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.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
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.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Evergreen - Nice work!
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
LOL. Nice misrepresentation of the article
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.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
^^^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?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^"THEY" say a lot of things, truthful things are another matter.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
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.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ I ask you:
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.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu:
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?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ I ask you:
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.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: Do you have support that says earliest forms of farming are not in Africa?
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.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
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?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
yeah I would like to know the difference as well because I don't know
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^"THEY" say a lot of things, truthful things are another matter.
^I agree.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
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.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
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 : )
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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!!!
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
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.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
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?
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
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.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
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?
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
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.
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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?????
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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. “
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
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.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu:
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."
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^"Hunter gatherers" are indeed different from farmers.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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."
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
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.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
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.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
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.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
Ok so here is what I surmise:
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.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
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).
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
/
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
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.
I agree.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
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).
Evidence of this direct link? The Nile Valley began the process towards Agriculture, and for whatever reason never finished it the first time around. They indeed did produce their own indigenous crops later but after the Natufian had occured.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
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.
Evergreen Writes:
I tend to focus less on individual "big-men" and more on the population as a whole. Hannibal was a citizen of Carthage and the Carthaginian people were a heterogenous African people who practiced a SW Asian derived high-culture.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
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).
Evidence of this direct link? The Nile Valley began the process towards Agriculture, and for whatever reason never finished it the first time around. They indeed did produce their own indigenous crops later but after the Natufian had occured.
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.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
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.
Evergreen Writes:
I tend to focus less on individual "big-men" and more on the population as a whole. Hannibal was a citizen of Carthage and the Carthaginian people were a heterogenous African people who practiced a SW Asian derived high-culture.
Evidence that the Carthagians were mostly African and not SW Asian? Evidence, that they, like the later Vandal Kingdom in North Africa did not just simply not mix much with the locals having little effect on the modern genetics of the region?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
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.
Evergreen Writes:
I tend to focus less on individual "big-men" and more on the population as a whole. Hannibal was a citizen of Carthage and the Carthaginian people were a heterogenous African people who practiced a SW Asian derived high-culture.
Evidence that the Carthagians were mostly African and not SW Asian? Evidence, that they, like the later Vandal Kingdom in North Africa did not just simply not mix much with the locals having little effect on the modern genetics of the region?
Evergreen Writes:
Have you read any of the studies on the dna of NW Africans or studied the data on skeletal remains from Ancient Carthage? If so, which studies have you researched and what are your conclusions based upon your analysis of these studies?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
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).
Evidence of this direct link? The Nile Valley began the process towards Agriculture, and for whatever reason never finished it the first time around. They indeed did produce their own indigenous crops later but after the Natufian had occured.
Evergreen Writes:
Chimu, in Bar-Yosef's study he claims that the Natufian culture is an outgrowth of Nile Valley immigrants bringing their technological innovations into SW Asia. Do you have evidence that contradicts the primary research of Bar-Yosef? Have you read this paper? If so, what are the pros and cons of Bar-Yosef's assertion?
Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest Asia: an archaeological perspective Journal African Archaeological Review Volume 5, Number 1 / December, 1987
Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest Asia: an archaeological perspective O. Bar-Yosef
Abstract This paper investigates the archaeological evidence for direct prehistoric connexions between Southwest Asia and Africa during the Palaeolithic period. The importance of the Levantine Corridor bridging the two continents is stressed in describing the dispersal ofHomo erectus. The continental bridge could have been through the Nile Valley during the Late Acheulian and the emergence of earlyHomo sapiens. Upper Palaeolithic and especially Epi-Palaeolithic dispersal during the terminal Pleistocene are discussed. The role of Egyptian-Levantine connexions in the context of the complex situation which led to sedentism is stressed.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
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.
Evergreen Writes:
I tend to focus less on individual "big-men" and more on the population as a whole. Hannibal was a citizen of Carthage and the Carthaginian people were a heterogenous African people who practiced a SW Asian derived high-culture.
Evidence that the Carthagians were mostly African and not SW Asian? Evidence, that they, like the later Vandal Kingdom in North Africa did not just simply not mix much with the locals having little effect on the modern genetics of the region?
Evergreen Writes:
Have you read any of the studies on the dna of NW Africans or studied the data on skeletal remains from Ancient Carthage? If so, which studies have you researched and what are your conclusions based upon your analysis of these studies?
Based on Spencer Well's own comment
quote:"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.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
Chimu, in Bar-Yosef's study he claims that the Natufian culture is an outgrowth of Nile Valley immigrants bringing their technological innovations into SW Asia. Do you have evidence that contradicts the primary research of Bar-Yosef? Have you read this paper? If so, what are the pros and cons of Bar-Yosef's assertion?
Other than quoting the abstract of his other study, do you have an actual quote from the study to see what he is actually refering to?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:
Evergreen Writes:
Have you read any of the studies on the dna of NW Africans or studied the data on skeletal remains from Ancient Carthage? If so, which studies have you researched and what are your conclusions based upon your analysis of these studies? [/qb]
Based on Spencer Well's own comment[/QB][/QUOTE]
Evergreen Writes:
Based on Spencer Well's own comment, what? This is an incomplete sentence and makes no sense. Are you claiming that Spencer Wells stated there was high levels of SW Asian y-chromosomes in modern NW African populations? If so, please provide the source.
Also, you did not address my question on your research into the skeletal data of ancient Carthage and what your take is on this research. Which studies have you reviewed and what are thr pros and cons of these studies on the skeletal remains of ancient Carthage in relation to your position?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Don't see it here except as a small contribution.
Other than quoting the abstract of his other study, do you have an actual quote from the study to see what he is actually refering to?
Evergreen Writes:
Chimu, Ofer Bar-Yosef is **the** primary researcher in the field on the archaeology of the Natufian culture. It sounds like you have made a lot of off the wall comments before actually doing the research on your own. Before we go any further with this "debate" I would suggest that you go to a local library and do some basic research.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
Evergreen Writes:
Hell, just for the fun of it I'll throw you a bone.
Evergreen Posts:
Pleistocene connections between Africa and SouthWest Asia: an archaeological perspective. By Dr. Ofer Bar-Yosef, 1987; The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38.
“The Mushabians moved into the Sinai from the Nile Delta, bringing North African lithic chipping techniques.”
“Thus the population overflow from Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the Natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system.”
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Based on Spencer Well's own comment, what? This is an incomplete sentence and makes no sense. Are you claiming that Spencer Wells stated there was high levels of SW Asian y-chromosomes in modern NW African populations? If so, please provide the source.
Nice try at a strawman. Modern population genetics are not an indication of ancient population level of admixture. And that is whay I questioned you on.
quote:Also, you did not address my question on your research into the skeletal data of ancient Carthage and what your take is on this research. Which studies have you reviewed and what are thr pros and cons of these studies on the skeletal remains of ancient Carthage in relation to your position?
Only one I saw was Keita, and he combined the Maghreb area.
quote:The analyses demonstrate the metric heterogeneity of pre-Roman mid-Holocene Maghreban crania. The range of variation in the restricted area described extends from a tropical African metric pattern to a European one and supports the phenotypic variability observed in and near Carthage by ancient writers and in morphological studies. Thus the population emerges as a composite entity, no doubt also containing hybrid individuals. However, the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indicates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans.
According to Keita there was a sense of hbridity in Carthage. And that is comparing to European and Egyptian. Near Eastern values weren't even used. Finally, when combining all of the Maghreb, closer to the Nile. But Carthage was not the whole Maghreb. Now, I have not seen any genetic studies of Carthgina remains. That there is a low admixture of Middle Eastern contribution in modern populations is not an indication of an African heterogenous population. Just that the Carthagians didn''t influence exterior populations as much. The bones do seem to indicate admixture or at least variability in the population.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Don't see it here except as a small contribution.
Other than quoting the abstract of his other study, do you have an actual quote from the study to see what he is actually refering to?
Evergreen Writes:
Chimu, Ofer Bar-Yosef is **the** primary researcher in the field on the archaeology of the Natufian culture. It sounds like you have made a lot of off the wall comments before actually doing the research on your own. Before we go any further with this "debate" I would suggest that you go to a local library and do some basic research.
Work in progress. But if you have you can state the specific studies and exact quotes.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QB] Evergreen Writes:
Hell, just for the fun of it I'll throw you a bone.
Evergreen Posts:
Pleistocene connections between Africa and SouthWest Asia: an archaeological perspective. By Dr. Ofer Bar-Yosef, 1987; The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38.
“The Mushabians moved into the Sinai from the Nile Delta, bringing North African lithic chipping techniques.”
quote:“Thus the population overflow from Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the Natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system.”
If based of the Mushabians then it would be incorrect.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Modern population genetics are not an indication of ancient population level of admixture.
Evergreen Writes:
Why not? Please elaborate.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]If based of the Mushabians then it would be incorrect.
Evergreen Writes:
Another incomplete sentence. What do you mean?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]According to Keita there was a sense of hbridity in Carthage. And that is comparing to European and Egyptian. Near Eastern values weren't even used. Finally, when combining all of the Maghreb, closer to the Nile. But Carthage was not the whole Maghreb.
Evergreen Writes:
If your point is that the Phoenician founders of the City of Carthage were primarily SW Asian, I can agree with this. If your point is that the citizens of the independent empire of Carthage were still primarily SW Asian 200 years after a small band of Phoenicians settled the city I would say no. The SW Asian were genetically absorbed (swamped) by the dominant Berber population in the region. Hence we see little trace of SW Asian dna among the modern NW Africa populations.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: If your point is that the Phoenician founders of the City of Carthage were primarily SW Asian, I can agree with this. If your point is that the citizens of the independent empire of Carthage were still primarily SW Asian 200 years after a small band of Phoenicians settled the city I would say no. The SW Asian were genetically absorbed (swamped) by the dominant Berber population in the region. Hence we see little trace of SW Asian dna among the modern NW Africa populations.
Where is the evidence they were swamped? All we know is Carthage was destroyed and most of their population dissipated to other regions. Why would their genes still be predominant in the region?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]If based of the Mushabians then it would be incorrect.
Evergreen Writes:
Another incomplete sentence. What do you mean?
Please look at the link I provided.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Modern population genetics are not an indication of ancient population level of admixture.
Evergreen Writes:
Why not? Please elaborate.
Because population replacement or modification can easily occur. Are you saying the modern population of Egypt is identical to the past ones?
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
"Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)
"The European similarities notwithstand- ing, it must be noted that the morphological and serological phenotypes of northwestern Africa are highly variable. High cDe, P, and V and low Fy” antigens in some Berber- speaking groups (Mourant et al., 1976; Chamla, 1980) indicate affinities with tropi- cal Africans. These data may indicate recent or ancient gene flow from subsaharan Af- rica, a common immediate pre-Holocene an- cestral group, or chance resemblance. Exter- nal morphological traits (hair form, skin color) are also variable (Chamla, 1980). The Haratin are Negroid in appearance and are not generally regarded as “Berber”, but some Berbers are Negroid.
The later movement of foreign peoples into northern Africa is well known and may ex- plain most of the current variability. How- ever, the work of classical European writers suggest a longstanding variability in Magh- reban populations. Bates (1914) presents the ethnology of the ancient Maghreb as seen by classical European writers. The detail is such that there is little cause to doubt that these writers were familiar with the region. Snowden (1970) and Desanges (1981) refer- ence various writers’ physical descriptions of the ancient Maghreb’s inhabitants. In addi- tion to the presence of fair-skinned blonds, various “Ethiopian” or “part-Ethiopian” groups are described, near the coast and on the southern slopes of the Atlas mountains. “Ethiopians,” meaning dark-skinned peo- ples usually having “ulotrichous” (wooly) hair, are noted in various Greek accounts and European coinage (Snowden, 1970). Hi- ernaux (1975) interprets the finding of “sub- saharan” population affinities in living Maghrebans as being solely the result of the medieval transsaharan slave trade; it is clear that this is not the case. Furthermore, the blacks of the ancient Maghreb were ap- parently not foreign or a caste. Pittard (1924) notes with surprise the race of the remains found in the Sarcophagus of the Priestess of’ Tanit in Carthage, noting them to be Negroid (see also Bertholon and Chantre, 1913)."
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
I posted this earlier so some may have seen this before.
Marc W
. .
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]All we know is Carthage was destroyed and most of their population dissipated to other regions.
Evergreen Writes:
Is your claim that some of their population dissipated to other regions or most of their population dissipated to other regions? Key distinction in this debate.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Please look at the link I provided.
Evergreen Writes:
Have you read Fellner's research paper? If so, what are the pros and cons of Fellners position in contrast to Bar-Yosef's position? Did sickles derive first in the Nile Valley or SW Asia? Did grindstones derive first in the Nile Valley or SW Asia? Did storage pits derive first in the Nile Valley or SW Asia? What does the genetic data tell us about gene flow during this timeframe? What does skeletal data tell us about population movements within this timeframe?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Because population replacement or modification can easily occur.
Evergreen Writes:
Of course population replacement or modification can occur. This is why anthropologists use a multidisciplinary approach when modeling. This is known as the scientific approach.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Furthermore, the blacks of the ancient Maghreb were ap- parently not foreign or a caste.
The Maghreb is not Carthage.
quote:Pittard (1924) notes with surprise the race of the remains found in the Sarcophagus of the Priestess of’ Tanit in Carthage, noting them to be Negroid (see also Bertholon and Chantre, 1913).
Eugene Pittard claimed that the Carthagians were Negroid because they were dolichocephalic."Les races et l’histoire" on page 410-411
Now if we are going to use antiquated studies. Well shoot, I might as well quote Coon
For anthropometric purposes, the Syrians may be divided into (1) the Syrian Bedawin, including the Ruwala, Akeydat, and Maualy, (2) the desert border groups, including the towns of Homs, Hama, and Aleppo, and the districts of Mharda, Hafar, and Hijana, (3) the mountain groups, including the Druse, the Lebanese, the Mitwali (Lebanese Moslems), and the Alawiya (Alouites). The Syrian Bedawin are dolichocephalic Arabs of pure Mediterranean race; the desert border groups are intermediate between the former and the mountain people, with mean cephalic indices of 77—79 for the country people, and 81—82 for the city dwellers. It is the third group, which is fully brachycephalic, that deserves special attention here. Both the Lebanese and the Druses have mean cephalic indices of 86, and the Mitwali of 87, while the mean of the Alawiya is 83.148
Arabs dolichocephalic? And Carhtagians dolichocephalic? No way.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:The Maghreb is not Carthage.
Conversely, Carthage was part of the Maghreb.
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: I might as well quote Coon
Actually I was quoting a Keita (1990) study who in turn used that as a reinforcement for his own observations. LMAO @ you quoting Coon as a last resort to your agenda yet denying that you ever intended on using him in another post. Couldn't resist the urge. You lose. Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chimu:
Arabs dolichocephalic? And Carhtagians dolichocephalic? No way. [/QB]
Way to trivialize as if this is the only basis for such claims. Bad try... Stephane Gsell also writes:
"The so-called Semitic type, characterized by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not been found in Carthage" - Histoire Ancienne de L'Afrigue du Nord
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:The Maghreb is not Carthage.
Conversely, Carthage was part of the Maghreb.
But if you average the whole USA it is not an indication of the Black American population.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: I might as well quote Coon
Actually I was quoting a Keita (1990) study who in turn used that as a reinforcement for his own observations. LMAO @ you quoting Coon as a last resort to your agenda yet denying that you ever intended on using him in another post. Couldn't resist the urge. You lose.
Nice try. Pittard is of the same epoch as Coon. If you or Keita use him as a reference, it makes perfect sense to ridicule it with the antiquatedness of Coon.
Or Stephane Gsell for that matter.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:But if you average the whole USA it is not an indication of the Black American population.
Non-Seqitur. I don't even understand your point. Carthage was part of the Maghreb, which was the context of the study, period. You must be confused.
quote:Nice try. Pittard is of the same epoch as Coon. If you or Keita use him as a reference, it makes perfect sense to ridicule it with the antiquatedness of Coon
Bad try. Using Coon to refute Keita is a sign of desperation, nor does he even mention Carthage anyways. Dolichocephalism is an African trait. Carthage was in Africa. The Phoenicians whom you wish to attribute all of Carthage to weren't Arab. Arabs didn't exist. And again, Dolichocephalism wasn't the only thing that distinguished them from non-African Semites:
Stephane Gsell also writes:
"The so-called Semitic type, characterized by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not been found in Carthage" - Histoire Ancienne de L'Afrigue du Nord
No answers...
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: [QB]
quote:But if you average the whole USA it is not an indication of the Black American population.
Non-Seqitur. I don't even understand your point. Carthage was part of the Maghreb, which was the context of the study, period. You must be confused.p
Not my fault if you understand that the average of a larger area is not an indicator of the look in a specific area within it.
quote:Using Coon to refute Keita is a sign of desperation, nor does he even mention Carthage anyways. Dolichocephalism is an African trait.
Dolichocephalism is a trait found in many parts of the world including Asia. No evidence that the dolichocephalism wasn't from a Middle Eastern population. Maybe, maybe not. But for Keita to use such antiquated resources, is sad. I am sure he could find a more recent exploration of said bones. Or go do the research himself.
Gsell places a sterotype of what a Middle Eastern type is. Plenty of Middle Eastern populations do not fall under that descriptive stereotype. LOL. It is a s bad as claiming the "True Negroid" Now you have the "True Araboid" LMAO!!!
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Not my fault if you understand that the average of a larger area is not an indicator of the look in a specific area within it.
You still make no sense. It has been established within the same paper that the people who resided in Carthage were the same people who resided in the rest of the Maghrebian region during that time period.
quote:Dolichocephalism is a trait found in many parts of the world including Asia. No evidence that the dolichocephalism wasn't from a Middle Eastern population. Maybe, maybe not. But for Keita to use such antiquated resources, is sad. I am sure he could find a more recent exploration of said bones. Or go do the research himself.
Criticize Keita all that you wish but Dolichocephalism is usually associated with Africans as it is a condition of the skull in reaction to heat stresses, which makes the head more elongated as opposed to many European crania who posses more rounded skulls in order to conserve heat. Yes, some Middle Easterners have this trait as well, but 1., Carthage is in Africa and 2., most Arabs have African ancestry. At the end of the day, you should read the entire Keita paper before you reduce yourself to petty ad homina as this is your last resort since you have no useful rebuttal to the observations made.
quote: Gsell places a sterotype of what a Middle Eastern type is.
Actually he criticizes the sterotype, hence the term "so-called Semitic type", though it goes without saying that non-African semites aren't as diverse as Africans are.
quote: Plenty of Middle Eastern populations do not fall under that descriptive stereotype. LOL. It is a s bad as claiming the "True Negroid" Now you have the "True Araboid" LMAO!!!
Excusing your dry humor, at the end of the day there is no correlation with the "true negroid" myth since again, Arabs/Middle Easterners can be better defined as a closer knit, ethnic entity than all of Black Africa from north to south. Point being that the "so-called Semitic type was not found in Carthage", native Africans (including the so-called "Negroid" type) were. Posted by Ethiopian Dude (Member # 15151) on :
Haplogroup E (Y-DNA) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
In human genetics, Haplogroup E (M96) is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup.
This clade is divided into three haplogroups: E1, E2 and E3. E1 and E2 are found exclusively in Africa. E3 is further divided into the E3a and E3b haplogroups, but only E3b is observed in significant frequencies in Europe, the Middle East and western Asia in addition to mainly non-black groups within Africa. Most Sub-Saharan Africans belong to clades of E other than E3b, while most non-Africans belong to the E3b haplogroup.[1]
Contents [hide]
* 1 Subclades o 1.1 E1 o 1.2 E2 o 1.3 E3 * 2 References * 3 External links
[edit] Subclades
Haplogroups include E1, E2, E3a (M2) and E3b (M35).
[edit] E1
E1 (M33) headed for West Africa and today it is mainly present in the region of Mali.
[edit] E2
E2 (M75) is present among sub-Saharan Africans in both West and East Africa.
[edit] E3
Main articles: Haplogroup E3a (Y-DNA) and Haplogroup E3b (Y-DNA)
E3, by far the most frequent clade of E, diverged into two main haplogroups: E3b (M35) approximately 24-27 000 years ago (Cruciani et al. 2004), followed by E3a (M2) some 10 000 years later.
E3a is almost exclusively associated with black Africans. It is the single most common Y haplogroup in sub-Saharan Africa as well as among African Americans and West Indians. Outside of Africa, it is observed in negligibly small frequencies and its spread is generally attributed to the slave trade.
E3b, which is at once the most common Y clade among Ethiopians, Somalis, Eritreans and North African Berbers and Arabs, is also the third most frequently observed Y chromosome haplogroup in Europe. It enjoys frequencies as high as 47% among Greeks[2] and 46% among Kosovar Albanians.[3] The spread of E3b in Europe is attributed to ancient migrations from East Africa mediated through North African and Middle Eastern farmers during the Neolithic period. Among Jews both in Europe and the Middle East, E3b is the second most common Y haplogroup after J.[4]
Within eastern Africa, the haplogroup E3b3 (E-M34) appears to be restricted to Ethiopia but E-M34 chromosomes have been found in a large majority of the populations from the Near East. E-M34 chromosomes from Ethiopia show lower variances than those from the Near East and appear closely related in the E-M34 network. Thus, it is assumed that E-M34 chromosomes were introduced into Ethiopia from the Near East.[5]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Another decently interesting thread hijacked by idiocy.
Posted by Hori (Member # 11484) on :
^ I don't think so.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
/ 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)