This post is to give a heads up to all those who search things African related on the web. You may have a new caudry of idiots boasting about caucasoids/hamites coming to Africa and spurring its culture and population diversity. A junk science program on the Science Channel called "Mystery of the Black Mummy" had Italian and white scientists proclamating the following about North Africa.
Yes, the terms Negroid, Negroes, black were actually used in this program. I did not add those terms in myself. The "scientist" actually used those terms.
The scientists said the below. (This is not sarcasm here)
-------------------------------- 1. Black Africans came to Libya from the south only after a climatic change that spurred savanah like terrain in North Africa.
2. 7,000 years ago white Middle Easterners came into Libya from Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and introduced cattle to the Negroes.
3. Proof of white M.E.s in Libya and the rest of North Africa lies in the diversity of the Africans there. (They went on to show the diversity of various "Africans" in Libya).
4. The resulting culture spread to Niger, Chad, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Mali, and Tunisia.
5. This culture which includes (human figures with animal heads) shows up in Ancient Egyptian culture so therefore it had a hand in spurring Nile Valley civilization. --------------------------------
These scientists used the phrase black mummy, black African, Negroes, Negroid repeatedly. And also implied that Tuaregs and other Africans of North Africa were not black but mixed.
With all of the above I guess the "scientists" think they have found a way to back door "caucasoids/hamites" into Africa and claim responsibility for its culture and population diversity.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I think the title of your thread, and your synopsis of the programme are both misleading.
The programme explores the enigmatic central Saharan society which once spanned the entire north African continent. We unravel their tale through the story of the discovery of the black mummy, Uan Muhuggiag. It soon becomes obvious that these people were responsible for an extraordinary array of innovations which later became famous under the Egyptians. Their presence re-writes the history of Egypt and of the entire continent of Africa.
The background: the lost society of the central Sahara and the rise of ancient Egypt The origins of ancient Egypt are archaeology’s greatest unsolved mystery. What prompted this remarkable culture to develop such distinctive rituals as mummification? Where did they get their ideas? As far as we know, Egypt was only preceded by one great civilisation: Mesopotamia. Although Mesopotamia is a far older culture – there is no evidence to suggest that these people had developed any similar funerary practises. But if Egyptian innovations did not come from earlier known civilisations – where did they come from?
The answer has come from an unlikely quarter – the barren Sahara desert. In the last few decades evidence has been mounting that the Egyptian civilisation was not the first advanced society in Africa. At the same time as Mesopotamia rose in the near east, another culture thrived in Africa. Although few people have heard of it – this central Saharan culture is providing evidence for the invention of ritual activity which had previously been attributed to the Egyptians.
The first clue for archaeologists was the abundant rock art found all over the central Sahara from Libya to Egypt to Mali. The rock art depicts animals like crocodiles and rhinos – which do not live in deserts. It also shows scenes of hunting and rituals involving men wearing animal masks. All of this art was a firm clue that this area was once a hive of activity. It spurred archaeologists to dig and over the past fifty years they’ve uncovered an entire unknown society.
The society was nomadic – groups of animal herders wandered all over the region and eventually spread their uniform culture throughout the continent of north Africa. They lived in huts and had time to make art and invent rituals. By the time the culture reached its pinnacle around 6ooo years ago these people had invented rituals which indicate a fairly complex world view. They were communicating with the heavens and using funerary rituals like mummification to treat their dead.
But all of this evidence indicated an Eden-like place – one with trees, grasses and abundant running waters. And yet nothing could be further from this picture than the Sahara today. Although archaeologists had already assembled the clues, the science of climatology solidly confirmed what all had suspected: this area was once a lush savannah landscape. Changes in the tilt of the earth’s axis had caused drought in the Sahara and brought this thriving society to an end. But with the demise of the central Saharan culture, people wandered all over northern Africa in search of greener pastures. The Nile valley was an obvious destination. Around 6000 years ago central Saharan ideas arrived in the Nile valley – adding mummification and other rituals to the potent mix which was to become the Egyptian civilisation. The mummy and archaeology in Libya: An Italian team of archaeologists first explored the Libyan Sahara almost fifty years ago. In 1958 they struck gold. Professor Fabrizio Mori discovered the black mummy at the Uan Muhuggiag rockshelter. The mummy of a young boy, Uan Muhuggiag was destined for controversy. He was older than any comparable Egyptian mummy and his mere existence challenged the very idea that Egyptians were the first in the region to mummify their dead. Although the Italian team from the university of Rome “La Sapienza”, has since discovered other mummified tissue, they have not yet discovered another complete mummy in the region. But Uan Muhuggiag was no one off. The sophistication of his mummification suggested he was the result of a long tradition of mummification. Investigations in the area continue under the direction of Dr Savino di Lernia and Professor Mario Liverani.
Climatology: Professor Mauro Cremaschi of CIRSA (University of Milan and University of Rome “La Sapienza”) heads the Italian Climatology team which focuses on the Acacus area of Libya. Dr Kevin White (Reading University) heads an English team focussing on the nearby Fezzan region. Both teams are using the latest satellite technology to clarify our picture of climate in the central Sahara over the past several hundred thousand years. Another lost Libyan civilisation: The Fezzan project, headed by Professor David Mattingly (University of Leicester) focuses on the Garamantes civilisation which thrived from 1500bc-500ad. The Garamantes were known by the Romans as barbarians but evidence from the Sahara shows a large, sophisticated civilisation. Remains show substantial architecture and a complex society replete with numerous luxuries. Almost 100,000 tombs litter the Fezzan escarpment – to date these bodies are the most concrete testimony to this little-known people. further reading Mummies, Disease and Ancient Cultures by A and E Cockburn & T Reyman l Ancient Egypt: Life, Myth and Art by J Fletcher l Rock Art of the Sahara by H Hugor & M Bruggman l Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara by F Wendorf l Archaeology of Sub Saharan Africa by J Vogel l Archaeology and Environment in the Libyan Sahara by B Barich l Garamantes of the Fezzan by Charles Daniels interesting links Www.cru.uea.ac.uk <http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/>Http://i-cias.com/e.o/fezzan.htm <http://i-cias.com/E.O/FEZZAN.HTM> Www.countryreports.org/history/libhist.htm <http://www.countryreports.org/HISTORY/LIBHIST.HTM>
Www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herod-Libya.htm <http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ANCIENT/HEROD-LIBYA.HTM> credits l narrator: kerry shale l exec prod: tracey gardiner l prod: gillian mosely l dir: chris hooke l ed: benedict jackson & sue outlaw l research: sophie mautner l head of prod: martin long l prod manager: sandra leeming l prod co-ord: donna blackburn l
sales enquiries l please contact martin long, head of production l t 020 7689 4248 l f 020 7490 0206 l e info@fulcrumtv.com <mailto:info@fulcrumtv.com> http://www.fulcrumtv.com/blackmummy.htm
The term 'aqualithic' was coined by John Sutton, in an article in the _Journal of African History_ in IIRC 1973. It referred of course to the dependence of people living on many of those sites on aquatic resources in the early Holocene hyper-moist Sahara, as you say. John S. may have been thinking of the earlier ascriptions of Khatroum Mesolithic and Khartoum Neolithic (both unfortunate) for these traditions -- I forget, I don't have that material here at home. There are some other sites south of Khartoum that are probably earlier than the Khartoum sites. Scott ___________________________________________________________________ Scott MacEachern Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bowdoin College Brunswick, ME 04011
Posted by One_and_Done (Member # 10712) on :
I know what the scientists said on that program.
------------------------- 1. Black Africans came to Libya from the south only after a climatic change that spurred savanah like terrain in North Africa.
2. 7,000 years ago white Middle Easterners came into Libya from Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and introduced cattle to the Negroes.
3. Proof of white M.E.s in Libya and the rest of North Africa lies in the diversity of the Africans there. (They went on to show the diversity of various "Africans" in Libya).
4. The resulting culture spread to Niger, Chad, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Mali, and Tunisia.
5. This culture which includes (human figures with animal heads) shows up in Ancient Egyptian culture so therefore it had a hand in spurring Nile Valley civilization. --------------------------------
These scientists used the phrase black mummy, black African, Negroes, Negroid repeatedly. And also implied that Tuaregs and other Africans of North Africa were not black but mixed.
They also kept contrasting the black mummy and egyptian mummy as if egyptians weren't black.
Nothing misleading about the above. I wasn't able to put "says scientist" at the end of the threads title due to running out of space.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Nothing misleading about the above.
Yes your thread is misleading and inflamatory, since you make a statement in the topic, and then imply inside the thread that the statement is not true.
You then attribute your statements to scientists but cannot quote them directly, which is also misleading.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The scientist on that show did say that the images on the rock art of the Sahara portrayed "Caucasians" who had traveled to the Sahara and not black Africans. Of course all the rock art was brown as it normally is. I got the same impression that the show was trying to give credit to whites for the civilization of the Sahara.
I have the show on tape.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I haven't seen the program yet either. Is it available on Youtube or something? Besides the preview, I have only seen clips of the show and one-and-done is correct that the Italian scientist on the show does make blatant inaccurate Eurocentric claims about "caucasoids" involvement in Saharan culture via "mixing with negroids". This sounds like the exact same hypothesis Hore conjured up! LOL Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
quote:7,000 Yrs ago White Mid. Easterners brought culture/diversity to N. Africa and Egypt
Most people do not view Southwest Asians as "white". "Caucasian", yes, because of similarly gracile features, but not white like Europeans---although I have heard that Anatolians, Iranians, and lighter-skinned Arabs could pass for tanned whites...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
They are still white compared to black Africans. Light skinned populations from outside of Africa did not bring civilization to the Sahara. And the scientist on the show was not distinguishing between "tanned" whites and "normal" whites, when he suggested that caucasians were responsible for ancient Saharan culture. This is no different than the ultra white actors from Europe that are picked to play ancient Egyptians as opposed to "tanned" whites from the area. Europeans have no problem claiming "tanned" whites as one of their own when they want to "claim" the history of Egypt, other parts of Africa, Mesopotamia or elsewhere. It is only in the modern geopolitical context that they need to keep such a distance between the two groups.
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
Exactly. So they are bombing the hell out of Iraq now while claiming Mesopotamia.
Posted by One_and_Done (Member # 10712) on :
Rasol wrote:
quote: Yes your thread is misleading and inflamatory, since you make a statement in the topic, and then imply inside the thread that the statement is not true.
You then attribute your statements to scientists but cannot quote them directly, which is also misleading.
I wrote what those guys said on that program. Now either you saw the program and are incapable of understanding what I posted about. Or you didn't see it. Which then if that is the case, I suggest that you keep your trap closed.
Those scientists said "White Middle Easterners" came Libya Africa 7,000 years ago along with their cattle and helped the blacks developed the Saharan culture which then spread to Ancient Egypt, Sudan, Chad, Mali, Niger, Algeria, Tunisia.
They said that the sahara 7,000 years ago was the worlds first "Melting Pot".
The terms "Negroes", "Negroid", "Blacks", and "white Middle Easterners" were routinely thrown out by these "scientists".
They used Blacks that they felt represented the "true negro" myth and juxtaposed them with their fellow Africans who they deemed were admixed with the "white Middle Easterners". True to form the Staged"true negro" Scenes were basically Africans "they" deemed as black sitting around in a circle doing nothing.
They also implied that the diverse peoples nature of North Africa (Chad, Algeria, Mali, Libya, Egypt, Niger, Sudan, and Tunisia) is the result of "White Middle Easterners". They then followed it up with video of Africans who they thought did not fit their idea of a true negro. (They did this even though those people were obviously Africans).
I have a life (as most people outside of this forum do) so I did not transcribe the program word by tiny little word with Pen and Paper so that I could give the quotes word by exact word. Normal people" don't sit down in front of their tv and transcribe every single word.
I also told you that I ran out of space in the title so I could not place "says white/Italian scientists".
This is now the second time I have said this. If you cannot comprehend this then we need to take up a collection to send you to one Oprah's schools in South Africa.
Therefore you better get the f&*k off my balls and quit acting like some argumentative hag named Olga. Don't try to nit pick with me in order to get one of your patented circular nonsense arguments going.
Posted by One_and_Done (Member # 10712) on :
Tyrann0saurus wrote:
quote: Most people do not view Southwest Asians as "white". "Caucasian", yes, because of similarly gracile features, but not white like Europeans---although I have heard that Anatolians, Iranians, and lighter-skinned Arabs could pass for tanned whites...
The scientists on the program said "White Middle Easterners".
Neith-Athena wrote:
quote: Exactly. So they are bombing the hell out of Iraq now while claiming Mesopotamia.
A few weeks ago I stumbled across a site where some posters were saying that Nigerians and Ghanians were mixed with caucasians. (And yes if a normal person saw those people they would think they were Africans.)
Of course it was one of those look at these people threads and they found some of their women attractive.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I think this was the same documentary I taped some years ago. I had mixed emotions about it because on the one hand it increased the knowledge of "pre-Egypt" ages Sahara but on the other hand retained old ideas that all involved should've known better than to promulgate.
quote: 1. Black Africans came to Libya from the south only after a climatic change that spurred savanah like terrain in North Africa.
This refers to the last drying of the "Green Sahara." This is when south east Saharans/Sudanis began introducing new stone age technologies to the north Sahara and north of the Sahara.
quote: 2. 7,000 years ago white Middle Easterners came into Libya from Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and introduced cattle to the Negroes.
3. Proof of white M.E.s in Libya and the rest of North Africa lies in the diversity of the Africans there. (They went on to show the diversity of various "Africans" in Libya).
This is old bad physio-cultural anthropology and archaeology at its worst.
quote: 4. The resulting culture spread to Niger, Chad, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Mali, and Tunisia.
5. This culture which includes (human figures with animal heads) shows up in Ancient Egyptian culture so therefore it had a hand in spurring Nile Valley civilization.
Though not what the show was promoting, there were interrelated cultures within the borders of the named countries where they transect the Sahara. Since the lower Nile valley did receive some of its earliest population from the Sahara its true "Saharans" had a hand in spurring Nile civilization along with downriver bound Sudanis. Oh, and the trickle of Levantines into the delta had to have contributed something to NVC too.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
The post offers further proof of the implicit and explicit mindset of the dominant convention that the "Middle East" extends across all of North Africa which is to be separated from the rest of so-called "sub-Saharan Africa".
Since most of the reporting on Africa derives from Western sources, it is usually negative, hence restricted to the so-called "sub-Saharan Africa"--an euphemism for what used to be called "negro Africa" then "black Africa" and now "sub-Saharan Africa".
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
As for the comment about many Nigerians and Ghanaians being mixed with Caucasians, I have to say they are delusional. There is no evidence.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The post offers further proof of the implicit and explicit mindset of the dominant convention that the "Middle East" extends across all of North Africa which is to be separated from the rest of so-called "sub-Saharan Africa".
Since most of the reporting on Africa derives from Western sources, it is usually negative, hence restricted to the so-called "sub-Saharan Africa"--an euphemism for what used to be called "negro Africa" then "black Africa" and now "sub-Saharan Africa".
But you can't deny that modern northafrica is culturally different than most of Africa below the sahara and much more closer to Middle east, this is the reality that makes "sub-sahara" valid in the mindst of most people. Ancient northafrica however can be discussed, but not modern.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:But you can't deny that modern northafrica is culturally different than most of Africa below the sahara and much more closer to Middle east
In short, for a territory to be distinctive from the others, it must have some meaningful particularities or at least some common characteristics.
When considered on the basis of these criteria, there is no region called the Middle East.
The term has a function and considered from this point, the region called the “Middle East”, in fact, means Britain, and then American Zone of Interest.
The Middle East is the name given to a “zone of interest” and it implies an appetite which has no sense of getting full. The more the appetite grows, the larger the region becomes.
Yonis you're going to be and exceptional scholar once you transcend the passive repettition of Eurocentric dogma's.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
I know Middle East is named from the position of western Europe, but that's a mainstream name, and as long we don't have alternatives that's what i'm gonna use when i don't think deep about it, i use West asia sometimes but mostly i don't think about it so i write Middle east since it's ingrained in my mind. I actually made a whole thread about this on a swedish forum and most agreed with me that it was eurocentric and they never thought about it before.
Anyways the point was that north africa nations are arabised both culturally, linguistically and religiously for the last 1400 (has nothing to do with europeans). And by this the region is more connected to Westasia that to most nations below the sahara, this is the reality. Egypt is infact the capital of music and movies of the arab world, that's why it makes sense to consider Egypt and mah´ghreb as part of west asia in the modern world, same as U.S. part of the western world. Modern Maghreb states and Egypt's cultural bound to rest of Africa is almost none existant.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Huh? North Africa is in southwest Asia now is it?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
But Arabic is not the only language spoken in North Africa. And if it's culture that is the determining factor one would have to say that Africa north of the Equator is culturally more homogeneous than Africa south of the Equator. Most of Africa north of the Equator is culturally Moslem--to which is attached a whole host of cultural practices such as Tobaski and other Eids, foods ,alcohol, birth, marriage and burial customs. etc.--hence is quite different from the non-Moslem parts of Africa.
In other words, a Senegalese, Malian or Guinean shares more culturally with North Africa than with, say, Malawi or Zambia or Lesotho.
This is not a recommendation for one set of cultural practices or otherwise, but merely an empirical observation.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Huh? North Africa is in southwest Asia now is it?
Of course not geographicaly but culturally, yes.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:Lamin: In other words, a Senegalese, Malian or Guinean shares more culturally with North Africa than with, say, Malawi or Zambia or Lesotho.
True, but an Algerian shares more in common with a lebanese than it does with any of the countries above. I think this should be quite obvious.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I know Middle East is named from the position of western Europe, but that's a mainstream name
Mainstream how? Because it was invented by Europeans? Is mainstream as you use it use a less-unpleasant substitute word for Eurocentric?
quote:as long we don't have alternatives
Common Yonis, you're smarter than this.
Why don't you have Native alternatives for -Middle East?
I'll answer since you make yourself unnecessarily clueless:
So, why this claim? [Middle East] Why everybody keeps on insisting on saying the Middle East? How did this region that cannot be a region emerge? And while the Middle East cannot be a region, how did this “Greater Middle East” emerge?
To put it short, there is no region as Middle East in fact. The Middle East is neither “the middle of the East”, nor it is a region with homogeneous characteristics. The Middle East is the name given to a “zone of interest” and it implies an appetite which has no sense of getting full. The more the appetite grows, the larger the region becomes.
Yonis you help keep Eurocentrism alive because you repeat it's every fallacy, every illogical pre-text, and self serving outright lie, and you do so in the most unthinking way possible.
Critical thinking requires more than slavish parroting.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Amazign nationalists are more racist than arabs could ever be, these people hate and dismiss any thing "black", they have totally adopted the european mentality of pure raced individuals. They think arabs are to blame for their cultural destruction, like assimilating no pure berbers into their society so to eradicate it like "negroes", they even have Nazi groups who have slogans like death to arabs, negroes and jews. I can post websites if you want.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Amazig nationalists are more racist than arabs could ever be
lol Strike a nerve did I?
Yonis.... please prove your point in the following way.
Present a list of the Countries conquered by Arab nationalism, and Amazigh Nationalism side by side.
Present a list of People Enslaved by Arabization, as opposed to Amazigh-(???) - whatever name you which to attribute to this far more racist than Arab entity.
No commentary please.... just the lists.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Yonis: [Berber] think arabs are to blame for their cultural destruction
But, that...can't be.
We know that's not the case, because they are all Middle Eastern 'brothers' who have so much in common. That's what the Middle East is all about, right Yonis?
Or have you forgotten your original claim?
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: lol Strike a nerve did I?
Striked what nerve? I'm not an arab, so i couldn't care less if they denounced the arabic hegemony and adopted a berber identity.
quote:Present a list of the Countries conquered by Arab nationalism, and Amazigh Nationalism side by side.
I don't see the relevance of this, i know Amazign/berbers were not conquerers and expansionists as muslims before arabs assimilated them. They however did become expansionists when they got conquered, remember spain?
quote:Present a list of People Enslaved by Arabization, as opposed to Amazigh-(???) - whatever name you which to attribute to this far more racist than Arab entity.
Both enslaved people, there is by the way no exclusive arab today, everyone who speaks arabic is an arab. North africans have not been more reluctant to import slaves than western asia, infact most of northern Mauritania who are ethnically berbers still import slaves in 2007.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:rasol: Present a list of the Countries conquered by Arab nationalism, and Amazigh Nationalism side by side.
quote:Yonis: I don't see how this is relevant
It's relevant to your claim that Amazigh Nationalism is quantifiably more racist than Arab nationalism.
If you can't substantiate, then the claim is meaningless.
Now.... I will agree with you that -your claim of who is more racist than whom- is and irrelevancy meant to distract from the falsehood of your prior claim of cultural fraternity between Berber and Arab, but that just means you've made two unfounded claims instead of one.
So...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: everyone who speaks arabic is an arab.
^ This is Arabisation propaganda.
Millions of Arab Speakers in Africa and Asia disagree with you.
"We are not Arabs!" Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:rasol: irrelevancy meant to distract from the falsehood of your prior claim of cultural fraternity between Berber and Arab, but that just means you've made two unfounded claims instead of one.
I don't fall for this kind of nonsense. Berber nationalism does not equall the Maghreb states or the majority of people. Most of them live in the mountain coastal regions and get support from the diaspora berbers. However the state and the overwhelming majority of citizens identify themselves as arabs, they don't adhere to these small factions of berber nationalists. Go to any country, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria or Libya, you'll see how little support these movements have, outside their villages. So i'm sorry there is no falsehood, the north african states at the moment are strongly attached culturally to West Asia, and that's a fact, so don't twist my words.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I don't fall for this kind of nonsense.
Middle East = nonsense and -you do- fall for it, and hard, apparently.
quote:Berber nationalism does not equall the Maghreb states or the majority of people.
That is a strawman argument as I never claimed it did.
In contrast you claimed that *everyone* who speaks Arabic is Arab.
Your statement is a lie of Arabization, and no one falls for that.
Not even you.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:However the state and the overwhelming majority of citizens identify themselves as arabs
The above is both a backtrack off of your lying implication that all Arab speakers identify as Arabs, and a simplistic smokescreen thrown over a complex political and cultural situation....
This situation is of course more complicated.
(1) Historians do not know for sure where the Berbers originated.
Schoolbooks in Morocco, which also has a large Berber population, expediently used to claim the were originally from Arabia, though such passages have recently been dropped.
(2) More than 1/3 of Algerians are Berber, in fact probably more than half the population has Berber ancestors or relatives.
(3) The Tamazight language is not spoken by many young Berbers in Algeria, and in general the younger generation varies greatly on how it identifies itself primarily:
1) as Berber,
2) as part of the "Arab" world, or
3) as Algerian.
The current revival of Berber political and civic organizing is in part identity politics - a sort of "Berber is Beautiful" campaign - as well as yet another example of post-Saddam attempts to roll back pan-Arabism in the "Middle East." The big question that remains is how the current young generation will identify: many have been effectively *Arabized* and know no Tamazigh. Others want nothing to do with Arab identity.
(APS)
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:rasol: Middle East = nonsense and -you do- fall for it, and hard, apparently.
*Yawn*, everyone calls the region Middle east, even middle easterners call it middle east, just because you found a turkish article about its eurocentric motives doesn't make the name less significant in modern times. When you mobilize a troop rasol and conquer the world then maybe you can have a say and change the modern political environment, but untill then you're just a mere whining subject of the contemporary world order.
quote:In contrast you claimed that *everyone* who speaks Arabic is Arab.
Maybe i should have been more specific. Everyone who speaks arabic and identify as an arab is mostly accepted as an arab. You should know by know that there is no such thing as an homogeneous arab ethnicity.
quote:Your statement is a lie of Arabization, and no one falls for that.
I've always been against arabization, and have plentyfull times debated on swedish and other forums against religous, ethnic and cultural hegemony, i think you assume to much. I'm the last person who would ever support arabization of any group. This however doesn't blind me from acknowledging the reality of certain regions.
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:rasol: Middle East = nonsense and -you do- fall for it, and hard, apparently.
*Yawn*, everyone calls the region Middle east, even middle easterners call it middle east, just because you found a turkish article about its eurocentric motives doesn't make the name less significant in modern times. When you mobilize a troop rasol and conquer the world then maybe you can have a say and change the modern political environment, but untill then you're just a mere whining subject of the contemporary world order.
Who is everyone? Ignoramuses, dolts, brainwashed persons who cannot tell the difference between east and south? Apparently you are a consenting and brainwashed subject of the contemporary world order. Yes, "everyone" in Europe used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, and it did serve a political/philosophical function in the world order of its day. That is the lazy kind of thinking that keeps true science from ever progressing and the truth from ever being revealed.
quote:In contrast you claimed that *everyone* who speaks Arabic is Arab.
Maybe i should have been more specific. Everyone who speaks arabic and identify as an arab is mostly accepted as an arab. You should know by know that there is no such thing as an homogeneous arab ethnicity.
So everyone who speaks English is an Englishman - European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, etc., if they find it more convenient to identify with the Ol' Country (which they probably would, as it is easier to be white). There is no such thing as a homogeneous English identity. In fact, if the individual chooses to identify as any one thing, then there is no such thing as a homogeneous identity.
quote:Your statement is a lie of Arabization, and no one falls for that.
I've always been against arabization, and have plentyfull times debated on swedish and other forums against religous, ethnic and cultural hegemony, i think you assume to much. I'm the last person who would ever support arabization of any group. This however doesn't blind me from acknowledging the reality of certain regions.
Social reality is mass concensus and often has nothing to do with objective reality. You can say the sun revolves around your little planet, the Judeo-Christian god created the universe in 3760 B.C., man never landed on the moon, but it still does not, he (if he exists) still did not, and they still did (the latter may perhaps yet be disproved, mayhap by persons such as yourself).
Oh, and by the way, Yonis, what is your hangup with Blacks? Were you discriminated by them, wounded by them, or are you just one more lemming going along with the myth of Black inferiority? Perhaps the latter in order to flatter your wounded ego, because you obviously are not as coherent as the other posters on this forum. And please learn how to spell.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Can we put this modern polticial-cultural stuff aside and address the topic points of this thread?
Takruri is correct that the European so-called expert did nothing but re-hash or perpetuate old Eurocentric myths.
Most white scholars including Marq de Villiers who has travelled through and wrote about the history of the Sahara not only find no evidence of "white" or other "Middle-Easterners" in the early Sahara, but even vehemently remark about the blatant bias in past Western scholarship in trying to attribute any advancement in African culture to "white foreigners"!!
By the way, that thing about the "white Middle-Easterners" bringing their cattle is funny considering that DNA tests show that the vast majority of cattle in North Africa are indigenous to the continent. We've discussed this before, but no search engine, no time.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:Neith Athena: Oh, and by the way, Yonis, what is your hangup with Blacks? Were you discriminated by them, wounded by them, or are you just one more lemming going along with the myth of Black inferiority? Perhaps the latter in order to flatter your wounded ego, because you obviously are not as coherent as the other posters on this forum. And please learn how to spell.
Yes, you're so right Neith Athena, right on spot, God has blessed you with such great wisdom. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Oh, and by the way, Yonis, what is your hangup with Blacks? Were you discriminated by them, wounded by them, or are you just one more lemming going along with the myth of Black inferiority? Perhaps the latter in order to flatter your wounded ego, because you obviously are not as coherent as the other posters on this forum.
He means well, and I like Yonis. He's just confused and easily made to repeat Arab & 'white' lies.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:rasol: He means well, and I like Yonis. He's just confused and easily made to repeat Arab & 'white' lies.
Confused, and easily made? I don't know who you normally deal with but i personally don't appreciate such paternalistic attitude combined with pat on the head, if you want respect then try to earn it, demeaning people in such manners as you did above is quite offensive and puts bad light on you.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ You demean yourself and need no help from others.
So don't catch hurt feelings and try tossing them our way. Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Maybe true! But atleast i'm not a hypocrite about it, i don't say such things like "rasol is a good man, but he's confused and naive, he means well though" that's disgusting in my book, i never insult peoples intelligence like that.
Edit: Nice try of changing your original post, where you first said, "you demean others" and you edited to "you demean yourself and need no help from others", which makes the text i'm replyin to totally different. Your hypocracy is showing for every post you post, makes you look kinda pathetic.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
There is both an African and European connection in North Africa on top of an Arab conection: Southern Europe was part of Africa politically in the past: some West Africans have still ancestors and relatives who lived/live in Spain: TIMBUKTU Mr. Haïdara is a descendant of the Kati family, a prominent Muslim family in Toledo, Spain. One of his ancestors fled religious persecution in the 15th century and settled in what is now Mali, bringing his formidable library with him. The Kati family intermarried into the Songhai imperial family, and the habit Mr. Haïdara’s ancestors had of doodling notes in the margins of their manuscripts has left an abundance of historical information: births and deaths in the imperial family, the weather, drafts of imperial letters, herbal cures, records of slaves, and salt and gold traded. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Maybe true! But atleast i'm not a hypocrite about it, i don't say such things like "rasol is a good man, but he's confused and naive, he means well though"
It is true.
And, it's not hypocrisy to note that a good man can be confused and naive.
In fact, I will repeat the above with emphasis, because the inability to understand how a good man can be naive and confused is a symptom of confusion over the subtle distinction in all those terms.
quote:that's disgusting in my book
And your proclaimed 'disgust', is little more than venting of frustration [and embarrassment?]due to the fact that you are deeply confused about many things.
quote:Edit: Nice try of changing your original post, where you first said, "you demean others" and you edited to "you demean yourself
I edit virtually every post I type. I don't recall typing 'you demean others', but if I did it was just a typo.
I meant to say exactly what is quoted from my post: which is that you demean yourself, and so shouldn't blame 'others' for it.
Your ad hominem whining is typically the result of someone who makes false statements, and fails to back them.
If I am wrong about this, you can easily prove it.
Reply back with no personal commentary, but only hard facts to prove your claim that -ALL PEOPLE- who speak Arabic consider themselves Arabs, which would then service your claim of Middle Eastern fraternity.
Bear in mind - that means Afghans, Southern Sudanese, Toureg, Amazigh, Iranians, and many others.
If you can't back up your claim, then you'd do well to just think about what you said, and how patently ridiculous it was to begin with.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Amazighan culture is not Arab culture. There is a reason Tamazighan activists exist, and these are not confined to rural North Africans; these comprise of organized campaigns by broad sections of coastal north Africans, including both well educated working class and the narrower social layer of the north African bourgeois who have access to the internet technology. In Egypt, particularly upper Egypt, there are still elements of indigenous culture practiced, not withstanding "Arabization" campaigns by the Egyptian bourgeois. In fact, some tend to forget about the so-called "Nubians" of Upper Egypt, presenting them as some sort of second class citizens, or better yet, having their own little state within a state. While Arabic seems to be a regional lingua franca in north Africa, culture in north Africa is no more homogenous than culture south of the Sahara and the Sahel, or east to west. Culture in Africa is as diverse as its socio-ethnic units within states and across states.
Just because people live in a nation state, doesn't mean that a state represents a homogenous culture; formerly discrete and politically independent socio-ethnic units can and have in the past been brought together under a centralized government to form a nation. Kemet is a good example of this. The circumstances of bringing discrete socio-ethnic units, each with their distinctive culture and values, under a state vary from in situ regional struggles, culminating in regional alliances and/or conquest by one indigenous group and subsequent integration of the conquered, to divide and conquer antics by extra-continental invading forces.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: lol Strike a nerve did I?
Striked what nerve? I'm not an arab, so i couldn't care less if they denounced the arabic hegemony and adopted a berber identity.
quote:Present a list of the Countries conquered by Arab nationalism, and Amazigh Nationalism side by side.
I don't see the relevance of this, i know Amazign/berbers were not conquerers and expansionists as muslims before arabs assimilated them. They however did become expansionists when they got conquered, remember spain?
quote:Present a list of People Enslaved by Arabization, as opposed to Amazigh-(???) - whatever name you which to attribute to this far more racist than Arab entity.
Both enslaved people, there is by the way no exclusive arab today, everyone who speaks arabic is an arab. North africans have not been more reluctant to import slaves than western asia, infact most of northern Mauritania who are ethnically berbers still import slaves in 2007.
There is no ethnic Berber. Berber is a language and this is important because almost ALL of Mauretania was once a Berber speaking group of people. Therefore most of Mauretania is still Berber, albeit many have dropped the Zenaga dialect and are Arab speakers now. Mixing language with ethnicity is what causes so much of the confusion about what is a Berber and what is an Arab and what is an African in North Africa. The funniest part is that most of the biological studies I have seen find no signifigant differences biologically between Arab and Berber in North Africa. That makes it hard to justify a unique "Berber" identity for some North Africans, when they are all equally related through intermarriage.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
To Yonis,
Note that many Lebanese are Christian and the Arabic spoken in Lebanon is uite different from North African Arabic. There are many Moroccans and Lebanese in Senegal and as far as I know they hardly ever interact. And business and other travel between parts of West Africa(the Sahel area) and places like Morocco in North Africa are very routine both by air and road.
Furthermore, Arabic is not even the most widely spoken language in West Asia. Iranians(80 million) speak Farsi and openly distinguish themselves from "Arabs_--especially those from Arabia and its Gulf area.
Kurdish is also widely spoken in Weest Asia along with Turkish(80 million). And Turks also eagerly distinguish themselves from Arabs.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
Wow, I didn't know that.^
quote:Rasol
Now.... I will agree with you that -your claim of who is more racist than whom- is and irrelevancy meant to distract from the falsehood of your prior claim of cultural fraternity between Berber and Arab, but that just means you've made two unfounded claims instead of one.
True.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: *Yawn*, everyone calls the region Middle east, even middle easterners call it middle east, just because you found a turkish article about its eurocentric motives doesn't make the name less significant in modern times.
Again, true, but here me out
quote:When you mobilize a troop rasol and conquer the world then maybe you can have a say and change the modern political environment, but untill then you're just a mere whining subject of the contemporary world order.
lol
Considering there is no "mid-east", though I in fact occasionally use it, that fact alone refutes a "mid-eastern culture" of Berbers. Whether or not the cool kids use it.
@Neith Athena, no need to be like that. That's wrong.
to set him straight. If you have a problem, no hesitation, just ask.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Exactly where is the seperation between North Africa and "Sub-Sahara" in terms of language and culture? Muslim religion and culture is found in Sub-Sahara also in Nigeria, Chad, Ethiopia, Somalia, and even Kenya. Arabic is spoken in certain regions of those countries. Of course non of those people identify themselves as 'Arabs' and neither do most North Africans.
By the way, what about the original topic of the thread?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
^^Exactly.
Africa has had a profound impact on the culture and traditions of ALL populations who have ventured there. We must remember that bigotry and racism are powerful forces in the telling of African history. If the TRUTH was told, Africa has had a more PROFOUND cultural impact on people from OUTSIDE Africa than vice versa, at least on a POSITIVE perspective. The MAJORITY of the impact non Africans have had on Africa is NEGATIVE.
So, going back to the topic of the thread, very FEW cultural traits were introduced INTO Africa by NON Africans, whether from 2,000 years ago or 10,000. Many of those who did migrate to Africa adopted AFRICAN customs and traits. Starting with the Neolithic, the neolithic revolution happened IN AFRICA among INDIGENOUS Africans and did not require FOREIGN migrants to "introduce" such techniques as pottery, pastoralism, cattle cults, astronomy for farming, megaliths, jewelry, clothing and so on. All of these patterns of behavior ALREADY existed prior to any LEVANTINE migrants reaching Africa. AFRICA is the BIRTH place of the process of human tool industries and the techniques that became the fundamental pattern of human existence all over the planet. Religion, art, architecture, farming, animal husbandry, hunting, skinning, leather working, textiles, pottery and all other sorts of human traits started in Africa long before anywhere else. For example, the Muslim invaders of Africa have benefited from contact with AFRICANS and have been ENRICHED by this contact, much more than vice versa. The traditions of the clothing and dress of Muslim Africa is INDIGENOUS to Africa and in many ways existed PRIOR to Muslim contact. The leather that made Morocco famous actually CAME from Nigeria. The blue dress of the Tuaregs actually ORIGINATES in Nigeria and West Africa. The sandal and slipper traditions of Northern Africa had SIGNIFICANT influence from a wide range of African groups. Many of the steel making traditions and weapon traditions of Muslim Africa originated among steel producing groups in West Africa. Many of the warrior traditions and customs of Muslim Africa originated among a wide range of African groups. People must remember that the MAIN means of contact across Muslim Africa was due to trade and this trade allowed many African cultural influences to be incorporated into Islam, but without acknowledgment to the African peoples that originated these ideas. So, when looking at the last 8,000 years of African history and interaction with peoples from outside of Africa, one must remember that MUCH of indigenous AFRICAN cultural traditions have been absorbed into a larger diaspora of cultural traditions and often is attributed wrongly to people from OUTSIDE Africa as opposed to INDIGENOUS black Africans.
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:rasol: Middle East = nonsense and -you do- fall for it, and hard, apparently.
*Yawn*, everyone calls the region Middle east, even middle easterners call it middle east, just because you found a turkish article about its eurocentric motives doesn't make the name less significant in modern times. When you mobilize a troop rasol and conquer the world then maybe you can have a say and change the modern political environment, but untill then you're just a mere whining subject of the contemporary world order.
Who is everyone? Ignoramuses, dolts, brainwashed persons who cannot tell the difference between east and south? Apparently you are a consenting and brainwashed subject of the contemporary world order. Yes, "everyone" in Europe used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, and it did serve a political/philosophical function in the world order of its day. That is the lazy kind of thinking that keeps true science from ever progressing and the truth from ever being revealed.
quote:In contrast you claimed that *everyone* who speaks Arabic is Arab.
Maybe i should have been more specific. Everyone who speaks arabic and identify as an arab is mostly accepted as an arab. You should know by know that there is no such thing as an homogeneous arab ethnicity.
So everyone who speaks English is an Englishman - European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, etc., if they find it more convenient to identify with the Ol' Country (which they probably would, as it is easier to be white). There is no such thing as a homogeneous English identity. In fact, if the individual chooses to identify as any one thing, then there is no such thing as a homogeneous identity.
quote:Your statement is a lie of Arabization, and no one falls for that.
I've always been against arabization, and have plentyfull times debated on swedish and other forums against religous, ethnic and cultural hegemony, i think you assume to much. I'm the last person who would ever support arabization of any group. This however doesn't blind me from acknowledging the reality of certain regions.
Social reality is mass concensus and often has nothing to do with objective reality. You can say the sun revolves around your little planet, the Judeo-Christian god created the universe in 3760 B.C., man never landed on the moon, but it still does not, he (if he exists) still did not, and they still did (the latter may perhaps yet be disproved, mayhap by persons such as yourself).
Oh, and by the way, Yonis, what is your hangup with Blacks? Were you discriminated by them, wounded by them, or are you just one more lemming going along with the myth of Black inferiority? Perhaps the latter in order to flatter your wounded ego, because you obviously are not as coherent as the other posters on this forum. And please learn how to spell.
Yonis is 100% Black African (not African American).
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:rasol: Reply back with no personal commentary, but only hard facts to prove your claim that -ALL PEOPLE- who speak Arabic consider themselves Arabs, which would then service your claim of Middle Eastern fraternity.
I've told you before about twisting peoples words.
This is what i said
quote:Maybe i should have been more specific. Everyone who speaks arabic and identify as an arab is mostly accepted as an arab.
Now try to focus on the bigger picture next time you discuss with someone instead of nitpicking and distracting from whats being discussed.
The main issue was that north african states are culturally more connected to west asian countries than to countries south of sahara.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Say pahdnuh, the internal search engine is back on again. See the stickied thread !Search
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, that thing about the "white Middle-Easterners" bringing their cattle is funny considering that DNA tests show that the vast majority of cattle in North Africa are indigenous to the continent. We've discussed this before, but no search engine, no time.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Praise Allah! Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I hope those who see Algeria, for instance, as being more culturally connected to say Lebanon than to Mali or Niger have been paying attention to the TinBukt libraries threads (not that lamin hasn't shed light by commenting on relations between "Arabs" in Senegal -- Maroc vis-a-vis Lebanon).
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Tyrano: quote:7,000 Yrs ago White Mid. Easterners brought culture/diversity to N. Africa and Egypt
Most people do not view Southwest Asians as "white". "Caucasian", yes, because of similarly gracile features, but not white like Europeans---although I have heard that Anatolians, Iranians, and lighter-skinned Arabs could pass for tanned whites...
I'm personally from Africa and I don't know what you mean by "gracile" features but casual observation and anthropology indicate that Europeans and Asians are intermediary between broad faced, elongated and San-like Black Africans...recently there was a post that shows that one of the most touted "Caucasian" feature: less prognathism compare to other groups appeared to be false since Somali(elongated Africans) had less prognathism. Hiernaux, an anthropologist noted that African span the whole globe in terms of physical anthropology: from the thinest nose to the broadest on earth, from the tallest to shortest people on earth...etc...It's impossible to define a Caucasian type since the people mentioned in your post just look like intermediate and don't have any original feature beside the skin tone and the hair compare to Africans...
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Yonis is 100% Black African (not African American).
I don't think he identifies as such, he mentioned it in other posters, African yes...for sure...Let's come back to this thread...North Africa and other Northern parts of Africa and to a certain extent of Western Africa had long contacts with non Africans: Europe and West Asians(Arabs and Turks) for thousand years in the case of Europe and centuries in the case of West Asians...Genetically there is a substantial amount of European genes among many Berbers of Northern Africa, gene flow from European has been continuous since the Paleolithic. Southern Iberia(Europe) and North Western and to a certain extent West Africa belonged to a single political entity for centuries...Culturally and politically many became Arabized, political power had been in the hands of "Arabs" for centuries...Coastal North Africa had been part of ancient Rome, Phoenicia for centuries. North Africa can be viewed as Africa lite...however no one can deny it's direct relationship with the rest of Africa...As Gibraltar was not a barrier between North Africa and Europe, the Sahara was a link between North Africa and other regions of Africa...North Africa is the result of the merger of Europe Africa and Arabia...nice mix!!!
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:Yonis is 100% Black African (not African American).
I don't think he identifies as such, he mentioned it in other posters, African yes...for sure...Let's come back to this thread...North Africa and other Northern parts of Africa and to a certain extent of Western Africa had long contacts with non Africans: Europe and West Asians(Arabs and Turks) for thousand years in the case of Europe and centuries in the case of West Asians...Genetically there is a substantial amount of European genes among many Berbers of Northern Africa, gene flow from European has been continuous since the Paleolithic. Southern Iberia(Europe) and North Western and to a certain extent West Africa belonged to a single political entity for centuries...Culturally and politically many became Arabized, political power had been in the hands of "Arabs" for centuries...Coastal North Africa had been part of ancient Rome, Phoenicia for centuries. North Africa can be viewed as Africa lite...however no one can deny it's direct relationship with the rest of Africa...As Gibraltar was not a barrier between North Africa and Europe, the Sahara was a link between North Africa and other regions of Africa...North Africa is the result of the merger of Europe Africa and Arabia...nice mix!!!
Trust me, he does identify as a Black African.
@al-Takruri. Gracile is not a racial term. There are gracile Africans and Europeans and robust Africans and Europeans, even in the old anthropology literature. Types like Sudanids (most West Africans) and Ethiopids (but who were considered by Coon as Caucasoid, of course) were seen as gracile, for instance, while all paleolithic European types (Alpinid, Borreby, Brunn, Baltid, East Baltid, etc.) are robust (opposite of Gracile) according to the literature.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
North Africa and other Northern parts of Africa and to a certain extent of Western Africa had long contacts with non Africans: Europe and West Asians(Arabs and Turks) for thousand years in the case of Europe and centuries in the case of West Asians...
So has eastern Africa & Southern Africa; and?
quote:Africa I:
Genetically there is a substantial amount of European genes among many Berbers of Northern Africa, gene flow from European has been continuous since the Paleolithic.
What are the specific European lineages that were introduced to north Africa in the Paleolithic?
quote:Africa I:
Southern Iberia(Europe) and North Western and to a certain extent West Africa belonged to a single political entity for centuries...
I take it that by 'single polity', that you're *probably* referring to the Almoravid created empire? If not, please clarify, along with what you mean by "to a certain extent" here.
quote:Africa I:
North Africa can be viewed as Africa lite...however no one can deny it's direct relationship with the rest of Africa...
What set of typologies *measures* the degrees to which a region of Africa is "Africa"?
quote:Africa I:
North Africa is the result of the merger of Europe Africa and Arabia...nice mix!!!
On the same token, do you see "southern Europe" and "Arabia" as "the result of the merger of Europe, Africa, and Arabia"?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Did I make a comment I don't recall that this reply is directed specifically at me?
quote:Originally posted by Yom: [@al-Takruri. Gracile is not a racial term. There are gracile Africans and Europeans and robust Africans and Europeans, even in the old anthropology literature. Types like Sudanids (most West Africans) and Ethiopids (but who were considered by Coon as Caucasoid, of course) were seen as gracile, for instance, while all paleolithic European types (Alpinid, Borreby, Brunn, Baltid, East Baltid, etc.) are robust (opposite of Gracile) according to the literature.
Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
There is evidence that pre-dynastic Egypt had connections with the Sumerian people of the ME, thus assuming that Ancient Egyptian civilization was a spawn from the earlier civilizations of the ME.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Celt: There is evidence that pre-dynastic Egypt had connections with the Sumerian people of the ME, thus assuming that Ancient Egyptian civilization was a spawn from the earlier civilizations of the ME.
what evidence? beyond trade contacts I mean?
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Did I make a comment I don't recall that this reply is directed specifically at me?
quote:Originally posted by Yom: [@al-Takruri. Gracile is not a racial term. There are gracile Africans and Europeans and robust Africans and Europeans, even in the old anthropology literature. Types like Sudanids (most West Africans) and Ethiopids (but who were considered by Coon as Caucasoid, of course) were seen as gracile, for instance, while all paleolithic European types (Alpinid, Borreby, Brunn, Baltid, East Baltid, etc.) are robust (opposite of Gracile) according to the literature.
Sorry, that comment should be direct at Tyrannosaurus.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
quote:Originally posted by Celt: There is evidence that pre-dynastic Egypt had connections with the Sumerian people of the ME, thus assuming that Ancient Egyptian civilization was a spawn from the earlier civilizations of the ME.
what evidence? beyond trade contacts I mean?
Indeed, what evidence besides trade, would suggest ancient Egyptian civiliation being "spawned" from Mesopotamia?? Culturally, there was very little in common between Egypt and Mesopotamia. And while Mesopotamia is the name of a region, Egypt is the name of a nation-state which was located in the region called the Nile Valley-- a region located in Africa and whom virtually all scholars agree was indigenously "spawned" in that region.
Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
quote:Originally posted by Celt: There is evidence that pre-dynastic Egypt had connections with the Sumerian people of the ME, thus assuming that Ancient Egyptian civilization was a spawn from the earlier civilizations of the ME.
what evidence? beyond trade contacts I mean?
Indeed, what evidence besides trade, would suggest ancient Egyptian civiliation being "spawned" from Mesopotamia?? Culturally, there was very little in common between Egypt and Mesopotamia. And while Mesopotamia is the name of a region, Egypt is the name of a nation-state which was located in the region called the Nile Valley-- a region located in Africa and whom virtually all scholars agree was indigenously "spawned" in that region.
I never stated that there was any evidence suggesting that AE emerged from earlier civilizations in the ME.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The funny thing is that there's evidence of direct trade between T3Sti and the Levant that bypassed T3Akht.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Which for those who don't understand meant trade between so-called 'Nubia' and the Levant.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Yom:Trust me, he does identify as a Black African.
Well, his silence is deafening...I guess I should "trust" his Spokesperson.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:AFRICA I: Genetically there is a substantial amount of European genes among many Berbers of Northern Africa, gene flow from European has been continuous since the Paleolithic. Supercar:
What are the specific European lineages that were introduced to north Africa in the Paleolithic?
Some studies referred to prehistoric genetic unity between Iberia and North West Africa like the following( to the point some Iberocentric scientists refer to Iberia as the Iberia Peninsula and North Africa):
Prehistoric Iberia: Genetics, Anthropology, and Linguistics1 antonio arnaiz-villena and david lubell2 Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Avda. Andalucia s/n, 28041 Madrid, Spain (antonio.arnaiz@ inm.hl2o.es)./Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H4. 31 viii 99 Antonio Arnaiz-Villena (Immunology, Universidad Complutense, and Fundacio´n de Estudios Gene´ticos y Lingu¨ ı´sticos, Madrid) presented data suggesting that, according to the HLA genes (A30-B18), paleo-North Africans (Berbers) were related to Iberians, including the Basques. An old genetic substratum in Iberia (marked by A29-B44) parallels the Rh(-) frequencies and is shared by western European populations from Ireland, southern France, and England. Portuguese and Basques show less Mediterranean HLA gene flow than other Iberians. Furthermore, eastern Mediterranean populations (Jewish, Lebanese, Cretan) tend to cluster together, and western ones (Berber, Spaniards, Portuguese, Algerians, Basques) also tend to be more similar among themselves when all of the Mediterranean gene frequencies are compared. However, all Mediterranean populations cluster together when compared with Greeks, who represent an outgroup with a genetic distance similar to that of the Japanese. Arnaiz-Villena concluded that, in the past few thousand years and especially in periods of milder climate, there were circum-Mediterranean contacts and gene flow and that the Greeks are relatively “recent” Mediterraneans (pre-Mycenaeans, 2000 b.c.) who conquered the Cretan empire and adopted its writing (Linear A) and culture (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1999). Vicente M. Cabrera (Genetics, Universidade de la Laguna, Tenerife) showed that the maternally inherited (mitochondrial) genes of the present-day Canary Islands population came from the North African Berbers and its paternally inherited genes from Europeans. This is concordant with historical facts. Berber-speaking people populated the Canary Islands in prehistoric times; this has been documented by inscriptions found in caves and by archaeological data. In the 14th century, Europeans invaded the Canary Islands, killed (or sold in Iberia) most of male aborigines (guanches), and mixed with female aborigines. Alicia Sa´nchez-Mazas (Anthropology and Ecology, University of Geneva) presented genetic data on Berbers (Imazighen, the first white North African population), showing that HLA data grouped northern and southern Mediterraneans together and supported a northward migration of prehistoric Berbers to Iberia, Italy, and the Mediterranean islands, where they mixed with the autochthonous populations. The migration may have occurred when the North African climate became hotter and drier after 6,000 b.p. Most of the present North African populations speak Arabic but are Berber in origin. The genetic information supports the view that the 7thcentury Arab invasions of Iberia and North Africa included Arab leaders and aristocrats from the Middle East but consisted mainly of recently recruited Berbers. Blood ......... Pedro del Moral (Anthropology, Universidad de Barcelona) showed that a mitochondrial DNA analysis yielded a west-east gradient of haplotype frequencies with the highest value of V and H haplogroups around Iberia (more frequent in Basques). This gradient also included North Africans from the Maghreb. This supports a pre-Neolithic migration from Iberia (or North Africa) eastward, probably during the second European interglacial.
quote:
quote::Africa I:
Southern Iberia(Europe) and North Western and to a certain extent West Africa belonged to a single political entity for centuries...
I take it that by 'single polity', that you're *probably* referring to the Almoravid created empire?
Yes
quote: quote:Africa I:
North Africa can be viewed as Africa lite...however no one can deny it's direct relationship with the rest of Africa...
What set of typologies *measures* the degrees to which a region of Africa is "Africa"?
That's very subjective and just to inject some humor and relativity.
quote: quote:Africa I:
North Africa is the result of the merger of Europe Africa and Arabia...nice mix!!!
On the same token, do you see "southern Europe" and "Arabia" as "the result of the merger of Europe, Africa, and Arabia"?
Yes.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
@Africa I:
Almoravids only lasted a century at best, so they didn't rule anything for centuries.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Genetically there is a substantial amount of European genes among many Berbers of Northern Africa, gene flow from European has been continuous since the Paleolithic
In fact, there is no evidence of significant Paleolithic geneflow from Europe to North Africa in the Paleolithic, per Barbara Arredi:
A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
So the "Paleolithic Genes" they have came from the Middle-East? I'm talking about R paternaly and H (and U?) maternaly mainly.
Besides latter mixing with Europeans that is.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Some other sources point to prehistoric genetic relationship between Iberia and North Western Africa if you use a mtdna analysis to the point some scientist don't bother to distinguish pre-Neolithic Iberian population and North African population. It's possible that European and North African were genetically the same at the Y-chromosome and mtdna level prior to the Neolithic when Y chromosome were introduced from North East Africa whipping out the existing European male chromosome...that's a plausible hypothesis since pre-Neolithic North Africans were hunter gatherers whereas Neolithic invaders from the east were more advanced...
quote:Antonio Arnaiz-Villena (Immunology, Universidad Complutense, and Fundacio´n de Estudios Gene´ticos y Lingu¨ ı´sticos, Madrid) presented data suggesting that, according to the HLA genes (A30-B18), paleo-North Africans (Berbers) were related to Iberians, including the Basques. An old genetic substratum in Iberia (marked by A29-B44) parallels the Rh(-) frequencies and is shared by western European populations from Ireland, southern France, and England. Portuguese and Basques show less Mediterranean HLA gene flow than other Iberians. Furthermore, eastern Mediterranean populations (Jewish, Lebanese, Cretan) tend to cluster together, and western ones (Berber, Spaniards, Portuguese, Algerians, Basques) also tend to be more similar among themselves when all of the Mediterranean gene frequencies are compared. However, all Mediterranean populations cluster together when compared with Greeks, who represent an outgroup with a genetic distance similar to that of the Japanese. Arnaiz-Villena concluded that, in the past few thousand years and especially in periods of milder climate, there were circum-Mediterranean contacts and gene flow and that the Greeks are relatively “recent” Mediterraneans (pre-Mycenaeans, 2000 b.c.) who conquered the Cretan empire and adopted its writing (Linear A) and culture (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1999).
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
I've thought about myself.
E3b man arrives with the language and pratically replaces the native man, as one can see in paternal lineages, R is quite rare, except for some places.
But is there any proof of this?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:But is there any proof of this?
No but there is a recent experience in the Canaries island that was studied scientifically where the Spanish population whipped out the Berber derived male and married their women(since the 15th century colonization of the island)...the result is genetically Canaries islander are more European than African(Berber genes) on the Y-chromosome side and more African than European on the mtdna side.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: So the "Paleolithic Genes" they have came from the Middle-East? I'm talking about R paternaly and H (and U?) maternaly mainly.
Besides latter mixing with Europeans that is.
The genetic lineages are vastly of Neolithic origin NOT Paleolithic. I don't know about H, but mtDNA lineage U is indigenous to Africa originating in the continent. Y-chromosomal lineage R is still in dispute. The highest frequency of R1* underived is found in Sub-Sahara, specifically Cameroon with lower frequencies occuring in Egypt and Yemen, which represents African origin or a very early Eurasian back-migration during Paleolithic times.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Haplgroup U appeared first in Africa? That's the first time I heard so. The highest frequency of R1* might have been found in Africa, but R isn't African, afaik.
I'm going mostly by the National Geographic site btw. Are they wrong? Just curious.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:I'm going mostly by the National Geographic site btw. Are they wrong? Just curious.
It's mainly for popular consumption, you can do more research in the American Journal of Human Genetic website, courtesy of the University of Chicago, it's free and you can learn more from more renowned scientist that Spencer Wells...remember he tries to simplify things for the average reader...There is no definitive answer as to where R1* originated because there are insufficient clues...mainly because of the African anomaly...
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:Mystery Solver:
What are the specific European lineages that were introduced to north Africa in the Paleolithic?
Some studies referred to prehistoric genetic unity between Iberia and North West Africa like the following( to the point some Iberocentric scientists refer to Iberia as the Iberia Peninsula and North Africa):
Prehistoric Iberia: Genetics, Anthropology, and Linguistics1 antonio arnaiz-villena and david lubell2 Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Avda. Andalucia s/n, 28041 Madrid, Spain (antonio.arnaiz@ inm.hl2o.es)./Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H4. 31 viii 99 Antonio Arnaiz-Villena (Immunology, Universidad Complutense, and Fundacio´n de Estudios Gene´ticos y Lingu¨ ı´sticos, Madrid) presented data suggesting that, according to the HLA genes (A30-B18), paleo-North Africans (Berbers) were related to Iberians, including the Basques. An old genetic substratum in Iberia (marked by A29-B44) parallels the Rh(-) frequencies and is shared by western European populations from Ireland, southern France, and England. Portuguese and Basques show less Mediterranean HLA gene flow than other Iberians. Furthermore, eastern Mediterranean populations (Jewish, Lebanese, Cretan) tend to cluster together, and western ones (Berber, Spaniards, Portuguese, Algerians, Basques) also tend to be more similar among themselves when all of the Mediterranean gene frequencies are compared. However, all Mediterranean populations cluster together when compared with Greeks, who represent an outgroup with a genetic distance similar to that of the Japanese. Arnaiz-Villena concluded that, in the past few thousand years and especially in periods of milder climate, there were circum-Mediterranean contacts and gene flow and that the Greeks are relatively “recent” Mediterraneans (pre-Mycenaeans, 2000 b.c.) who conquered the Cretan empire and adopted its writing (Linear A) and culture (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1999). Vicente M. Cabrera (Genetics, Universidade de la Laguna, Tenerife) showed that the maternally inherited (mitochondrial) genes of the present-day Canary Islands population came from the North African Berbers and its paternally inherited genes from Europeans. This is concordant with historical facts. Berber-speaking people populated the Canary Islands in prehistoric times; this has been documented by inscriptions found in caves and by archaeological data. In the 14th century, Europeans invaded the Canary Islands, killed (or sold in Iberia) most of male aborigines (guanches), and mixed with female aborigines. Alicia Sa´nchez-Mazas (Anthropology and Ecology, University of Geneva) presented genetic data on Berbers (Imazighen, the first white North African population), showing that HLA data grouped northern and southern Mediterraneans together and supported a northward migration of prehistoric Berbers to Iberia, Italy, and the Mediterranean islands, where they mixed with the autochthonous populations. The migration may have occurred when the North African climate became hotter and drier after 6,000 b.p. Most of the present North African populations speak Arabic but are Berber in origin. The genetic information supports the view that the 7thcentury Arab invasions of Iberia and North Africa included Arab leaders and aristocrats from the Middle East but consisted mainly of recently recruited Berbers. Blood ......... Pedro del Moral (Anthropology, Universidad de Barcelona) showed that a mitochondrial DNA analysis yielded a west-east gradient of haplotype frequencies with the highest value of V and H haplogroups around Iberia (more frequent in Basques). This gradient also included North Africans from the Maghreb. This supports a pre-Neolithic migration from Iberia (or North Africa) eastward, probably during the second European interglacial.
You've got to be kidding, HLA genes? First of all, this study doesn't establish when these genes arrived in North Africa; if anything, it goes onto mention:
Alicia Sa´nchez-Mazas (Anthropology and Ecology, University of Geneva) presented genetic data on Berbers (Imazighen, the first white North African population), showing that HLA data grouped northern and southern Mediterraneans together and supported a northward migration of prehistoric Berbers to Iberia, Italy, and the Mediterranean islands, where they mixed with the autochthonous populations. The migration may have occurred when the North African climate became hotter and drier after 6,000 b.p. Most of the present North African populations speak Arabic but are Berber in origin.
Surely, if HLA genes are able to identify gene flow from Europe to North Africa in the Paleolithic, as opposed to gene flow from North Africa into Europe mentioned in the above piece, this would also be reflected in paternal or maternal lineages. What are the specific European paternal or maternal lineages that testify to Paleolithic gene flow from Europe into north Africa?
quote:Africa I:
quote:Mystery Solver:
What set of typologies *measures* the degrees to which a region of Africa is "Africa"?
That's very subjective and just to inject some humor and relativity.
Figures.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
So the "Paleolithic Genes" they have came from the Middle-East? I'm talking about R paternaly and H (and U?) maternaly mainly.
Besides latter mixing with Europeans that is.
Unlike the maternal side, European Y lineages, as well as Hg R lineages, are very rare in coastal northwest Africans.
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
Some other sources point to prehistoric genetic relationship between Iberia and North Western Africa if you use a mtdna analysis to the point some scientist don't bother to distinguish pre-Neolithic Iberian population and North African population. It's possible that European and North African were genetically the same at the Y-chromosome and mtdna level prior to the Neolithic when Y chromosome were introduced from North East Africa whipping out the existing European male chromosome...that's a plausible hypothesis since pre-Neolithic North Africans were hunter gatherers whereas Neolithic invaders from the east were more advanced…
You are quite right about the non-existent evidence for this claim. Coastal northwest Africa, if we are to go by genetic indicators, might have been relatively sparsely populated [see Arredi et al.] by groups migrating from the western and possibly central Saharan and Sahelian regions, prior to the arrival of Tamazight groups to the northwestern coasts. Goncalves et al. have noted the genetic indicators of pre-Neolithic gene flow from north Africa into southwestern Europe, by the presence of Hg A and Hg E1 in Portugal in the absence of E3a.
quote:Africa I:
quote:Antonio Arnaiz-Villena (Immunology, Universidad Complutense, and Fundacio´n de Estudios Gene´ticos y Lingu¨ ı´sticos, Madrid) presented data suggesting that, according to the HLA genes (A30-B18), paleo-North Africans (Berbers) were related to Iberians, including the Basques. An old genetic substratum in Iberia (marked by A29-B44) parallels the Rh(-) frequencies and is shared by western European populations from Ireland, southern France, and England. Portuguese and Basques show less Mediterranean HLA gene flow than other Iberians. Furthermore, eastern Mediterranean populations (Jewish, Lebanese, Cretan) tend to cluster together, and western ones (Berber, Spaniards, Portuguese, Algerians, Basques) also tend to be more similar among themselves when all of the Mediterranean gene frequencies are compared. However, all Mediterranean populations cluster together when compared with Greeks, who represent an outgroup with a genetic distance similar to that of the Japanese. Arnaiz-Villena concluded that, in the past few thousand years and especially in periods of milder climate, there were circum-Mediterranean contacts and gene flow and that the Greeks are relatively “recent” Mediterraneans (pre-Mycenaeans, 2000 b.c.) who conquered the Cretan empire and adopted its writing (Linear A) and culture (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1999).
Coastal Tamazight/“Berber” populations are largely of Neolithic extraction [see Arredi et al. for example]. Some pre-Neolithic Saharan and North Africans might have integrated into the communities of Neolithic proto-Tamazight migrants from east Africa, but even this shows up as a relatively small percentage in coastal Northwest African samples. Coastal Tamazights are not Paleolithic North Africans, which is another erroneous matter of this study, besides failing to establish evidence for what ‘Africa I’ posted it, i.e. to prove Paleolithic gene flow from Europe into North Africa; coastal north African Tamazight groups are to be distinguished from groups represented by the Epi-Paleolithic and early Holocene northwest African crania dubbed as “Mechta-Afalou”.
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
Haplgroup U appeared first in Africa? That's the first time I heard so. The highest frequency of R1* might have been found in Africa, but R isn't African, afaik.
I'm going mostly by the National Geographic site btw. Are they wrong? Just curious.
Hg *U6* is specifically of Paleolithic North African provenance; that is a distinct issue from macrohaplogroup U, which has more diversity in Eurasia.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Of note:
When the Basques are run with the other samples used in Fig. 1, they link with Germany and more remotely with the Canary Islands. They are clearly European although the length of their twig indicates that they have a distinction all their own. It is clear, however, that they do not represent a survival of the kind of craniofacial form indicated by Cro-Magnon any more than do the Canary Islanders, nor does either sample tie in with the Berbers of North Africa as has previously been claimed (37, 44-45). … - Brace et al.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Thanks for the link. Seems U6 shouldn't be U at all...
Also, I know that R is quite rare as whole but I think I remember seeing some studies were for example half of the paternal lineages of Kabyles were R (and F even). Back migration from Asia or Historical European admixture? Or even..pre-historical migration from Europe?
And there's still the question of Mtdna H.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
U6 can be African and still be descendant from U even if U is Eurasian.
Haplotypes cannot be assigned based on their ancestors, if this were the case one is envariably led back to East Africa in all cases....meaning U, which is perhaps 50 thousand years old is a derivitive of East African L3, which itself is 'only' 70 thousand years old.
To call U6 Eurasian you have to show that it [and not a putative ancestor] originated in Eurasia, this has not been accomplished to date.
To understand the relevance of a logical methodology consider the title of this thread, supposidly about Middle Easterners from 7000 years ago.
U6 has a specific history denoted as follows, it originates in North Africa 40 thousand years ago.
It splits into U6a and U6b by 14-16~ thousand years ago.
U6a splits into U6a1 in *NorthEast Africa* 12-14~ thousand years ago.
U6a1 migrates FROM NorthEast Africa TO the Levant in the Neolithic 7~ thousand years ago, hence...
U6a1 signals a posterior movement FROM East Africa back TO the Maghrib and the Near East.- (Maca-Meyer et al. 2003)
The case based upon genetics is for Neolithic migration from Africa to the Levantine, moreso than 'vice-versa'.
It's Africans who brought Semitic language and African culture to the "middle east" 7 thousand years ago.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
"There has NEVER been any suggestion that the Nile valley was populated from the Arabian peninsula, nor of any major shift in its population. It seems intellectually more satisfying to suggest that the advent of the neolithic in the lower Nile Valley and the delta area caused a major rise in its population density, and a consequent spin-off TO THE EAST AND NORTH-WEST of groups of people who carried the new techniques, and a related language, with them.This would explain the presence of these groups in the Arabian Peninsula as well as in North Africa."
Brett and Fentress, "The Berbers", p.14-15
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Yeah, I forgot to specify that it is U6 found in North Africa. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
Thanks for the link. Seems U6 shouldn't be U at all...
Given that no specific mention is made to that extent in the said link, I'm going to have to assume that you personally arrived at that conclusion. If so, please elaborate.
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
Also, I know that R is quite rare as whole but I think I remember seeing some studies were for example half of the paternal lineages of Kabyles were R (and F even). Back migration from Asia or Historical European admixture? Or even..pre-historical migration from Europe?
And there's still the question of Mtdna H.
The only study to date that I've come across relaying specifics of any R presence in northwest Africa, and in a very small percentage at that, is that of Bosch et al.'s. However, I'll be glad to examine the study you're referring to.
Meanwhile, recalling my notes on Bosch et al.:
Thus note that the "4%" "historic", NOT pre-historic, European contribution quite likely from the Iberian peninsula, is a combination of I lineage (.6%), which was found in only one Moroccan "Arab" speaking individual AND R lineages (2.8%) found in five Moroccan individuals; three of them "Arab" speakers, and two of them "west-Afrasan" speakers. On the other hand, the sampled "Berber"/West Afrasan speakers were predominantly of the E3b patrilineal background.
For details, go: here Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
Arredi et al 2004 has it at ~16% among "Algerian Berbers" (presumably Kabyles), but a low sample size, with 3/19 R1*(xR1a) and 2/19 (~10.5%) F*(xH,I,J,K).
The frequencies are a bit lower among Northern Moroccan Berbers (presumably Riffians?).
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
One has to place Arredi et al. 2004 in the broader context, as done above in the Bosch et al. 2001 study, whereby we are confronted with a total of 54 Algerian individuals, of which 35 are designated as "Arabic" speakers and 19 are designated as "Berber" speakers.
Hg R1*(xR1a1,R1b1-R1b8) amounts to just ~ 5.556% out of 54 Algerians,
^with 3/19 "Berber" designated Algerians bearing this lineage, and none amongst the "Arab" designated Algerians.
Whereas Hg E3b amounts to ~ 55.56% out of 54 Algerians,
Breaking E3b down to individual lineages, we have:
E3b3a* = 1/19 "Berber" Algerians and none in "Arab" Algerians.
E3b1* = 4/35 "Arab" designated Algerians and none in the "Berber" designated individuals.
E3b* = 1/35 "Arab" Algerians and none in "Berber" Algerians.
E3b2a = 1/35 "Arab" Algerians and none in "Berber" Algerians.
E3b2 = 13/35 "Arab" and 9/19 "Berber" designated Algerians.
^Macro-haplogroup E3b is expectedly the predominant paternal lineage in Algerians with E3b2 being predominant lineage amongst this macro-haplogroup in both the "Arab" and "Berber" designated Algerians samples, followed by haplogroup J lineages ~ 24.07% out of 54 Agerians.
Breaking J down into lineages, we have:
J2f* = 1/35 "Arab" Algerians and none in "Berber" Algerians.
J2* = 1/35 "Arab" Algerians and none in "Berber" Algerians.
J* = 8/35 "Arab" Algerians and 3/19 "Berber" Algerians.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Mystery Solver:
Unlike the maternal side, European Y lineages, as well as Hg R lineages, are very rare in coastal northwest Africans.
How much of this could be because of the Muslim North African slaving of Christians?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^Cannot be certain, but it is safe to assume that the taking up of European female slaves has contributed further to the European component of North African maternal gene pool. Undoubtedly, the "Moorish" (Africans) presence in southwestern Europe would have heightened European contribution to the maternal gene pool, given the notable presence of northwest Africans there and their intermarriages with locals therein, with some of this contribution coming to North Africa during the movement of Muslims and Jews from Spain into North Africa at the turn of Islamic rule there...
Recap [with modifications]: From Achilli et al.,
The results of this survey are reported in table 1 and are illustrated in the spatial distribution of figure 3. Sub-haplogroup H1 turned out to encompass a large proportion of H in the western part of its distribution range. It has a frequency peak among the Basques of Spain (27.8%) and very high frequencies in the rest of Iberia (17.7% - 24.3%), Morocco (19.2%), and Sardinia (17.9%). The spatial pattern depicted in figure 3 appears to indicate the presence of an overall gradient for H1, with a peak centered at the most southwestern edge of Europe and in Morocco and declining frequencies towards both the northeast and southeast…
The frequency decline of both H1 and H3 from their peaks centered in southwestern Europe is not completely uniform, but a few intermediate local peaks are also observed. Both Austria and Estonia harbor peaks for haplography H1 (14.4% and 16.7%, respectively), whereas a local maximum of H3 is observed in Hungary (6.2%). Some intermediate peaks are indeed expected, as a result of random genetic drift. However, in some instances, these could also indicate a more direct genetic link of the populations living in these areas with those of southwestern Europe than with their current surrounding neighbors…
In conclusion, our analysis of complete mtDNA sequences reveals that haplogroup H, the most common haplogroup in western Eurasia, can be subdivided into numerous sister clades. Among these, two - H1 and H3 - were particularly common in our sample of H sequences, suggesting that a phylogeographic study focusing on the two subhaplogroups could be particularly informative. Indeed, the survey of a wide range of western Eurasian and North African populations revealed that, in contrast to haplogroup H as a whole, which harbors a rather uniform frequency within Europe, both subhaplogroups H1 and H3 are characterized by frequency peaks centered in Iberia and surrounding areas and by declining distributions toward the northeast and southeast.
From the piece above, this is of note:
The spatial pattern depicted in figure 3 appears to indicate the presence of an overall gradient for H1, with a peak centered at the most southwestern edge of Europe and in Morocco and declining frequencies towards both the northeast and southeast…
The declining frequency of these lineages as one moves eastward from western north African coast is an indicator, that Iberia is the likely source for these lineages. Still, the patchiness of sampling in coastal north Africa has been demonstrated by the mosaic of mtDNA distribution therein:
From Cherni et al.,
Female gene pools of Berber and Arab neighboring communities in central Tunisia: microstructure of mtDNA variation in North Africa.
Cherni L, Loueslati BY, Pereira L, Ennafaa H, Amorim A, El Gaaied AB.
Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, Immunology, and Biotechnology, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University of Tunis, El Manar II 1060, Tunisia.
North African populations are considered genetically closer to Eurasians than to sub-Saharans. However, they display a considerably high mtDNA heterogeneity among them, namely in the frequencies of the U6, East African, and sub-Saharan haplogroups. In this study, we describe and compare the female gene pools of two neighboring Tunisian populations, Kesra (Berber) and Zriba (non-Berber), which have contrasting historical backgrounds. Both populations presented lower diversity values than those observed for other North African populations, and they were the only populations not showing significant negative Fu's F(S) values.
Kesra displayed a much higher proportion of typical sub-Saharan haplotypes (49%, including 4.2% of M1 haplogroup) than Zriba (8%). With respect to U6 sequences, frequencies were low (2% in Kesra and 8% in Zriba), and all belonged to the subhaplogroup U6a. An analysis of these data in the context of North Africa reveals that the emerging picture is complex, because Zriba would match the profile of a Berber Moroccan population, whereas Kesra, which shows twice the frequency of sub-Saharan lineages normally observed in northern coastal populations, would match a western Saharan population except for the low U6 frequency.
The North African patchy mtDNA landscape has no parallel in other regions of the world and increasing the number of sampled populations has not been accompanied by any substantial increase in our understanding of its phylogeography. Available data up to now rely on sampling small, scattered populations, although they are carefully characterized in terms of their ethnic, linguistic, and historical backgrounds.
It is therefore doubtful that this picture truly represents the complex historical demography of the region rather than being just the result of the type of samplings performed so far.
^ Interesting, that the "Berber" group [Kesra] of the sampled Tunisian population showed up more " typical sub-Saharan" haplotypes, than the "non-Berber" group [Zriba], which as the study points out, has normally not been the case for coastal west African "Berber" groups in samplings undertaken by various studies of the past. I can only deduce from this, that local females were not "neglected" by the likely "male-biased" Tamazight migrants ultimately originating from east Africa. However, the European female slavery activity in north Africa, would partly explain the higher incidence of European lineages in many of the sampled coastal west African "Berber" groups.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
@Mystery Solver:
"Given that no specific mention is made to that extent in the said link, I'm going to have to assume that you personally arrived at that conclusion. If so, please elaborate."
"For instance, could U6 be a clade on its own, independent of the rest of Haplogroup U, and U5?"
Said by supercar.
"So I take it that U6, like M1, is a lineage that arose in Africa that just happens to be the result of parallel mutation. Thus it resembles OOA U lineages(?)"
Said by djehuti.
I did not read much more, and frankly most of it was not in my league, lol. Besides, other people in the thread seem to have made the same confusion. And, as you know, "seems" only implies a possibility, certanly not a certainty.
Nevermind then.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote: However, the European female slavery activity in north Africa, would partly explain the higher incidence of European lineages in many of the sampled coastal west African "Berber" groups.
Where does the rest come from? Is it sound to exclude any paleolithic origin? It's very hard to believe that a 13km liquid barrier is stronger than the Sahara, if they were gene exchange across the Sahara since prehistoric time, please prove us that there were no gene exchanges across the Gibraltar since prehistoric time? I strongly believe that more people died trying to cross the Sahara desert than trying to cross the Gibraltar strait....just an historical example: the Moors figured that it was easier to go for Iberia than for the rest of Africa...Maybe it's even more perilous to cross the Rio Grande than that strait...who knows...
Mr. Haïdara is a descendant of the Kati family, a prominent Muslim family in Toledo, Spain. One of his ancestors fled religious persecution in the 15th century and settled in what is now Mali, bringing his formidable library with him. The Kati family intermarried into the Songhai imperial family, and the habit Mr. Haïdara’s ancestors had of doodling notes in the margins of their manuscripts has left an abundance of historical information: births and deaths in the imperial family, the weather, drafts of imperial letters, herbal cures, records of slaves, and salt and gold traded. Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
And it still remains to know how big is "partly".
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: Haplgroup U appeared first in Africa? That's the first time I heard so. The highest frequency of R1* might have been found in Africa, but R isn't African, afaik.
I'm going mostly by the National Geographic site btw. Are they wrong? Just curious.
U did appear first in Africa. It appear that in the Cameroons, they exists a 'pristine' gene flow outward where it proliferated in Europe proper! For the Iberian peninsula, specifically Spain, it would make sense that the Moors, through the Syrian Arab fiefdoms or Berber/Amazigh would signature over the many dynastic. The way that Turk/Slavic influence formed modrn Turkey and Bosnia, it would makes sense that Iberian/Germanic/Syrian Arab/Moroccan Arab/ Berber/Amazigh influence would form the modern peninsula. I personally do not like the term white Middle Easterners because it seems there is an attempt to force the concept! Middle Easterners is a vague concept without any reference. It would be better to identify the group. Outside of Yemen or Saudi Arabia (in the strict sense of the word), you already have non-Arab influence. Then the only reference is an Arabized North Africa in the coccoon of an Arab ethos but essentially non-Arab. Yes, i am using a sociological concept because that best fits the paradigm!
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Most U of African origin in Iberia is concentrated in the North-West of the peninsula, an area which barely was occupied by Moors. I think it's origin are far older migrations. But certanly, the Moors left an impact genetically. How big an impact? I don't really know, but not very significant I would say (10%?).
I would distinguish arab from arabian. One is an ethnic group, mostly based on language and culture too. The other is a geographical term. Not all arabs are abarians, in fact most aren't. Due to arabization of course.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
^^I consider aribized peoples arabized peoples, and not Arabs, if they are not so.
Your point still stands that arabs can live other places ofcourse.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: @Mystery Solver:
"Given that no specific mention is made to that extent in the said link, I'm going to have to assume that you personally arrived at that conclusion. If so, please elaborate."
"For instance, could U6 be a clade on its own, independent of the rest of Haplogroup U, and U5?"
Said by supercar.
"So I take it that U6, like M1, is a lineage that arose in Africa that just happens to be the result of parallel mutation. Thus it resembles OOA U lineages(?)"
Said by djehuti.
I did not read much more, and frankly most of it was not in my league, lol. Besides, other people in the thread seem to have made the same confusion. And, as you know, "seems" only implies a possibility, certanly not a certainty.
Nevermind then.
I'm sure you noticed that these were questions, right?...trying to explore why U6 doesn't seem to coalesce back to any known macro-haplogroup U sub-clade, but rather, branches out into its own from the presumed basal U motifs...in a manner not much different from the way M1 does from the rest of macro-haplogroup M.
"Parallel evolution" here, would imply the same sort of situation in M1, whereby even though M1 shares one or two most basal haplogroup-characteristic coding motifs with the rest of the macro-haplogroup M, much of which are located in south Asia, it is quite distinct in its overall composition of basic motifs from any other M macro-haplogroup sub-clade. Likewise, some hypervariable region motifs of M1, appear to have undergone similar substitutions in a random manner, with the various sub-clades of M macro-haplogroup, which appear to be more of the coincidence of 'independent parallel mutations', since M1 doesn't sequence back to either of the said sub-clades. The hypervariable region of mtDNA, because of possible homoplasy, is limited in telling us much about the detection of a possible monophyletic unit, without the accompaniment of key unique basic motifs. Given that non-African mtDNA lineages are of L3 derivatives, high degree of homoplasy isn't exactly something that should come as a surprise to one.
U6 could still be related to other Haplogroup U sub-clades by way of very basic characteristic motifs, and yet still be a clade on its own. That is the question being raised in the piece you cited me on...unless of course, it is demonstrated that a characteristic motif is supposed to have appeared independently in two distinct places at possibly distinct timeframes. As a norm, the latter is least likely to occur. Hope this clarifies what's at hand.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote: However, the European female slavery activity in north Africa, would partly explain the higher incidence of European lineages in many of the sampled coastal west African "Berber" groups.
Where does the rest come from?
Carefull reading is in order...
For instance, if it weren't for selective reading on your part, you would have noticed this:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
^Cannot be certain, but it is safe to assume that the taking up of European female slaves has contributed further to the European component of North African maternal gene pool. Undoubtedly, the "Moorish" (Africans) presence in southwestern Europe would have heightened European contribution to the maternal gene pool, given the notable presence of northwest Africans there and their intermarriages with locals therein, with some of this contribution coming to North Africa during the movement of Muslims and Jews from Spain into North Africa at the turn of Islamic rule there...
quote:Africa I:
Is it sound to exclude any paleolithic origin? It's very hard to believe that a 13km liquid barrier is stronger than the Sahara, if they were gene exchange across the Sahara since prehistoric time, please prove us that there were no gene exchanges across the Gibraltar since prehistoric time?
Nope. The burden is on YOU to show us European maternal contribution to the coastal North African gene pool in the Paleolithic. I asked you earlier to produce the specific lineages for this, and you dodged the question, only to now ask me to cater to your "assumptive-based" line of questioning.
The lineages that my piece cites, are more of recent extraction than Paleolithic, as evidenced by their distribution pattern [see for example, the gradient distributions on either end of the Mediterranean sea] as well as their seemingly little differentiation between Iberian examples and those of western north African.
quote:Africa I:
I strongly believe that more people died trying to cross the Sahara desert than trying to cross the Gibraltar strait....just an historical example: the Moors figured that it was easier to go for Iberia than for the rest of Africa...Maybe it's even more perilous to cross the Rio Grande than that strait...who knows...
What you "strongly believe" is irrelevant to reality. The Sahara has never been a barrier to either the movement of people to the north African coast or southward from the Saharan belt, if not even relatively easier to navigate through than crossing the Mediterranean sea. The effecient and bustling historic Trans-Saharan trade roude system is a perfect example of historic events that falsify your rationale.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Nope. The burden is on YOU to show us European maternal contribution to the coastal North African gene pool in the Paleolithic.
No that's too easy...prove us that there was no European maternal contribution to the coastal North African gene pool in the Paleolithic.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:Nope. The burden is on YOU to show us European maternal contribution to the coastal North African gene pool in the Paleolithic.
No that's too easy...prove us that there was no European maternal contribution to the coastal North African gene pool in the Paleolithic.
Africa use your head: When you make a claim, and a questionable one at that, then it is your burden to back up that claim. Placing the burden on somebody else to prove a negative, is twisted thinking.
You said that there has been Paleolithic gene flow; well then, give us the specifics of these European paternal and maternal lineages that came into north Africa in the Paleolithic. After all, these are hereditary materials we are talking about here. Why are you asking me to prove a negative, when you can easily produce the said positive?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:No that's too easy...prove us that there was no European maternal contribution to the coastal North African gene pool in the Paleolithic.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
Most U of African origin in Iberia is concentrated in the North-West of the peninsula, an area which barely was occupied by Moors.
Simply using "occupation" as a premise for spread of lineages northward is flawed. For instance, can a lineage not be first introduced in the occupied posts, and then spread northward, by movement of carriers from the corresponding southward starting point?
quote:Miguel Antunes:
I think it's origin are far older migrations. But certanly, the Moors left an impact genetically. How big an impact? I don't really know, but not very significant I would say (10%?).
As just an example of where to look, see Casas et al. on "Human mtDNA Diversity in an Archaeological Site in al-Andalus: Genetic impact of Migrations from North Africa in Medieval Spain".
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:No that's too easy...prove us that there was no European maternal contribution to the coastal North African gene pool in the Paleolithic.
No specific lineages, hence no evidence. Case closed.
Your "assumptions" on Paleolithic European genetic contribution to the North African gene pool has no bearings on the groups that gave rise to contemporary coastal northwest Africans!
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Your "assumptions" on Paleolithic European genetic contribution to the North African gene pool has no bearings on the groups that gave rise to contemporary coastal northwest Africans!
That's an audacious statement:you are the one who said that the European gene contribution was partly related to historical events...however you failed to answer...or you evaded the following question: where does the rest come from? Europe is not that far from North and West Africa: Mr. Haïdara is a descendant of the Kati family, a prominent Muslim family in Toledo, Spain. One of his ancestors fled religious persecution in the 15th century and settled in what is now Mali, bringing his formidable library with him. The Kati family intermarried into the Songhai imperial family, and the habit Mr. Haïdara’s ancestors had of doodling notes in the margins of their manuscripts has left an abundance of historical information: births and deaths in the imperial family, the weather, drafts of imperial letters, herbal cures, records of slaves, and salt and gold traded. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:Your "assumptions" on Paleolithic European genetic contribution to the North African gene pool has no bearings on the groups that gave rise to contemporary coastal northwest Africans!
That's an audacious statement: you are the one who said that the European gene contribution was partly related to historical events...
Citation.
quote:Africa I:
however you failed to answer...or you evaded the following question: where does the rest come from? Europe is not that far from North and West Africa
If your selective reading incapacitates you from understanding an earlier response given to this redundant question, then that is a personal problem you have to grapple with.
In the meantime, where are your specific patrilineal and matrilineal ***Paleolithic*** European genetic contributions to the North African gene pool?
You have NONE, that's what; but you'd rather deflect attention away from this blantantly sorry underachievement by chasing some phantom strawmen here and there.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:where does the rest come from?
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
The answer seems to be. It is not known. Might be from the Paleolithic. Or not.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^That would be your answer. If you are referring to my answers, you can avail yourself of them in the previous page.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:The answer seems to be. It is not known. Might be from the Paleolithic. Or not.
Good. I guess we all agree now.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^Keep the rest of us informed, if and when you decide to come back to the real world, and confront the request on producing those paternal and maternal European contribution to contemporary North African gene pool sometime in the Paleolithic. Cheers.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^Here's the bigger picture.
That non-African cultures and tongues squat on African land in fucking 2007 doesn't validate the notion that 'sub-Saharan' Africa means ANYTHING beyond a geographic region. If anything, that foreign cultures and tongues exist there today only serves to limit the 'Mid Eastern' influence in Africa and differentiate Saharan Africa today from the Saharan Africa of the past. It doesn't limit mark off 'African'.
And even then, the premise that islam, arabs, Berber speakers, blacks or Africans are bounded by the Sahara is false.
That Chinese are hated by the Japanese has no bearing on the fact that both are East Asian. The fact that English nationals don't like Scottish or Irish immigrants is irrelevant to the fact that they're all Euros. That Amazigh nationalists "are racist" - this fact isn't relevant to anything, and i really have no clue wtf taking over Spain had to do with racism.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The best post you've ever made yet, Argay.
To What Box: You are absolutely correct! The Sahara does not and has not ever limited or defined who is or who is not an indigenous (black) African!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
