EgyptSearch Forums: Post A Reply

...

»	EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » IMAZIGHEN: indigenees or invaders TAMAZGHA: cultural history to 1000 CE » Post A Reply

T O P I C R E V I E W
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted For the sake of clarity and precision, please only respond to one question at a time thanks It doesn't matter which question(s) anyone picks, there's really no order in examining this topic which includes other themes than just the ones below which inspired this thread. Without the background needed to answer the following questions one cannot begin to discuss the Imazighen or ancient and classical North African history with any factual surety. 1). Who were the people the HAW NBW associated with upon arrival in Ament.x3st? 2). How many centuries were the HAW NBW and the indigenees of Ament.x3st in association before hatching the invasions of KM.t? 3). Did the Kmtyw depict any of the various people of the invading coalition and under what single name or various names? 4). Why did the Vandals come to the five provinces of Roman ruled North Africa? 5). What relationships did the Vandals have with the people they found already there? 6). How long did the Vandals rule the North African littoral and how far inland was their influence (if any influence they had)? 7). What went on in North Africa in the time between the arrival of the Sea People and the arrival of the Vandals? 8). Were any institutions formed by or any cultural contributions coming from the indigenees of North Africa? 9). What, if any, polities did they constitute? 10). Why do any people with long cultural continuities (Mande eg.) use the Julian calendar and how does such use negate the fact of, or length of, their cultural continuity? quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: What tool kit is associated with the Berbers? What archaeological assemblages are associated with these Proto-Tamazight? What dates do archaeologists give the cultural items you claim are associated with these Proto-Tamazight? What items in the Proto-lexicon of Tamazight is of Berber origin and not an Egyptian, Germanic, Latin or Semitic loan word into Berber? Also if the Tamazight have such a long cultural history why do they use a Latin calendar to record their chronology? Please respond [/b] .
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted Partially correct. The word ending ESH is in the name Meshwesh (the first recorded Amazigh African people) and in some of the HAW NBW (Ekwesh, Teresh, Shekelesh, and Weshesh). This is a point I raised here months ago. And why I pose question number 2 of the parent post. quote: 2). How many centuries were the HAW NBW and the indigenees of Ament.x3st in association before hatching the invasions of KM.t? But one thing for sure even If ___1 - the Imazighen are "derived from the Sea Peoples and Vandals," and if ___2 - the latter "mixed with the original Blacks who formerly lived in North Africa" then 3 - "The Berbers, given the evidence can not be descendants of the original" is a false conclusion. A mixture must be descended from the components comprising the mix. Thus by your own proclamation, yes, Imazighen are descended from indigenous North Africans. Thank you for successfully defeating your own argument that Berbers are not related to the original North Africans! Your revised statement "Europeans who would later mate with the Black North Africans to become a foundation of the Berber speaking people." is almost correct. You need only alter "foundation" to "minor contributing element" to fit the facts of history, and the "black" in Black North Africans is superfluous. Indigenous Africans were the foundation and since protoAfrisan and protoTamazight originate from the same place where M78 and M81 derive we know their phenotype was an inner African one. quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Kifaru quote: quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Berbers, given the evidence can not be descendants of the original North African Blacks . They are probably derived from the Sea Peoples and Vandals, who mixed with the original Blacks who formerly lived in North Africa. quote: Kifaru That last statement is a little contradictory, Clyde. It is clear that some of the Sea People were of European background. The five Sea Peoples are named: the Shardana, Teresh, Lukka, Shekelesh and Ekwesh, and are collectively referred to as "northerners coming from all lands". If some of the Northerners were Europeans and the Vandals were Europeans would this not explain the introduction of Euopeans into North Africa? Europeans who would later mate with the Black North Africans to become a foundation of the Berber speaking people. .
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted This is what in the midwest they call purely dee bullsht. You've been told the Vandals didn't rule NA for 400 years yet like any blind ideologue continue to parrot this falsehood. SUPLIMENTAL QUESTIONS: 4a). When did the Vandals come to the five provinces of Roman ruled North Africa? 6a). When did the Vandals rule of the North African littoral cease? So now please provide the initial and terminal dates of Vandal activity in North Africa (that is, if you can). This means you have to look it up for yourself instead of relying on Cooks mangled English translation of Diop's French. quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Many Berbers may be descendants of the Vandels (Germanic) speaking people who ruled North Africa and Spain for 400 years.*
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted Can't you see that if 1 - "Berbers are descendent from Europeans who mixed with Black North Africans after they invaded North Africa" then 2 - not only are they "descendent from Europeans " but 3 - they are also "descendent from ... Black North Africans " Look at it this way let's call indigenous NA's 1 let's call immigrant NA's 2 let's call contemporary NA's 3 Now let's do the math 1+2=3 indigenous + immigrant = contemporary 1 ≠ 3 indigenous ≠ contemporary 2 ≠ 3 immigrant ≠ contemporary And no it's not a fact that Berber people differentiate themselves from their Haritin component or light/white Berbers differentiate themselves from dark/black Tuareq. When an Egyptian official, unfamiliar with Amazigh norms and who relied solely on physical features, wanted to recruit Haritin into a Gnawa army it caused an uproar among all Imazighen who emphatically protested that Haritin were Amazigh. quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Easy Berbers are descendent from Europeans who mixed with Black North Africans after they invaded North Africa. Is it not a fact that the Berber people differentiate themselves from the Haritin who are considered to be descendants of the original Black inhabitants of North Africa. And is it not a fact that the "white" Berbers differentiate themselves from the Taureg?
Supercar Member # 6477	posted Question: How many Euro-linguists out there hypothesize a non-African origin of "Berber" languages?
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted No linguists view Tamazight as a branch of Indo-European. European languages tack grammar info onto the end of a word but Tamazight changes the word's vowels and adds to both front and back ends of the word. Also, the Tamazight sentence structure places the verb before the subject and the object comes last. Basque, an isolate language, is the only European language that I can recall anyone saying bears any relationship to Berber. For whatever it means I've never run across any reference to Berber as an Indo-European language family. Even Obenga, Diop's protege, classifies it as a language whose nativity is African. Obenga proposes Berber to be one of his three African superphyla. Obenga's employed standard linguistic methodology comparing phonetic laws in regards to morphemes, phonemes, and lexicon to aid arriving at common earlier forms (protolexicon). He eschewed solo use of typologies as they can, in his opinion, yield no clues to predialectal common ancestry on their own. In the case of Berber, Obenga's analysis concluded that it lacks the morphological, lexicological, and syntactic similarities of parallelism needed to demonstrate philial relationship to Egyptian. Thus, like "Khoisan", Berber forms its own phylum in Obenga's schema.
rasol Member # 4592	posted ^ Useful information. Good post.
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted Thanks
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted Dr. Winters The following falls within range of question number seven. quote: 7). What went on in North Africa in the time between the arrival of the Sea People and the arrival of the Vandals? When will you pay attention to detail? Can't you see that 247-182 BCE is some 600 years after the Syro-Lebanese colony of Qart Hhadasht was established and Kna`ani was introduced to Tamazgha via all their outposts there. quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Takruri* quote: 3) Punic (Phoenician/Canaanitic/Hebrew) wasn't spoken in NA until ~900 BCE and then only in the Syro-Lebanese colonies. You don't know what you are talking about. If Punic was only spoken in Syro-Lebanon, what language did the Punic General Hannibal speak during his lifetime (c 247-182 BC).
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted I hope you guys realize you are talking about a guy who thinks there is a connection between Mandingo and Japanese!!
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted What follows relates to these two questions quote: 1). Who were the people the HAW NBW associated with upon arrival in Ament.x3st? 3). Did the Kmtyw depict any of the various people of the invading coalition and under what single name or various names? Bates reproduced the first and last of the below tiles in his The Eastern Libyans. He thought the rightmost figure to be a "Libyan" woman. Current interpretations view it as a "Hittite." Now I know nothing about any Hatiu delta THHNW tribe but the one tile's confusing identity as "Libyan" and/or "Hittite" may tie in with Dr. Winters' assesment. quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Hattic people, may be related to the Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes.
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted Yes Djehuti, but can we please post about Imazighen and Tamazgha. Thanx quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: I hope you guys realize you are talking about a guy who thinks there is a connection between Mandingo and Japanese!!
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted There are just too many in the Greco-Roman record for me to list (I'm a very slow typist). 14 coastal Libyan tribes (nomads) in Herodotus, his Libya = west of Nile to the Atlantic. _3 ethnic groups inland from the above, one of which were the Ammonians = Siwa sedentaries. _6 large groups in Scylax (~320 BCE). _5 main masses of Libyans in Diodorus Siculus (first century BCE). 10 ethnic groups in Strabo (1st cent. BCE/CE) plus the general category of unspecified Libyans. 33 tribes and communities in Pliny (1st cent. CE) based on Mela and Roman military expeditions. 67 minute ethnic divisions, a few are possibly repeats, in Ptolemy. 22 main bodies of Libyans in the Byzantine era. And all of these above are just those from Tunisia eastward to the Nile! There's a thread quoting Greco-Roman authors mainly on the darker "Libyans" from Tunisia westward and the Atlas range southward that you can read here. quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: I would like to learn more about these early Libyans. Other than the Egyptian references to Tehenu, I don't have as much knowledge on Greek references. Who are the Ammonians again, and what other peoples did the Greeks list as Libyans??...
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted Introducing the genetics North African NRY (listed below in ascending order) is 87% African specific E1-M33/132 A1-M31 E3a-DYS271 E3b1-M78 E3b2-M81 Their mtDNA is only about 30% African specific(consisting in ascending frequencies of) L1/e/f L2a1a/b L1c L1a L3a L3f/g L3 M1 L2 (unspecified) L3b/d L1b L2a1 U6 North African mtDNA frequencies of 70% extra-African origin shows a sexual preference for non-African women by the men who have an 87% frequency of African NRY. In a sense, modern North Africans are mulatos on their mother's side.
Hotep2u Member # 9820	posted Greetings: alTakruri wrote: quote: North African mtDNA frequencies of 70% extra-African origin shows a sexual preference for non-African women by the men who have an 87% frequency of African NRY. This assumption is wrong because DNA analysis CANNOT prove sexual preference. Eurocentrics like to make claims that Afrikan men desire non-Afrikan women which is NOT TRUE. I don't want to disrupt the topic but I must remove the MYTH that Afrikan men have a sexual preference for non-Afrikan women. The immigrants to north Afrika obviously had to embrace the cultural practices of the Ancient inhabitants of North Afrika which was quite strange versus our modern standards of sexual behavior. I think you might want to do some more research into some of the behavior and cultural practices of some groups or Ancient inhabitants of North and Northwest Afrika. Hotep
rasol Member # 4592	posted The case is most likely that the migrations from East to NorthWest Africa - across the sahara were male biased. From the NorthWest African coast, European women may have been more accessible than African women from the sahara and interiior regions. This patern of bottlenecking of male DNA is discussed by Spencer Wells in "Journey of Man". Hotep, earlier you posted and interesting study on Brazilian DNA - showing that 'white' Brazilians have a preponderance of African and Native Indian female DNA, with European male lineages. You should repots this. It's the same phenomenon in my opinion. A few men migrate and then mate with whatever women are most readily available - yielding many descendants.
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted U6a was in the Maghreb 28kya. U6b was in the Maghreb 25kya. U6c was in the Maghreb 18kya. U6a1 was there 14kya. U6b1 was there 6kya. These female indigenees were readily available to arriving M81 males (after 5.6kya). That U6 derivatives have dwindled to frequencies below that of non-African mtDNA in littoral North Africa doesn't seems to be a matter of non-availability. What prevented M81 males from marrying U6 wives and having U6 daughters as least as often as they did Eurasian women of neither U6 nor L lineages?
rasol Member # 4592	posted Good information, but is that begging the question? First from Arreddi's famous/controversial genetic study: M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans. Given the above, i'm not sure why we would expect Berber to be predominently U6 on the female side. U6a1 originated in East Africa, 14kya, and spread back to the Maghreb in the Neolithic with the Berber.....yet U6a1 is not "common" in East Africa to begin with, much less in NorthWest Africa, so.... Meanwhile the pattern of Berber lineages shows a clear male biased bottleneck, as E3b2 men are matched up with East African, inner African North African, European and SouthWest Asian FEMALE lineages, essentially in accordance with proximity.
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted My opinion is as well grounded as yours. If U6 is a North African specific marker, as is claimed, and its been in North Africa for 30,000 years rarely showing up anywhere else of course we may expect it to be the predominant female lineage there. That it isn't means that a great number of extra-African women came into the region and had more daughters than the indigenees. There is no higher frequency of U6a than that of Algeria. U6a arose ~28kya and has a west-to-east expansion. Without U6a there'd be no U6a1 to have a much later return east-to-west expansion. What would be interesting is a listing of the Eurasian non-African mtDNAs and their specificities alligned with records of known extra-African alliances of North African men. I'd suppose we'd find * the Sea People's females, * the Greek colonists of Cyrenaica's females, * the Poeni's females (indistinguishable from Jewish, Syrian, and Arab females), * Byzantine females, * Iberian females, * miscellaneous SE European females. From history we know Juba married a daughter of Antony and Cleopatra. Septimius Severus married a Syrian. There's a record of Syrian women indiscriminantly doled out to Maurs and "Ethiopians" as war spoils. Iberian women all through time but historically so after Islamization. SE European slave concubines after Islamization. Barbary corsair pirate booty (pun intended) ranging as far as Scotland ending just over a hundred years ago. Italian and French women since colonization.
rasol Member # 4592	posted quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: My opinion is as well grounded as yours. Or maybe better grounded. It's not and ego contest, for me. quote: If U6 is a North African specific marker, as is claimed, and its been in North Africa for 30,000 years rarely showing up anywhere else of course we may expect it to be the predominant female lineage there. That is not a logical expectation. U6 is a lineage that is identified as having originated in North Africa. - but that does not imply that it is or ever was the dominent lineage in North Africa - North Africa has also had various L2, various L3 and M1 lineages since the Paleolithic. - nor does it imply that U6 was the 1st lineage in North Africa; unless you believe North Africa was uninhabited before 30kya origin/date of U6? Finally - there is no population anywhere in Africa that is predominently U6, therfore we cannot simply assume by inference - that there ever was. If you believe this is and anamoly, then it would equally be and anomoly in Egypt among the Siwa Berber, in the horn, where U6a1 originated, and among the Taureg Berber who have more M1 and L3 than U6. Or, to put it another way: at precisely what point in time do you think most Taureg, Kabyle, Siwa females were mostly U6? What most geneticist derive from the low frequency of U6 is the Neolithic, rather than Paleolithic origin of most Berber people. Before the arrival of the Neolithic - agriculture and animal domestication practising Berber - earlier populations in North Africa would have been hunter gatherers - they may have borne u6 lineages, but also L1-3 Lineages as well. [Hence the title of the Arredi's: Predominently Neolithic origin, paper] Hunter gatherer peoples live in low population density. It appears that the Berber are not greatly descendant from these people, but rather the Neolithic nomadic migrants who 'replaced them'. These populations have a clear almost singular 'male' linealogical history, but they do not have a clear female line of ancestry. This is why geneticist refer to Berber maternal lineages as having a 'patchy' history unlike any other in the world. I would only add, look at where they live, scattered in oasis and mountain refuges across the worlds largest desert and you will know why. more to follow.......
rasol Member # 4592	posted quote: U6a arose ~28kya and has a west-to-east expansion. Without U6a there'd be no U6a1 to have a much later return east-to-west expansion. Yes AlTakruri, but the Neolithic U6a1 East Africa-to-Northwest Africa expansion coincides with the Neolithic east-to-west expansion of Chadic and Berber languages, as well as East Africa to SouthWest Asian expansion of Semitic langauges - yet NOWHERE are these lineages predominent. So........
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted Sounds like you're proposing the extra-African lineages were always there in Africa and also ignoring historic documentation of miscegenation with extra-Africans. If so, fine with me. There's no way to explain U6 as the North African marker that it is and no need for me to defend it as such, too many genetic reports do that already. Nothing mystic about U6, when and where it arose and who had it since when and continues to have it now. If you think North Africans should have predominant mtDNA of lineages not known to arise and diverge in North Africa, I can understand that but I don't see how it should be non-African Eurasian as if they were more readily available than females on the continent. That's the part you can hip me to. And don't take that as a challenge, I just want to know.
rasol Member # 4592	posted quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Sounds like you're proposing the extra-African lineages were always there in Africa and also ignoring historic documentation of miscegenation with extra-Africans. Really? If so, I must have missed it, as I can't make any sense out of that.
rasol Member # 4592	posted quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: There's no way to explain U6 as the North African marker that it is and no need for me to defend it as such, too many genetic reports do that already. Agreed. So why would you need to 'explain' U6 as a North African marker? Who said otherwise? You seem to not distinguish between U6 originating in North Africa - and the expectation that most North Africans should therefore be U6. Can you not see that these are two independent propositions? The later proposition simply does not follow from the former. That's all I'm saying.
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted I don't know Rasol, I'd like to see each individual mtDNA lineage in the Mzab to see if it may in fact be the one place where U6a outnumbers any other individual mtDNA lineage. So besides U6a, U6b, and U6c already up there in NW Africa they get augumented with more U6, U6a1, that may've accompanied Sahara language (protoChadic?, protoTamazight) speaking men whose NRY was ...? quote: Originally posted by rasol: Yes AlTakruri, but the Neolithic U6a1 East Africa-to-Northwest Africa expansion coincides with the Neolithic east-to-west expansion of Chadic and Berber languages, as well as East Africa to SouthWest Asian expansion of Semitic langauges - yet NOWHERE are these lineages predominent. So........
rasol Member # 4592	posted quote: So besides U6a, U6b, and U6c already up there in NW Africa they get augumented with more U6, U6a1, that may've accompanied Sahara language (protoChadic?, protoTamazight) speaking men whose NRY was I don't know about the language but we've already seen what Spencer Wells says about the lineages E3b, E3a, E2...and possibly some A. Note there is evidence for E2 and A lineages spreading from Africa all the way up into SouthWest Europe 'PRIOR' to the spread of Berber from East to NorthWest Africa.
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted Sure! But let's two brain up on this instead of square off in debate. I don't see the reports for other lineages being in old NW Africa, NW African specific, or expanding from there implying numbers as great as those who could afford to both remain there and expand from there, and seemingly have memory enough to back migrate there. Again, not as a challenge, I just want to know what African lineages are candidates for being predominant in NW Africa up to and by the time of the epipaleolithic and the introduction of Northern Area of Wider Affnity languages? OK my mello? quote: Originally posted by rasol: [ You seem to not distinguish between U6 originating in North Africa - and the expectation that most North Africans should therefore be U6. Can you not see that these are two independent propositions? The later proposition simply does not follow from the former. That's all I'm saying.
rasol Member # 4592	posted ^ I'll see what more I can find on this issue. ^
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted Yeah, that's something I brought up in the thread about paleolithic North Africa (though at the time I didn't know Wells) and the possibility of pre-San inhabiting all of NA explaining broad cheeks and epicanthic folds still showing up in Imazighen today who've not had contact with E Asians. Somebody wanted to shoot it down in a later thread where I presented it along with interpretation of pie graphs. quote: Originally posted by rasol: Note there is evidence for E2 and A lineages spreading from Africa all the way up into SouthWest Europe 'PRIOR' to the spread of Berber from East to NorthWest Africa.
alTakruri Member # 10195	posted Bumped up for its relevancy to a predominating subtopic in the current Chronology of ancient Africa - for dummies thread.
MyRedCow Member # 10893	posted I will answer some of your questions in great detail and it will shock you a bit. This will involve translation. Mystery Solver will be satisfied. Give me time.
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted ^ Let me guess, translations from Peul??
dana marniche Member # 13149	posted quote: Originally posted by rasol: The case is most likely that the migrations from East to NorthWest Africa - across the sahara were male biased. From the NorthWest African coast, European women may have been more accessible than African women from the sahara and interiior regions. This patern of bottlenecking of male DNA is discussed by Spencer Wells in "Journey of Man". Hotep, earlier you posted and interesting study on Brazilian DNA - showing that 'white' Brazilians have a preponderance of African and Native Indian female DNA, with European male lineages. You should repots this. It's the same phenomenon in my opinion. A few men migrate and then mate with whatever women are most readily available - yielding many descendants. Yes please repost this I've always thought that was the case with Brazilians - and not only because of the way they look.
dana marniche Member # 13149	posted quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Yeah, that's something I brought up in the thread about paleolithic North Africa (though at the time I didn't know Wells) and the possibility of pre-San inhabiting all of NA explaining broad cheeks and epicanthic folds still showing up in Imazighen today who've not had contact with E Asians. Somebody wanted to shoot it down in a later thread where I presented it along with interpretation of pie graphs. quote: Originally posted by rasol: Note there is evidence for E2 and A lineages spreading from Africa all the way up into SouthWest Europe 'PRIOR' to the spread of Berber from East to NorthWest Africa. I don't know about East Asians, but several of the fair skinned northern Berber-speaking groups have had some obvious and recent mixture with Central Asian true "Turkish" who came with earlier waves of Turks and Persians into N. Africa. One can hardly tell the difference between them. These individuals have a very strong Central Asian appearance and are hairsute and I see that certain of these traits including small or receding chin extends to certain of the Tuareg. On the other hand some of the features in the Somali and other East Africans I think can be attributed to the San Kung and/or "Hottentot" groups. Physical anthropologists have found the remains of very small, gracile long-headed people in the mountains of North Africa and along the coasts which is probably represented by the same type present anciently and in modern times along the coasts of Arabia. Some of the Beja especially Beni Amer also have these traits and the San- Kung like eyefold.