posted 01 December 2004 11:49 AM            

The people of Siwa are not Nubians because they don't speak a Nilo-Saharan language. Modern Nubian speakers are Nilo-Saharan people,but the Siwa are Imazigh speakers. The fact is there indigenous black populations in the Magreb like the Tuareg,Haratin,and others that people would love to write off.

In ancient Egypt there were two types of Libyans: the Tehennu and Tamahou. The Tehennu were dark-skinned and preceeded the Tamahou who were often depicted as white skinned with reddish or blondish hair. Most likely these types gradually replaced the Tehennu and became dominant in Magreb.

The original Moors were Africans who served in Roman armies. The word Mauros means dark skinned and they had to be darker than aq Greco-Roman or North Mediterranean person if the Greeks described them as such.

The tribes who mainly invaded Spain were the desert tribes known as the Sanhaja who whose elite soliders were all Tuaregs. The way I know this is because only Tuareg people wore veils across their face and the Sanhaja did just this. Arab chroncilers described the Sanhaja as mostly black with some fair skinned ones amungst them. The tuaregs call themselves Kel Tamelsheq as a collective,but distinguish into different Kels.

posted 01 December 2004 12:18 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Wrong again of course Orioinix. Egypt is a Nation and national reference, not geographical (and actually includes a part of Nubia, btw). One of the reasons your views are so incoherent Orionix is that you don't ever grasp the meaning of ANY of the terminologies that you use, and moreover you obviously don't want to, since that means abandoning your entire ridiculous argument; ie - the dead horse that we are beating.

---

And this comes from the same fool who thinks that the Amazigh people came from Nubia. The problem with you is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The Upper Paleolithic humans of NW Africa who are recognized by the Aterian tool industry (about 40,000 ago) predated those of the central Sahalian zone who came much later on in the Neolithic.

From mtDNA haplogroup sequences of Tunisian Amazigh we know that 57% is West Eurasian, 26% is sub-Saharan, 14% is recent Near Eastern and the rest ~3% originated locally in N. Africa [that is U6 (L3c), although L3 lineage with a transition at 16041 should probably be added to this category]. No match was found for this transition in sub-Saharan populations.

posted 01 December 2004 12:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
The people of Siwa are not Nubians because they don't speak a Nilo-Saharan language. Modern Nubian speakers are Nilo-Saharan people,but the Siwa are Imazigh speakers. The fact is there indigenous black populations in the Magreb like the Tuareg,Haratin,and others that people would love to write off.......In ancient Egypt there were two types of Libyans: the Tehennu and Tamahou. The Tehennu were dark-skinned and preceeded the Tamahou.

---

"Siwa, once the most mysterious of all Egypt's oases, is also the most fascinating.....During Egypt's Old Kingdom, it was a part of Tehenu.....The Siwan people are mostly Berbers, the true Western Desert indigenous people, who once roamed the North African coast between Tunisia and Morocco. http://www.arabworldbooks.com/new/siwahistory.html

Thus the Siwa/Tehenu connection offers one of the oldest and most specific references to Berber language and culture.

Add this historical evidence to the genetic, archeological, linguistic and cultural evidence so abundantly documented in this thread.

posted 01 December 2004 12:51 PM            

Well Orionix -> It would seem that either Afrasan linguistic expert Christopher Ehret and geneticist Barbara Arredi are fools....or you are.

Arredi: On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster E-M78 (a sub-lineage of E3b) was involved in a first dispersal or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East” a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 is believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa..

It is very clear that you lack the ability to comprehend the meaning of the above, especially because you are being told a truth that you can't handle due to your pathetically anti-Black racism. He can run, but he can't hide. - Joe Louis.

posted 01 December 2004 01:13 PM            

quote:

---

From mtDNA haplogroup sequences of Tunisian Amazigh we know that 57% is West Eurasian, 26% is sub-Saharan, 14% is recent Near Eastern and the rest ~3% originated locally in N. Africa

---

Consistent with Thought's theory that maternal ancestry in the Maghreb is mainly from recent European, Asian and tropical African extraction, while paternal signature NW African haplotype (E3b) is primarily of East African extraction.

Disproving your claim that Berber is primarly of Paleolithic North African lineage.

posted 01 December 2004 01:13 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

It is very clear that you lack the ability to comprehend the meaning of the above, especially because you are being told a truth that you don't want to except out of your pathetic anti-Black racism. He can run, but he can't hide. - Joe Louis.

---

The racist is you because you think Berbers are black east Africans when in the reality they are a diverse group of people.

First of all you seem not to comprehend genetics at all.

You are confusing maternal DNA (mtDNA which is female-mediated) with Y chromosomal DNA or NRC male-mediated gene flow.

From what i read the east African gene flow into North Africa came mainly in the Neolithic Period.

mtDNA haplogroup sequences of 3 Amazigh isolates from southern Tunisia indicate that the East African haplogroup M1 is 11.3% in Sened, only 2% in Matmada and abscent in Chenini-Douiret.

posted 01 December 2004 01:29 PM            

quote:

---

The racist is you because you think Berbers are black east Africans when in the reality they are a diverse group of people.

---

quote:

---

The Berber are ethnically diverse. Berber is a language group, and not a race

---

Orionix writes:

quote:

---

The Berber are never Black.

---

The reason for this thread ostensibly concerning the Siwa, of course, is your pathetic attempt to justify the above quote.

But...didn't work out that way, did it(?), in spite of all the plagiarized posts, the misquotes, the profanity, and your trademark intentional obtuseness.
But my question is, now what? Even your profanities have gotten redundant. Do you even have a second act?

posted 01 December 2004 01:31 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Consistent with Thought's theory that maternal ancestry in the Maghreb is mainly from recent European, Asian and tropical African extraction, while paternal signature NW African haplotype (E3b) is primarily of East African extraction.

---

The maternal extraction is not "recent". It's from the early Neolithic.

Generally, Western Eurasian mtDNA consitutues the majority is Moroccan Berbers who are virtually indistinguishale from Portuguese.

It constitutes ~57% in Tunisian Amazigh.

The paternal extraction from East Africa is also mainly from the Neolithic.

quote:

---

Disproving your claim that Berber is primarly of Paleolithic North African lineage.

---

It is predomiantly West Eurasian and it is not recent at all. You can't even comprehend this studies. Shut up.

quote:

---

Rasol:

That you continually post information that discredits your own assertions merely shows that you do not or cannot comprehend the materials you cite.

---

You cannot even comprehend the information i am posting so what the hell are you talking about!? Shut the **** up.

The fact that you think Berbers are east Africans just shows how rediculous you are.

Virtually, Tunisian Amazigh are indistinguishable from Tunisian Arabs.

posted 01 December 2004 01:43 PM            

quote:

---

cannot even comprehend the information i am posting so what the hell are you talking about!? Shut the **** up.

---

quote:

---

The paternal extraction from East Africa is also mainly from the Neolithic.

---

quote:

---

The fact that you think Berbers are east Africans

---

posted 01 December 2004 02:56 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Vulgarity and incoherence are the signs of a weak mind, and a bitter angry loser, which is all you are.

---

This is all you deserved and the losers are you and your old pals.

quote:

---

Rasol:

Correction, Berber is of East African origin, as your own sources so clearly have stated, and you foolishly attempt to deny.

---

No Berbers are NW African originally. All the genetic studies i've seen sofar say this.

You comprehend these texts in the way it fits you emotionally. Fact is that it brings you nowhere and just makes you look more like a stupid child.

posted 01 December 2004 03:02 PM            

quote:

---

This is all you deserved

---

quote:

---

No Berbers are NW African originally. All the genetic studies i've seen sofar say this.

---

posted 01 December 2004 03:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
If Orionix is really black as he stated, he must hate himself as much as he tries to push the non-black and no-race issue.

---

I don't feel defensive (or threatened).

The problem with Afro-Americans is that you feel the need to defend yourself from the white man. You think that all whites are bad and racist. Very sad i have to say...

Also you guys have some serious identity issues.

posted 01 December 2004 03:09 PM            

quote:

---

I don't feel defensive.

---

quote:

---

Also you guys have some serious identity issues.

---

posted 01 December 2004 03:34 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Nope, all the genetic citations presented in this thread say the opposite. Including the ones you present, but are unable to understand, and unwilling to try, because they keep telling you the truth when you are trying (and failing) to lie to yourself instead.

---

What genetic studies? Please cite all of them if you can.

Cite me 1 genetic study which says that the Berbers are fully east African (both paternally and maternally).

You're the kind who cannot admit that "whites" played a role in North African prehistory (the Guanches, the Kabyle and other isolated northwestern Amazigh groups.)

posted 01 December 2004 04:06 PM            

Examples of straw argument:

quote:

---

Cite me 1 genetic study which says that the Berbers are fully east African.

---

quote:

---

You're the kind who cannot admit that "whites" played a role in North African

---

Orioinix straw arguments neither relate to any point made by anyone in this thread, nor to they lend credence to any of his ridiculous claims. Orioinix, you may be able to temporarily deflect your attention away from your own ignorance, but it is nontheless apparent to others at all times.
And what is interesting is your increasingly frantic/desperate need to assert; white; leucoderm; caucasoid etc.; terms you also claimed to not believe in.

posted 01 December 2004 08:33 PM            

Sight Writes:

Do you believe that Amazigh people existed in NW Africa prior to the expansion of Afro-Asiatic speaking people from Early Holocene East Africa?

{Today they are but the Upper Paleolithic ones who lived in the coastal Maghrib were not black.}

Sight Writes;

I reiterate, Upper Paleolithic Europeans were tropically adapted. Why would Upper Paleolithic NW Africans who live SOUTH of Upper Paleolithic Europe have lighter skin?

{Moroccan Berbers represent the earliest inhabitants of NW Africa called the Aterians.}

Thought Writes:

And that genetic heritage has been mostly replaced since the Neolithic.

{The Kabyle, Rifians, Tamazight, Mozabites and Shawia are all descended from these early inhabitants of the coastal Maghrib.}

Thought Writes:

They have a very small genetic heritage that dates from the Upper Paleolithic NW Africa.

posted 01 December 2004 09:00 PM            

quote:

---

Do you believe that Amazigh people existed in NW Africa prior to the expansion of Afro-Asiatic speaking people from Early Holocene East Africa

---

posted 01 December 2004 09:08 PM            

quote:

---

They have a very small genetic heritage that dates from the Upper Paleolithic NW Africa.

---

posted 01 December 2004 09:58 PM            

quote:

---

Thought:

Do you believe that Amazigh people existed in NW Africa prior to the expansion of Afro-Asiatic speaking people from Early Holocene East Africa?

---

According to the archeoligcal record North Africa has been peopled since Upper Paleolithic times. The first well-defined Paleolithic technology, the Aterian, dates back around 40,000 ago and is followed by the Ibero-Maurasian (~22,000 years ago). The archeological record then reveals a Mesolithic cutlure, which gave way to the Neolithic transition to agriculture that occured around 9,500-7,000 BC spreading from the Near East to Egypt.

The Amazigh may be the descendants of Mesolithic Capsian populations and/or of the later Neolithic people who came from the Middle East and who possibly introduced the Afro-Asiatic languages to North Africa.

quote:

---

Sight Writes

I reiterate, Upper Paleolithic Europeans were tropically adapted. Why would Upper Paleolithic NW Africans who live SOUTH of Upper Paleolithic Europe have lighter skin?

---

What the hell is tropically adapted? You think Upper Paleolithic Europeans had dark skin, is this what you're trying to say?

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

And that genetic heritage has been mostly replaced since the Neolithic.

---

From previous studies we know that the NW African mtDNA make-up is predominantly from the Neolithic Near East.

quote:

---

Thought:

They have a very small genetic heritage that dates from the Upper Paleolithic NW Africa.

---

You don't know this. There hasn't been any study on Kabyles, Rifians and Mozabites performed yet.

mtDNA sequencing from Northern Moroccan Amzigh indicate that they are virtually identical to Portuguese.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 01 December 2004).]

posted 01 December 2004 10:08 PM            

You answered a different question. What I asked was:

“Do you believe that Amazigh people existed in NW Africa prior to the expansion of Afro-Asiatic speaking people from Early Holocene East Africa?”

Please answer this question.

{The Amazigh may be the descendants of Mesolithic Capsian populations
and/or of the later Neolithic people who came from the Middle East and who possibly introduced the Afro-Asiatic languages to North Africa.}

Thought Writes:

Under your hypothesis which specific heliotypes were donated from Mesolithic Capsians to modern Amazigh and which specific heliotypes were donated from Neolithic “Middle Eastern” Neolithic immigrants.

Also, please provide us with a source from a linguistic scholar who claims that Afro-Asiatic came from the Middle East TO Africa. Thanks.

{What the hell is tropically adapted?}

Thought Writes:

Dark skin, attenuated limbs, etc.

{You think Upper Paleolithic Europeans had dark skin, is this what you're trying to say?}

Thought Writes:

Yes.

{From previous studies we know that the NW African mtDNA make-up is predominantly from the Neolithic Near East.}

Thought Writes:

References please.

{mtDNA sequencing from Northern Moroccan Amzigh indicate that they are virtually identical to Portuguese.}

Thought Writes:

I concur.

posted 01 December 2004 10:23 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

You answered a different question. What I asked was:

“Do you believe that Amazigh people existed in NW Africa prior to the expansion of Afro-Asiatic speaking people from Early Holocene East Africa?”

---

No they are agreed to descend from Mesolithic Capsians. The Capsians were a "racially" mixed group of people.

Though their origins are not well established.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Under your hypothesis which specific heliotypes were donated from Mesolithic Capsians to modern Amazigh and which specific heliotypes were donated from Neolithic “Middle Eastern” Neolithic immigrants.

---

According to mtDNA studies most are from the Neolithic. Why are you putting Middle Eastern is quotation marks?

quote:

---

Also, please provide us with a source from a linguistic scholar who claims that Afro-Asiatic came from the Middle East TO Africa. Thanks.

---

I provided you with enough sources.

There is evidence which indicates that Afro-Asiatic speaking pastoralists migrated back to Africa in the Neolithic. This was with the spread of agriculture and the arrival of new technics from the Near East.

Seems like your evidence is exclusively liguistic. Is that what you're basing your ideas of?

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Dark skin, attenuated limbs, etc.

---

Exactly, BS.

Upper Paleolithic Europeans were not that dark.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Yes.

---

You wish. You don't know what skin color they had and very probably they weren't that dark.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

References please.

---

Were the early references not enough from you? Please go back in the pages.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

I concur.

---

Yes they are and Kabyle, Rifians and Mozabites are all outliers in the mtDNA landscape.

There hasn't been a mtDNA study performed on them yet so we can't tell.

posted 01 December 2004 10:39 PM            

{No they are agreed to descend from Mesolithic Capsians. The Capsians were a "racially" mixed group of people.}

Thought Writes:

You answered a different question. What I asked was:

“Do you believe that Amazigh people existed in NW Africa prior to the expansion of Afro-Asiatic speaking people from Early Holocene East Africa?”

{According to mtDNA studies most are from the Neolithic}

Thought Writes:

Which SPECFIC studies? Thanks.

{I provided you with enough sources.}

Thought Writes:

Your sources have stated the OPPOSITE of what you claim. Example, Ehret and Rando. Please provide me with a source from a linguistic scholar who claims that Afro-Asiatic came from the Middle East TO Africa. If you refuse to provide sources we have to assume that you have conceded this debate.

{There is evidence which indicates that Afro-Asiatic speaking pastoralists migrated back to Africa in the Neolithic. This was with the spread of agriculture and the arrival of new technics from the Near East. Seems like your evidence is exclusively liguistic. Is that what you're basing your ideas of?}

Thought Writes:

Afro-Asiatic is a language not a artifact, hence the primary form of evidence in a linguistic debate is language. No?

{Exactly, BS. Upper Paleolithic Europeans were not that dark.}

Thought Writes:

Provocative statement, but you, unlike I, have provided no evidence to support your position. An abusive diatribe in no way substitutes for solid anthropological evidence.

{You wish. You don't know what skin color they had and very probably they weren't that dark.}

Thought Writes:

I reiterate, limb attenuation and skin color correlate. Upper Paleolithic Europeans and Near Eastern populations had tropical limb ratios and hence were dark skinned.

{Were the early references not enough from you? Please go back in the pages.}

Thought Writes:

No, because they contradicted your position.

posted 01 December 2004 11:39 PM            

quote:

---

“Do you believe that Amazigh people existed in NW Africa prior to the expansion of Afro-Asiatic speaking people from Early Holocene East Africa?”

---

Inside Orionix' brain :

I know that there is NO real link, between stone age NW African Capsian culture and Berber.

I know that the language, the culture and the dominent Berber Haplotype (E3b) all originate in East Africa.

By comparison I have no linguistic or cultural basis for my argument.

So....I tried basing my argument on genetics, but I quoted from the abstract of a Barbara Arredi study without actually having read the study. Big mistake! I made a fool of myself by making statements such as "E3b2 is of Eurasian origin"; it turns out that the study stated specifically that it was of African Origin. How annoying!

I tried basing my argument on the mere presence of people in North West Africa in the Paleolithic, although I realize that is an empty argument in terms of specifically identifying Berber, as this predates the existence of Berber (language, culture, and the dominent genetic signatures of those who spread Berber from tropical East Africa to NorthWest Africa). I also know there were different peoples in all parts of Africa at that time and before, which makes my already weak argument virtually dead on arrival.

So...I won't attempt to answer this question directly, Thought. But maybe I'll swear at you and then change the subject with another irrelevant and misquoted citation instead.. - your truly,(Orionix brain')

posted 02 December 2004 12:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Inside Orionix' brain :

I know that there is NO real link, between stone age NW African Capsian culture and Berber.

I know that the language, the culture and the dominent Berber Haplotype (E3b) all originate in East Africa.

By comparison I have no linguistic or cultural basis for my argument.

So....I tried basing my argument on genetics, but I quoted from the abstract of a Barbara Arredi study without actually having read the study. Big mistake! I made a fool of myself by making statements such as "E3b2 is of Eurasian origin"; it turns out that the study stated specifically that it was of African Origin. [b]How annoying!

I tried basing my argument on the mere presence of people in North West Africa in the Paleolithic, although I realize that is an empty argument in terms of specifically identifying Berber, as this predates the existence of Berber (language, culture, and the dominent genetic signatures of those who spread Berber from tropical East Africa to NorthWest Africa). I also know there were different peoples in all parts of Africa at that time and before, which makes my already weak argument virtually dead on arrival.

So...I won't attempt to answer this question directly, Thought. But maybe I'll swear at you and then change the subject with another irrelevant and misquoted citation instead.. - your truly,(Orionix brain')[/B]

---

posted 02 December 2004 03:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:

The Upper Paleolithic humans of NW Africa who are recognized by the Aterian tool industry (about 40,000 ago) predated those of the central Sahalian zone who came much later on in the Neolithic.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 01 December 2004).][/B]

---

The Aterian has a sub-Saharan origin according to the lastest studies by Van Peer which I've already posted before, and those populations associated with Aterian industry were sub-Saharan influenced, even C. Loring Brace says that. So what point are you trying to make about the Aterian? Since it expanded from the area of Nubia/Sudan and southern Libya, the people associated with it would be sub-Saharans or would overlap somatically and metrically with sub-Saharans. Of course modern populations would be much differentiated today.

posted 02 December 2004 07:17 AM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

You answered a different question. What I asked was:

“Do you believe that Amazigh people existed in NW Africa prior to the expansion of Afro-Asiatic speaking people from Early Holocene East Africa?”

---

I don't think so. The humans were Cro-Magnons in that time.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Which SPECFIC studies? Thanks.

---

Stop asking too many questions.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Your sources have stated the OPPOSITE of what you claim. Example, Ehret and Rando.

---

Ehret is not a geneticist so his opinions are taken from the liguistic perspective.

quote:

---

Please provide me with a source from a linguistic scholar who claims that Afro-Asiatic came from the Middle East TO Africa.

---

I didn't say that.

The languages very likely originated in eastern Africa in the Upper Paleolithic and from there spread to the Middle East and in the Neolithic back to Africa by Middle Easterns pastoralists.

quote:

---

If you refuse to provide sources we have to assume that you have conceded this debate.

---

Check out the genetic study done on Tunisian Berbers from the Annals of Human Genetics, volume 68, pg. 222

quote:

---

Thought writes:

Afro-Asiatic is a language not a artifact, hence the primary form of evidence in a linguistic debate is language. No?

---

The language very probably originated in east Africa or the Sahara.

However several of the basic food plants that were grown are native to the Near East, so the new techniques probably spread from there in the Neolithic.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Provocative statement, but you, unlike I, have provided no evidence to support your position.

---

What evidence have you provided?

quote:

---

Thought:

An abusive diatribe in no way substitutes for solid anthropological evidence.

---

You bring me early Anthropolgical texts from 1975.

quote:

---

Thought:

I reiterate, limb attenuation and skin color correlate. Upper Paleolithic Europeans and Near Eastern populations had tropical limb ratios and hence were dark skinned.

---

You can sell that early Anthropological BS to someone else.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

No, because they contradicted your position.

---

No, they agreed with my position and cotradicted yours.

posted 02 December 2004 08:27 AM            

It's not all in your head: Analyses of population affinity based on postcranial discriminant functions.

Pershing Place North: Saturday, 8:00 AM
A. RAY, O.M. PEARSON.
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1086.
Session: Genetics III: Population Biology. Contributed Papers.

It is commonly thought that cranial measurements provide much better information for estimating "racial" affinity than postcranial dimensions. Historically, anthropologists have neglected the postcranial skeleton in multivariate discriminant analyses designed to assess biological affinity (e.g., Howells, 1973).

Here, we show that postcranial skeletal measurements can be used to develop multivariate discriminant functions that distinguish populations as successfully as discriminant functions based on crania. Post-cranial measurements of recent males and females of Europeans, Asians and Native Americans, and Africans were analyzed. Groups from these populations each consisted of roughly 25 males and 25 females. The group sizes by sex ranged from 7-41 individuals, but most groups had roughly equal numbers of males and females. A total of 122 measurements were collected on each complete skeleton. The measurements concentrated upon the appendicular skeleton and the limb girdles, capturing the lengths, midshaft diameters, and articular dimensions of the major long bones (excluding the fibula) and similar dimensions of a number of hand and foot bones. Using reduced data sets of 30 variables, [u]preliminary results show that canonical variates analyses (CVAs) of the post-cranial data using SAS produce 80-100 percent correct classification[/u]. Initial cross-validation was conducted by splitting the most numerous samples in half, omitting one half from the calculations to produce the discriminant axes, then interpolating the omitted samples back into the resulting discriminant space. The cross-validation results produced a reduction to between 80-60 percent of individuals who were correctly classified. However, these errors tended to misclassify individuals as members of morphologically similar groups.

Discriminant classification on the basis of postcranial dimensions therefore appears to be comparable in precision to classifications based on cranial data and should prove to be very useful in a variety of areas including forensic contexts.

posted 02 December 2004 08:40 AM            

quote:

---

No, they agreed with my position and cotradicted yours.

---

posted 02 December 2004 08:54 AM            

quote:

---

It's not all in your head: Analyses of population affinity based on postcranial discriminant functions.

---

posted 02 December 2004 09:08 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Your position is incoherent, hypocritical, and contradicts itself internally. And certainly is not supported by any of the scholars such as Ehret whom you misquote, or the genetic studies that you misinterpret....not having bothered to actually read them.

---

You're an hypocrite. You guys believe in biological race which does not exist in humans.

If race is social than east Africa is not a racial term, it's a geographical term.

"Whites" did not evlolve from early "black" populations. Forget it. We have already gone through this.

Also there is no distinct human type under the Sahara.

posted 02 December 2004 09:11 AM            

The Bogus Bones Caper by Richard Harter:
Piltdown man is one of the most famous frauds in the history of science. In 1912 Charles Dawson discovered the first of two skulls found in the Piltdown quarry in Sussex, England, skulls of an apparently
primitive hominid, an ancestor of man. Piltdown man, or Eoanthropus dawsoni to use his scientific name, was a sensation. He was the expected "missing link" a mixture of human and ape with the noble brow of Homo sapiens and a primitive jaw. Best of all, he was British! As the years went by and new finds of ancient hominids were made, Piltdown man became an anomaly that didn't fit in, a creature without a place in the human family tree. Finally, in 1953, the truth came out. Piltdown man was a hoax, the most ancient of people who never were....
When the hoax was first exposed Dawson, Teilhard, and Woodward were the obvious suspects; they had

made the major finds. In 1953 Weiner fingered Dawson as the culprit. Stephen Jay Gould argued that

Teilhard and Dawson were the culprits. Woodward generally escaped suspicion; however Drawhorn made a strong case against him in 1994. Grafton Elliot Smith and Sir Arthur Keith were prominent scientists that
played key roles in the discovery.....
Robert Parson said: Piltdown "confirmed" hypotheses about our early ancestors that were in fact wrong - specifically, that the brain case developed before the jaw. The early Australopithecine fossils found by Dart in South Africa in the 1920's failed to receive the attention due to them forthis reason. The entire reconstruction of the history of the evolution of humanity was thrown off track until the 1930's. Prominent anthropologists, such as Arthur Smith Woodward, Arthur Keith, and Grafton Elliot Smith, wasted years of their lives exploring the properties of what turned out to be a fake.

posted 02 December 2004 09:15 AM            

quote:

---

You don't know this. There hasn't been any study on Kabyles, Rifians and Mozabites performed yet.

mtDNA sequencing from Northern Moroccan Amzigh indicate that they are virtually identical to Portuguese.

---

Thats a bunch of bullcrap, Portuguese are genetically European, Northern Moroccans are NOT.

posted 02 December 2004 09:16 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Just as the finds of early African hominids drove biased [wst] scholars to the extreme of fraud and absurdity, so to is the case with modern linguistic and genetic findings that confirm the East African origins of Berber; facts which some will do or say anything rather than face honestly.

---

All humans originated in east Africa (TMRCA), so what are you trying to get at? Actually I know exactly what you're aiming for. I'm just being sarcastic.

Though it doesn't say much about specific heritage of populations and surely it doesn't say anything about skin color and hair texture which is the result of climatic adaptation.

Your insincerity and dishonesty is terrible.

posted 02 December 2004 09:24 AM            

quote:

---

You guys believe in biological race which does not exist in humans.

---

posted 02 December 2004 09:44 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Actually the references to race in this discussion are primarily yours.

---

No you are the one quoting texts from early Anthropolgical books so if i were you i would rather have stayed quiet.

quote:

---

Rasol:

You simply have a one sided and two faced view of race, which is precisely what makes you a hypocrite.

---

No the hyprocrite is you.

You are trying to say Amazigh are east Africans in order to prove they are black. Regretfully it didn't work for you and for your Afrolunatic pals.

quote:

---

Rasol:

And this is why you are constantly making false statements such as "Berber are never Black & the original Berber were white"; then denying that you made the statements; leading to ludicrous attempts to justify having made them. (ie - this thread)

---

I said they were Capsians but you attacked me and said they are east Africans.

It was in response to your lunatic statements about the Amazigh being east Africans when in the reality they were/are phyiscally heterogenous.

quote:

---

Rasol:

It's quite silly actually, and the more you talk the sillier you sound.

---

How can somone sound in the Internet? At least i don't write like an old Idiot.

quote:

---

Rasol:

However you are at least serving as clown/muse platform and step-off point for the informed views of S. Muhammad, Thought and others.

---

This was funny. You guys are not even up-to-date on human Anthropology.

posted 02 December 2004 09:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

Thats a bunch of bullcrap, Portuguese are genetically European, Northern Moroccans are NOT.

---

What is genetically European?

Northern Moroccans share their maternal gene pool with Portuguese.

Northern Moroccan Amazigh (like the Rif and Tamazight) were relatively isolated and maintainted their genetic heritage.

posted 02 December 2004 09:50 AM            

quote:

---

All humans originated in east Africa so what are you trying to get at?

---

Some can't accept the East African origin of Berber, for reasons similar to the Piltdown frauds who could not accept the African origins of homo-sapiens. You are making the same mistake, playing the same kind of fool, when you should instead try to "learn" from the mistakes of others....is what we're getting at.

posted 02 December 2004 09:57 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Some can't accept the East African origin of Berber

---

Though they are indeed descended from Neolithic Capsian people.

quote:

---

Rasol:

for reasons similar to the Piltdown frauds who could not accept the African origins of homo-sapiens.

---

Therefore i say all humans are predominantly east African in ancestry and there are no races.

quote:

---

Rasol:

You are making the same mistake, playing the same kind of fool, when you should instead try to "learn" from the mistakes of others....is what we're getting at.

---

You are talking about a early stage in human evolution which took place in SS Africa.

This bears no relevance to the Capsian origin of all Imazighen.

posted 02 December 2004 10:03 AM            

quote:

---

You are trying to say Amazigh are east Africans

---

quote:

---

No you are the one quoting texts from early Anthropolgical books

---

posted 02 December 2004 10:12 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Nope. What was said was that Berber originates in East Africa.
Misquoting is a characteristic trademark of your incoherent rant.

---

I didn't misquote you.

The Amazigh people are descended from Capsians. Fact is that half of Afro-Asiatics are light skinned and half are dark skinned.

quote:

---

Rasol:

You claim to be 'non racial', but have asserted that Berber origins are "caucasoid", "leucoderm", and "never black".

---

No actually they are Capsians. My point was that "whites" played a role in North African prehistory what you are not willing to admit.

We can't hide from the fact that most traditional NW African Amazigh isolates are light skinned and were always light skinned.

posted 02 December 2004 10:13 AM            

quote:

---

This bears no relevance to the Capsian origin of all Imazighen.

---

posted 02 December 2004 10:16 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Actually nothing you have said bears any relevance to the false statements you are making, childish repititions notwithstanding.

---

posted 02 December 2004 10:19 AM            

quote:

---

We can't hide from the fact that most traditional NW African Amazigh isolates are light skinned and were always light skinned.

---

What can't be hidden is the laughable extremes you went to, in order to hide your lie behind semantical jibberish: "traditional NW African Amazigh isolates ", and even then, you botched it.

posted 02 December 2004 10:25 AM            

quote:

---

Fact is that half of Afro-Asiatics are light skinned and half are dark skinned.

---

And how does this justify your statement:

posted 02 December 2004 10:26 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

lol....fact was apparently lost on the Europeans who generalised by calling them "moors". (dark skinned)

---

The Moors were half Mauritian and half Moroccan. They were from SE Morocco. I was talking about Northern Moroccans who are predominantly light skinned and always were.

quote:

---

Rasol:

What can't be hidden is the laughable extremes you went to, in order to hide your lie behind semantical jibberish: "traditional NW African Amazigh isolates ", and even then, you botched it.

---

Laugh all you want.

The Rif, Kabyle, Mozabites, Shawiah are predominantly light skinned Berber groups.

posted 02 December 2004 10:28 AM            

quote:

---

Actually i said they are Capsians from the beginning and there is nothing false about it.

---

posted 02 December 2004 10:30 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

"the original Berbers were white" and...

"Berbers are never Black"?

---

Many were black so forget it. There are many blacks cohabitating North Africa today.

My point was that whites played a role in North African prehistory which you guys were not willing to admit from the beginning of this thread.