back to their settlement and performs complex preparations for consumption
3. Farmer is one that takes the seeds and the game to their respective settlement does what a forager does yet preserves the mating of game and seeds to consume by replicating the process seasonally. So indeed farming IS paramount for Sedentism can't really have one without the other and population density has ALL to do with it.
I think you lost this one Chimu sorry.
Thanks for clarifying Evergreen.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Sedentism is the first step towards agriculturalism. It is not evidence of agriculturalism. And if they hadn't abandoned it, they probably would have taken the next step. For whatever reason, they did not.
Evergreen Writes:
This is exactly the point. Farming is not a one off event in time. It is a process that evolved step by step from the African Late Stone Age.
The Kom Ombo Basin culture is directly ancestral to the Natufian Culture and the SW Asian, European, and Nile Valley Neolithic(s).
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Who were the people of ancient Carthage? Were they primarily indigenous Africans or were they primarily Eurasian? If we carefully review the genetic and historic data we can see that the ancient people of Carthage were primarily indigenous Africans. The reason many modern NW Africans look so different from other Africans is due to the fact that African males mated with European women.
Evergreen Writes:
The primary male lineage among modern NW Africans is the African haplogroup E lineage. The other major NW African male haplogroup J1-M267 reflects "recent gene flow caused by the migration of Arabian tribes in the first millennium of the Common Era(700-800 A.D)." according to Nebel, etal.
Haplogroup J left a minimal imprint in NW Africa overall.
Evergreen Posts:
WHO WERE THE PHOENICIANS? NEW CLUES FROM ANCIENT BONES AND MODERN BLOOD by: Rick Gore, National Geographic, 00279358, Oct 2004, Vol. 206, Issue 4
The data from Tunisia also help redefine the legacy of the Phoenicians.
"They left only a small impact in North Africa," Wells says. "No more than 20 percent of the men we sampled had Y chromosomes that originated in the Middle East. Most carried the aboriginal North African M96 pattern."
That influx from the Middle East could have come in three waves: the arrival of farming in North Africa 10,000 years ago, the Phoenicians, and the Islamic expansion 1,300 years ago. Microsatellites will let the researchers estimate when people bearing those markers arrived. Even if they all turned out to be of Phoenician age, the impact on local people was relatively small.
"Apparently, they didn't interbreed much," Wells says. "They seem to have stuck mostly to themselves" Since they left so few markers, Wells must modify his plan to track Phoenician migrations around the Mediterranean--and perhaps even farther.
^J's been talked about here before. North African J anyway.
It's sad such a good thread had to be poluted like this.
By the way. I've heard [hear say maybe] from many that Cannibal was 'black' apparently somehow a native African, but I've read evidence that he may have had ancestry from Rome which makes his ethnicity more ambiguous.
I honestly don't know much about Carthage or the Carthaginians aside from what they had to do with other Africans/African polities and ancient Egypt.
What was he based on legitamit information?
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Chimu - Are you really so silly as to believe that ancient Canaanites or Hebrews were White? If you do, then perhaps the best place for you to post is on Stormfront.
Where did Chimu say they were white? Renaissance paintings and silly movies starring Charleston Heston and James Caviezel aside, no non-racist person seriously considers the natives of the Levant to look like northern Europeans. Instead, most learned people think they were brown-skinned "Middle Easterners" like Arabs or Indians. True, some have claimed those as "Kaukazoid", but no one considers them white in the same sense as supra-Alpine Europeans.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic