Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:you are suggesting apart from the color something about this does not look human?
Originally posted by Antalas:
That's supposed to realistically depict a human face ?
quote:That's 20th century
Originally posted by Antalas:
Some here told me north africans don't complain when europeans play north african figures and that hollywood constantly whitewashes them. That would be true for the 60s or 70s certainly not today
quote:https://www.proquest.com/openview/5f8caf2d57b6a76f814778ef1f07d324/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1256
"National Geographic has unveiled three independent attempts to reconstruct the face of the boy pharaoh Tutankhamen, who died 3300 years ago. The three teams - French, US, and Egyptian - based their reconstructions on 1700 computed tomography (CT) scans of the mummy that were made by the Egyptians early this year (Science, 28 january, p. 511). The reconstructions differ on details of soft tissue, such as the end of the nose. [...] The Egyptian and French Teams worked with the CT scans knowing they belonged to Tut; the NYU team didn't know."
quote:You assume that wooden bust represents as tanned person but you assume that that was not his natural skin tone without proof.
Originally posted by Antalas:
yes exodus was clearly a big joke in terms of casting I don't deny it
as for king tut that's based on forensic studies, a tanned bust isn't necessarily realistic
quote:https://www.proquest.com/openview/5f8caf2d57b6a76f814778ef1f07d324/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1256
"National Geographic has unveiled three independent attempts to reconstruct the face of the boy pharaoh Tutankhamen, who died 3300 years ago. The three teams - French, US, and Egyptian - based their reconstructions on 1700 computed tomography (CT) scans of the mummy that were made by the Egyptians early this year (Science, 28 january, p. 511). The reconstructions differ on details of soft tissue, such as the end of the nose. [...] The Egyptian and French Teams worked with the CT scans knowing they belonged to Tut; the NYU team didn't know."
quote:I don't remember making such statement but anyway I had a whole article on the subject but can't find it unfortunately (I might post it later if I found it) anyway some already gave good answers like here : https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7rb8q/why_were_moors_originally_depicted_as_black_by/
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@Antalas
On a previous website you made an argument for why 16th century Europeans (and onwards) would black-wash some Africans. I don't fully remember the argument you made but can you run it back?
- It's important to address for there's no good way to account for the phenotypes of a specific historical figure if we approach this from an ideological perspective.
If your ideologue revolves around a sense of purity or belonging, (the argument that Authentic north Africans must only look like you) we'll always run into problems when addressing such a nuanced topic. For example if I was to take the time to find actual quotes or historical accounts and depictions to support Hannibal's casting, you'd counter with evidence to suggest North Africans didn't look like that which'll result in diminishing returns.
I even remember when we looked at Ancient DNA from Moorish burials. Because of the ideologue you held the Muslims of north Africa found in Southern Europe had to have been enslaved due to their overwhelming SSA DNA... as you can see. there's nothing to learn here.
Which is why I ask a more interesting question: why did Europeans blacken some North Africans?
quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:
even if you think he had a natural dark skin color something like modern upper egyptians it wouldn't change anything about his facial features he would still not look black
quote:You should spend more time with white skinned folks lol It depends on the skin tone some people barely tan like my mom for example and many europeans but in my case I tan very well I become dark after a few days only
Originally posted by Thereal:
It's well known that since aristocrats used to spend less time outside they were lighter.
I've also seen people type that they have gotten lighter in the winter time.
@Elmaetro I appeal to you because you're more knowledgeable on the subject,but are people really changing pigmentation in a tan like manner that isn't melanogenesis with in a relatively short timeframe?
I know environmental factors has an influence on skin color but the way I'm hearing some people speak about it,you would think they are anthropomorphic chameleon.
quote:That's supposed to realistically depict a human face ? Looks almost asian lol
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:How would you describe the facial features on this?
Originally posted by Antalas:
even if you think he had a natural dark skin color something like modern upper egyptians it wouldn't change anything about his facial features he would still not look black
quote:you are suggesting apart from the color something about this does not look human?
Originally posted by Antalas:
That's supposed to realistically depict a human face ?
quote:it's obviously a tan here my "normal" skin tone :
Originally posted by Thereal:
@Antalas I wasn't seeing that from white folks, I was reading in comment section from Black people on YouTube from Black channels that I follow and most commenters didn't imply they were mixed.
Also,it's hard to gauge you complexion and whether it's from a tan or you are just a "high yella" with a reddish brown skin.
quote:no I meant that it obviously follows artistic conventions it's not supposed to depict realistically a human face
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:you are suggesting apart from the color something about this does not look human?
Originally posted by Antalas:
That's supposed to realistically depict a human face ?
quote:what's not realistic about it?
Originally posted by Antalas:
no I meant that it obviously follows artistic conventions it's not supposed to depict realistically a human face
quote:that's interesting since sometimes we make jokes about some of our folks who appear "yellow" to us but I think what you perceive as yellow in our case is what people here refers as olive skinned something common along the shores of the med sea and which tan easily.
Originally posted by Thereal:
@Antalas While I haven't personally meet or interacted with any North African,from what I understand,at least for the ones that are not assumed to more systematically African is North Africans are "yellow" folks. Not dark enough you could a legit brown or Black but dark enough to resist the harmful UV light in NA.
Whether through mixture or mutation,I know some Black folks exhibit a yellow complexion that has a red brown undertone or are quite yellow. I know the iso setting can make these yellow folks look brown or yellowish white. Also,my usege is a affectionate way of describing light skin Africans.
quote:You seriously don't see it ?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:what's not realistic about it?
Originally posted by Antalas:
no I meant that it obviously follows artistic conventions it's not supposed to depict realistically a human face
quote:No, you would have to specify why in order for that comment to seem reasonable
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:You seriously don't see it ?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:what's not realistic about it?
Originally posted by Antalas:
no I meant that it obviously follows artistic conventions it's not supposed to depict realistically a human face
quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:
it's not realistic the same way this greek bust isn't :
so it's about the fact that they were done following idealized canons/standards that's what I mean by not realistic (realistic movement were actually exceptional in the history of art)
quote:You are confusing to things
Originally posted by Antalas:
yes but it wasn't a realistic depiction of Pericles simply an idealized depiction of him
realistic art only comes later in greece especially during the hellenistic era
quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:
I agree but that's exactly what I meant for the bust, it doesn't perfectly represent tutankhamun
Also I've never understood why some afrocentrist think the golden bust look black ?? nose is perfectly caucasoid, no prognathism, lips are typically found in north africa, etc idk it doesn't give me a SSA vibe
quote:Trasimene? you don't find that significant?
Originally posted by Antalas:
I remember you used to post that negroid looking coin and a tapistry from the XVIth century depicting Hannibal to prove that he was black...meanwhile that coin was from etruria and wasn't even carthaginian + no comment for the tapistry. As for moorish burials, that's simply common sense most of them were a mix of NA and iberian with two outliers full of SSA what would you naturally conclude if you had read books about north africa's history ? Especially that these two outliers were mixed with iberian ancestry not north african so it wasn't some kind of north african rich in SSA.
quote:Are you speaking of single individuals or a generation or more of people?
Thereal
@Elmaetro I appeal to you because you're more knowledgeable on the subject,but are people really changing pigmentation in a tan like manner that isn't melanogenesis with in a relatively short timeframe?
I know environmental factors has an influence on skin color but the way I'm hearing some people speak about it,you would think they are anthropomorphic chameleon.
quote:The coin was minted 10 years after the battle and also depict an indian elephant + has no inscription
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas:
Trasimene?[/b] you don't find that significant?
A correction on the Iberian Outliers. They were modeled as the same admixed Iberians + gambian, so by default they share North African ancestry. The issue I had didn't lie in the overall interpretation of North African presence in Iberia. It's with your personal interpretation two unrelated individuals separated by 600 years. (Especially the earlier individual What about C.E.F-43 suggested he was enslaved X,D.). It was based on ideal not any evidence present.
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/ (supplementary data)
As previously mentioned, two individuals dated to the 10th (I7427) and 16th (I3810) century CE plot on a very different position in the PCA (Fig. S3-4), reflecting a very different ancestry profile. We were able to model them as mixture of ancestry related to previous populations from the same region (SE_Iberia c.3-4CE) and ancestry related to present-day sub-Saharan African populations (Table S22). The high proportions of sub2158 Saharan African ancestry explain their marked shift in PCA and agree with uniparental markers with sub-Saharan African origin in both individuals."
quote:Check out this article on the coin by the Classical Numismatic Group
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Trasimene? you don't find that significant?
quote:So there has been a hypothesis going around that the coin had something to do with Carthaginian forces in the area. I don't know if it depicts Hannibal himself as some people claim, but it could represent some of the native African soldiers he had in his employ (the Carthaginians made heavy use of mercenaries from around their empire).
ETRURIA, Arretium (?). The Chiana Valley. Circa 208-207 BC. Æ Quartunica (18mm, 5.96 g, 6h). Head of African right; monogram to left / Indian elephant standing right, bell around neck; monogram below. HN Italy 69; SNG ANS 41 (same obv. die); SNG Copenhagen 48 var. (no monogram on obv.). VF, green patina. Well struck for issue; rare.
This enigmatic issue has been much discussed. It was Sestini in 1816 who first indicated their area of circulation in and around the Chiana (Clanis) valley and lake Trasimeno, dominated by the cities of Arezzo, Chiusi and Cortona. The traditional attribution of the issue to 217 BC, as representing the propaganda of Hannibal’s approach to Etruria, was modified by Robinson (op. cit.), who saw it as a provocative seditious type of Arretium, which was in a state of high tension with Rome in 209/8, in the hoped for arrival of Hasdrubal from Spain with reinforcements. However, the reverse depicts an Indian rather than African elephant with a bell around its neck reminiscent of the elephant/saw aes signatum issue (Crawford 9/1) of about 250-240 BC and associated with the battle of Maleventum (soon to be called Beneventum) in 275 BC when the captured elephants of Pyrrhus were brought to Rome in triumph. A similar Indian elephant is also depicted as a symbol on the Tarantine nomos issue (Vlasto 710-712), indicating the presence of Pyrrhus in the city in 282-276. The Barcid coinage of New Carthage (Villaronga CNH, pg. 65, 12-15) and that of Hannibal in Sicily (SNG Cop. 382) clearly depict African elephants belonging to the elephant corps from about 220 BC. As Maria Baglione points out in "Su alcune parallele di bronzo coniato," Atti Napoli 1975, pg.153-180, the African/elephant issue shares control marks with other cast and struck Etruscan coins of the region, she quotes Panvini Rosati in ‘ Annuario dell’accademia Etrusca di Cortona XII’, 1964, pg. 167ff., who suggests the type is to be seen as a moneyer’s badge or commemorative issue in the style of Caesar’s elephant/sacrificial implements issue of 49/48 BC (Crawford 443/1). The elephant, an attribute of Mercury/Turms, is an emblem of wisdom and is also a symbol of strength and of the overcoming of evil.
quote:The founders of Carthage were settlers from what is now Lebanon
Originally posted by Antalas:
I also want to add that there is no mention of aethiopian/black troops for the second punic war let alone their general lol the only time where we see carthage using black mercenaries (explicitely described as such) is in Sicily during the battle of Himera (480 BC)
quote:any quotes?
Originally posted by Antalas:
Some here told me north africans don't complain when europeans play north african figures and that hollywood constantly whitewashes them.
quote:yes but they quickly integrated north africans and after centuries probably became predominantly north african at least that's what we can see in genetic and forensic papers (that's also what many historians defended : that carthaginians were in fact punicized north africans)
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:The founders of Carthage were settlers from what is now Lebanon
Originally posted by Antalas:
I also want to add that there is no mention of aethiopian/black troops for the second punic war let alone their general lol the only time where we see carthage using black mercenaries (explicitely described as such) is in Sicily during the battle of Himera (480 BC)
quote:Around that time 580-650 BC there were also Greek settlements, later Romans and Germanic Vandals
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:yes but they quickly integrated north africans and after centuries probably became predominantly north african at least that's what we can see in genetic and forensic papers (that's also what many historians defended : that carthaginians were in fact punicized north africans)
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:The founders of Carthage were settlers from what is now Lebanon
Originally posted by Antalas:
I also want to add that there is no mention of aethiopian/black troops for the second punic war let alone their general lol the only time where we see carthage using black mercenaries (explicitely described as such) is in Sicily during the battle of Himera (480 BC)
Also the aristocracy wasn't endogamous like the lagids in Egypt, they used to often mix with the numidian aristocracy (sometimes the iberian and sicilian ones too)
quote:Ok, not the Maghreb, Cyrenaica
Originally posted by Antalas:
???
greeks never settled in the maghreb, they only settled in cyrenaica next to egypt
and romans/vandals came much later
quote:this is some big problem now Morgan Freeman playing a Moor in Robin Hood 30 years ago?
Originally posted by Antalas:
Constant Darkwashing of north africans in western medias
quote:it's not hard we have craniometric data and they were very similar to carthaginians which again proves carthaginians were mostly north african :
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Ok, not the Maghreb, Cyrenaica
Originally posted by Antalas:
???
greeks never settled in the maghreb, they only settled in cyrenaica next to egypt
and romans/vandals came much later
But my point still is if you look at the period before the Phoenicians for about 1000 years no evidence of settlement in coastal North Africa so it's hard to establish continuity from Iberomaurusians or other older groups
quote:S.O.Y. Keita, Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa, p. 37
Chamla (1975, 1976, using Penrose’s measure, found a “protohistorical” Algerian series (1500 BC) to be most similar to Carthaginian remains (900-200 BC) ; Bronze Age Spanish, early Grand Canary, and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian crania showed the next greatest affinities. A Carthaginian series proved to be most similar to the Algerian series, followed by late North Spanish, early Grand Canary, Bronze Age French, Etruscan, Parthian Syrian, and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian crania from Abydos. The results of the tests of individual variables used showed that there was no statistical difference for these variables between the Algerian and Carthaginian series."
quote:https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6432/1230
Our Copper Age dataset includes a newly reported male (I4246) from Camino de las Yeseras (14) in central Iberia, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 calibrated years BCE, who clusters with modern and ancient North Africans in the PCA (Fig. 1C and fig. S3) and, like ~3000 BCE Moroccans (8) , can be well modeled as having ancestry from both Late Pleistocene North Africans (15) and Early Neolithic Europeans (tables S9 and S10). His genome-wide ancestry and uniparental markers (tables S1 and S4) are unique among Copper Age Iberians, including individuals from sites with many analyzed individuals such as Sima del Ángel, and point to a North African origin."
quote:https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2020_Fernandes_NatEcolEvol_WestMediterranean_0.pdf
The most surprising is Sardinia_Chalcolithic15940 from the site of Anghelu Ruju, for whom we obtained a radiocarbon date of 2345– 2146 cal. bc from the same bone sample that we analysed for DNA. We modelled this individual as 22.7±2.4% Anatolia_Neolithic and 77.3±2.4% Morocco_EN (P=0.321). This individual is similar in ancestry composition to the approximately contemporary Iberian individual I4246 from the site of Camino de las Yeseras, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 cal. bc, who also had North-African related ancestry as well as the same mtDNA haplogroup M1a1b1 and Y-chromosome haplogroup E1b1b1, which are both typical of North Africans25 (Supplementary Table 14). The finding of African to-European gene flow in both individuals shows that such movement was widespread across the Mediterranean long before the classical period when such gene flow became intensive and the ancestries had a larger demographic impact."
quote:it's not hard we have craniometric data and they were very similar to carthaginians which again proves carthaginians were mostly north african :
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Ok, not the Maghreb, Cyrenaica
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas:
[qb] ???
greeks never settled in the maghreb, they only settled in cyrenaica next to egypt
and romans/vandals came much later
But my point still is if you look at the period before the Phoenicians for about 1000 years no evidence of settlement in coastal North Africa so it's hard to establish continuity from Iberomaurusians or other older groups
quote:
Chamla (1975, 1976, using Penrose’s measure, found a “protohistorical” Algerian series (1500 BC) to be most similar to Carthaginian remains (900-200 BC) ; Bronze Age Spanish, early Grand Canary, and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian crania showed the next greatest affinities. A Carthaginian series proved to be most similar to the Algerian series, followed by late North Spanish, early Grand Canary, Bronze Age French, Etruscan, Parthian Syrian, and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian crania from Abydos. The results of the tests of individual variables used showed that there was no statistical difference for these variables between the Algerian and Carthaginian series."
quote:https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6774
Originally posted by Antalas:
we also have two north africans from the copper age who plot with modern north africans :
quote:
Our Copper Age dataset includes a newly reported male (I4246) from Camino de las Yeseras (14) in central Iberia, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 calibrated years BCE, who clusters with modern and ancient North Africans in the PCA (Fig. 1C and fig. S3) and, like ~3000 BCE Moroccans (8) , can be well modeled as having ancestry from both Late Pleistocene North Africans (15) and Early Neolithic Europeans (tables S9 and S10). His genome-wide ancestry and uniparental markers (tables S1 and S4) are unique among Copper Age Iberians, including individuals from sites with many analyzed individuals such as Sima del Ángel, and point to a North African origin."
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aav4040
8
R. Fregel et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 6774–6779
(2018).
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6432/1230
quote:There is also another theory about the coin that goes beyond Hannibal and the Carthagenians
Originally posted by BrandonP:
So there has been a hypothesis going around that the coin had something to do with Carthaginian forces in the area. I don't know if it depicts Hannibal himself as some people claim, but it could represent some of the native African soldiers he had in his employ (the Carthaginians made heavy use of mercenaries from around their empire).
As for the elephant looking Indian rather than African, Hannibal's personal elephant was called "the Syrian", which may suggest it was of the extinct Syrian subspecies of the Asian elephant rather than the African elephants the other Carthaginians used. [/QB]
quote:
The imagery on the coin has been interpreted as representing one of Hannibal’s war elephants on one side and its black mahout, or driver, on the other. According to this theory, the coin was minted by an as-yet-unidentified Etruscan city as a sign of goodwill toward the Carthaginians who, under General Hasdrubal, were marching to join his brother Hannibal in a combined attack on the city of Rome itself. Hasdrubal, however, was defeated by Roman legions far to the north in 207 B.C. Etruscan hopes for aid vanished with him.
From this hypothetical association with Carthage has followed the suggestion that these coins were used by the Etruscans as payment to the invading Carthaginian mercenaries. Yet this account of the coin’s origin comes with some serious caveats. Sporadically produced, Etruscan coinage seems to have been intended solely for local barter or trade. Besides, by the time Hannibal approached Etruscan territory, the association of his army with elephants would only have been a distant memory.
The appearance of the elephant and black man’s head on the coin may more convincingly be accounted for by the Etruscans’ sustained contact with the sophisticated intellectual climate of Greece. The profile head of a black man occurs as part of the long-standing vocabulary of visual symbolism presented on Greek coins in the eastern Mediterranean.
quote:
Living on the southern fringes of the known world, the Ethiopian was held to be the handsomest of men, especially beloved by the gods. The projection of such superlative qualities on these exotic lands and their inhabitants is typical of the ancient Greek mind, and a similar intention for the presence of the black man on the Etruscan coin could apply as well.
quote:did you not notice that I prefaced this discussion by pointing out your urge to fall back on the same studies to explain away every nuance right. I don't beleive Hanibal looked that "negroid" as most Africans don't look that "negroid," the coin was likely propaganda. But the fact that you have a clear Africanized character sharing a coin with an Asian elephant circulating in Trasimene a decade after the battle (which makes complete sense mind you) should say a lot when you consider History and a hint of logic.
Originally posted by Antalas:
The coin was minted 10 years after the battle and also depict an indian elephant + has no inscription
This might be him according to specialists :
I mean don't you find it weird that not a single carthaginian coin depict negroids ? And how can you seriously believe that hannibal looked that negroid with everything you know from genetics, anthropology, history (even though I'm not sure for this one lol), etc ?
quote:The link I posted shown evidence of a high classed Muslim burial among many and that individual carried an African paternal Haplogroup (E-M2) and a European Maternal haplogroup (H). I have to get a lil too creative to imagine the slave fantasy to fit that narrative.
as for the iberian outliers, this shouldn't even be discussed :
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/ (supplementary data)
As previously mentioned, two individuals dated to the 10th (I7427) and 16th (I3810) century CE plot on a very different position in the PCA (Fig. S3-4), reflecting a very different ancestry profile. We were able to model them as mixture of ancestry related to previous populations from the same region (SE_Iberia c.3-4CE) and ancestry related to present-day sub-Saharan African populations (Table S22). The high proportions of sub2158 Saharan African ancestry explain their marked shift in PCA and agree with uniparental markers with sub-Saharan African origin in both individuals."
so again I ask you what would you naturally conclude ? That free black men randomly appeared among these moors and married local iberian women ? No offense but I honestly think you should start reading books about history instead of focusing too much on genetics, you would quickly see that your theories don't really work when confronted to historical realities.
quote:Prior to this post I haven't dropped a single theory in this thread. So there isn't anything to contradict on my end, I just pointed out some data. How it was presented doesn't attach itself with your ideal so you essentially have to strawman my talking points. It isn't malicious however, it automatic and damn near subconscious which's what I'm trying to highlight. Why do you feel so attacked? XD
Really at this point I don't understand : you acknoledge that paleolithic north african already had a substantial eurasian component, were already caucasoid, see KEB, see two copper age samples, see guanches samples, see 1st-3rd century Ad samples and yet believe that among all of this lived fully black looking folks ? What is coastal north africa supposed to be ? Brazil 2.0 ? [/QB]
quote:Very good stuff thank you !
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:There is also another theory about the coin that goes beyond Hannibal and the Carthagenians
Originally posted by BrandonP:
So there has been a hypothesis going around that the coin had something to do with Carthaginian forces in the area. I don't know if it depicts Hannibal himself as some people claim, but it could represent some of the native African soldiers he had in his employ (the Carthaginians made heavy use of mercenaries from around their empire).
As for the elephant looking Indian rather than African, Hannibal's personal elephant was called "the Syrian", which may suggest it was of the extinct Syrian subspecies of the Asian elephant rather than the African elephants the other Carthaginians used.
quote:
The imagery on the coin has been interpreted as representing one of Hannibal’s war elephants on one side and its black mahout, or driver, on the other. According to this theory, the coin was minted by an as-yet-unidentified Etruscan city as a sign of goodwill toward the Carthaginians who, under General Hasdrubal, were marching to join his brother Hannibal in a combined attack on the city of Rome itself. Hasdrubal, however, was defeated by Roman legions far to the north in 207 B.C. Etruscan hopes for aid vanished with him.
From this hypothetical association with Carthage has followed the suggestion that these coins were used by the Etruscans as payment to the invading Carthaginian mercenaries. Yet this account of the coin’s origin comes with some serious caveats. Sporadically produced, Etruscan coinage seems to have been intended solely for local barter or trade. Besides, by the time Hannibal approached Etruscan territory, the association of his army with elephants would only have been a distant memory.
The appearance of the elephant and black man’s head on the coin may more convincingly be accounted for by the Etruscans’ sustained contact with the sophisticated intellectual climate of Greece. The profile head of a black man occurs as part of the long-standing vocabulary of visual symbolism presented on Greek coins in the eastern Mediterranean.quote:
Living on the southern fringes of the known world, the Ethiopian was held to be the handsomest of men, especially beloved by the gods. The projection of such superlative qualities on these exotic lands and their inhabitants is typical of the ancient Greek mind, and a similar intention for the presence of the black man on the Etruscan coin could apply as well.
Why Coins With a Black Man’s Face Were Valued
As comparison we can see a coin which has been identified as Hamilkar Barca. From Carthago Nova, Spain, 237-227 BCE. Hamilkar was Hannibals and Hasdrubals father.
quote:It can maybe makes sense for someone that has a very superficial approach on the subject but certainly not for me anyway archeopteryx just posted a very good explanation.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
did you not notice that I prefaced this discussion by pointing out your urge to fall back on the same studies to explain away every nuance right. I don't beleive Hanibal looked that "negroid" as most Africans don't look that "negroid," the coin was likely propaganda. But the fact that you have a clear Africanized character sharing a coin with an Asian elephant circulating in Trasimene a decade after the battle (which makes complete sense mind you) should say a lot when you consider History and a hint of logic.
But more power to the random black guy and his random Asian Elephant for making it big in Classical Italy.
quote:I can't access your link can you post a good one pls and as for his paternal haplogroup you admit it couldn't come from north africa therefore can you tell me how would that be possible since I suppose you have read enough on al andalus history ... any known west african dynasty who ruled in al andalus during the Xth century ? or any known black noble ? If only you knew how racist locals and arabs were at that time...
Originally posted by Elmaestro: The link I posted shown evidence of a high classed Muslim burial among many and that individual carried an African paternal Haplogroup (E-M2) and a European Maternal haplogroup (H). I have to get a lil too creative to imagine the slave fantasy to fit that narrative.
quote:Yes posting a coin with a clear negroid guy trying to associate him with hannibal and sharing a medieval tapistry depicting him as somewhat black is simply pointing out facts nothing more sir !
Originally posted by Elmaestro: Prior to this post I haven't dropped a single theory in this thread. So there isn't anything to contradict on my end, I just pointed out some data. How it was presented doesn't attach itself with your ideal so you essentially have to strawman my talking points. It isn't malicious however, it automatic and damn near subconscious which's what I'm trying to highlight. Why do you feel so attacked? XD
quote:Why do you suddenly tries to appear neutral or objective when you literally told me some years ago that you were afrocentric ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro: I simply ask you to use a little bit of logic. Your natural conclusions aren't based on the circumstances presented but on preconceived notion. What you tend to do is no different from when someone quotes a historian like Herodotus stating Egyptians were black. The way how you think legit blocked you from seeing certain contradictions in your mantra. "If they're black they can't be Berber or they must be slaves." So every bit of information you get will have to filter through that ideologue. Claims such as 2 million Africans being transported across the Sahara annually will make perfect sense to you on historical accord but an 8th century testament describing the skin of the Moors as repulsive in comparison to Syrians is meaningless. From my POV both of these accounts are quite ridiculous but If I was a ___centric one of them will hold more historical importance than the other. [/QB]
quote:British museum
Associated names
Portrait of: Herakles/Hercules
Representation of: Melqart
Representation of: Hannibal
quote:From Numista
The obverse of this coinage is popularly believed to depict Hamilcar Barca (or depict his features assimilated into Herakles-Melqart):
quote:- you're getting too emotional.
Originally posted by Antalas:
It can maybe makes sense for someone that has a very superficial approach on the subject but certainly not for me anyway archeopteryx just posted a very good explanation.
I can't access your link can you post a good one pls and as for his paternal haplogroup you admit it couldn't come from north africa therefore can you tell me how would that be possible since I suppose you have read enough on al andalus history ... any known west african dynasty who ruled in al andalus during the Xth century ? or any known black noble ? If only you knew how racist locals and arabs were at that time...
Yes posting a coin with a clear negroid guy trying to associate him with hannibal and sharing a medieval tapistry depicting him as somewhat black is simply pointing out facts nothing more sir !
Why do you suddenly tries to appear neutral or objective when you literally told me some years ago that you were afrocentric ?
What you actually perceive as "preconceived notion" is simply common sense and facts, you of course think I'm some kind of racist because I actually have a more wider approach and a far better understanding of the concerned populations. You are the one who stops his reflexion to a coin or tapistry meanwhile I know such thing doesn't make sense since I've read enough genetic, forensic and historical papers on the whole region to know that a negroid black general doesn't make any sense.
You're the kind to believe that it's possible that among a homogeneous population suddenly appears black individuals here and there. The kind to interpret these descriptions of moors at face value without paying attention to translations, nuances, political motives, etc so no I will not avoid it but I'll understand that saying syrians are lighter than berbers is actually in line with what we can witness today or will understand that since berbers were in constant conflict with umayyads everything was done to discredit them.
Moreover if you had actually paid attention I never said you can't be berber and "black", I said that you can't consider every black in North Africa as indigenous or related to berbers and you probably don't know much about racism towards blacks among berbers or the expansion of berber groups into the sahara and what it led to meanwhile I do. I clearly remember when you literally posted a black woman from the middle atlas to prove that she was an indigenous berber ....see that's your logic denying all the white skinned berbers cherrypicking a black woman and implying she represent an old pure strain of berbers.
quote:It does not it was simply a supposition meanwhile archeopteryx posted something that made much more sense or should we assume carthaginian generals also went fighting in Greece based on this ? :
Originally posted by Elmaestro: The circumstantial evidence associates the imagery with Hannibal. You denying that is part of the problem.
quote:That's actually your assumption because I've actually acknowledged the fact that many blacks and muslim iberians were described and known as Moors but what I said is that most of them weren't black.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Your pattern of posting is consistent with the idea that Moors can not be black by referring to them as a homogenous population when challenged with the presence of blackness.
quote:Keywords of Identity, Race, and Human Mobility in Early Modern England
"Moor" and "blackamoor" are two english words that were highly influenced by Iberian and Italian designations of Northern African peoples. Mouro (portuguese) and moro (Castilian, Italian) derived from the Latin maurus, an inhabitant of Mauretania, the Roman designation for the region of Maghreb. The lengthy duration of the iberian reconquista, the reconquest of Muslim territories by local Christian Iberia and northern Europe contributed to the dissemination of the word in the Middle Ages, where "Moor" remained a popular descriptor for medieval Berber and Arab Muslim conquerors of the Iberian peninsula and Sicily. The accounts of the late medieval Portuguese travellers, explorers, and merchants often used "Moor" for Muslim, although distinctions remained: despite such terms as "Arabian Moors" or "Turkish Moors", both were usually described as mouros brancos ("white moors"), while Berber and sub-saharan muslims were frequently distinguished between mouros da terra (Portuguese for "moors from the land") or mouros negros (black moors). [...] This complex relation between ethnicity, geography and religion informed the evolution of "blackamoor", often used alongside region-inflected words like "Niger" or "Ethiop". English grammars and dictionaries of the time made similar associations: "a black more, or a man of Ethiope"; The Negro[sic], which we call the Black-mores. "
quote:Keywords of Identity, Race, and Human Mobility in Early Modern England, pp. 41
"[...] John Pory described the "principall nations' of Africa as "the Africans or Moores, properly so called; which last are of two kinds, namely white or tawnie Moores, and Negros or black Moores". 'Tawnie Moores' were north african muslims , such as the moroccan ambassador Abd el Ouahed ben Messaoud, who visited the Elizabethan court in 1600 and whom Pory mentioned in his preface to the Description of Africa. "
quote:I honestly don't see how that's possible even though I've seen some who scored high amounts of IBM ancestry so if you have something consistent to back up that claim it would be nice if you can share it
Originally posted by Elmaestro: but Autosomally similar to other Berbers
quote:I agree but I never implied all were foreigners ; presence of indigenous "black" populations especially in the Sahara is well attested.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: Pointing out black people in North Africa doesn't disprove or suggests that every black person in North Africa is indigenous.
quote:I will trust you on his claim since I haven't read that chronicle nor do I know much about the context in which it was written but I hope we both agree that implying that moors are darker than syrians obviously doesn't mean moors were black or somewhat similar to modern SSA that's clearly a far-fetched interpretation.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: but Continuatio Hispana was chronicled by a Christian. Likely a racist Andalusian.
quote:Can you show me where in this article do they support your claim ? Actually it seems there is a problem of chronology since I7427 was buried there during the Xth century (caliphate of Cordoba) meanwhile this is what the paper you posted says :
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
- I posted the pdf to this article. also You think your position on I7427 - CEF-43 is common sense? [/QB]
quote:The paper also do not mention CEF-43 being part of a richly decorated complex or maybe I missed something ?
This phase documents a more recent moment of the necropolis, also dated to the Nasrid period . As belonging to this phase 39 graves have been documented, very affected by the construction of a contemporary dwelling.
quote:It says this in the beginning as well as a few conflicting dating reports also contruction over the site obscured the dating and deposition of some of the burials. However, the specimen was later carbon dated before undergoing genetic testing.
según estos dos autores existen referencias en las fuentes bibliográficas sobre la utilización de este cementerio desde el siglo X.
quote:Moreover... CEF 43 is one of three burials contained in vertical slabs and a sandstone cover as explained on page 1469. If we were to take stratification into account nothing about his burial will suggest he's of a lower caste than the remaining specimen.
This stratum was irregularly distributed and covered burials CEF-20, CEF-43, CEF-36, CEF- 37, CEF-40, CEF-25, CEF-47, CEF-28, CEF-29, CEF-23, CEF-24 and CEF-56. The bodies were oriented towards the southeast and in lateral decubitus position on the right side, following the Islamic tradition, with various degrees of limb flexion. Radiocarbon dating at the “Centro de Instrumentación Científica de la Universidad de Granada” confirmed that these burials belonged to the period of Muslim rule, more specifically to period of the Caliphate of Cordoba during the 10th century CE
quote:Nah you weren't saying that! If so there wouldn't have been no debate. XD. I forgot your previous partner in crime's name... But he was saying that not you, don't try to pull a fast one.
originally posted by Antalas:
That's actually your assumption because I've actually acknowledged the fact that many blacks and muslim iberians were described and known as Moors but what I said is that most of them weren't black.
quote:Hannibal's elephant ? Do you at least know from where elephants of war in Greece came from ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@Antalas
You are aware that the article is basically suggesting that the Greek's romanticization of Black nobility influenced Etruscans to unwittingly put a black mans face coins with Hannibals Elephant right? The article is highlighting the reasoning behind Greece's desire to romanticize the Ethiopian and superimposes that on Etruria. I still have to use more imagination to explain why they'd use that imagery in combination with Hannibal's Elephant. They could have very easily manifactured the coin with a Typical North African Elephant (As was done elsewhere including carthage) or any other form of symbolism.
quote:Actually I already saw this but if you had paid attention your paper doesn't describe the same place so we're maybe dealing with two different cef 43 (+ you didn't pay attention to the dates they give since your pdf also gives Xth century but still cef-43 was classified as part of the nasrid era) and the only argument you had was "his burial doesn't seem to be from a lower caste" ?? the guy was burried alongside unknown and irrelevant people and there is nothing in his burial that is reminiscent of a rich man let alone an aristocrat so now I will again ask you to propose a valid theory. How would you realistically explain the presence of a mixed (ssa-iberian) individual in Xth century Granada ? Knowing that all the other remains (except one) had north african, levantine and iberian ancestry with typical iberian or NA lineages.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: About CEF 43
You want me to show you where it supports my claim? What was my claim?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
]This stratum was irregularly distributed and covered burials CEF-20, CEF-43, CEF-36, CEF- 37, CEF-40, CEF-25, CEF-47, CEF-28, CEF-29, CEF-23, CEF-24 and CEF-56. The bodies were oriented towards the southeast and in lateral decubitus position on the right side, following the Islamic tradition, with various degrees of limb flexion. Radiocarbon dating at the “Centro de Instrumentación Científica de la Universidad de Granada” confirmed that these burials belonged to the period of Muslim rule, more specifically to period of the Caliphate of Cordoba during the 10th century CE Moreover... CEF 43 is one of three burials contained in vertical slabs and a sandstone cover as explained on page 1469. If we were to take stratification into account nothing about his burial will suggest he's of a lower caste than the remaining specimen.
Basically what I'm trying to highlight is that nothing about this supports [b]your claim. (Muslim guy with an African dad and a European mom was a Moorish slave.) Except for the fact he was black, which leads back to the circular logic and diminishing returns.
quote:I was talking about my statements on this site not some I made in 2017-18 on a random forum
Originally posted by Elmaestro: Nah you weren't saying that! If so there wouldn't have been no debate. XD. I forgot your previous partner in crime's name... But he was saying that not you, don't try to pull a fast one. [/qb]
quote:I always wonder how people would be able to identify who is depicted on those coins (or that bust) anyway. None of them have any inscriptions identifying their subjects as far as I can see.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) The Carthaginians could have just been continuing roman tradition in stylistically portraying themselves in a Caucasious fashion.
quote:what were the names of some of these groups?
Originally posted by Antalas:
I never implied all were foreigners ; presence of indigenous "black" populations especially in the Sahara is well attested.
quote:Many groups were mentionned I'm too lazy now to go check them but I was especially talking about some haratin communities, tebus, ancient testimonies, etc
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:what were the names of some of these groups?
Originally posted by Antalas:
I never implied all were foreigners ; presence of indigenous "black" populations especially in the Sahara is well attested.
quote:Because of their ignorance and because they want to target afro-americans to make more profit. This is why most of these darkwashed figures are from the US or UK and not countries where there is a large north african diaspora like France, Spain, Italy, etc
Originally posted by Doug M:
Why on earth would Europeans go through the effort to "black wash" North Africans? You would have to come up with an explanation why this would even be considered anything other absurd ramblings from someone who is racist or colorist. Obviously the simple explanation is there were always blacks in North Africa.
quote:That's an artistic depiction probably influenced by how many modern tuaregs look like but we don't have any physical information in regards to tin hinan. Tuaregs have a range of looks going from north african looking to fully west african because of centuries of slavery/razzias this is why tuareg societies are highly stratified with a whole set of castes (this does not exist among other berber communities as far as a I know)
Originally posted by Doug M: Is this black washing?
Paining of Tin Hinan by an Algerian Painter.
quote:Literally none of them come from Carthage + you clearly cherrypick since they do not even make 1% of all coins lol
Originally posted by Doug M: And this is not the first time we have talked about the coinage from Carthage/Phoenicia.
https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009453;p=3
A large number of those coins, especially from Ibiza have African images on them......
You can find some here:
https://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/carc/gems/Styles-and-Periods/Classical-Phoenician-Scarabs [/qb]
quote:Exactly mate, he finds a coin from ibiza depicting a black guy he concludes carthaginians were black XD
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
About coins: British museum shows hundreds of Carthaginian coins on their website, and I se not one where the portraid person on them looks like a Subsaharan African.
Punic coins at the British museum
And among more than 600 Phoenician scarabs (who Doug M calls coins) there are only about 20 or so who depict Subsaharan Africans. Which is hardly any large number.
Some people are really cherry-picking images which they think look black. Not a specially scientific approach
Phoenician scarabs
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Again, the point here is that Europeans have been talking about black people from North Africa for thousands of years. So how is that "black washing"? Are you seriously claiming that all these thousands of years Europeans were doing this to "impress black people"? Your point is that somehow all these depictions and descriptions of black people from Africa are somehow propaganda or some lie to "hide" light skinned North Africans in history. Because according to you and folks like you, the entire history of North Africa for over 30,000 years has been exclusively of light skinned to white people of "Eurasian" descent. Therefore, because of that, any description to the contrary has to be a lie, propaganda or something else other than the fact that black people have always been in Africa and not cut off from any part of it.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Because of their ignorance and because they want to target afro-americans to make more profit. This is why most of these darkwashed figures are from the US or UK and not countries where there is a large north african diaspora like France, Spain, Italy, etc
Originally posted by Doug M:
Why on earth would Europeans go through the effort to "black wash" North Africans? You would have to come up with an explanation why this would even be considered anything other absurd ramblings from someone who is racist or colorist. Obviously the simple explanation is there were always blacks in North Africa.
White americans probably think all africans are black or that modern north africans are simply arabs and that before them lived black africans.
quote:That's an artistic depiction probably influenced by how many modern tuaregs look like but we don't have any physical information in regards to tin hinan. Tuaregs have a range of looks going from north african looking to fully west african because of centuries of slavery/razzias this is why tuareg societies are highly stratified with a whole set of castes (this does not exist among other berber communities as far as a I know)
Originally posted by Doug M: Is this black washing?
Paining of Tin Hinan by an Algerian Painter.
quote:Literally none of them come from Carthage + you clearly cherrypick since they do not even make 1% of all coins lol
Originally posted by Doug M: And this is not the first time we have talked about the coinage from Carthage/Phoenicia.
https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009453;p=3
A large number of those coins, especially from Ibiza have African images on them......
You can find some here:
https://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/carc/gems/Styles-and-Periods/Classical-Phoenician-Scarabs
anyway don't force me to post genetic and anthropological datas on Carthaginians [/QB]
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Foucauld
He moved to be with the Tuareg people, in Tamanghasset in southern Algeria. This region is the central part of the Sahara with the Ahaggar Mountains (the Hoggar) immediately to the west. Foucauld used the highest point in the region, the Assekrem, as a place of retreat. Living close to the Tuareg and sharing their life and hardships, he made a ten-year study of their language and cultural traditions. He learned the Tuareg language and worked on a dictionary and grammar. His dictionary manuscript was published posthumously in four volumes and has become known among Berberologists for its rich and apt descriptions. He formulated the idea of founding a new religious institute, under the name of the Little Brothers of Jesus.
quote:??? Europeans never considered black people to be "north african" they actually always made the difference :
Originally posted by Doug M:
Again, the point here is that Europeans have been talking about black people from North Africa for thousands of years. So how is that "black washing"? Are you seriously claiming that all these thousands of years Europeans were doing this to "impress black people"? Your point is that somehow all these depictions and descriptions of black people from Africa are somehow propaganda or some lie to "hide" light skinned North Africans in history. Because according to you and folks like you, the entire history of North Africa for over 30,000 years has been exclusively of light skinned to white people of "Eurasian" descent. Therefore, because of that, any description to the contrary has to be a lie, propaganda or something else other than the fact that black people have always been in Africa and not cut off from any part of it.
Again, just explain this, lyre player palace of Nestor, Mycenae:
quote:O. Bates, The eastern libyans, pp. 51
In classical times the earliest detailed account of the partition of the Libyan tribes is found in Herodotus. According to the historian, Libya began west of the Nile, 7 and ran to the Atlantic/ being bordered on the south by the land of the Aethiopians, who were black and woolly-haired. 9"
quote:https://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/338
Herodotus lists two newcomer peoples - the Greeks and the Phoenicians - and two indigenous peoples - the Libyans to the north and the Aethiopes* to the south - inhabiting "Libya" (IV 197, 2). Toponym and ethnicity were thus separated in their geographical connotations: in Herodotus as in the following centuries, the term "Libyans" serves above all as a collective name for the indigenous population of North Africa, distinguished by their lighter skin and other characteristics from the negroid Ethiopians (for a detailed catalog of the "Libyan" tribes in this sense, attested throughout antiquity, cf. Desanges 1962)."
quote:https://ianjamesross.com/journal/2018/4/28/aethiops-quidam-e-numero-militari-black-africans-in-the-roman-army
it seems that many Romans were distinctly prejudiced against black people in particular. Black Africans were seen as exotic, and perhaps threateningly alien, and they are seldom if ever mentioned in Roman literature without some negative connotation. Most disturbingly, the historian Appian claims that the military commander Brutus, before the battle of Philippi in 42BC, met an ‘Ethiopian’ outside the gates of his camp: his soldiers instantly hacked the man to pieces, taking his appearance for a bad omen – to the superstitious Roman, black was the colour of death.
quote:(Historia Augusta, ‘Septimius Severus’, 22.4-5)
"After inspecting the wall near the rampart in Britain… just as he [Severus] was wondering what omen would present itself, an Ethiopian from a military unit, who was famous among buffoons and always a notable joker, met him with a garland of cypress. And when Severus in a rage ordered that the man be removed from his sight, troubled as he was by the man's ominous colour and the ominous nature of the garland, [the Ethiopian] by way of jest cried, it is said, “You have been all things, you have conquered all things, now, O conqueror, be a god.” "
quote:It seems you don't really know much about them here read :
Originally posted by Doug M: As for the Tuareg, the Sahara in North Africa has always been populated by black people there is no one "black look". You simply are promoting falsehoods. Black people have always been in North Africa idiot. This is why you keep ignoring the evidence of the Wet Sahara because you know it would have been full of black people who later became nomadic as it dried up. Nomadism and pastoralism in the Sahara is an indigenous African evolution to adapt to climate change. Your attempts to sit here and pretend otherwise is the problem and nothing else.
Oult Yemma a upper caste Tuareg woman from the Ahoggar Mountains in SOuthern Libya:
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-dassine-poetesse-22265460.html
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/ahaggar-by.html?page=7
https://www.amazon.com/Voci-dallHoggar/dp/8897371094
More on Charles Foucald:
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Foucauld
He moved to be with the Tuareg people, in Tamanghasset in southern Algeria. This region is the central part of the Sahara with the Ahaggar Mountains (the Hoggar) immediately to the west. Foucauld used the highest point in the region, the Assekrem, as a place of retreat. Living close to the Tuareg and sharing their life and hardships, he made a ten-year study of their language and cultural traditions. He learned the Tuareg language and worked on a dictionary and grammar. His dictionary manuscript was published posthumously in four volumes and has become known among Berberologists for its rich and apt descriptions. He formulated the idea of founding a new religious institute, under the name of the Little Brothers of Jesus.
And bottom line you are just rehashing stuff that has been discussed to death on this forum for many years.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009525;p=4#000179 [/QB]
quote:https://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/1704
However, we must note that the Tuaregs use other words to name (always with contempt) the Blacks located south of the Sahara: ésedîf (plur. isédîfen) designates a Black generally in conjunction with aounnan (plur. iounnanen) speaking a Sudanese language: taounant (Songhai language, see J. Clauzel, 1962, for more details and Foucauld, Dict. touareg-français III, p. 1510) or etîfen (plur. itîfenen), ébenher, éhati (plur. ihatan), a black person who speaks neither Arabic nor Berber, while the word akli (plur. iklân) designates the enslaved slave, bella the slave living freely and iderfan, ighawellan, the freedmen."
quote:Slavery in the Land of Islam, Malek Chebel, p.198-199
It is that of the "masters", the aménokal of the Algerian Tuaregs, the illan for the Malian Tuaregs, and certainly not that of the slaves raided during survival expeditions in the course of which the Targui regularly supplied themselves with camels, cattle and iklan - the word designated the captives and black slaves raided from the sedentary populations of Chad and Sudan. No one can say enough about the haughtiness of the Tuareg chiefs, their conviction of being a superior race, their sectarianism. It cannot be said enough that their society is deeply unequal and iniquitous. The slave system has been in force in this immense and desolate region since antiquity. It is difficult to go into detail about the multiple dependencies that run through Tuareg society, with its local and, more recently, national ramifications. L et us content ourselves with saying that the two lowest social strata are that of the craftsmen and that of the captives. "The group of blacksmiths (inhadan), notes Pierre Boilley, was dedicated to industrial work. Attached to a tawset (tribe based on lineage kinship), they were at its service, but were considered neither captives nor dependents. Their status, ambiguous, resembles a caste. Partially untouchable and sometimes despised, they were nevertheless frightening because of the magical side of their industry, and everyone was obliged to protect them or at least not to attack them on pain of losing their honor (...) At the bottom of the social ladder, servants or captives (iklan) were both permanent servants attached to the camp (tent captives), and shepherds, living alone with the herds (dune captives). It should be noted that the servants were, it seems, not very numerous among the Kel Adagh (of Mali), having had to suffer numerous rezzous" [...] Even the freedmen (ederef) continue to suffer the ostracism of the lords. In his Tuareg-French dictionary (1910-1916), Father Charles de Foucauld, however benevolent towards the Tuareg culture, underlines it frankly: "Presently, throughout the Algerian, Moroccan, and Tripolitan Sahara, from the day on which a slave (that is, a Negro, since there are now no other slaves there but Negroes) is freed, he takes the name of hartani, belongs to the class of hartani, and is in every respect considered one of them; the population of hartani thus continually receives new contributions of Negro blood. The hartani are free, but they form the lowest class among the free" (vol. II, p.632)."
quote:There actually is a recorded anecdote of Vikings capturing "blue men" from North Africa and bringing them to Ireland.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
The darkwashing does not only apply to North Africa, even North European mythological figures like Heimdall has been affected, and also several other European historical and mythological figures.
quote:That said, I do think some casting agencies nowadays take "diverse casting" a bit too far. Fictional characters I don't care so much about, but Joan d'Arc and Julius Caesar looking "Black" seems much more improbable to me.
At this time came the Aunites (that is, the Danes) with innumerable armies to York, and they sacked the city, and they overcame it; and that was the beginning of harassment and misfortunes for the Britons; for it was not long before this that there had been every war and every trouble in Norway, and this was the source of that war in Norway: two younger sons of Albdan, king of Norway, drove out the eldest son, i.e. Ragnall son of Albdan, for fear that he would seize the kingship of Norway after their father. So Ragnall came with his three sons to the Orkneys. Ragnall stayed there then, with his youngest son. The older sons, however, filled with arrogance and rashness, proceeded with a large army, having mustered that army from all quarters, to march against the Franks and Saxons. They thought that their father would return to Norway immediately after their departure.
Then their arrogance and their youthfulness incited them to voyage across the Cantabrian Ocean (i.e. the sea that is between Ireland and Spain) and they reached Spain, and they did many evil things in Spain, both destroying and plundering. After that they proceeded across the Gaditanean Straits (i.e. the place where the Irish Sea [sic] goes into the surrounding ocean), so that they reached Africa, and they waged war against the Mauritanians, and made a great slaughter of the Mauritanians. However, as they were going to this battle, one of the sons said to the other, ‘Brother,’ he said, ‘we are very foolish and mad to be killing ourselves going from country to country throughout the world, and not to be defending our own patrimony, and doing the will of our father, for he is alone now, sad and discouraged in a land not his own, since the other son whom we left along with him has been slain, as has been revealed to me.’ It would seem that that was revealed to him in a dream vision; and his Ragnall's other son was slain in battle; and moreover, the father himself barely escaped from that battle—which dream proved to be true.
While he was saying that, they saw the Mauritanian forces coming towards them, and when the son who spoke the above words saw that, he leaped suddenly into the battle, and attacked the king of the Mauritanians, and gave bim a blow with a great sword and cut off his hand. There was hard fighting on both sides in this battle, and neither of them won the victory from the other in that battle. But all returned to camp, after many among them had been slain. However, they challenged each other to come to battle the next day.
The king of the Mauritanians escaped from the camp and fled in the night after his hand had been cut off. When the morning came, the Norwegians seized their weapons and readied themselves firmly and bravely for the battle. The Mauritanians, however, when they noticed that their king had departed, fled after they had been terribly slain. Thereupon the Norwegians swept across the country, and they devastated and burned the whole land. Then they brought a great host of them captive with them to Ireland, i.e. those are the black men [literally 'blue men' but with the sense 'black', see further here]. For Mauri is the same as nigri; 'Mauritania' is the same as nigritudo. Hardly one in three of the Norwegians escaped, between those who were slain, and those who drowned in the Gaditanian Straits. Now those black men remained in Ireland for a long time. Mauritania is located across from the Balearic Islands. (J. N. Radner (ed. & trans.), Fragmentary Annals of Ireland (Dublin, 1978), FA 330, pp. 120–1)
quote:Blue men are mentioned at a couple of occasions also in Icelandic sagas, but they were indeed a rarity in the Nordic countries and also on the British isles during the Viking age. They hardly made such impression that the old Scandinavians would have imagined the Æsir as blue-men (blaman). Also the Æsir are probably rather old in Scandinavian mythology, and the Scandinavian religion was already old both when the annals of Ireland was written and when the Icelandic sagas were written down.
Originally posted by BrandonP:
There actually is a recorded anecdote of Vikings capturing "blue men" from North Africa and bringing them to Ireland.
quote:So to cast black actors as Norse gods is quite a stretch. A Black Heimdall in a movie has more, as you also imply, to do with political correctness and modern diversity issues than some kind of fidelity to the old Edda scriptures.
Þá kvað þat Heimdallr, hvítastr ása,
vissi hann vel fram sem vanir aðrir
quote:Yes, whitewashing has also it´s problems. I remember one old Tarzan film where there was a whole city inhabited by White Amazons deep in the African jungle
Originally posted by BrandonP
That said, I do think some casting agencies nowadays take "diverse casting" a bit too far. Fictional characters I don't care so much about, but Joan d'Arc and Julius Caesar looking "Black" seems much more improbable to me.
On the other hand, for a long time, Hollywood had the opposite problem. How many times have actors of European descent played ancient Egyptians, Biblical Israelites, Native Americans, etc? Even Genghis Khan of Mongolia had John Wayne playing him once. And, speaking of Julius Caesar, why is it that Hollywood Romans seem to speak with English accents rather than Italian ones?
quote:Makes sense but this guy want you to believe that people in northern morocco during the medieval era looked like this :
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Vikings called most people who had somewhat dark skin, or black hair for either "blaman", or "svartur". Also the person name "Kol" comes from dark. In todays Swedish the word kol means coal, which also is rather dark.
quote:OK, how does that address where the images and descriptions of black people in ancient Greece came from? The depictions of blacks in ancient Greece predate Herodatus by 1000 years. So where did these people come from and why are there no "Libyans" as you call them depicted there?
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:??? Europeans never considered black people to be "north african" they actually always made the difference :
Originally posted by Doug M:
Again, the point here is that Europeans have been talking about black people from North Africa for thousands of years. So how is that "black washing"? Are you seriously claiming that all these thousands of years Europeans were doing this to "impress black people"? Your point is that somehow all these depictions and descriptions of black people from Africa are somehow propaganda or some lie to "hide" light skinned North Africans in history. Because according to you and folks like you, the entire history of North Africa for over 30,000 years has been exclusively of light skinned to white people of "Eurasian" descent. Therefore, because of that, any description to the contrary has to be a lie, propaganda or something else other than the fact that black people have always been in Africa and not cut off from any part of it.
Again, just explain this, lyre player palace of Nestor, Mycenae:
quote:O. Bates, The eastern libyans, pp. 51
In classical times the earliest detailed account of the partition of the Libyan tribes is found in Herodotus. According to the historian, Libya began west of the Nile, 7 and ran to the Atlantic/ being bordered on the south by the land of the Aethiopians, who were black and woolly-haired. 9"
quote:https://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/338
Herodotus lists two newcomer peoples - the Greeks and the Phoenicians - and two indigenous peoples - the Libyans to the north and the Aethiopes* to the south - inhabiting "Libya" (IV 197, 2). Toponym and ethnicity were thus separated in their geographical connotations: in Herodotus as in the following centuries, the term "Libyans" serves above all as a collective name for the indigenous population of North Africa, distinguished by their lighter skin and other characteristics from the negroid Ethiopians (for a detailed catalog of the "Libyan" tribes in this sense, attested throughout antiquity, cf. Desanges 1962)."
You can say black people lived in what we currently consider "north Africa" but saying that they were seen as berbers/libyans/africans/moors etc is obviously wrong
quote:https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm#link42H_4_0001
42. I wonder then at those who have parted off and divided the world into Libya, Asia, and Europe, since the difference between these is not small; for in length Europe extends along by both, while in breadth it is clear to me that it is beyond comparison larger; 42 for Libya furnishes proofs about itself that it is surrounded by sea, except so much of it as borders upon Asia; and this fact was shown by Necos king of the Egyptians first of all those about whom we have knowledge. He when he had ceased digging the channel 43 which goes through from the Nile to the Arabian gulf, sent Phenicians with ships, bidding them sail and come back through the Pillars of Heracles to the Northern Sea and so to Egypt. The Phenicians therefore set forth from the Erythraian Sea and sailed through the Southern Sea; and when autumn came, they would put to shore and sow the land, wherever in Libya they might happen to be as they sailed, and then they waited for the harvest: and having reaped the corn they would sail on, so that after two years had elapsed, in the third year they turned through the Pillars of Heracles and arrived again in Egypt. And they reported a thing which I cannot believe, but another man may, namely that in sailing round Libya they had the sun on their right hand.
quote:And to go along with the quote above about the Oracle of Ammon and black people, you have a similar statement as well from Chapter 2 of the Histories:
Moreover, I think that the women were called doves by the people of Dodona for the reason that they were Barbarians and because it seemed to them that they uttered voice like birds; but after a time (they say) the dove spoke with human voice, that is when the woman began to speak so that they could understand; but so long as she spoke a Barbarian tongue she seemed to them to be uttering voice like a bird: for had it been really a dove, how could it speak with human voice? And in saying that the dove was black, they indicate that the woman was Egyptian. The ways of delivering oracles too at Thebes in Egypt and at Dodona closely resemble one another, as it happens, and also the method of divination by victims has come from Egypt.
58. Moreover, it is true also that the Egyptians were the first of men who made solemn assemblies 55 and processions and approaches to the temples, 56 and from them the Hellenes have learnt them, and my evidence for this is that the Egyptian celebrations of these have been held from a very ancient time, whereas the Hellenic were introduced but lately.
59. The Egyptians hold their solemn assemblies not once in the year but often, especially and with the greatest zeal and devotion 58 at the city of Bubastis for Artemis, and next at Busiris for Isis; for in this last-named city there is a very great temple of Isis, and this city stands in the middle of the Delta of Egypt; now Isis is in the tongue of the Hellenes Demeter: thirdly, they have a solemn assembly at the city of Saïs for Athene, fourthly at Heliopolis for the Sun (Helios), fifthly at the city of Buto in honour of Leto, and sixthly at the city of Papremis for Ares.
quote:https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm
Now all who have a temple set up to the Theban Zeus or who are of the district of Thebes, these, I say, all sacrifice goats and abstain from sheep: for not all the Egyptians equally reverence the same gods, except only Isis and Osiris (who they say is Dionysos), these they all reverence alike: but they who have a temple of Mendes or belong to the Mendesian district, these abstain from goats and sacrifice sheep. Now the men of Thebes and those who after their example abstain from sheep, say that this custom was established among them for the cause which follows:—Heracles (they say) had an earnest desire to see Zeus, and Zeus did not desire to be seen of him; and at last when Heracles was urgent in entreaty Zeus contrived this device, that is to say, he flayed a ram and held in front of him the head of the ram which he had cut off, and he put on over him the fleece and then showed himself to him. Hence the Egyptians make the image of Zeus into the face of a ram; and the Ammonians do so also after their example, being settlers both from the Egyptians and from the Ethiopians, and using a language which is a medley of both tongues: and in my opinion it is from this god that the Ammonians took the name which they have, for the Egyptians call Zeus Amun. The Thebans then do not sacrifice rams but hold them sacred for this reason; on one day however in the year, on the feast of Zeus, they cut up in the same manner and flay one single ram and cover with its skin the image of Zeus, and then they bring up to it another image of Heracles. This done, all who are in the temple beat themselves in lamentation for the ram, and then they bury it in a sacred tomb.
quote:Yet here is a description of the Mauretani as black from Procopius in The Wars:
Originally posted by Antalas:
North Africa was part of the roman empire for centuries participating in all layers of roman society meanwhile blacks were rare and seen as exotic :
quote:https://ianjamesross.com/journal/2018/4/28/aethiops-quidam-e-numero-militari-black-africans-in-the-roman-army
it seems that many Romans were distinctly prejudiced against black people in particular. Black Africans were seen as exotic, and perhaps threateningly alien, and they are seldom if ever mentioned in Roman literature without some negative connotation. Most disturbingly, the historian Appian claims that the military commander Brutus, before the battle of Philippi in 42BC, met an ‘Ethiopian’ outside the gates of his camp: his soldiers instantly hacked the man to pieces, taking his appearance for a bad omen – to the superstitious Roman, black was the colour of death.
We see the same reaction with the north african emperor Septimius Severus which clearly means that even north africans themselves were not used to interact with black people :
quote:(Historia Augusta, ‘Septimius Severus’, 22.4-5)
"After inspecting the wall near the rampart in Britain… just as he [Severus] was wondering what omen would present itself, an Ethiopian from a military unit, who was famous among buffoons and always a notable joker, met him with a garland of cypress. And when Severus in a rage ordered that the man be removed from his sight, troubled as he was by the man's ominous colour and the ominous nature of the garland, [the Ethiopian] by way of jest cried, it is said, “You have been all things, you have conquered all things, now, O conqueror, be a god.” "
quote:https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/anc-nafrica.asp
And there are fortresses also on the mountain [called "Clypea" by the Romans], which are neglected, by reason of the fact that they do not seem necessary to the inhabitants. For since the time when the Mauretanii wrested Aurasium from the Vandals, not a single enemy had until now ever come there or so much as caused the barbarians to be afraid that they would come, but even the populous city of Tamougadis [Timgad], situated against the mountain on the east at the beginning of the plain, was emptied of its population by the Mauretanii and razed to the ground, in order that the enemy should not only not be able to camp there, but should not even have the city as an excuse for coming near the mountains. And the Mauretanii of that place held also the land to the west of Aurasium, a tract both extensive and fertile. And beyond these dwelt other nations of the Mauretanii, who were ruled by Ortaïas, who had come, as was stated above, as an ally of Solomon and the Romans. And I have heard this man say that beyond the country which he ruled there was no habitation of men, but desert land extending to a great distance, and that beyond that there are men, not black-skinned like the Mauretanii, but very white in body and fair-haired.
quote:Addressed above. Still waiting on why there are more "Aethiopians" in ancient Greek art and literature than your light skinned North Africans. I guess everyone was being black washed huh? Obviously by the time the Greeks and Romans took over there would have been much mixture along the coasts, but your attempts to claim that no blacks ever were there is nonsense. Not to mention Carthage was destroyed by Rome.
Originally posted by Antalas:
Moreover I don't see why you interpret every black figure in western art as being north african when greeks themselves said they came from aethiopia not Egypt or libya ...
quote:Again, how does a couple of images of some light skinned Tuareg prove that there was a caste based on skin color? I showed the image of Tin Hinan and you claimed that this was not accurate, then I showed a picture of a black leader of a Kel and you dodged that. So the only one who is against "diversity" is you because now you are saying that not only was coastal North Africa always populated by light skinned people but also the Sahara. And again, the facts and evidence keeps contradicting you yet you keep spouting the same gibberish.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:It seems you don't really know much about them here read :
Originally posted by Doug M: As for the Tuareg, the Sahara in North Africa has always been populated by black people there is no one "black look". You simply are promoting falsehoods. Black people have always been in North Africa idiot. This is why you keep ignoring the evidence of the Wet Sahara because you know it would have been full of black people who later became nomadic as it dried up. Nomadism and pastoralism in the Sahara is an indigenous African evolution to adapt to climate change. Your attempts to sit here and pretend otherwise is the problem and nothing else.
Oult Yemma a upper caste Tuareg woman from the Ahoggar Mountains in SOuthern Libya:
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-dassine-poetesse-22265460.html
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/ahaggar-by.html?page=7
https://www.amazon.com/Voci-dallHoggar/dp/8897371094
More on Charles Foucald:
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Foucauld
He moved to be with the Tuareg people, in Tamanghasset in southern Algeria. This region is the central part of the Sahara with the Ahaggar Mountains (the Hoggar) immediately to the west. Foucauld used the highest point in the region, the Assekrem, as a place of retreat. Living close to the Tuareg and sharing their life and hardships, he made a ten-year study of their language and cultural traditions. He learned the Tuareg language and worked on a dictionary and grammar. His dictionary manuscript was published posthumously in four volumes and has become known among Berberologists for its rich and apt descriptions. He formulated the idea of founding a new religious institute, under the name of the Little Brothers of Jesus.
And bottom line you are just rehashing stuff that has been discussed to death on this forum for many years.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009525;p=4#000179
quote:https://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/1704
However, we must note that the Tuaregs use other words to name (always with contempt) the Blacks located south of the Sahara: ésedîf (plur. isédîfen) designates a Black generally in conjunction with aounnan (plur. iounnanen) speaking a Sudanese language: taounant (Songhai language, see J. Clauzel, 1962, for more details and Foucauld, Dict. touareg-français III, p. 1510) or etîfen (plur. itîfenen), ébenher, éhati (plur. ihatan), a black person who speaks neither Arabic nor Berber, while the word akli (plur. iklân) designates the enslaved slave, bella the slave living freely and iderfan, ighawellan, the freedmen."
quote:Slavery in the Land of Islam, Malek Chebel, p.198-199
It is that of the "masters", the aménokal of the Algerian Tuaregs, the illan for the Malian Tuaregs, and certainly not that of the slaves raided during survival expeditions in the course of which the Targui regularly supplied themselves with camels, cattle and iklan - the word designated the captives and black slaves raided from the sedentary populations of Chad and Sudan. No one can say enough about the haughtiness of the Tuareg chiefs, their conviction of being a superior race, their sectarianism. It cannot be said enough that their society is deeply unequal and iniquitous. The slave system has been in force in this immense and desolate region since antiquity. It is difficult to go into detail about the multiple dependencies that run through Tuareg society, with its local and, more recently, national ramifications. L et us content ourselves with saying that the two lowest social strata are that of the craftsmen and that of the captives. "The group of blacksmiths (inhadan), notes Pierre Boilley, was dedicated to industrial work. Attached to a tawset (tribe based on lineage kinship), they were at its service, but were considered neither captives nor dependents. Their status, ambiguous, resembles a caste. Partially untouchable and sometimes despised, they were nevertheless frightening because of the magical side of their industry, and everyone was obliged to protect them or at least not to attack them on pain of losing their honor (...) At the bottom of the social ladder, servants or captives (iklan) were both permanent servants attached to the camp (tent captives), and shepherds, living alone with the herds (dune captives). It should be noted that the servants were, it seems, not very numerous among the Kel Adagh (of Mali), having had to suffer numerous rezzous" [...] Even the freedmen (ederef) continue to suffer the ostracism of the lords. In his Tuareg-French dictionary (1910-1916), Father Charles de Foucauld, however benevolent towards the Tuareg culture, underlines it frankly: "Presently, throughout the Algerian, Moroccan, and Tripolitan Sahara, from the day on which a slave (that is, a Negro, since there are now no other slaves there but Negroes) is freed, he takes the name of hartani, belongs to the class of hartani, and is in every respect considered one of them; the population of hartani thus continually receives new contributions of Negro blood. The hartani are free, but they form the lowest class among the free" (vol. II, p.632)."
Bilal ag acherif
amenokal of Ahaggar
Amenokal of Tassili
Amenokal of Kel Ansar :
etc etc
Never asked yourself why tuaregs looked so diverse ??
quote:Greeks entered in contact with blacks through Egypt since many nubians lived there and especially the egyptian army had nubian auxiliaries anyway this has already been acknowledged by historians :
Originally posted by Doug M:
OK, how does that address where the images and descriptions of black people in ancient Greece came from? The depictions of blacks in ancient Greece predate Herodatus by 1000 years. So where did these people come from and why are there no "Libyans" as you call them depicted there?
Most of the contents of these texts are online for anyone to read. And in Herodatus' description, Libya was actually a reference to the entire continent of Africa.
quote:???
Originally posted by Doug M: And for the ancient Greek texts they say a lot of things. But we can say that Greeks sure constantly spoke of Ethiopia more often than any other Africans. Not to mention there are numerous "Ethiopians" in Greek myth and legend but how many Libyans? Again, if Libya was closer to Greece than "Ethiopia" why are the Greeks constantly mentioning Ethiopians like Memnon and Andromeda? Somehow this ties in with those black people in ancient Greek art that you keep ducking and dodging.
quote:O. Bates, The eastern libyans, pp. 51
In classical times the earliest detailed account of the partition of the Libyan tribes is found in Herodotus. According to the historian, Libya began west of the Nile, 7 and ran to the Atlantic/ being bordered on the south by the land of the Aethiopians, who were black and woolly-haired. 9"
quote:O. Bates, The eastern Libyans, pp. 46
R'bw = Libue. 11 This group, seated in the north, comprised a number of tribes, just as in classical times. This is borne out by the fact that the Rebu were so extensive a people that their importance led the Greeks into bestowing the generic term Libyans upon the indigenous North Africans as a whole. The Egyptian records, moreover, speak of the Rebu as of a powerful people at the time of the invasions. Furthermore, the name survives in Marmarica at the present time — Hatfiah el-Lebuk (3 hours south of Siwah) ; Mongar Lebuk (long. 29° E., lat. 30° N. ; k = u = w).
quote:Brent D. Shaw, Ethnicity in the ancient mediterranean, pp. 532
As one advanced further to the south of Gaetulian lands, into the Sahara and its northern peripheries, the ethnic labels became fuzzier, more general, and often, since land and space were so vast and indeterminate, they were based more on a phenotyping of personal appearance than of place. The peoples deep to the south in the Sahara were called Aethiopes or peoples whose skin had been burnt to a darker color. (Hölscher 1937; Thompson 1989; Desanges 1993). The simple existence of these peoples naturally suggested to the logical mind the necessary existence of intervening types, and so the category of Melanogaetuloi, black Gaetulians, was invented and bandied about by scientific geographers such as Ptolemy. Analogous terms such as Leukoaethiopes, “white black people,” or Libyaethiopes, “African black people,” were exploited by the same Ptolemy and by Pomponius Mela, all in the name of the geographer’s science."
quote:Yes and greeks also said this :
Originally posted by Doug M: And they also say this about Egyptians:
And keep in mind the Oracle of Amon was located near Siwa which is not far from Buhariya, from which I previously posted images of the tombs of the 26th dynasty which would be very close to the time of Herodatus:
https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010533;p=1
And I wouldn't be shocked if this ties into those ancient black images from ancient Greek art. So I guess the Greeks were black washing ancient North Africa huh?
quote:Arrian, Indica 6.9
The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.
quote:Strabo, Geography 15.1.13
As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
quote:Shavit, Y. (2001). History in Black: African-Americans in Search of an Ancient Past. London: Frank Cass. p. 154.
The evidence clearly shows that those Greco-Roman authors who refer to skin color and other physical traits distinguish sharply between Ethiopians (Nubians) and Egyptians, and rarely do they refer to the Egyptians, even though they were described as darker than themselves. No Greek doubted that the Egyptians were darker than the Greeks, but not as dark as black Africans
quote:Why don't you adress what I posted first ? Moreover Procopius lived in Byzantine tunisia, he never saw any "mauretanii" nor went there + your own quote mention fair people in the same area lol
Originally posted by Doug M: Yet here is a description of the Mauretani as black from Procopius in The Wars:
quote:Light skinned tuaregs ? These are literally tuareg chiefs and my quotes are clear about the existence of such castes, you're in clear denial.
Originally posted by Doug M: Again, how does a couple of images of some light skinned Tuareg prove that there was a caste based on skin color? I showed the image of Tin Hinan and you claimed that this was not accurate, then I showed a picture of a black leader of a Kel and you dodged that. So the only one who is against "diversity" is you because now you are saying that not only was coastal North Africa always populated by light skinned people but also the Sahara. And again, the facts and evidence keeps contradicting you yet you keep spouting the same gibberish.
quote:That's actually very simple :
Originally posted by Doug M: As for Moors, how about explaining this:
Literally "moors heads", not "Ethiopian heads".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Alcoraz
Another old image of Moors this time fighting charlemagne:
quote:L'esclavage en terre d'Islam, Malek Chebel, p. 37-38
At the time when Andalusia was Muslim particularly from the eleventh century, a military body made up of black soldiers - slaves, therefore - was formed around 950 by Abderrahman an Nasir (literally "the conqueror"). Their vocation was clear to defend their master at the risk of their life. They were few in number compared to what existed in the rest of the Muslim Empire and their power never really blossomed. The idea of the sovereign, like that of his successors Al-Hakim II al-Mustançir, in power between 961 and 976, or, later, Al-Mansur, was to confine them to menial tasks. Conversely, the Slavic slaves, just as present at the court of the Sultan, were better regarded. The black slaves had their heyday at the Battle of Zallaqa, October 23, 1086, won by the Muslim army to the detriment of King Alfonso VI. Under the leadership of the Berber general Yusuf ibn Tashfin (died 1106), the first ruler of the Almoravid dynasty, they succeeded in breaking through the enemy ranks without ever deriving any benefit from their efforts. Basically, the image of the Black in Spain is similar to that which was then his in the Maghreb.
quote:L'esclavage en terre d'islam, Malek Chebel, p. 225
Later, still among the Zirids, it is question of a black guard composed of 20,000 'abid (30,000, according to other sources) called mamlouks in the banal sense of the term, that is to say “possessed” or “captives.” All these figures have been confirmed by Ibn Khaldoun (1332-1406), a Tunisian historian who, at the end of the 14th century, succeeded in completing the picture of the Maghreb dynasties by adding information collected on several centuries.
quote:André Ménard, Le Maroc une Terre des Hommes, p. 78
Around 1072, Youssef Ibn Tachfin, the second Almoravid sultan, who wanted to build up a personal guard, recruited 250 European horsemen in Andalusia. He added two thousand Sudanese to whom he provided horses. This praetorian guard, which will play a very important role throughout the Almoravid period, announces the creation of the famous black guard set up, later, by Moulay Ismail, the great Alaouite Sultan, contemporary of Louis XIV, about whom we will speak again in due course.
quote:https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-10-138
Males were sought for a variety of functions: doorkeepers, secretaries, militaries or eunuchs. Black soldiers were seen from Islamic Spain to Egypt, and in Morocco a whole generation of black young boys were bought at the age of 10 or 11 and trained to become its army. However, the bulk of the trade was in females, as domestic servants, entertainers and/or concubines: two females for every male overall, in contrast to the ratio of two males for every female overall in the Atlantic trade [15]. Some harems could be enormous, reaching even the extravagating number of 14,000 concubines. Young female slaves were instructed in household crafts and were then provided with resources to buy a home and get married."
quote:- Ibn Idhari (1312)
In this year the might of the emir Yusuf increased. He bought a body of black slaves and sent to al-Andalus, where there was bought for him a body of a'laj*. He gave them all mounts and finally he had a total, paid for with his own money, of 240 cavaliers. Of the slaves, also bought with his own money, he had about 2,000 and mounted them all. He made himself more difficult of access and his authority waxed mighty.
quote:John Wright, the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade, pp. 28
The geographer Al-Istakhri, who wrote in the mid-tenth century, reported that most of the black slaves brought to the Maghreb by the difficult routes across the Sahara ‘converged’ on Zawila.56 A century later Al-Biruni placed Zawila ‘on the marches of the lands of Sudan, the gateway for imported slaves’.57 Black slaves were taken into Tunisia at this period as military recruits in particular; probably coming up from the central Sudan through Zawila, they formed an important element in the army of the Zirid state. 5"
quote:David Nicolle, The Islamic West 7th-15th centuries AD, pp. 16
The main source of military manpower in North Africa remained the Berbers, and local dynasties like the Aghlabids never had a problem finding enough troops. They continued to provide the military muscle for subsequent smaller dynasties and the majority of those volunteers who built, repaired and manned the coastal ribats. Fewer in number were soldiers of black african origin. Following a mawali rebellion in AD 877 the Aghlabids began recruiting black abid soldiers of slave origin as elite guard units. Other slave-recruited troops included saqaliba, whose name means Slavs but who probably included individuals of other European origin, though their numbers are unknown.
quote:https://paragone.hypotheses.org/4694
Because of this great ignorance as well as the "Christian system of value where beauty is entirely built on brightness and light "4 , light skin is that of the saints, the nobles, the good Christians, while dark, black skin has in this Western Middle Ages a negative connotation. It is, after the year 1000, primarily associated with Darkness, thus with Hell and, therefore, with Satan, the Devil.
quote:Lol are you aware that Othello was inspired by the moroccan ambassador Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud ? That's how they depicted him when he arrived at the court of Queen Elizabeth I in 1600 :
Originally posted by Doug M: And of course you got Othello the Moor. So the question is why would Europeans blackwash African people who weren't black?
All this garbage trying to claim that anybody who said there were blacks in North Africa MUST be spreading lies and propaganda, even in ancient times.
quote:OK. So again, if all these North Africans were all light skinned in ancient times, then why are there so many blacks in Ancient Greek art and not many 'light skinned' Libyans? How come the blacks were able to get there and have a more notable role than these "light skinned" people? And you can post all the textual sources of modern scholars taking whatever part of ancient texts you want but that is not the only evidence we have. We have the remains of various North Africans such as Uan Muhuggiag. The point being there is abundant evidence of black Africans in North Africa and therefore the obvious reason why there are blacks in Greek Art. Which means your pathetic attempts to say that Europeans were "dark washing" ancient light skinned North Africans are nonsense. Again, the obvious point being that black Africans have always been in North Africa and your attempts to claim otherwise keep getting shown to be false. Of course other types were also there as well, but that is not the same as what you keep whining about.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Greeks entered in contact with blacks through Egypt since many nubians lived there and especially the egyptian army had nubian auxiliaries anyway this has already been acknowledged by historians :
Originally posted by Doug M:
OK, how does that address where the images and descriptions of black people in ancient Greece came from? The depictions of blacks in ancient Greece predate Herodatus by 1000 years. So where did these people come from and why are there no "Libyans" as you call them depicted there?
Most of the contents of these texts are online for anyone to read. And in Herodatus' description, Libya was actually a reference to the entire continent of Africa.
These people have never been described as "libyans" nor did libyans got depicted as them.
quote:???
Originally posted by Doug M: And for the ancient Greek texts they say a lot of things. But we can say that Greeks sure constantly spoke of Ethiopia more often than any other Africans. Not to mention there are numerous "Ethiopians" in Greek myth and legend but how many Libyans? Again, if Libya was closer to Greece than "Ethiopia" why are the Greeks constantly mentioning Ethiopians like Memnon and Andromeda? Somehow this ties in with those black people in ancient Greek art that you keep ducking and dodging.
Aethiopia has always been located south of egypt and libya, again : According to the fifth century BCE Greek historian Herodotus, Libya was inhabited by four nations, of which two are indigenous: Libyans living in the north, and Ethiopians living in the south ( Hdt. IV, 197, 2)
quote:O. Bates, The eastern libyans, pp. 51
In classical times the earliest detailed account of the partition of the Libyan tribes is found in Herodotus. According to the historian, Libya began west of the Nile, 7 and ran to the Atlantic/ being bordered on the south by the land of the Aethiopians, who were black and woolly-haired. 9"
quote:O. Bates, The eastern Libyans, pp. 46
R'bw = Libue. 11 This group, seated in the north, comprised a number of tribes, just as in classical times. This is borne out by the fact that the Rebu were so extensive a people that their importance led the Greeks into bestowing the generic term Libyans upon the indigenous North Africans as a whole. The Egyptian records, moreover, speak of the Rebu as of a powerful people at the time of the invasions. Furthermore, the name survives in Marmarica at the present time — Hatfiah el-Lebuk (3 hours south of Siwah) ; Mongar Lebuk (long. 29° E., lat. 30° N. ; k = u = w).
quote:Brent D. Shaw, Ethnicity in the ancient mediterranean, pp. 532
As one advanced further to the south of Gaetulian lands, into the Sahara and its northern peripheries, the ethnic labels became fuzzier, more general, and often, since land and space were so vast and indeterminate, they were based more on a phenotyping of personal appearance than of place. The peoples deep to the south in the Sahara were called Aethiopes or peoples whose skin had been burnt to a darker color. (Hölscher 1937; Thompson 1989; Desanges 1993). The simple existence of these peoples naturally suggested to the logical mind the necessary existence of intervening types, and so the category of Melanogaetuloi, black Gaetulians, was invented and bandied about by scientific geographers such as Ptolemy. Analogous terms such as Leukoaethiopes, “white black people,” or Libyaethiopes, “African black people,” were exploited by the same Ptolemy and by Pomponius Mela, all in the name of the geographer’s science."
quote:The burden of proof is on you to show why there were no blacks in ancient North Africa. This is the problem because you keep claiming that it is an absolute fact when it is not and the only thing you are doing is cherry picking texts that you think bolster your position. But here is the contradiction, if these Europeans were so sure that blacks were not present then why are there so many blacks in Greek art from Africa? Where are these "light skinned" North Africans? Somehow you don't see the contradiction.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Yes and greeks also said this :
Originally posted by Doug M: And they also say this about Egyptians:
And keep in mind the Oracle of Amon was located near Siwa which is not far from Buhariya, from which I previously posted images of the tombs of the 26th dynasty which would be very close to the time of Herodatus:
https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010533;p=1
And I wouldn't be shocked if this ties into those ancient black images from ancient Greek art. So I guess the Greeks were black washing ancient North Africa huh?
quote:Arrian, Indica 6.9
The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.
quote:Strabo, Geography 15.1.13
As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
quote:Shavit, Y. (2001). History in Black: African-Americans in Search of an Ancient Past. London: Frank Cass. p. 154.
The evidence clearly shows that those Greco-Roman authors who refer to skin color and other physical traits distinguish sharply between Ethiopians (Nubians) and Egyptians, and rarely do they refer to the Egyptians, even though they were described as darker than themselves. No Greek doubted that the Egyptians were darker than the Greeks, but not as dark as black Africans
You clearly don't know what you're talking about, you simply select anything that can support your narrative without any critical analysis.
quote:So I posted the entire text of Herodatus and he contradicts you and now you are claiming I am not reading it right? You are contradicting yourself. Either we can trust these people and their writings or we can't. Seems like you only care about parts of their writings that you think agree with you when actually they don't. And this has been shown to you again and again in any way you want to see it whether archaeology, anthropology, art or literature, which is that blacks have always been in North Africa but you keep pushing that BS over and over opening threads saying the same thing.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Why don't you adress what I posted first ? Moreover Procopius lived in Byzantine tunisia, he never saw any "mauretanii" nor went there + your own quote mention fair people in the same area lol
Originally posted by Doug M: Yet here is a description of the Mauretani as black from Procopius in The Wars:
You clearly simply copy-paste quotes without having read anything about north africa's history.
quote:Again, there are numerous Tuareg clans and chiefs and obviously yes some of them are light skinned. That does not mean all tuareg chiefs are light skinned. You keep spouting BS and gibberish because your whole argument is that North Africa has always been populated by light skinned people who hated blacks. The fact that the Sahara was once wet and full of black people is something you ignore because it contradicts you. THe fact of so many blacks in the art from the Bahariya Oasis which is in the Northern part of Egypt in the late period contradicts you. The fact of black moors heads in Medieval European art contradicts you. I posted the black Chief of the Ahoggar Tuaregs who were one of the main forces opposing the French in the early 1900s and it contradicts you. The balance of evidence contradicts you yet you keep pushing your BS anyway. That is a you problem not a European problem or anyone else problem.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Light skinned tuaregs ? These are literally tuareg chiefs and my quotes are clear about the existence of such castes, you're in clear denial.
Originally posted by Doug M: Again, how does a couple of images of some light skinned Tuareg prove that there was a caste based on skin color? I showed the image of Tin Hinan and you claimed that this was not accurate, then I showed a picture of a black leader of a Kel and you dodged that. So the only one who is against "diversity" is you because now you are saying that not only was coastal North Africa always populated by light skinned people but also the Sahara. And again, the facts and evidence keeps contradicting you yet you keep spouting the same gibberish.
quote:Most of the muslims in Islamic Spain were European converts so this is not 'proof' of what North Africans looked like.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:That's actually very simple :
Originally posted by Doug M: As for Moors, how about explaining this:
Literally "moors heads", not "Ethiopian heads".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Alcoraz
Another old image of Moors this time fighting charlemagne:
quote:L'esclavage en terre d'Islam, Malek Chebel, p. 37-38
At the time when Andalusia was Muslim particularly from the eleventh century, a military body made up of black soldiers - slaves, therefore - was formed around 950 by Abderrahman an Nasir (literally "the conqueror"). Their vocation was clear to defend their master at the risk of their life. They were few in number compared to what existed in the rest of the Muslim Empire and their power never really blossomed. The idea of the sovereign, like that of his successors Al-Hakim II al-Mustançir, in power between 961 and 976, or, later, Al-Mansur, was to confine them to menial tasks. Conversely, the Slavic slaves, just as present at the court of the Sultan, were better regarded. The black slaves had their heyday at the Battle of Zallaqa, October 23, 1086, won by the Muslim army to the detriment of King Alfonso VI. Under the leadership of the Berber general Yusuf ibn Tashfin (died 1106), the first ruler of the Almoravid dynasty, they succeeded in breaking through the enemy ranks without ever deriving any benefit from their efforts. Basically, the image of the Black in Spain is similar to that which was then his in the Maghreb.
quote:L'esclavage en terre d'islam, Malek Chebel, p. 225
Later, still among the Zirids, it is question of a black guard composed of 20,000 'abid (30,000, according to other sources) called mamlouks in the banal sense of the term, that is to say “possessed” or “captives.” All these figures have been confirmed by Ibn Khaldoun (1332-1406), a Tunisian historian who, at the end of the 14th century, succeeded in completing the picture of the Maghreb dynasties by adding information collected on several centuries.
quote:André Ménard, Le Maroc une Terre des Hommes, p. 78
Around 1072, Youssef Ibn Tachfin, the second Almoravid sultan, who wanted to build up a personal guard, recruited 250 European horsemen in Andalusia. He added two thousand Sudanese to whom he provided horses. This praetorian guard, which will play a very important role throughout the Almoravid period, announces the creation of the famous black guard set up, later, by Moulay Ismail, the great Alaouite Sultan, contemporary of Louis XIV, about whom we will speak again in due course.
quote:https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-10-138
Males were sought for a variety of functions: doorkeepers, secretaries, militaries or eunuchs. Black soldiers were seen from Islamic Spain to Egypt, and in Morocco a whole generation of black young boys were bought at the age of 10 or 11 and trained to become its army. However, the bulk of the trade was in females, as domestic servants, entertainers and/or concubines: two females for every male overall, in contrast to the ratio of two males for every female overall in the Atlantic trade [15]. Some harems could be enormous, reaching even the extravagating number of 14,000 concubines. Young female slaves were instructed in household crafts and were then provided with resources to buy a home and get married."
quote:- Ibn Idhari (1312)
In this year the might of the emir Yusuf increased. He bought a body of black slaves and sent to al-Andalus, where there was bought for him a body of a'laj*. He gave them all mounts and finally he had a total, paid for with his own money, of 240 cavaliers. Of the slaves, also bought with his own money, he had about 2,000 and mounted them all. He made himself more difficult of access and his authority waxed mighty.
quote:John Wright, the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade, pp. 28
The geographer Al-Istakhri, who wrote in the mid-tenth century, reported that most of the black slaves brought to the Maghreb by the difficult routes across the Sahara ‘converged’ on Zawila.56 A century later Al-Biruni placed Zawila ‘on the marches of the lands of Sudan, the gateway for imported slaves’.57 Black slaves were taken into Tunisia at this period as military recruits in particular; probably coming up from the central Sudan through Zawila, they formed an important element in the army of the Zirid state. 5"
quote:David Nicolle, The Islamic West 7th-15th centuries AD, pp. 16
The main source of military manpower in North Africa remained the Berbers, and local dynasties like the Aghlabids never had a problem finding enough troops. They continued to provide the military muscle for subsequent smaller dynasties and the majority of those volunteers who built, repaired and manned the coastal ribats. Fewer in number were soldiers of black african origin. Following a mawali rebellion in AD 877 the Aghlabids began recruiting black abid soldiers of slave origin as elite guard units. Other slave-recruited troops included saqaliba, whose name means Slavs but who probably included individuals of other European origin, though their numbers are unknown.
Anyway people who saw the moors directly depicted them as mostly white skinned :
Late-14th-century Gothic mural painting by a Christian Toledan artist on the ceiling of the Hall of Kings of the Alhambra, possibly depicting the first ten sultans of the Nasrid dynasty
Cantigas de Santa Maria which are 420 illustrated poems made in Spain
quote:The conquest of Sicily in the 800s was always described as an Arab or Saracen conquest so the people depicted there are considered Arabs or Saracens not "Moors". In fact, often the Saracens or Arabs were depicted as light skinned but not "white". So again, where are the depictions of light skinned North Africans?
Originally posted by Antalas:
Siege of Messina, Sicilia, 842-843ad and painted in XIth century
quote:https://italicsmag.com/2020/06/09/the-muslims-in-sicily/
The Muslims who invaded Sicily in 827 AD and who eventually gained control of the island were tribes North Africa and the middle East. The majority were Arabs by which historians recognize Caucasians who had come to rule the lands from Persia to Morocco. The second most important group of Muslims were Berbers, also Caucasians. Their darker skin is a question of pigmentation. The Saracens (in Sicily they were called Arabs or Saracens), according to all histories I have read were olive-skinned people from the Middle East much like the present inhabitants of the area. During the long period of warfare required to eliminate local resistance, many different armies were sent from North Africa and other places such as Spain, and among these there were smaller groups of black-skinned Muslims. But their numbers were not sufficient to change the genetic pool of Sicilians.
quote:Again, you said the Europeans did not depict moors as black and I proved you wrong. The flag of Aragon does not say "black slave heads". It says Moor head. And there are many black "moor heads" in Eurpoean art. So you are wrong. And most of those white Muslims in Medieval Spanish art are actually European Muslims not "North Africans" necessarily as many of the Muslims in Spain were converted local Europeans. Again, where are the "light skinned" Africans in these depictions versus "black Africans"? You are disproving your own point.
Originally posted by Antalas:
It should be noted that black skin was actually associated with Satan and Hell during those times :
quote:https://paragone.hypotheses.org/4694
Because of this great ignorance as well as the "Christian system of value where beauty is entirely built on brightness and light "4 , light skin is that of the saints, the nobles, the good Christians, while dark, black skin has in this Western Middle Ages a negative connotation. It is, after the year 1000, primarily associated with Darkness, thus with Hell and, therefore, with Satan, the Devil.
You should pay more attention next time because I already explained that all muslims in Iberia were described as "moor" whether they were european, black, berber or arab.
quote:Lol are you aware that Othello was inspired by the moroccan ambassador Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud ? That's how they depicted him when he arrived at the court of Queen Elizabeth I in 1600 :
Originally posted by Doug M: And of course you got Othello the Moor. So the question is why would Europeans blackwash African people who weren't black?
All this garbage trying to claim that anybody who said there were blacks in North Africa MUST be spreading lies and propaganda, even in ancient times.
quote:There aren't "many" actually just a few artifacts and obviously for mediterraneans of the time a black negroid individual would attract way more the attention than your usual med north african.
Originally posted by Doug M:
OK. So again, if all these North Africans were all light skinned in ancient times, then why are there so many blacks in Ancient Greek art and not many 'light skinned' Libyans? How come the blacks were able to get there and have a more notable role than these "light skinned" people? And you can post all the textual sources of modern scholars taking whatever part of ancient texts you want but that is not the only evidence we have. We have the remains of various North Africans such as Uan Muhuggiag. The point being there is abundant evidence of black Africans in North Africa and therefore the obvious reason why there are blacks in Greek Art. Which means your pathetic attempts to say that Europeans were "dark washing" ancient light skinned North Africans are nonsense. Again, the obvious point being that black Africans have always been in North Africa and your attempts to claim otherwise keep getting shown to be false. Of course other types were also there as well, but that is not the same as what you keep whining about.
quote:Again there aren't many blacks in greek art + we have tons of depiction of ancient north africans but if I post them we already know what you will say : "these are greeks" "these are romans" "these are phoenicians" etc etc
Originally posted by Doug M: The burden of proof is on you to show why there were no blacks in ancient North Africa. This is the problem because you keep claiming that it is an absolute fact when it is not and the only thing you are doing is cherry picking texts that you think bolster your position. But here is the contradiction, if these Europeans were so sure that blacks were not present then why are there so many blacks in Greek art from Africa? Where are these "light skinned" North Africans? Somehow you don't see the contradiction.
quote:What does Herodotus have to do with Procopius ? Moreover Herodotus always made a clear difference between egyptians and aethiopians + I doubt you have any knowledge about ancient greek, I'm quite sure the word he used meant something like "dark" certainly not black as pitch black let alone negroid features not even egyptians depicted themselves as black skinned this was for nubians.
Originally posted by Doug M: So I posted the entire text of Herodatus and he contradicts you and now you are claiming I am not reading it right? You are contradicting yourself. Either we can trust these people and their writings or we can't. Seems like you only care about parts of their writings that you think agree with you when actually they don't. And this has been shown to you again and again in any way you want to see it whether archaeology, anthropology, art or literature, which is that blacks have always been in North Africa but you keep pushing that BS over and over opening threads saying the same thing.
quote:You don't even see your own contradictions lol You can't even explain why tuareg are so diverse, I suppose it's because arabs and white slaves mix with them hahahahahaha
Originally posted by Doug M: Again, there are numerous Tuareg clans and chiefs and obviously yes some of them are light skinned. That does not mean all tuareg chiefs are light skinned. You keep spouting BS and gibberish because your whole argument is that North Africa has always been populated by light skinned people who hated blacks. The fact that the Sahara was once wet and full of black people is something you ignore because it contradicts you. THe fact of so many blacks in the art from the Bahariya Oasis which is in the Northern part of Egypt in the late period contradicts you. The fact of black moors heads in Medieval European art contradicts you. I posted the black Chief of the Ahoggar Tuaregs who were one of the main forces opposing the French in the early 1900s and it contradicts you. The balance of evidence contradicts you yet you keep pushing your BS anyway. That is a you problem not a European problem or anyone else problem.
quote:hahaha that's easy then everytime I'll post a light skin person you'll say it's a european convert without any evidence. Anyway reality is that most soldiers were north africans :
Originally posted by Doug M: Most of the muslims in Islamic Spain were European converts so this is not 'proof' of what North Africans looked like.
quote:https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Islamic-and-Christian-Spain-in-the-Early-Middle-Glick/237e0fcc636edb11cf8347c05b8a87e5b4f5177a?p2df
Much of the drama and vigor that typified social relations in medieval Spain resulted from the fact that the peninsula possessed a degree of ethnic diversity unknown elsewhere in Europe. This drama was a function, in part, of the degree of cultural difference separating groups, and, in part, of the social, economic, and demographic force of each of the peoples involved. In al-Andalus, the Muslim majority was composed of three powerful groups: the Arabs, a numerically slight but powerful, dominent elite; the Berbers, outnumbering the Arabs, and powerful militarily ; and the Neo-Muslims, muwalladûn, eventually the majority of the population.
quote:https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Islamic-and-Christian-Spain-in-the-Early-Middle-Glick/237e0fcc636edb11cf8347c05b8a87e5b4f5177a?p2df
More numerous were the Berbers who joined the Arab command in North Africa and constituted the bulk of the invasion force. Despite the withdrawal of substantial numbers during the drought and famine of the 750's, fresh Berber migration from North Africa was a constant feature of Andalusi history, increasing in tempo in the tenth century.
quote:https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.9297351.9?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=berbers&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dberbers%26so%3Drel&ab_segments= 0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A5387f8b3ec7473f2e0b92bf28b922856&seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents
Berbers played an important role in defending the marches against Christian incursions, with the result that the amirs often granted iqta' land (which gave the holder usufruct from land in exchange for military service) to Berber families. In the tenth century, 'Abd al-Rahman III made heavy use of Berber military allies. He also appointed Berbers to important administrative positions; he made Muhammad ibn 'abd allah ibn 'abi Isa, a descendent of Yahya ibn Yahya, chief qadi of Cordoba and used him as an ambassador to the marches, where the notables upon whom the caliph depended for military support were often Berber. [...] it becomes clear that during the Umayyad period a number of areas in al-Andalus were evolving as Berber societies whose formation was not under the political control of Umayyad Cordoba.
quote:Erich B. Anderson, Rise of the Berber mercenaries: Desert nomads come to Europe
Aside from the mercenary troops of the emir in Cordoba and the soldiers recruited from the descendants of the Syrian junds, most of the muslim warriors of al-Andalus were still the numerous Berbers, who had predominately settled in the north of the peninsula after the invasion. Like the Syrian arab ones, the Berber colonists were also divided into junds to supply the emirate with soldiers. These troops were vital to the defense of the border regions adjacent to hostile Christian states, as many of the main frontier fortresses were garrisoned with them. However, clashes with the government in Cordoba occured at times because Berbers commonly felt more loyalt towards their own tribal chiefs when there were conflicts of interest. Lack of allegiance could also be a major issue with the last major group in the army of al-Andalus : the native Iberians who made up the vast majority of the population on the peninsula and had converted to Islam.
quote:See ? You're doing the same thing here, I could have posted any north african you would have said "arabs" or "europeans" unless it depicts black men.
Originally posted by Doug M: The conquest of Sicily in the 800s was always described as an Arab or Saracen conquest so the people depicted there are considered Arabs or Saracens not "Moors". In fact, often the Saracens or Arabs were depicted as light skinned but not "white". So again, where are the depictions of light skinned North Africans?
And why would Europeans black wash non black Africans? We know that Europeans can be very racist and thus:
quote:https://italicsmag.com/2020/06/09/the-muslims-in-sicily/
The Muslims who invaded Sicily in 827 AD and who eventually gained control of the island were tribes North Africa and the middle East. The majority were Arabs by which historians recognize Caucasians who had come to rule the lands from Persia to Morocco. The second most important group of Muslims were Berbers, also Caucasians. Their darker skin is a question of pigmentation. The Saracens (in Sicily they were called Arabs or Saracens), according to all histories I have read were olive-skinned people from the Middle East much like the present inhabitants of the area. During the long period of warfare required to eliminate local resistance, many different armies were sent from North Africa and other places such as Spain, and among these there were smaller groups of black-skinned Muslims. But their numbers were not sufficient to change the genetic pool of Sicilians.
And even here they make it clear that North Africans can be very dark skinned 'caucasians', but they didn't call them 'olive skinned' indicating light skinned like the Arabs. So even this contradicts you.
quote:Jews, Visigoths and muslims in medieval Spain by Norman Roth, p. 47
More soundly based than Guichard's conclusions are the insightful observations of Glick. As he remarks, "arabization of the Berbers during this period must be carefully qualified", noting that "many Berbers falsified their genealogies, adopting Arab tribal names in order to dissemble their true ethnic identity." This is correct, and no less true of so-called "Arabs" than of Berbers in al-Andalus. Not only were they concerned with hiding their true origins, but also by claiming association with one of the elite tribes of early Islam, a definite social and religious status could be automatically achieved ; all a part of the much-discussed "Arabiyya" (arabization) propaganda (tough too few authors have recognized this aspect of the problem). Furthermore, the early muslim chronicles of the conquests (not of al-Andalus, but in general) make it eminently clear that the true Arabs were opposed to travelling beyond the boundaries of their homeland, and had little interest in settling such far-away places as Iraq and Syria, much less Spain ."
quote:David Nicolle, The Islamic West 7th-15th centuries AD, pp. 16
The main source of military manpower in North Africa remained the Berbers, and local dynasties like the Aghlabids never had a problem finding enough troops. They continued to provide the military muscle for subsequent smaller dynasties and the majority of those volunteers who built, repaired and manned the coastal ribats. Fewer in number were soldiers of black african origin. Following a mawali rebellion in AD 877 the Aghlabids began recruiting black abid soldiers of slave origin as elite guard units. Other slave-recruited troops included saqaliba, whose name means Slavs but who probably included individuals of other European origin, though their numbers are unknown."
quote:Show me exactly where I said they did not depict some moors as black ? I literally said this : " I already explained that all muslims in Iberia were described as "moor" whether they were european, black, berber or arab. "
Originally posted by Doug M: ] Again, you said the Europeans did not depict moors as black and I proved you wrong. The flag of Aragon does not say "black slave heads". It says Moor head. And there are many black "moor heads" in Eurpoean art. So you are wrong. And most of those white Muslims in Medieval Spanish art are actually European Muslims not "North Africans" necessarily as many of the Muslims in Spain were converted local Europeans. Again, where are the "light skinned" Africans in these depictions versus "black Africans"? You are disproving your own point.
Again, this below disproves everything you are saying:
quote:Antalas you keep posting gibberish. Stick to the point at hand. The people depicted black people as "moors". So your argument that "Moor" was not a reference to black people is shown to be false. The the whole point here is that Europeans have no reason to depict anybody from Africa as black for any reason other than this is how they looked. Your argument that all these people in ancient times across all of North Africa were all Light skin is the bull sh*t you keep spouting all over this forum which is blatantly false yet you keep spouting it over and over as if that somehow makes it true when it is not. Yes SOME North Africans over the last 5,000 years have been light skinned due to mixture and other environmental considerations. But there is abundant proof and evidence that black people have always been in North Africa, were never cut off from it and have never left it. You just keep pushing nonsense and when the facts contradict you, you claim it is "black washing", which is stupid. This is why some references in ancient sources speak of lighter skinned North Africans while others speak of black North Africans. It is not a contradiction as both have existed in North Africa since 5,000 years ago. But to sit here and claim that light skinned Eurasians are the original 'North Africans' and more indigenous than black Africans is bull sh*t. You keep spouting this but it is false.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:There aren't "many" actually just a few artifacts and obviously for mediterraneans of the time a black negroid individual would attract way more the attention than your usual med north african.
Originally posted by Doug M:
OK. So again, if all these North Africans were all light skinned in ancient times, then why are there so many blacks in Ancient Greek art and not many 'light skinned' Libyans? How come the blacks were able to get there and have a more notable role than these "light skinned" people? And you can post all the textual sources of modern scholars taking whatever part of ancient texts you want but that is not the only evidence we have. We have the remains of various North Africans such as Uan Muhuggiag. The point being there is abundant evidence of black Africans in North Africa and therefore the obvious reason why there are blacks in Greek Art. Which means your pathetic attempts to say that Europeans were "dark washing" ancient light skinned North Africans are nonsense. Again, the obvious point being that black Africans have always been in North Africa and your attempts to claim otherwise keep getting shown to be false. Of course other types were also there as well, but that is not the same as what you keep whining about.
Uan Muhuggiag is literally a remain next to the Sahel lol why do you always bring saharan populations ? Did most ancient north africans lived next to the Sahel ? Of course not you obsess over it because it's the only place where you can find black populations. Moreover I did not deny the presence of "blacks" in north africa, I actually said many times that there has always been indigenous black populations in the Sahara but what I always said is that coastal north africa has never been inhabited by black populations let alone the dinka-like individuals we find on these greek or egyptian depictions. Therefore ancient egypt, numidia, moorish kingdom, carthage, etc were not black civilizations.
quote:Again there aren't many blacks in greek art + we have tons of depiction of ancient north africans but if I post them we already know what you will say : "these are greeks" "these are romans" "these are phoenicians" etc etc
Originally posted by Doug M: The burden of proof is on you to show why there were no blacks in ancient North Africa. This is the problem because you keep claiming that it is an absolute fact when it is not and the only thing you are doing is cherry picking texts that you think bolster your position. But here is the contradiction, if these Europeans were so sure that blacks were not present then why are there so many blacks in Greek art from Africa? Where are these "light skinned" North Africans? Somehow you don't see the contradiction.
quote:What does Herodotus have to do with Procopius ? Moreover Herodotus always made a clear difference between egyptians and aethiopians + I doubt you have any knowledge about ancient greek, I'm quite sure the word he used meant something like "dark" certainly not black as pitch black let alone negroid features not even egyptians depicted themselves as black skinned this was for nubians.
Originally posted by Doug M: So I posted the entire text of Herodatus and he contradicts you and now you are claiming I am not reading it right? You are contradicting yourself. Either we can trust these people and their writings or we can't. Seems like you only care about parts of their writings that you think agree with you when actually they don't. And this has been shown to you again and again in any way you want to see it whether archaeology, anthropology, art or literature, which is that blacks have always been in North Africa but you keep pushing that BS over and over opening threads saying the same thing.
quote:You don't even see your own contradictions lol You can't even explain why tuareg are so diverse, I suppose it's because arabs and white slaves mix with them hahahahahaha
Originally posted by Doug M: Again, there are numerous Tuareg clans and chiefs and obviously yes some of them are light skinned. That does not mean all tuareg chiefs are light skinned. You keep spouting BS and gibberish because your whole argument is that North Africa has always been populated by light skinned people who hated blacks. The fact that the Sahara was once wet and full of black people is something you ignore because it contradicts you. THe fact of so many blacks in the art from the Bahariya Oasis which is in the Northern part of Egypt in the late period contradicts you. The fact of black moors heads in Medieval European art contradicts you. I posted the black Chief of the Ahoggar Tuaregs who were one of the main forces opposing the French in the early 1900s and it contradicts you. The balance of evidence contradicts you yet you keep pushing your BS anyway. That is a you problem not a European problem or anyone else problem.
Anyway ask any tuareg online and you'll quickly get your reality check, high caste tuaregs are less mixed than other groups therefore look more like coastal north africans. It's been millenias tuaregs practice slavery and razzia in sub-saharan africa, they are without a doubt the most racist and stratified berber community but an afro-american knows better I suppose XD
quote:hahaha that's easy then everytime I'll post a light skin person you'll say it's a european convert without any evidence. Anyway reality is that most soldiers were north africans :
Originally posted by Doug M: Most of the muslims in Islamic Spain were European converts so this is not 'proof' of what North Africans looked like.
quote:https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Islamic-and-Christian-Spain-in-the-Early-Middle-Glick/237e0fcc636edb11cf8347c05b8a87e5b4f5177a?p2df
Much of the drama and vigor that typified social relations in medieval Spain resulted from the fact that the peninsula possessed a degree of ethnic diversity unknown elsewhere in Europe. This drama was a function, in part, of the degree of cultural difference separating groups, and, in part, of the social, economic, and demographic force of each of the peoples involved. In al-Andalus, the Muslim majority was composed of three powerful groups: the Arabs, a numerically slight but powerful, dominent elite; the Berbers, outnumbering the Arabs, and powerful militarily ; and the Neo-Muslims, muwalladûn, eventually the majority of the population.
quote:https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Islamic-and-Christian-Spain-in-the-Early-Middle-Glick/237e0fcc636edb11cf8347c05b8a87e5b4f5177a?p2df
More numerous were the Berbers who joined the Arab command in North Africa and constituted the bulk of the invasion force. Despite the withdrawal of substantial numbers during the drought and famine of the 750's, fresh Berber migration from North Africa was a constant feature of Andalusi history, increasing in tempo in the tenth century.
quote:https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.9297351.9?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=berbers&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dberbers%26so%3Drel&ab_segments= 0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A5387f8b3ec7473f2e0b92bf28b922856&seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents
Berbers played an important role in defending the marches against Christian incursions, with the result that the amirs often granted iqta' land (which gave the holder usufruct from land in exchange for military service) to Berber families. In the tenth century, 'Abd al-Rahman III made heavy use of Berber military allies. He also appointed Berbers to important administrative positions; he made Muhammad ibn 'abd allah ibn 'abi Isa, a descendent of Yahya ibn Yahya, chief qadi of Cordoba and used him as an ambassador to the marches, where the notables upon whom the caliph depended for military support were often Berber. [...] it becomes clear that during the Umayyad period a number of areas in al-Andalus were evolving as Berber societies whose formation was not under the political control of Umayyad Cordoba.
quote:Erich B. Anderson, Rise of the Berber mercenaries: Desert nomads come to Europe
Aside from the mercenary troops of the emir in Cordoba and the soldiers recruited from the descendants of the Syrian junds, most of the muslim warriors of al-Andalus were still the numerous Berbers, who had predominately settled in the north of the peninsula after the invasion. Like the Syrian arab ones, the Berber colonists were also divided into junds to supply the emirate with soldiers. These troops were vital to the defense of the border regions adjacent to hostile Christian states, as many of the main frontier fortresses were garrisoned with them. However, clashes with the government in Cordoba occured at times because Berbers commonly felt more loyalt towards their own tribal chiefs when there were conflicts of interest. Lack of allegiance could also be a major issue with the last major group in the army of al-Andalus : the native Iberians who made up the vast majority of the population on the peninsula and had converted to Islam.
in the pics I posted you can even see that many soldiers have the famous berber shield called Adarga : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adarga
quote:See ? You're doing the same thing here, I could have posted any north african you would have said "arabs" or "europeans" unless it depicts black men.
Originally posted by Doug M: The conquest of Sicily in the 800s was always described as an Arab or Saracen conquest so the people depicted there are considered Arabs or Saracens not "Moors". In fact, often the Saracens or Arabs were depicted as light skinned but not "white". So again, where are the depictions of light skinned North Africans?
And why would Europeans black wash non black Africans? We know that Europeans can be very racist and thus:
quote:https://italicsmag.com/2020/06/09/the-muslims-in-sicily/
The Muslims who invaded Sicily in 827 AD and who eventually gained control of the island were tribes North Africa and the middle East. The majority were Arabs by which historians recognize Caucasians who had come to rule the lands from Persia to Morocco. The second most important group of Muslims were Berbers, also Caucasians. Their darker skin is a question of pigmentation. The Saracens (in Sicily they were called Arabs or Saracens), according to all histories I have read were olive-skinned people from the Middle East much like the present inhabitants of the area. During the long period of warfare required to eliminate local resistance, many different armies were sent from North Africa and other places such as Spain, and among these there were smaller groups of black-skinned Muslims. But their numbers were not sufficient to change the genetic pool of Sicilians.
And even here they make it clear that North Africans can be very dark skinned 'caucasians', but they didn't call them 'olive skinned' indicating light skinned like the Arabs. So even this contradicts you.
Reality is that Sicily has never been conquered by "arabs" but by a dynasty which claimed arab and sharif lineages to legitimate its position that's a well known reality :
quote:Jews, Visigoths and muslims in medieval Spain by Norman Roth, p. 47
More soundly based than Guichard's conclusions are the insightful observations of Glick. As he remarks, "arabization of the Berbers during this period must be carefully qualified", noting that "many Berbers falsified their genealogies, adopting Arab tribal names in order to dissemble their true ethnic identity." This is correct, and no less true of so-called "Arabs" than of Berbers in al-Andalus. Not only were they concerned with hiding their true origins, but also by claiming association with one of the elite tribes of early Islam, a definite social and religious status could be automatically achieved ; all a part of the much-discussed "Arabiyya" (arabization) propaganda (tough too few authors have recognized this aspect of the problem). Furthermore, the early muslim chronicles of the conquests (not of al-Andalus, but in general) make it eminently clear that the true Arabs were opposed to travelling beyond the boundaries of their homeland, and had little interest in settling such far-away places as Iraq and Syria, much less Spain ."
Let alone soldiers who were obviously from tunisia certainly not arabs :
quote:David Nicolle, The Islamic West 7th-15th centuries AD, pp. 16
The main source of military manpower in North Africa remained the Berbers, and local dynasties like the Aghlabids never had a problem finding enough troops. They continued to provide the military muscle for subsequent smaller dynasties and the majority of those volunteers who built, repaired and manned the coastal ribats. Fewer in number were soldiers of black african origin. Following a mawali rebellion in AD 877 the Aghlabids began recruiting black abid soldiers of slave origin as elite guard units. Other slave-recruited troops included saqaliba, whose name means Slavs but who probably included individuals of other European origin, though their numbers are unknown."
If we had to follow your logic 3/4 of the middle east and north africa are arabs including these black sudanese because they identify as such.
quote:Show me exactly where I said they did not depict some moors as black ? I literally said this : " I already explained that all muslims in Iberia were described as "moor" whether they were european, black, berber or arab. "
Originally posted by Doug M: ] Again, you said the Europeans did not depict moors as black and I proved you wrong. The flag of Aragon does not say "black slave heads". It says Moor head. And there are many black "moor heads" in Eurpoean art. So you are wrong. And most of those white Muslims in Medieval Spanish art are actually European Muslims not "North Africans" necessarily as many of the Muslims in Spain were converted local Europeans. Again, where are the "light skinned" Africans in these depictions versus "black Africans"? You are disproving your own point.
Again, this below disproves everything you are saying:
You literally avoided all the quotes showing that andalusian armies used black slave troops. Can you at least imagine the shock it was for christians who had never seen any black in their lives ? Now make a parallel with their christian point of view where black is associated with Satan and Hell...
quote:https://totalsardinia.com/who-is-on-the-sardinian-flag/
The flag of Sardinia is intriguing and mysterious, much like its origin. The flag is known as 'I Quattro Mori' which translates to 'The Four Moors'. It consists of a red St Georges cross, with four back Moor heads positioned in each of the four partitions.
The Four Moorish Princes And The King Of Aragon
The flag has its origin going back 740 years. The most probable explanation is that the four moors represent four Moorish princes that were defeated on the battlefield by the Crown of Aragon.
The Crown of Aragon was a confederation of Kingdoms in the Mediterranean, based in the Iberian Perlisola and stretching to Corsica, Sardinia and the south of Italy. In 1096 Peter I of Aragon and Navarre defeated the forces of Al-Mustra'in of Zaragoza II in Alcoraz (a city in the north-east of Spain.)
Following the battle, Peter I, received a crusader's shield depicting the cross of Saint George, and the decapitated heads of Four Moorish King's, or Princes to commemorate the crucial victory.
It was said that Saint George himself appeared during the battle, and helped by killing Moors. Some legends believe George even collected the heads of the four bravest and great moor princes.
quote:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moor%27s_head_(heraldry)
The precise origin of the Moor's head is a subject of controversy. But the most likely explanation is that it is derived from the heraldic war flag of the Reconquista depicting the Cross of Alcoraz, symbolizing Peter I of Aragon and Pamplona's victory over the "Moorish" kings of the Taifa of Zaragoza in the Battle of Alcoraz in 1096. The blindfold may originally have been a headband.
Another theory claims that it is the Nubian Saint Maurice (3rd century AD).
The earliest heraldic use of the Moor's head is first recorded in 1281, during the reign of Peter III of Aragon and represents the Cross of Alcoraz, which the King adopted as his personal coat of arms. The Crown of Aragon had for a long time governed Sardinia and Corsica, having been granted the islands by the Pope, although they never really exercised formal control. The Moor's head became a symbol of the islands.
quote:90% of African historical artifacts across Africa are in European museums due to theft. This has nothing to do with black westerners. Most of the artifacts from Egypt were given away by Ottomans and Muslims generally look down on non Islamic culture and history. And when Europeans came and started stealing, the Egyptians were so Arabized and of Islamic orientation they didn't identify those artifacts as having value. The entire study of ancient Egypt as an academic discipline is centered in Europe. This is not the same as Africans reclaiming their history from these thieves. And if modern Egyptians are going to follow the lead of Europeans in teaching lies then that is the problem and for the most part this is the case as all Egyptian "Egyptologist" got their degrees from Europe or America and repeat American and European talking points.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Seems both black and white westerners want to claim King Tut and mold him in their own image. In a way this is also a form of colonialism where westerners take the liberty to define ancient Egyptians. Hope the Egyptians themselves start to make more films about their own past, after all they are the heirs of ancient Egypt, not Black Americans or Europeans.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Of course Egypt should control their history, but the history of Egypt is part of the history of Africa and therefore part of Africans controlling their history overall as Africans. This isn't mutually exclusive and in no way shape or form the same as Europeans controlling most of Africa's history because all the artifacts are in European hands. The only difference is that African Americans see Africa holistically whereas most, but not all, Africans on the continent only focus on their own specific culture or ethnic group in general. And if what you mean by Egypt should control its history is that Egypt's history is separate from Africa then that is nothing more than rehashing European concepts and talking points. The overall point being that you love to demonize Africans for talking about African history as if that is "problematic". But somehow European appropriation and theft of history and culture obviously not theirs is fine. Pathetic.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Best would be if Egyptians could gradually get in charge of their own history. Most African Americans are as westernized as their white countrymen and they have nothing to do with Egypt. Better they start to research West African and Central African history instead, ie the places from where their ancestors came from. Still some spend all their time imagining themselves that they are Egyptians, Israelites, Minoans, Phoenicians, Olmecs and other foolishness. Time for African Americans to decolonize their minds and start interesting themselves for their real history.
Regarding films, better Egyptians make their own films about ancient Egypt. It is getting tiresome to see White and Black Americans running around, playing masquerade.
quote:So basically what you believe is you can spew BS all over this forum and even when you are called out on it you claim to be a victim of 'black washing'. Don't give me that crap. All the BS you have been spouting is the problem and you are just mad because some people have called you on it. And that is why you whine and complain about Africans controlling their history because that would allow them to counter your kind of BS.
Originally posted by Antalas:
@DougM cut the crap being from Africa doesn't mean you can claim anything you want from that continent. I'm moroccan and yet I do not start claiming history of ethiopia, egypt or Nigeria + let alone feeling any kind of kinship simply based on a geographical label. As an afro-american, you have absolutely nothing to do with any civilization or people from north or east africa.
And stop playing the victim, europeans actually discovered most of these artifacts and took care of them anyway egypt or Morocco are not really concerned by this.
quote:You yourself call coastal North Africans mixed or Eurasians. Obviously parts of North Africa are very close to Europe and the Levant so it isn't shocking that there would be mixture. The point you seem to be consistently trying to make is that this mixture only happened 20,000 years ago and since then all North Africans have only been very light skinned. Which is nonsense to the point where this thread was created to suggest that Europeans were deliberately distorting the history of North Africa by depicting black people as if they didn't exist. That is a you problem. Mixture can be at the individual level and group level, both are obviously present in Coastal North Africa. And many murals from Medieval Europe show various populations with diversity of mixture at the individual and group level as one would expect for the time.
Originally posted by Antalas:
I already posted tons of depictions of north africans which you called "mix" "european converts" without any evidence then I posted quotes showing that north africans used many times black troops in Al andalus and the symbolism of black color in medieval europe which you avoided...you didn't "call" anything I constantly humiliated you and when you can't really answer back you simply call it "gibberish"
There is a clear tendency in the west to blackwash north africans in order to please black minorities and of course "arabs" are only relegated to terrorist roles...
quote:Nope I simply contradict people like you who push the narrative of ancient north africa being some kind of Brazil 2.0 with random black individuals living alongside white skinned north africans. You also tend to completely undermine africa's diversity with your american "black" label ...Iberomaurusians were dark skinned but still far from looking like your regular afro-american let alone genetically. You're also the kind to acknowledge "eurasian" ancestry being "5000 years old" but at the same time see no problem defending the idea that 1500 AD north africans looked west african lol We all know why you're doing this but like I told you you have absolutely nothing to do with North Africa no matter how much you try to darkwash north africans and stop spamming your "sahara" most north africans didn't and don't live there.
Originally posted by Doug M:
You yourself call coastal North Africans mixed or Eurasians. Obviously parts of North Africa are very close to Europe and the Levant so it isn't shocking that there would be mixture. The point you seem to be consistently trying to make is that this mixture only happened 20,000 years ago and since then all North Africans have only been very light skinned. Which is nonsense to the point where this thread was created to suggest that Europeans were deliberately distorting the history of North Africa by depicting black people as if they didn't exist. That is a you problem. Mixture can be at the individual level and group level, both are obviously present in Coastal North Africa.
I never said lighter skinned North Africans didn't exist just that you try and over exaggerate their presence in time and space to the exclusion of anyone else. [/QB]
quote:You aren't contradicting me you contradict facts. You like to spout gibberish like the above as if black people weren't ever present in North Africa, which is why I call it what it is. You keep repeating it, even though the facts contradict you. And when shown the facts you run and claim someone is making up distortions and lies. How about you are spouting nonsense? Black people have always been in Africa. The idea that these people just showed up in Africa over 20,000 years ago looking like modern Light Skinned North Africans or Europeans is the BS you keep claiming which is what I am calling gibberish. It is your whole argument and when shown to be wrong you keep spouting it anyway. Yet the Europeans themselves are saying that even they didn't get light skin until relatively recently during the spread of farming. You just don't know when you should stop with BS.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Nope I simply contradict people like you who push the narrative of ancient north africa being some kind of Brazil 2.0 with random black individuals living alongside white skinned north africans. You also tend to completely undermine africa's diversity with your american "black" label ...Iberomaurusians were dark skinned but still far from looking like your regular afro-american let alone genetically. You're also the kind to acknowledge "eurasian" ancestry being "5000 years old" but at the same time see no problem defending the idea that 1500 AD north africans looked west african lol We all know why you're doing this but like I told you you have absolutely nothing to do with North Africa no matter how much you try to darkwash north africans and stop spamming your "sahara" most north africans didn't and don't live there.
Originally posted by Doug M:
You yourself call coastal North Africans mixed or Eurasians. Obviously parts of North Africa are very close to Europe and the Levant so it isn't shocking that there would be mixture. The point you seem to be consistently trying to make is that this mixture only happened 20,000 years ago and since then all North Africans have only been very light skinned. Which is nonsense to the point where this thread was created to suggest that Europeans were deliberately distorting the history of North Africa by depicting black people as if they didn't exist. That is a you problem. Mixture can be at the individual level and group level, both are obviously present in Coastal North Africa.
I never said lighter skinned North Africans didn't exist just that you try and over exaggerate their presence in time and space to the exclusion of anyone else.
You never adressed 3/4 of my quotes because you simply have nothing to back up your statements. I already told you many times that there were indigenous black populations in the sahara and its borders yet you keep pretending I'm denying this... [/QB]
quote:Well Doug, you have an Antalas quote, he's saying there were indigenous black populations in the sahara
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:No you like to spout gibberish like the above as if black people weren't ever present in North Africa. You keep repeating it,
Originally posted by Antalas:
I already told you many times that there were indigenous black populations in the sahara and its borders yet you keep pretending I'm denying this...
quote:You don't have to go back to 40k you only have to go back to the Iberomaurisan remains which you keep ducking and dodging and don't match modern North Africans. Again stop contradicting the facts.
Originally posted by Antalas:
"black" people weren't present in coastal north africa except if you go back to 40k BC lol that's my point but since you know I'm right you try to push the conventional definition of "north africa" which includes vast swathes of desert and even countries like sudan or mauritania all of this for what ? To make it seem like "black people have always been in North Africa". Reality is moors, numidians, carthaginians, egyptians were all somewhat homogeneous similar to modern north africans (which includes their inner diversity) but this does not mean I do not acknowledge the existence of dark skinned populations in the sahara but these people were not seen as being related to the populations I mentionned.
Anyway eurasian admixture is at least 23k years old in North Africa not 5k based on the datas we have.
quote:Iberomaurusians were genetically distinct from SSAs, had straight hair, were craniometrically caucasoid and their component peaks in modern north africans. I literally know some moroccans who score 50% iberomaurusian and they're far from looking "black".
Originally posted by Doug M:
You don't have to go back to 40k you only have to go back to the Iberomaurisan remains which you keep ducking and dodging and don't match modern North Africans. Again stop contradicting the facts. [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
You don't have to go back to 40k you only have to go back to the Iberomaurisan remains which you keep ducking and dodging and don't match modern North Africans. Again stop contradicting the facts.
quote:All human features started out among black people. That is the point. And "caucasoid" is nothing but outdated racial terminology.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Iberomaurusians were genetically distinct from SSAs, had straight hair, were craniometrically caucasoid and their component peaks in modern north africans. I literally know some moroccans who score 50% iberomaurusian and they're far from looking "black". [/QB]
Originally posted by Doug M:
You don't have to go back to 40k you only have to go back to the Iberomaurisan remains which you keep ducking and dodging and don't match modern North Africans. Again stop contradicting the facts.
quote:They still have black skin or are you blind or something? Do you not see you are losing? They aren't light skinned Eurasians...... DNA lineage is not Phenotype. Africans have always had such features.
Originally posted by Antalas:
@DougM are you even serious ? people from the horn have eurasian ancestry :
Moreover the first two pics I posted are not made by an "artist" and the third pic is an artistic depiction based on the scientific reconstruction which you can see at the bottom right.
quote:So ? They don't look black nor are they related to west africans like you. Actually horner are genetically closer to middle easterners (if not south europeans in some cases) than west africans so again this shows how your black label doesn't work.
Originally posted by Doug M:
They still have black skin or are you blind or something? Do you not see you are losing? They aren't light skinned Eurasians...... DNA lineage is not Phenotype. Africans have always had such features.
You are actually still not able to disprove this represents real people from Northern Africa:
And in reality you are actually contradicting yourself. [/QB]
quote:Idiot it means that black people aren't limited to West Africa... You are actually proving my point. All you do is talk gibberish nothing you say is even logical. You actually use black skin to disprove black skin totally contradicting yourself to say that ancient North Africans didn't have black skin. This is why everything you post is gibberish. Then claim that Europeans depicting blacks from North Africa isn't possible and is black washing. LOL!
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:So ? They don't look black nor are they related to west africans like you. Actually horner are genetically closer to middle easterners (if not south europeans in some cases) than west africans so again this shows how your black label doesn't work.
Originally posted by Doug M:
They still have black skin or are you blind or something? Do you not see you are losing? They aren't light skinned Eurasians...... DNA lineage is not Phenotype. Africans have always had such features.
You are actually still not able to disprove this represents real people from Northern Africa:
And in reality you are actually contradicting yourself.
And as for your pic, I simply see a black man being killed there is no evidence of him being from north africa.
Reality is here I can see north african soldiers with the famous berber Adarga :
quote:guys, I'm certain Antalas is trolling.
Originally posted by Antalas:
"black" people weren't present in coastal north africa except if you go back to 40k BC lol that's my point but since you know I'm right you try to push the conventional definition of "north africa" which includes vast swathes of desert and even countries like sudan or mauritania all of this for what ? To make it seem like "black people have always been in North Africa". Reality is moors, numidians, carthaginians, egyptians were all somewhat homogeneous similar to modern north africans (which includes their inner diversity) but this does not mean I do not acknowledge the existence of dark skinned populations in the sahara but these people were not seen as being related to the populations I mentionned.
Anyway eurasian admixture is at least 23k years old in North Africa not 5k based on the datas we have.
quote:Nope that means that your "black" label doesn't work since these people aren't even genetically close to west,central or south africans no matter how dark their skin is. I never said "ancient" north africans didn't have dark skin I said dark skin isn't going to make someone "black" or look like your folk + light skin alleles were already in NA 6000 years ago (if not earlier with capsians).
Originally posted by Doug M:
Idiot it means that black people aren't limited to West Africa... You are actually proving my point. All you do is talk gibberish nothing you say is even logical. You actually use black skin to disprove black skin totally contradicting yourself to say that ancient North Africans didn't have black skin. This is why everything you post is gibberish. Then claim that Europeans depicting blacks from North Africa isn't possible and is black washing. LOL!
Not only that, you then sit there and post a picture of European Muslims as if they look the same as those brown skinned reconstructions you got from where ever or those black skinned Indians. Don't you see you don't make any sense? [/QB]
quote:-WHG weren't "black" phenotypically they simply lacked the alleles for light skin as we know them today
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
guys, I'm certain Antalas is trolling.
Just some insight into how stupid this sentence is:
-There were people in modern day UK only ~7Kya during the early neolithic phases who were "black." (phenotypically) Sweeping selection in west Eurasia for the genes associated with lighter skin happened around that time and after. Modern Coastal North Africans carry the same exact genes at variable frequencies for light skin as the Europeans they descend from. There's no evidence at all to suggest North Africans specifically weren't black. By sheer chance or probability alone, you'd be more likely to find a light skinned African from the Great Lakes over 7Kya than in North Africa judging by the diversity found in the coding regions for pigmentation-related loci.
Other physical features associated with Black Africans have gotten stronger during the neolithic as well, particularly due to the Capsians and other subsequent expansions from East or the Green Sahara. This is the reason why a lot of people went quiet when the Taforalt genome first went public. They physically looked less like other Africans than Modern North Africans overall.
If you're trying to say "subsaharan" genetic Affinities = black, you'll also likely be wrong. As as shown North Africans as well as Western Eurasians grew closer to SSA's with time (especially post Neolithic.) KEB are closer to the Yoruba via pairwise FST than Taforalt for example, who would likely be even closer than the Aterians.
Technically, so far genetics can support him. (all "black" people you'll find in modern North Africa is due to recent slavery) But it's only under the idea of complete population turnover from European farmers in the late Neolithic or sweeping selection against darkskin since. The Eurasian admixture predating the late neolithic expansion of European farmers is irrelevant to this discussion. [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:here :
Originally posted by the lioness,:
how do we know it wasn't like this? [/qb]
quote:https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aar8380 (supplementary text)
"The TCHH1 gene codes for trichohyalin, a protein active in hair follicle roots. For all Taforalt individuals we find the derived homozygous AA genotype
for SNP rs17646946 in this gene, which has been associated with straighter hair in Europeans (allelic effect (ß) = 0.4-0.5, explained variance = 6.11%) (98)."
quote:Doug's definition of "black" he says is the definition used by ancient classical authors and pertains to skin alone
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Nope that means that your "black" label doesn't work since these people aren't even genetically close to west,central or south africans no matter how dark their skin is. I never said "ancient" north africans didn't have dark skin I said dark skin isn't going to make someone "black" or look like your folk + light skin alleles were already in NA 6000 years ago (if not earlier with capsians).
Originally posted by Doug M:
Idiot it means that black people aren't limited to West Africa... You are actually proving my point. All you do is talk gibberish nothing you say is even logical. You actually use black skin to disprove black skin totally contradicting yourself to say that ancient North Africans didn't have black skin. This is why everything you post is gibberish. Then claim that Europeans depicting blacks from North Africa isn't possible and is black washing. LOL!
Not only that, you then sit there and post a picture of European Muslims as if they look the same as those brown skinned reconstructions you got from where ever or those black skinned Indians. Don't you see you don't make any sense?
European muslims ? I already posted tons of quotes who clearly says that most soldiers were north africans + how do you know these are "european" ? [/QB]
quote:How does this fit into your "constant darkwashing" theme ?
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:If that was really the case can you explain to me why do americans consider these light skinned people black ? :
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Doug's definition of "black" he says is the definition used by ancient classical authors and pertains to skin alone
Of course in America today the term has strong connotations for certain types of features and hair
So since "black" is ambiguous with these very different definitions floating around
and since Doug says it means dark skinned alone
then it makes no sense to bring up "black" in these types of conversations, it's too vague
if it's skin alone then just say "dark skinned"
the question of hair and features is instantly eliminated
"black" today is a racial-political term so it makes no sense to use it in these anthropological discussions, besides the people are in fact brown, further evidence that "black" is non-objective term [/QB]
quote:north africa or the middle east
Originally posted by the lioness,:
suppose this was a photo of an actual person.
Where would one guess the person comes from?
quote:You seem educated enough to know why,though phenotypically Steph Curry is the only who looks African,just light skin and thin facial features.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:If that was really the case can you explain to me why do americans consider these light skinned people black ? :
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Doug's definition of "black" he says is the definition used by ancient classical authors and pertains to skin alone
Of course in America today the term has strong connotations for certain types of features and hair
So since "black" is ambiguous with these very different definitions floating around
and since Doug says it means dark skinned alone
then it makes no sense to bring up "black" in these types of conversations, it's too vague
if it's skin alone then just say "dark skinned"
the question of hair and features is instantly eliminated
"black" today is a racial-political term so it makes no sense to use it in these anthropological discussions, besides the people are in fact brown, further evidence that "black" is non-objective term
quote:Well they have to be coherent with what they say so in the end like I said it's not only about skin color
Originally posted by Thereal:
You seem educated enough to know why,though phenotypically Steph Curry is the only who looks African,just light skin and thin facial features. [/QB]
quote:Pay attention!
Originally posted by Antalas:
-WHG weren't "black" phenotypically they simply lacked the alleles for light skin as we know them today
-Many modern populations lack such alleles and yet don't look "black"
-Capsians actually were craniometrically very similar to modern north africans, anthropologists simply note some SSA traits in the case of some remains. Moreover capsians were an inland population and not really widespread, they for example weren't present in Morocco
- Actually afrocentrists went quiet when they saw the taforalt results not expecting them to be so much eurasian during this time period and even more shocked when they saw that this component peaks in modern north africans at 30-50%
-Even outside the genetic field, taforalt/IAM show no similarity with SSA populations and even if you want to reduce it to skin color how do you know their skin was as dark as modern west africans ? Would that make sense knowing where they lived for thousands of years ? Do amerindians look black to you because they lack such SNPs ? [/QB]
quote:Again how does that make them "black" ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
WHG are some of the furthest groups of people from SSA's but they were dark skinned.
Most Amerindians were also historically Dark skinned.
quote:Are you implying that taforalt looked like modern SSAs or even Onge people ? If not then I'm right.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: The idea that you have to go 40KYa to find a black person by the metric of dark skin in N.Africa is incorrect.
quote:It's totally correct, IBM didn't look SSA (dark skinned or not) let alone populations like KEB or Capsians a slightly closer FST distance won't change that.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: The idea that you have to go 40KYa to find a black person by the metric of physically looking like a SSA in N.Africa is incorrect.
quote:Wtf ?? AGAIN DARK SKIN ISN'T GOING TO MAKE SOMEONE LOOK BLACK.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: All it takes is for an individual to lack the derived mutation at slc24a5 and you'd be saying these people were descendant of slaves.
quote:That's not what I asked. I already know they were dark skinned, I'm asking you to define "dark" since many people who lack such variants do not share the same shades or level in melanin and that's already the case in SSA itself. So I'm asking how do you know Iberomaurusians were as dark as let's say senegambians or congolese and not like amerindians ? Especially that you know damn well the adaptative nature of such trait.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: You keep asking how we know ancient N.Africans were dark skinned yadda yadda? It's because their descendants ALL share the same skin lightening alleles that their fore-bearers in Europe did. Also the Metric of Modern "west Africans" is foolishness, when the majority of the comparisons in the threat were with African Americans. And when you account for active melanogenisis the range of skin color among black Africans can cover all non East Asian(who carry known variations in OCA2) populations in the world not carrying SLC45a2, or SLC25a4. [/QB]
quote:I thought you said:
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:north africa or the middle east
Originally posted by the lioness,:
suppose this was a photo of an actual person.
Where would one guess the person comes from?
quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:
+ frizzy hair wouldn't be adapted to the mediterranean climate (if not temperate climate during wet phases)
quote:Yes so ? Frizzy hair isn't going to make someone look "black" his facial features are similar to north africans and middle easterners + many north africans have frizzy hair
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:I thought you said:
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:north africa or the middle east
Originally posted by the lioness,:
suppose this was a photo of an actual person.
Where would one guess the person comes from?
quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:
+ frizzy hair wouldn't be adapted to the mediterranean climate (if not temperate climate during wet phases)
quote:There you go again using this ambiguous term "black" again
Originally posted by Antalas:
Frizzy hair isn't going to make someone look "black" his facial features are similar to north africans and middle easterners + many north africans have frizzy hair
quote:Black people
Originally posted by Antalas:
Do these people look the same to you ? :
quote:
Originally posted by Thereal:
That's not what I asked. I already know they were dark skinned, I'm asking you to define "dark" since many people who lack such variants do not share the same shades or level in melanin and that's already the case in SSA itself. So I'm asking how do you know Iberomaurusians were as dark as let's say senegambians or congolese and not like amerindians ? Especially that you know damn well the adaptative nature of such trait.
The opposite of light,what exactly are you looking for? I'm sure you are darker than most northern Euros but most wouldn't necessarily call your Black unless they're very color conscious
quote:If he walked around in the streets here, people would not call him black, but rather think he was some kind of Arab. But I suppose the definition of black varies with country and individual.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:How does this fit into your "constant darkwashing" theme ?
Originally posted by Antalas:
He's dark !!!
and black according to Doug
quote:Doug and a couple of others say they are going by "black" as used by classical writers, not by the average American and say it means dark skin and nothing else
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
If he walked around in the streets here, people would not call him black, but rather think he was some kind of Arab. But I suppose the definition of black varies with country and individual.
quote:Exactly therefore being dark skinned isn't going to make someone "black" that's my point. I've never seen someone considering amerindians, indians, and west africans to be the same people or being put under the same label.
Originally posted by Thereal:
The opposite of light,what exactly are you looking for? I'm sure you are daker than most northern Euros but most wouldn't necessarily call your Black unless they're very color conscious [/QB]
quote:What's the point of having such definition ? That's simply another way for people like dougM to claim as many civilizations as they want.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Doug and a couple of others say they are going by "black" as used by classical writes, not by the average American and say it means dark skin and nothing else
"Arab" is not color like black,
hence "black Arab", "white Arab" [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Again how does that make them "black" ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
WHG are some of the furthest groups of people from SSA's but they were dark skinned.
Most Amerindians were also historically Dark skinned.
quote:Are you implying that taforalt looked like modern SSAs or even Onge people ? If not then I'm right.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: The idea that you have to go 40KYa to find a black person by the metric of dark skin in N.Africa is incorrect.
quote:It's totally correct, IBM didn't look SSA (dark skinned or not) let alone populations like KEB or Capsians a slightly closer FST distance won't change that.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: The idea that you have to go 40KYa to find a black person by the metric of physically looking like a SSA in N.Africa is incorrect.
quote:Wtf ?? AGAIN DARK SKIN ISN'T GOING TO MAKE SOMEONE LOOK BLACK.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: All it takes is for an individual to lack the derived mutation at slc24a5 and you'd be saying these people were descendant of slaves.
quote:That's not what I asked. I already know they were dark skinned, I'm asking you to define "dark" since many people who lack such variants do not share the same shades or level in melanin and that's already the case in SSA itself. So I'm asking how do you know Iberomaurusians were as dark as let's say senegambians or congolese and not like amerindians ? Especially that you know damn well the adaptative nature of such trait. [/QB]
Originally posted by Elmaestro: You keep asking how we know ancient N.Africans were dark skinned yadda yadda? It's because their descendants ALL share the same skin lightening alleles that their fore-bearers in Europe did. Also the Metric of Modern "west Africans" is foolishness, when the majority of the comparisons in the threat were with African Americans. And when you account for active melanogenisis the range of skin color among black Africans can cover all non East Asian(who carry known variations in OCA2) populations in the world not carrying SLC45a2, or SLC25a4.
quote:Sure now we have three different way to be black lol I simply said that there has never been any "black" indigenous population in coastal north africa except if you go back before IBMs and at the same time I told you that "dark" skin isn't enough to describe someone as "black" nor do dark skin means as dark as many sub-saharan africans and you're literally proving my point by posting these north africans.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Look, I defined black by three different metrics to avoid conflation and you literally took all examples and tried to refute them by conflating all of them in your definition of black. You know, you're better off saying no one in the history of N.Africa ever looked "black than to speak out you're ass about 40Kya." Notice how I repeatedly state that Taforalt looked less black (by physical Anthropological metrics) than some post Holocene individuals and you're asking if I think Taforalt looked like Modern SSA's lmaooo. It's highly likely that they fell into the range of modern SSA skin color variation yes, but that's speaking only by the metric of skin color. Think!
Define "dark" skin lol
I consider this (not carrying homozygous derived genes at notable loci) dark skinned.
quote:Your point ? Even before such admixture events, they still didn't look black so again how am I wrong about these 40k north africans ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro: For my metric was the presence of known alleles for pigmentation. You'd have to define Amerindian dark if you want that basis of comparison. Just to save you the details, skin color variation in Africans is complicated, skin color variation outside is simple, Admixed (with Euro) populations lose a whole lot of diversity when it comes to pigmentation related genes. And that's the effect of North Africans today, they have overlap and evidence of selection pressure for the known genes in pigmentation. The lightening was due to admixture. [/QB]
quote:Lioness I can explain my own opinion thanks.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:There you go again using this ambiguous term "black" again
Originally posted by Antalas:
Frizzy hair isn't going to make someone look "black" his facial features are similar to north africans and middle easterners + many north africans have frizzy hair
Just keep in mind if Doug comes back around if he uses that term he doesn't mean it in the way most AAs do he means skin color only and he's been saying that for years. So if you hear him say black replace it mentally with "any dark skinned person"
Yes Indians also, etc he means and all the rest
quote:Black people
Originally posted by Antalas:
Do these people look the same to you ? :
according to Doug, Tukuler and Djehuti who have been posting for over 10 years
But if we switch to the word "African"
the man at the top one might argue looks like he might not be African
"African" has it's onw ambiguities but at least if refers to something narrower than simply having dark skin
quote:Antalas, the word black has been used as a reference to black skinned people in Africa for thousands of years. Don't sit here and pretend that this is something made up recently in America or "the West". You are pathetic and losing so now are resorting to pretend this is a semantic issue. Nobody is confused about what black means when it comes to skin color. It is you who want to pretend not to understand but in reality you do understand you just want to run away from it. So this is why this thread exists, to pretend that somehow black skin in North Africa is some kind of "conspiracy" by Europeans to put black skin on North Africans as if somehow it didn't exist before. And then when you get called out on it, you pretend to act like you don't understand what words mean. You know perfectly well that these two are not the same skin color but you sit here and pretend that they are the same.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Nope that means that your "black" label doesn't work since these people aren't even genetically close to west,central or south africans no matter how dark their skin is. I never said "ancient" north africans didn't have dark skin I said dark skin isn't going to make someone "black" or look like your folk + light skin alleles were already in NA 6000 years ago (if not earlier with capsians).
Originally posted by Doug M:
Idiot it means that black people aren't limited to West Africa... You are actually proving my point. All you do is talk gibberish nothing you say is even logical. You actually use black skin to disprove black skin totally contradicting yourself to say that ancient North Africans didn't have black skin. This is why everything you post is gibberish. Then claim that Europeans depicting blacks from North Africa isn't possible and is black washing. LOL!
Not only that, you then sit there and post a picture of European Muslims as if they look the same as those brown skinned reconstructions you got from where ever or those black skinned Indians. Don't you see you don't make any sense?
European muslims ? I already posted tons of quotes who clearly says that most soldiers were north africans + how do you know these are "european" ? [/QB]
quote:http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/herodotus/book_07.html
The Ethiopians above Egypt and the Arabians had Arsames for commander, while the Ethiopians of the east (for there were two kinds of them in the army) served with the Indians; they were not different in appearance from the others, only in speech and hair: the Ethiopians from the east are straight-haired, but the ones from Libya have the woolliest hair of all men. [2] These Ethiopians of Asia were for the most part armed like the Indians; but they wore on their heads the skins of horses' foreheads, stripped from the head with ears and mane; the mane served them for a crest, and they wore the horses' ears stiff and upright; for shields they had bucklers of the skin of cranes.
quote:??? again what are you talking about ? I'm criticizing how you label ethnicities who have nothing to do with sub-saharan africans and even mixed individuals all of this in order to claim their history. No indians are not your people nor black, no people from the horn of africa aren't simply "black" nor closer to you than eurasians, no being dark skinned isn't automatically going to make someone look like your folks nor would they feel any kind of kinship with you.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Antalas, the word black has been used as a reference to black skinned people in Africa for thousands of years. Don't sit here and pretend that this is something made up recently in America or "the West". You are pathetic and losing so now are resorting to pretend this is a semantic issue. Nobody is confused about what black means when it comes to skin color. It is you who want to pretend not to understand but in reality you do understand you just want to run away from it. So this is why this thread exists, to pretend that somehow black skin in North Africa is some kind of "conspiracy" by Europeans to put black skin on North Africans as if somehow it didn't exist before. And then when you get called out on it, you pretend to act like you don't understand what words mean. You know perfectly well that these two are not the same skin color but you sit here and pretend that they are the same.
quote:??? what does this indian have to do with these medieval north african soldiers ?
Originally posted by Doug M: These people are not the same skin color
As this person:
But you want to sit here and argue that somehow these two images reflect the same skin colors and you obviously know full dam well they don't.
quote:"black" isn't only defined by skin color and that's pretty obvious :
Originally posted by Doug M: To the point where you are now resorting to some oddball nonsense about "dark skin" isn't "black" when the literal definition of the word black in English means dark skin Africans. It is obvious that you have no intent to deal with facts and only care about ideology and projecting an all white ancient North Africa because you don't believe in diversity and absolutely cannot stand the idea of anything else.
quote:talks about skin color then post a north african man without his face...wtf and people like you like to talk about "recent waves of immigration" but strangely become blind when it comes to the slave trade did you at least know the slave trade brought more people than arabs+romans+moriscos combined ? How would such recent "immigration" have impacted north africans if isolated berbers like guanches are genetically similar to them ? Same for 1st-3rd century AD north africans... you see you keep contradicting yourself.
Originally posted by Doug M: And to that point, people like this are not the epitome of what you claim as "North African" because these people are still "too black" for you, even though some "black" people in America are lighter than many "North Africans".
Even though you posted those pictures of Libyans looking like this:
Both of whom are very similar to the images of Juba I and Juba II.
But of course you want to think of North Africans as only looking like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoubeir_Turki
While claiming no mixture in North Africa from recent waves of immigration. [/QB]
quote:I said no metric corroborates your claim about 40Kya is how far back you'd have to go to see "black" people. I used the 3 most basic metrics, Skin color, Physical traits, genetic distance. None of them corroborates that claim.:
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Your point ? Even before such admixture events, they still didn't look black so again how am I wrong about these 40k north africans ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Sure now we have three different way to be black lol I simply said that there has never been any "black" indigenous population in coastal north africa except if you go back before IBMs and at the same time I told you that "dark" skin isn't enough to describe someone as "black" nor do dark skin means as dark as many sub-saharan africans and you're literally proving my point by posting these north africans.
Again post-holocene showing some SSA affinities isn't going to tell us much that would still be the case for many modern coastal north africans + these post holocene individuals overall are much much more similar physically to modern NAs than any sub-saharan or any community you consider "black" so much so that there are cases where capsians skulls were described as recent and were used in law cases lol
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: For my metric was the presence of known alleles for pigmentation. You'd have to define Amerindian dark if you want that basis of comparison. Just to save you the details, skin color variation in Africans is complicated, skin color variation outside is simple, Admixed (with Euro) populations lose a whole lot of diversity when it comes to pigmentation related genes. And that's the effect of North Africans today, they have overlap and evidence of selection pressure for the known genes in pigmentation. The lightening was due to admixture.
Can't you see the difference :
quote:- I already told you that skin color is meaningless and you were not able to define how dark they were
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I said no metric corroborates your claim about 40Kya is how far back you'd have to go to see "black" people. I used the 3 most basic metrics, Skin color, Physical traits, genetic distance. None of them corroborates that claim.:
Again Aterian showing some SSA affinities isn't going to tell us much that would still be the case for many modern coastal north africans + these Aterian individuals overall are much much more similar physically to modern NAs than any sub-saharan or any community I consider "black." They wouldn't even be described as recent or used in a law case to identify any modern individual like the Capsians had. (mind you modern North African have recent SSA admixture)
--
Antalas, The Iberomaurasian reconstruction would have more of a chance fitting in with modern Africans than the Aterian one if you divert from more speculative superficial traits (darkened skin tone, hair texture and cartilaginous/soft tissue and distribution of the nose). Even if you look at the reconstructions from those artists, away from skin color and the imagined hair texture, you'd notice that they look more like Modern SSA's with time.. see the Capsian and Egyptian reconstructions.
This discussion reminds me of the Lola reconstructions thread. The issue might be that you place way too much importance on some loosely overlapping trait's. Lets have some fun with this... Besides the nose (which is conjecture appropriately pointed out by Lioness) which ways do you think the Aterian reconstructions overlap with lil Nas X that the Iberomaurasians don't? [/QB]
quote:You're no use. X'D I wouldn't even know where to start.
Originally posted by Antalas:- I already told you that skin color is meaningless and you were not able to define how dark they were
- Physical traits and genetic distance of IBMs show no particular affinities with SSAs (except with the admixed horners on 2D PCAs but that's it)
as for the rest of your answer that's a bad bait.
Anyway my point is simple : from at least 23k B.C. to today, coastal north africa (the Tellian area) has always been predominantely inhabited by populations who did not overlap physically and genetically with populations of sub-saharan africa but always showed more similarity with their eurasian neighbours whether genetically or culturally.
Now before the first iberomaurusian, Aterians had archaic features and according to anthropologists plotted between the jebel irhoud specimen and iberomaurusians and if we assume ANA = aterian then this hypothetical component peaks in modern SSA and is at the source of many modern SSA groups. Now again tell me exactly where I'm wrong about this. [/QB]
quote:a repo at any time in the day ? I can take a screenshot of my file if you want but anyway I noticed that you often tend to bring ad hominem when you're in lack of arguments.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
You're no use. X'D I wouldn't even know where to start.
I can tell you have a repo, cause you couldn't possibly have read all the articles you actually quote dump on these forums. [/QB]
quote:Come on with such kind of argument we can say anything, these cases are not representative. I live with pure west africans here and you'll never see someone like quincy among them ...american populations are mixed af so you should expect to find almost everything there.
Originally posted by Thereal:
The point is the human family looks the same overall.
Lou King African and Chinese mix.
The lady on the left Judith Manap,a indigenous woman of the Aeta ethnic group from the Philippines
French Montana who's Moroccan on left with Quincy Brown,African American with a mixed mom who is dark.His father , Al B Sure is either a griffe or "average" African American. The dude in the far right is his Quincy's half brother Christian Combs.
quote:hahaha what are you trying to do with your new avatar ?
Originally posted by BrandonP:
This whole discussion gives me deja vu of all the debates we used to have over whether or not to use "Black" to describe any population at all.
Surely you guys know goalposts are going to be moved about to suit whatever agenda, right?
quote:It's my simple colorization of an ancient depiction of Massinissa. Y'know, without altering his facial features or hair texture.
Originally posted by Antalas:
hahaha what are you trying to do with your new avatar ?
quote:No. You posted it,but up 30% of our DNA is non-African,so there are instances where we can never be 100% unless a isolated group or we mix with "pure" Africans . The point is some of our appearances is do to plasticity because of slight mixture and being separated from continental Africans on top of already being ethnically diverse. Plus you do have these fractional mixtures like griffes,more than 50% African and mulattos,50% African choosing,relative them "purer" African mates.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Come on with such kind of argument we can say anything, these cases are not representative. I live with pure west africans here and you'll never see someone like quincy among them ...american populations are mixed af so you should expect to find almost everything there.
Originally posted by Thereal:
The point is the human family looks the same overall.
Lou King African and Chinese mix.
The lady on the left Judith Manap,a indigenous woman of the Aeta ethnic group from the Philippines
French Montana who's Moroccan on left with Quincy Brown,African American with a mixed mom who is dark.His father , Al B Sure is either a griffe or "average" African American. The dude in the far right is his Quincy's half brother Christian Combs.
quote:why did you make him so dark ? Did he live near the equator ? Are his descendents that dark ?
Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:It's my simple colorization of an ancient depiction of Massinissa. Y'know, without altering his facial features or hair texture.
Originally posted by Antalas:
hahaha what are you trying to do with your new avatar ?
quote:Would his Iberomaurisian ancestors not have been dark-skinned (i.e. carrying ancestral alleles for dark skin color like those possessed by modern "Black" African and Australasian populations) as revealed by aDNA analysis?
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:why did you make him so dark ? Did he live near the equator ? Are his descendents that dark ?
Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:It's my simple colorization of an ancient depiction of Massinissa. Y'know, without altering his facial features or hair texture.
Originally posted by Antalas:
hahaha what are you trying to do with your new avatar ?
quote:Are you implying that he was predominantely iberomaurusian ? What about those light skin alleles brought by EEF farmers ? Doesn't the EEF component make up at least 40% of the genome of ancient and modern north africans ? And again would such dark skin be adapted to his numidian homeland ? :
Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Would his Iberomaurisian ancestors not have been dark-skinned (i.e. carrying ancestral alleles for dark skin color like those possessed by modern African and Australasian populations) as revealed by aDNA analysis?
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:why did you make him so dark ? Did he live near the equator ? Are his descendents that dark ?
Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:It's my simple colorization of an ancient depiction of Massinissa. Y'know, without altering his facial features or hair texture.
Originally posted by Antalas:
hahaha what are you trying to do with your new avatar ?
Regardless, I didn't change his facial features or hair texture, so he still shouldn't be "Black" to you.
quote:We don't know for sure what his ancestry would have looked like since we don't have aDNA samples that are unmistakably Numidian (and no, neither KEB nor certain ancient European samples with North African ancestry count as Numidians). He could have had a ton of EEF ancestry, or maybe not as much. I cited the Iberomaurisians to show you that, yes, populations of darker-skinned people did inhabit the Mediterranean coast of North Africa in very ancient times, despite your insistence that dark-skinned people couldn't survive in that environment.
Originally posted by Antalas:
Are you implying that he was predominantely iberomaurusian ? What about those light skin alleles brought by EEF farmers ? Doesn't the EEF component make up at least 40% of the genome of ancient and modern north africans ? And again would such dark skin be adapted to his numidian homeland ? :
quote:Your entire ideology can be summed up as "WE WUZN'T BLAYCK N SHIET". As in, you'll look for any excuse, shifting the goal posts whenever convenient, to distance North Africa from Black people. Pot, kettle, black.
At this point it's obvious you're racist.
quote:That doesn't mean they are as dark as his coloration
Originally posted by Thereal:
Why do you constantly darkwash north africans.
Um? North Africans aren't exactly white as the UV index is still high to make white skin a thing,I guess the right word would be negro wash, but from I understand that would still be inaccurate. They are darker than most Euros unless admixture with non-dark skin people or albinism.
quote:See how your argument fluctuates with each new development. Now it's an issue about Iberomaurasian relatedness because of the skin color.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Are you implying that he was predominantely iberomaurusian ? What about those light skin alleles brought by EEF farmers ? Doesn't the EEF component make up at least 40% of the genome of ancient and modern north africans ? And again would such dark skin be adapted to his numidian homeland ? :
Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Would his Iberomaurisian ancestors not have been dark-skinned (i.e. carrying ancestral alleles for dark skin color like those possessed by modern African and Australasian populations) as revealed by aDNA analysis?
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:why did you make him so dark ? Did he live near the equator ? Are his descendents that dark ?
Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:It's my simple colorization of an ancient depiction of Massinissa. Y'know, without altering his facial features or hair texture.
Originally posted by Antalas:
hahaha what are you trying to do with your new avatar ?
Regardless, I didn't change his facial features or hair texture, so he still shouldn't be "Black" to you.
Seriously what's your problem ? Why do you constantly darkwash north africans don't you know how north africans look ? At this point it's obvious you're racist.
quote:Which euro shifted samples are you talking about ? I'm talking about the two copper age samples, the guanche samples, the imperial samples, etc also between him and modern north africans there is only 2k years so can you tell me what happened for all his descendents ending up being lighter ? Anyway it would be more realistic to portray him as his descendents.
Originally posted by BrandonP:
We don't know for sure what his ancestry would have looked like since we don't have aDNA samples that are unmistakably Numidian (and no, neither KEB nor certain ancient European samples with North African ancestry count as Numidians). He could have had a ton of EEF ancestry, or maybe not as much. I cited the Iberomaurisians to show you that, yes, populations of darker-skinned people did inhabit the Mediterranean coast of North Africa in very ancient times, despite your insistence that dark-skinned people couldn't survive in that environment.
quote:No I'm simply trying to tell you that my ancestors looked like me and why would north africans be close to "black people" I don't understand you're clearly admitting you're biased since all you do is trying to counter an assumption you make about me.
Originally posted by BrandonP: Your entire ideology can be summed up as "WE WUZN'T BLAYCK N SHIET". As in, you'll look for any excuse, shifting the goal posts whenever convenient, to distance North Africa from Black people. Pot, kettle, black. [/QB]
quote:Bingo. I believe he got upset at my colorization because he knew deep in his heart that someone out there would look at it and think "Black dude" despite my not changing the original image's facial features or hair texture to look more archetypically "sub-Saharan African" (since he earlier insisted on equating "Black" with SSA). It's all about pushing North Africa (or at least the part of North Africa he wants to claim) as far away from Black people as possible, no matter how.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
See how your argument fluctuates with each new development. Now it's an issue about Iberomaurasian relatedness because of the skin color.
You can't make this shit up.
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
See how your argument fluctuates with each new development. Now it's an issue about Iberomaurasian relatedness because of the skin color.
You can't make this shit up.
I don't have to add anything to my initial point as it stands. You basically ignored it (Whether unintentional or not.) And arrived at something that is falsifiable on multiple fronts. It just gets really exhausting, as I learn nothing from a back and forth with you. However if others are willing to learn they can inquire about what we spoke about in the meantime. [/QB]
quote:not at all the skin is simply too dark ; if you had added blond hair I'd have also reacted pointing out how that's not realistic
Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Bingo. I believe he got upset at my colorization because he knew deep in his heart that someone out there would look at it and think "Black dude" despite my not changing the original image's facial features or hair texture to look more archetypically "sub-Saharan African" (since he earlier insisted on equating "Black" with SSA). It's all about pushing North Africa (or at least the part of North Africa he wants to claim) as far away from Black people as possible, no matter how.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
See how your argument fluctuates with each new development. Now it's an issue about Iberomaurasian relatedness because of the skin color.
You can't make this shit up.
quote:Except for the Guanches, all those samples you mentioned were found in Europe. Not North Africa.
Originally posted by Antalas:
Which euro shifted samples are you talking about ? I'm talking about the two copper age samples, the guanche samples, the imperial samples, etc also between him and modern north africans there is only 2k years so can you tell me what happened for all his descendents ending up being lighter ? Anyway it would be more realistic to portray him as his descendents.
quote:
The TMRCA estimates of a certain haplogroup and its subbranches provide some constraints on the times of their origin and spread. Although our time estimates for E-M78 are slightly different depending on the mutation rate used, their confidence intervals overlap and the dates obtained are in agreement with those obtained by Trombetta et al. Regarding E-M183, as mentioned above, we cannot discard an expansion from the Near East and, if so, according to our time estimates, it could have been brought by the Islamic expansion on the 7th century, but definitely not with the Neolithic expansion, which appeared in NW Africa ~7400 BP and may have featured a strong Epipaleolithic persistence. Moreover, such a recent appearance of E-M183 in NW Africa would fit with the patterns observed in the rest of the genome, where an extensive, male-biased Near Eastern admixture event is registered ~1300 ya, coincidental with the Arab expansion. An alternative hypothesis would involve that E-M183 was originated somewhere in Northwest Africa and then spread through all the region. Our time estimates for the origin of this haplogroup overlap with the end of the third Punic War (146 BCE), when Carthage (in current Tunisia) was defeated and destroyed, which marked the beginning of Roman hegemony of the Mediterranean Sea. About 2,000 ya North Africa was one of the wealthiest Roman provinces and E-M183 may have experienced the resulting population growth.
quote:East Asians, including the forerunners of modern Native Americans, are thought to have evolved a separate set of light-skin alleles from those of western Eurasians.
these are also people who lack light skin alleles :
quote:So what I'm supposed to believe they were mixed ? The authors of the paper themselves are quite explicit about their origin and how unique they are in comparison to the local remains (you also forgot such samples are similar to guanches too). At this point you seem desesperate.
Originally posted by BrandonP:
Except for the Guanches, all those samples you mentioned were found in Europe. Not North Africa.
quote:Yes in terms of lineage diversity but not necessarily in terms of autosomal composition moreover such diversity might be seen with the guanche results which shows lineages which are almost non existent today in North Africa :
Originally posted by BrandonP: Also, it might be significant that one major North African Y-DNA lineage, E-M183, is of very recent origin, possibly the result of a bottleneck during the Punic Wars (although the paper suggests the Arab conquests might have also played a role). So there is a good chance that a lot of ancient North Africa's diversity has been lost over the last few millennia.
quote:and don't you ask yourself why such trait appeared independently there too ? Doesn't it give a clear advantage for people who lived as much north as Siberia ?
Originally posted by BrandonP: East Asians, including the forerunners of modern Native Americans, are thought to have evolved a separate set of light-skin alleles from those of western Eurasians. [/QB]
quote:yes people who come from west africa and don't have 20-30% of NW european ancestry like afro-americans nor mixed people like stephen curry who claim to be black
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
Antalas says he lives among "pure west africans" ... Now I understand the nature of his discontent
quote:Indeed and these groups don't have 20-30% european ancestry like afro-americans
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
West Africa is NOT homogeneous nor is it a monolith...It is made up of different ethnic groups and phenotypes
quote:Oh trust me it does ; myself can easily distinguished afro-americans from the blacks we have here
Originally posted by Thereal:
Indeed and these groups don't have 20-30% european ancestry like African-Americans.
And? That percentage isn't likely to change a group phenotypically.
quote:
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
Antalas says he lives among "pure west africans" ... Now I understand the nature of his discontent
quote:This
Originally posted by Thereal:
You do realize we aren't a ethnically homogeneous group and the Africans descend from don't all look like "true negroes." Yes,it is true you can spot the non-African blood but that's not why we sometimes look different.
quote:No what you are saying is that you don't like black skin and therefore are complaining about the label being used by Europeans in reference to North Africans. And because you hate black skin so much you are projecting your insecurity and claiming there is a conspiracy by Europeans to erase the presence of light skin people from history. Yet your own examples of ancient artwork shows that this isn't the case. However, your issue is you believe that in all of North African history they have only exclusively been light skinned or Eurasian looking which is objectively false even to this day and this is the bottom line point. Every time you try and bring up this issue you get proven wrong then run off and try to change the subject to the idea that the word "black" is the problem. There is nothing wrong with the word "black" you know WTF it means because you use it yourself. The problem is you don't LIKE black skin because according to you North Africans aren't Africans, they are Eurasians that just so happen to be geographically living in the boundaries of Africa. And because you know most Africans have black skin, you desperately try and push this idea of North Africans being a separate "race" using any and all means available to suggest that black skin is not part of African diversity even in North Africa. Nobody here is denying the historical presence of light skin in North Africa. The issue is you promoting this false history that all North Africans throughout history have only been light skinned and Eurasian looking.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:??? again what are you talking about ? I'm criticizing how you label ethnicities who have nothing to do with sub-saharan africans and even mixed individuals all of this in order to claim their history. No indians are not your people nor black, no people from the horn of africa aren't simply "black" nor closer to you than eurasians, no being dark skinned isn't automatically going to make someone look like your folks nor would they feel any kind of kinship with you.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Antalas, the word black has been used as a reference to black skinned people in Africa for thousands of years. Don't sit here and pretend that this is something made up recently in America or "the West". You are pathetic and losing so now are resorting to pretend this is a semantic issue. Nobody is confused about what black means when it comes to skin color. It is you who want to pretend not to understand but in reality you do understand you just want to run away from it. So this is why this thread exists, to pretend that somehow black skin in North Africa is some kind of "conspiracy" by Europeans to put black skin on North Africans as if somehow it didn't exist before. And then when you get called out on it, you pretend to act like you don't understand what words mean. You know perfectly well that these two are not the same skin color but you sit here and pretend that they are the same.
quote:Dude you sound dumb. Answer the question below.
Originally posted by Antalas:
Moreover stop being mentally colonized, Europeans aren't going to set any kind of references.
quote:You brought it up didn't you? So why don't you answer the question?
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:??? what does this indian have to do with these medieval north african soldiers ?
Originally posted by Doug M: These people are not the same skin color
As this person:
But you want to sit here and argue that somehow these two images reflect the same skin colors and you obviously know full dam well they don't.
quote:Your gibberish is annoying. This shows the diversity of skin color among Africans in the world. You act like light skin is somehow some special attribute of North Africans as if other Africans don't have light skin. That is why you sound stupid talking to African Americans about light skin when you know full dam well a lot of African Americans have light skin. The difference is they aren't running from their African ancestry or "black" ancestry. This is the problem that YOU have and why you keep obsessing with black people.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:"black" isn't only defined by skin color and that's pretty obvious :
Originally posted by Doug M: To the point where you are now resorting to some oddball nonsense about "dark skin" isn't "black" when the literal definition of the word black in English means dark skin Africans. It is obvious that you have no intent to deal with facts and only care about ideology and projecting an all white ancient North Africa because you don't believe in diversity and absolutely cannot stand the idea of anything else.
now if it's only about skin color can you explain to me why such people are considered "black" by americans ? :
quote:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/world/asia/india-skin-color-unilever.html
Throughout the years she was growing up in southern India, Christy Jennifer, a producer with a media house in the city of Chennai, was traumatized by episodes of prejudice.
As she walked through school corridors, classmates pointed at her darker skin and teased her, she said. Even friends and family members told her never to wear black. She said she was constantly advised on which skin lightening cream to use, as if the remedy to this deep-seated social bias lay in a plastic bottle.
"Every day, my dignity and self-esteem were reduced to the color of my skin," she said. "I felt a worthless piece of flesh."
Colorism, the bias against people of darker skin tones, has vexed India for a long time. It is partly a product of colonial prejudices, and it has been exacerbated by caste, regional differences and Bollywood, the nation’s film industry, which has long promoted lighter-skinned heroes.
quote:Again, more gibberish. You can't deny the presence of blacks in North Africa in history so you sit here and argue about words and semantics and what 'black' means like you don't know what it means. You are simply pathetic because you just hate human diversity and the only thing you can do is sit here and make pathetic attempts to make diversity a bad thing.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:talks about skin color then post a north african man without his face...wtf and people like you like to talk about "recent waves of immigration" but strangely become blind when it comes to the slave trade did you at least know the slave trade brought more people than arabs+romans+moriscos combined ? How would such recent "immigration" have impacted north africans if isolated berbers like guanches are genetically similar to them ? Same for 1st-3rd century AD north africans... you see you keep contradicting yourself.
Originally posted by Doug M: And to that point, people like this are not the epitome of what you claim as "North African" because these people are still "too black" for you, even though some "black" people in America are lighter than many "North Africans".
Even though you posted those pictures of Libyans looking like this:
Both of whom are very similar to the images of Juba I and Juba II.
But of course you want to think of North Africans as only looking like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoubeir_Turki
While claiming no mixture in North Africa from recent waves of immigration.
quote:OK. And yes we all know many North Africans look like this. But here is the problem, they look like this after years of mixture. You claim there was no mixture with Rome but the Romans destroyed Carthage and resettled it with Romans. So how on earth did that not impact the population. As a matter of fact, these people above do not look similar to the Libyans from ancient Egyptian art with their curly hair, but according to you they have always been Eurasian looking..... going back 20,000 years. Sure. Almost everybody here acknowledges that parts of North Africa, especially areas near the coast has been affected by mixture. But the difference is you claim this goes back 20,000 years which makes no sense and that not only that, but people with black skin never existed there.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:That doesn't mean they are as dark as his coloration
Originally posted by Thereal:
Why do you constantly darkwash north africans.
Um? North Africans aren't exactly white as the UV index is still high to make white skin a thing,I guess the right word would be negro wash, but from I understand that would still be inaccurate. They are darker than most Euros unless admixture with non-dark skin people or albinism.
Here north african crowds :
quote:You do realize sub-saharans here aren't from only one region or ethnicity right ? We have everything from malian to congolese.
Originally posted by Thereal:
You do realize we aren't a ethnically homogeneous group and the Africans we descend from don't all look like "true negroes." Yes,it is true you can spot the non-African blood but that's not why we sometimes look different.
quote:He was saying that a 200BC coastal north African could have not had the mutations passed down from from Europeans for skin pigmentation. Why can't you understand?
Originally posted by Antalas:
Whut ? He's simply assuming 200 B.C. coastal north africans were fully or predominantely IBM which isn't in line with forensic datas or the samples we have that's it so wtf are you talking about ?
Moreover I never ignored anything I actually already adressed your point. When will you start providing something consistent instead of your ad hominem "XD" "LOW IQ" and such ? It's falsifiable on multiple fronts ? Then please show me where I'm here to learn
quote:You do realize that Africa as a continent is 10x bigger than Western Europe right? The idea that all Africans across Africa looks the same is dumb and non scientific. The Sahara has nothing to do with it. Not to mention humans have been in Africa for over 300,000 years giving rise to all sorts of diversity in features. And that tiny sliver of coastal north africa is a tiny fraction of the overall African landmass, even in "North Africa" as the Sahara is 5x bigger than that little sliver of the coast. And obviously Africans have always been in the Sahara.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:You do realize sub-saharans here aren't from only one region or ethnicity right ? We have everything from malian to congolese.
Originally posted by Thereal:
You do realize we aren't a ethnically homogeneous group and the Africans we descend from don't all look like "true negroes." Yes,it is true you can spot the non-African blood but that's not why we sometimes look different.
quote:Smh what did I just read ? Carthage is a city not a country and I already posted quotes which showed that the amount of italian settlers was very low + all iron age north african samples are similar to modern north africans but of course and as usual you all ignore them.
Originally posted by Doug M:
OK. And yes we all know many North Africans look like this. But here is the problem, they look like this after years of mixture. You claim there was no mixture with Rome but the Romans destroyed Carthage and resettled it with Romans. So how on earth did that not impact the population. As a matter of fact, these people above do not look similar to the Libyans from ancient Egyptian art with their curly hair, but according to you they have always been Eurasian looking..... going back 20,000 years. Sure. Almost everybody here acknowledges that parts of North Africa, especially areas near the coast has been affected by mixture. But the difference is you claim this goes back 20,000 years which makes no sense and that not only that, but people with black skin never existed there.
So basically what you are saying is these people were never Africans to begin with and their culture has nothing to do with Africa According to you these are just Eurasians from over 20,000 years ago who just so happen to live geographically in the continent of Africa but have not connection with Africa, obviously indicated by black skin or mixture. [/QB]
quote:https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB24071
Comparing our results with previously reported genome-wide data, we also find evidence for a sex-biased sub-Saharan contribution to northern Africans, suggesting that historical events such as the trans-Saharan slave trade mainly contributed to the mtDNA and autosomal gene pool, whereas the northern African paternal gene pool was mainly shaped by more ancient events.
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3842387/
Previous analyzes of mtDNA lineages in North African populations suggest significant Eurasian origins [41–43] with lineages dating back to Paleolithic times [41] and with recent gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa linked to slave trade [44] ."
quote:https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-10-138
A proportion of 1/4 to 1/2 of North African female pool is made of typical sub-Saharan lineages, in higher frequencies as geographic proximity to sub-Saharan Africa increases. The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region, but the Arab trans-Saharan slave trade could have facilitate enormously this migration of lineages." " The interpolation analyses and complete sequencing of present mtDNA sub-Saharan lineages observed in North Africa support the genetic impact of recent trans-Saharan migrations , namely the slave trade initiated by the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh century. Sub-Saharan people did not leave traces in the North African maternal gene pool for the time of its settlement, some 40,000 years ago."
quote:https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-10-138
Males were sought for a variety of functions: doorkeepers, secretaries, militaries or eunuchs. Black soldiers were seen from Islamic Spain to Egypt, and in Morocco a whole generation of black young boys were bought at the age of 10 or 11 and trained to become its army. However, the bulk of the trade was in females, as domestic servants, entertainers and/or concubines: two females for every male overall, in contrast to the ratio of two males for every female overall in the Atlantic trade [15]. Some harems could be enormous, reaching even the extravagating number of 14,000 concubines. Young female slaves were instructed in household crafts and were then provided with resources to buy a home and get married."
quote:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01440399808575239
According to Mohammed Ennaji, slave ownership in Morocco was associated with prestige and high status.20 Although slaves from both sexes were involved in domestic work, the overwhelming majority were females. In addition to being concubines, female slaves were responsible for household chores and child rearing and provided entertainment for the urban elite."
quote:Dumb ass, they didn't absorb Africa because they were already Africans. They absorbed Eurasian mixture, including mixture with slaves during the Ottoman/Islamic period. You are talking stupid shit.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Smh what did I just read ? Carthage is a city not a country and I already posted quotes which showed that the amount of italian settlers was very low + all iron age north african samples are similar to modern north africans but of course and as usual you all ignore them.
Originally posted by Doug M:
OK. And yes we all know many North Africans look like this. But here is the problem, they look like this after years of mixture. You claim there was no mixture with Rome but the Romans destroyed Carthage and resettled it with Romans. So how on earth did that not impact the population. As a matter of fact, these people above do not look similar to the Libyans from ancient Egyptian art with their curly hair, but according to you they have always been Eurasian looking..... going back 20,000 years. Sure. Almost everybody here acknowledges that parts of North Africa, especially areas near the coast has been affected by mixture. But the difference is you claim this goes back 20,000 years which makes no sense and that not only that, but people with black skin never existed there.
So basically what you are saying is these people were never Africans to begin with and their culture has nothing to do with Africa According to you these are just Eurasians from over 20,000 years ago who just so happen to live geographically in the continent of Africa but have not connection with Africa, obviously indicated by black skin or mixture.
Depictions of ancient north africans show no difference with modern north africans
Being geographically located in Africa doesn't mean all africans are the same or look the same. Do chinese and indians appear to be the same folk to you ? no so cut the crap with your "muh african" bs
"admixture" yeah it actually happened north africans absorbed much more west african "black" ancestry throughout the centuries because of the slave trade :
quote:https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB24071
Comparing our results with previously reported genome-wide data, we also find evidence for a sex-biased sub-Saharan contribution to northern Africans, suggesting that historical events such as the trans-Saharan slave trade mainly contributed to the mtDNA and autosomal gene pool, whereas the northern African paternal gene pool was mainly shaped by more ancient events.
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3842387/
Previous analyzes of mtDNA lineages in North African populations suggest significant Eurasian origins [41–43] with lineages dating back to Paleolithic times [41] and with recent gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa linked to slave trade [44] ."
quote:https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-10-138
A proportion of 1/4 to 1/2 of North African female pool is made of typical sub-Saharan lineages, in higher frequencies as geographic proximity to sub-Saharan Africa increases. The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region, but the Arab trans-Saharan slave trade could have facilitate enormously this migration of lineages." " The interpolation analyses and complete sequencing of present mtDNA sub-Saharan lineages observed in North Africa support the genetic impact of recent trans-Saharan migrations , namely the slave trade initiated by the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh century. Sub-Saharan people did not leave traces in the North African maternal gene pool for the time of its settlement, some 40,000 years ago."
and why do they find such a sex-biased contribution ? That's because north africans used to mostly import black females and often made them concubines :
quote:https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-10-138
Males were sought for a variety of functions: doorkeepers, secretaries, militaries or eunuchs. Black soldiers were seen from Islamic Spain to Egypt, and in Morocco a whole generation of black young boys were bought at the age of 10 or 11 and trained to become its army. However, the bulk of the trade was in females, as domestic servants, entertainers and/or concubines: two females for every male overall, in contrast to the ratio of two males for every female overall in the Atlantic trade [15]. Some harems could be enormous, reaching even the extravagating number of 14,000 concubines. Young female slaves were instructed in household crafts and were then provided with resources to buy a home and get married."
quote:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01440399808575239
According to Mohammed Ennaji, slave ownership in Morocco was associated with prestige and high status.20 Although slaves from both sexes were involved in domestic work, the overwhelming majority were females. In addition to being concubines, female slaves were responsible for household chores and child rearing and provided entertainment for the urban elite."
You think it's a coincidence if the ancient north african samples were on a more east african cline meanwhile modern north africans are more west african shifted ? :
I already made a thread about how arabs/levantines didn't impact the genetic pool of north west africans
You're in clear denial anyway if you keep ignoring my quotes, I will no more answer like I usually do and will only spam quotes and papers. [/QB]
quote:Does that sounds realistic to you ? The isolated guanches had it but numidians didn't ? The copper age samples already had similar level of EEF ancestry as modern NAs but 200 BC numidians would lack it ? What kind of dishonesty is this ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
He was saying that a 200BC coastal north African could have not had the mutations passed down from from Europeans for skin pigmentation. Why can't you understand?
Which metric corroborates the idea that in the history of North Africa, Aterians were the group that looked the most like modern Black Africans? [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Dumb ass, they didn't absorb Africa because they were already Africans. They absorbed Eurasian mixture, including mixture with slaves during the Ottoman/Islamic period. You are talking stupid shit.
Africans have been in 'north Africa' for 300,000 years idiot. There were no white dam Eurasians 300,000 years ago. And there were black Eurasians from the very beginning. So you don't know WTF you are talking about.
Eurasians 3,000 years ago:
Stop whining. [/QB]
quote:I talking about the Black population in the Americas from the type of Africans we descend from. I know we are mostly from west and central Africa with some South Africans. I'm into DNA results videos and I've seen some Kenyan and Somali DNA from a Afro-Brazilian and a ADOS woman.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:You do realize sub-saharans here aren't from only one region or ethnicity right ? We have everything from malian to congolese.
Originally posted by Thereal:
You do realize we aren't a ethnically homogeneous group and the Africans we descend from don't all look like "true negroes." Yes,it is true you can spot the non-African blood but that's not why we sometimes look different.
quote:Yes because you are a fool who thinks that this image is Europeans blackwashing themselves. Silly idiot.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Dumb ass, they didn't absorb Africa because they were already Africans. They absorbed Eurasian mixture, including mixture with slaves during the Ottoman/Islamic period. You are talking stupid shit.
Africans have been in 'north Africa' for 300,000 years idiot. There were no white dam Eurasians 300,000 years ago. And there were black Eurasians from the very beginning. So you don't know WTF you are talking about.
Eurasians 3,000 years ago:
Stop whining.
alright now I hope people here will understand why I will no more waste my time with you... [/QB]
quote:You wasted time because you tried to deny the obvious silly idiot. No black people in ancient North Africa. Europeans blackwashing Africans because they weren't black.
Originally posted by Antalas:
"they didn't absorb Africa because they were already Africans. "
This sentence killed me XD
now I see with what kind of level I'm dealing here
anyway I already avoided posters like clyde winters and big_O now let's add dougM smh I wasted so much time talking to him.
quote:Why would you assume that I believe the Numidians "didn't have it." We're talking about one person! You're talking besides the point.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Does that sounds realistic to you ? The isolated guanches had it but numidians didn't ? The copper age samples already had similar level of EEF ancestry as modern NAs but 200 BC numidians would lack it ? What kind of dishonesty is this ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
He was saying that a 200BC coastal north African could have not had the mutations passed down from from Europeans for skin pigmentation. Why can't you understand?
Which metric corroborates the idea that in the history of North Africa, Aterians were the group that looked the most like modern Black Africans?
Which metric ? Forensic datas and genetics. Again ANA doesn't peak in modern SSA ? [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
________________________________________BLACK ______________________________________
quote:This whole idea of ancient North Africans being a different and separate "race" than other Africans comes from Europeans. They have been promoting this for over 100 years. But now they are trying to reinforce it with genetics and failing at that. This is why I doubt there will be many more examples of ancient DNA from North Africa any time soon. Because it will contradict many of the assumptions they have been making concerning DNA lineages and phenotype in Africa. Not to mention they really don't want to sample populations from the wet Sahara as it is increasingly obvious there was an important role Saharan Africans played in the Mediterranean and Levant thousands of years ago. So they will just cling to this idea of "North Africa" being exclusively along the coast and all culture and historical evolution being centered there while the Sahara gets downplayed or ignored as part of North African history.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Why would you assume that I believe the Numidians "didn't have it." We're talking about one person! You're talking besides the point.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Does that sounds realistic to you ? The isolated guanches had it but numidians didn't ? The copper age samples already had similar level of EEF ancestry as modern NAs but 200 BC numidians would lack it ? What kind of dishonesty is this ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
He was saying that a 200BC coastal north African could have not had the mutations passed down from from Europeans for skin pigmentation. Why can't you understand?
Which metric corroborates the idea that in the history of North Africa, Aterians were the group that looked the most like modern Black Africans?
Which metric ? Forensic datas and genetics. Again ANA doesn't peak in modern SSA ?
ANA hasn't been proven to be Aterian. That's your theory. Which isn't a good one as ANA peaks in North east Africa, a region where the Iberomaurasian for example should have received their most recent ancestry.
Be specific about the forensic data... You don't have to quote anything. But what have you seen that had said that Aterians were the closest in the history of north Africa to other Africans? Limb proportions? Craniometrics? [/QB]
quote:So you imply there were other populations in coastal north africa ? You also imply that the strong physical affinities between these aterians and IBM is a pure coincidence ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas:
ANA hasn't been proven to be Aterian. That's your theory. Which isn't a good one as ANA peaks in North east Africa, a region where the Iberomaurasian for example should have received their most recent ancestry.
Be specific about the forensic data... You don't have to quote anything. But what have you seen that had said that Aterians were the closest in the history of north Africa to other Africans? Limb proportions? Craniometrics?
quote:https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aar8380 (supplementary text)
"Second, qpAdm-based three-way admixture models fail to fit the data even when the minimum resolution for the sub-Saharan African ancestry was provided by adding the archaic hominin Denisovan as a sole non-Eurasian outgroup (Table S12). Therefore, we conclude that none of the South, Central and East African groups is a sister group of the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt.
quote:https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aar8380 (supplementary text)
Based on our results, we hypothesize that the ancient Taforalt individuals have a strong genetic affinity both with early Holocene Levantine groups and with sub-Saharan Africans. Also, the sub369 Saharan African ancestry in the Taforalt individuals may have links to multiple sub-Saharan African lineages."
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
This whole idea of ancient North Africans being a different and separate "race" than other Africans comes from Europeans.
quote:https://www.pnas.org/content/118/1/e2009227118
Relatively dark skin pigmentation in Early Upper Paleolithic Europe would be consistent with those populations being relatively poorly adapted to high-latitude conditions as a result of having recently migrated from lower latitudes. On the other hand, although we have shown that these populations carried few of the light pigmentation alleles that are segregating in present-day Europe, they may have carried different alleles that we cannot now detect. As an extreme example, Neanderthals and the Altai Denisovan individual show genetic scores that are in a similar range to Early Upper Paleolithic individuals (SI Appendix, Table S1), but it is highly plausible that these populations, who lived at high latitudes for hundreds of thousands of years, would have adapted independently to low UV levels. For this reason, we cannot confidently make statements about the skin pigmentation of ancient populations.
Our study focused, for reasons of data availability, on the history of skin pigmentation evolution in West Eurasia. However, there is strong evidence that a parallel trend of adaptation to low UVB conditions occurred in East Asia (15, 70, 81, 82). Less is known about the loci that have been under selection in East Asia, aside from some variants at OCA2 (80⇓–82). Similarly, multiple studies have documented selection for both lighter and darker skin pigmentation in parts of Africa (12, 13, 83). Future work should test whether the process of adaptation in other parts of the world was similar to that in Europe. The lack of known skin pigmentation loci in scans of positive selection in East Asian populations (84, 85) raises the possibility that selection may have been more polygenic in East Asians than in Europeans. Finally, the evidence for polygenic directional selection on other complex traits in humans is inconclusive (86, 87). We suggest that detailed studies of other phenotypes using ancient DNA can be helpful at more generally identifying the types of processes that are important in human evolution.
quote:He will never accept this because what he wants is to claim the history of the whole region and label it as "black achievement". He wants you to believe that from Morocco to southern africa they were all the same "Africans" and that these blacks who lived up north started to mix with arabs/romans and white slaves and became what they are today.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
As far as the Iberemausrians go they were different from most Africans. The have that U6 on the female side. That is not common in most of Africa. It is mainly in the Maghreb and a little in the horn. Also many of the the Ibermausrians had limb proportions which cluster with cold adapted artic people
So if you can admit to this
and you and Antalas stop talking about "North Africa" which is too broad to make generalizations about then the problems will be over
If we stop talking about "North Africa" and instead talk about the Maghreb and separately
the Nile Valley then these disputes are over.
Ae we can see the Ibermausrians are coastal and only in the Western half of North Africa and they were different from most Africans but so what
Antalas, if we stop talking about "North Africa" and get more particular, problem solved [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
________________________________________BLACK ______________________________________
quote:Definitions vary. Here most people would not call the man to the right for black, but they would say he maybe was Middle Easterner, or Arab. Some would say brown.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
________________________________________BLACK ______________________________________
quote:Exactly the guy clearly looks like modern MENAs yet they try to compare him to afro-americans...
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Definitions vary. Here most people would not call the man to the right for black, but they would say he maybe was Middle Easterner, or Arab. Some would say brown.
The man to the left would be called black or mixed. Many would call him black because they know who he is, and that he is an African American.
If we only go after color none of them are black, but brown. [/QB]
quote:According to Doug yes, the Iberomausrian is black because he says that black is skin color alone
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
________________________________________BLACK ______________________________________
Adrian Holmes Uncle Phil Bel Air..
This is the match
quote:I don't understand your logic. Where would I need to imply Iberomaurasian's Aterian affinities was due to coincidence?
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:So you imply there were other populations in coastal north africa ? You also imply that the strong physical affinities between these aterians and IBM is a pure coincidence ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
ANA hasn't been proven to be Aterian. That's your theory. Which isn't a good one as ANA peaks in North east Africa, a region where the Iberomaurasian for example should have received their most recent ancestry.
Be specific about the forensic data... You don't have to quote anything. But what have you seen that had said that Aterians were the closest in the history of north Africa to other Africans? Limb proportions? Craniometrics?
What does that mean ? :
quote:https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aar8380 (supplementary text)
"Second, qpAdm-based three-way admixture models fail to fit the data even when the minimum resolution for the sub-Saharan African ancestry was provided by adding the archaic hominin Denisovan as a sole non-Eurasian outgroup (Table S12). Therefore, we conclude that none of the South, Central and East African groups is a sister group of the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt.
quote:https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aar8380 (supplementary text)
Based on our results, we hypothesize that the ancient Taforalt individuals have a strong genetic affinity both with early Holocene Levantine groups and with sub-Saharan Africans. Also, the sub369 Saharan African ancestry in the Taforalt individuals may have links to multiple sub-Saharan African lineages."
and this component like I said peaks in modern SSA
As for forensic datas, they are often associated with bushmen and they are definitely associated with early homo sapiens. There is also dental morphology and the fact that they were intermediate between the mousterians from djebel irhoud and iberomaurusians. There are also some reconstructions which look very much like modern SSAs
quote:It's seems you don't understand much of what I'm saying or imply so I have to be more explicit :
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I don't understand your logic. Where would I need to imply Iberomaurasian's Aterian affinities was due to coincidence?
I also don't see how any of these quotes imply what you're saying. In fact they might even contradict each other in the context of this discussion. This is why I criticize your understanding potential, because if you read and understood these papers then you wouldn't be typing such things.
1st off, If none of the African quadrants were a sister group to the "non Eurasian" proportion of Taforalt then that effectively harm the idea of it being made up of a divergent lineage, ESPECIALLY one with basal characteristics of the Aterian. Taforalt also overwhelmingly fails by various (qpAdm, qpWave, LD decay, DATES) methods to be modeled as a three, two way mixture of any African group(s) + Eurasian group(s). Secondly your next quote claims Taforalt could have links to Multiple African lineages which kinda says nothing about Aterians unless you're assuming 1-1 continuity in the Maghreb since the paleolithic (Which makes no sense.) For your theory to work you need Taforalts relatedness to East African ancestry to be Aterian, Not multiple African lineages. The reason why is because of you first quote, which contradicts the idea of ANA being a pre-divergent cache all African lineage.
About the Forensic data, the reconstructions do not look like SSA's, they look more like early UP Eurasians with a broadened nose (artistic integrity). I challenged you on that, and you changed the topic. I mean do you beleive Cheddar man looks like SSA's too? Yes, bushmen will be compared to the Aterian if anyone would because they, like the Mousterian and especially Jebel Ihroud are theorized to carry some early AMH trait due to their large population size and relative isolation in human history. Not only that, before even clustering with Modern bushmen, Aterians are compared to Hofmeyr (of south Africa), reason being is that they like the Aterian show traits comparable to UP Europeans!
Lastly your two assessments (DNA vs Forensics) directly contradict each other, because on one end ANA is closely related to OOA populations and east Africans and Bushmen/South African hunter gatherers, are on the opposite end of the AMH spectrum in terms of genetic diversity, allele sharing and maybe even population history. Your first quote literally tells us why Taforalts ANA ancestry can not be of a population as divergent as one who was intermediate of them and a 300,000 year old skull, possibly the first AMH. XD
Just retract your statement about 40Kya, it makes no sense. [/QB]
quote:https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aar8380 (supplementary text)
The two major components that comprise the Taforalt genomes(52.5% green and 31.3% purple; K=9; Fig. S11) are maximized in early Holocene Levantines (93.5% in Levant_N and 88.2% in Natufians) and West Africans (=99.9% in Yoruba and Mende),respectively. Interestingly, when a component for East African hunter-gatherer Hadza (brown) is singled out at K=10, the model for Taforalt includes a substantial proportion of the Hadza-related component (19.3% West African and 25.7% Hadza-related; Fig. S11). In comparison, present-day North Africans have a much smaller sub-Saharan African component with no apparent link to Hadza, comprising 24.8% and 22.0% in Mozabite and Saharawi, respectively (Fig. S11).Based on our results, we hypothesize that the ancient Taforalt individuals have a strong genetic affinity both with early Holocene Levantine groups and with sub-Saharan Africans. Also, the sub369 Saharan African ancestry in the Taforalt individuals may have links to multiple sub-Saharan African lineages.
quote:Lazaridis called this deep ancestry in IBM "Ancestral north africa" and the anthropological studies show that the strong morphological affinities between IBM and Aterians can be explained by admixture making aterians the ancestors of IBM that's it. If you disagree then which other population would live there alongside aterians ? Especially that aterians were the early homo sapiens who reach north africa.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aar8380 (supplementary text)
The two major components that comprise the Taforalt genomes(52.5% green and 31.3% purple; K=9; Fig. S11) are maximized in early Holocene Levantines (93.5% in Levant_N and 88.2% in Natufians) and West Africans (=99.9% in Yoruba and Mende),respectively. Interestingly, when a component for East African hunter-gatherer Hadza (brown) is singled out at K=10, the model for Taforalt includes a substantial proportion of the Hadza-related component (19.3% West African and 25.7% Hadza-related; Fig. S11). In comparison, present-day North Africans have a much smaller sub-Saharan African component with no apparent link to Hadza, comprising 24.8% and 22.0% in Mozabite and Saharawi, respectively (Fig. S11).Based on our results, we hypothesize that the ancient Taforalt individuals have a strong genetic affinity both with early Holocene Levantine groups and with sub-Saharan Africans. Also, the sub369 Saharan African ancestry in the Taforalt individuals may have links to multiple sub-Saharan African lineages.
quote:Just retract your 40kya statement. It was wrong. It's over.
"The Ibero-Maurusian culture was thought to have emerged either as a result of the migration of Cro-Magnon people from the Iberian Peninsula, hence the name, or from the local Aterian culture. Ibero-Maurusian culture existed between 10,120 and 8,550 BC. Subsequent study suggests that the Ibero- Maurusian industry is derived from a Nile River valley culture known as Halfan, which dates from about 17,000 BC." The Ibero-Maurusian people belonged to the Mechtoid anthropological type. The Mechta-Afalou, or Mechtoid, are an extinct people of North Africa. Mechtoids inhabited northern Africa during the late Paleolithic and Mesolithic (Ibero-Maurusian archaeological culture).
[...]
Anatomically modern humans arose first in Africa (Crevecoeur et al. 2009). Craniometric studies in North Africa have revealed several more or less complete crania of modern type that date to between about 40,000 and 20,000 years (from Dar es Soltan, Morocco; and Nazlet Khater and Wadi Kubbaniya). The specimens from Nazlet Khater studied by Crevecoeur et al. (2009) were shown to be different from those of Pestera Cu Oase (Romania) and Hofmeyer (South Africa). But this observation provides a glimpse into late Pleistocene human phenotypic diversity.The study of Crevecoeur et al. (2009) is compatible with the suggestion from genetic studies that living humans represent only a restricted part of past modern human variation [...] Certainly the European and North African Upper Paleolithic samples appear to exhibit greater craniometric variability than recent human samples.
[...]
Furthermore, historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both Late Dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region (Keita 1990). Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes as well as intermediate patterns are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern Predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the the agents of microevolution and migration.
quote:True but it's quite likely they were based on the datas we have.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
This is an irrelevant point. You have no Idea what Aterians looked like genetically.
quote:Then how do you explain such double affinity for a component that predates your holocene expansion ?
Originally posted by Elmaestro: This is is gibberish. "ANA-rich" Populations could have expanded during the Holocene and there's actual evidence for this. Linking it to Aterians is conjecture.
quote:It matters since you implied such people didn't necessarily look black meanwhile their ancestry peaks in SSA populations and we're not talking about 10 or 20% here...
Originally posted by Elmaestro: What does it matter if you clearly don't know why? Like what is the argument here? I stated twice in a row who it peaked in and that hurts your argument. Aterian-related ancestry should peak in West African and North African populations (excluding the nile valley) for various reasons (both genetic and archeological) but ANA peaks in north East Africans.
quote:??? no that's why I mentionned a common origin in the levant for cromagnoid populations one going to europe and one to north africa. Shared traits with aterians are something else.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: Yeah and a lot of those traits were acquired from the Aterians X'D. And once again you attempt a strawman... why are you debating how much like SSA's the paleolithic Levant looked like? Yeah I bet the Skhul and Qafzeh look nothing like Modern SSA's right?
quote:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2148-10-390#Sec7
These results therefore suggest that the Iberomaurusian was initiated by an expansion of modern humans of ultimately Near Eastern, carrying mtDNA haplogroup U6, who had spread into Cyrenaïca ~35-45 ka and produced the Dabban industry. The link back to the Near East and the European Early Upper Palaeolithic (which likely has the same source) may explain the suggested skeletal similarities between the robust Iberomaurusian "Mechta-Afalou" burials and European Cro-Magnon remains, as well as the case for continuity of the bearers of the Iberomaurusian industry from Morocco with later northwest African populations suggested by the dental evidence [57]."
quote:They can relate but not necessarily and I brought these traits because they are found among black populations not west eurasians so that's another argument for them looking more black than anything else.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: You don't even understand your own points so you're excused for not understanding why forensics will relate to genetics when trying to link the two to the same population. Furthermore why bring up Aterian's Boskopoid traits, if you're not concerned about ancestry? Do those boskopoid traits make them look more West African that European physically?
quote:Seriously ? That's really weak tbh ...it seems you're stuck 12 years ago since the Ibero-maurusian culture predates the Halfan one nor does that mean it couldn't ultimately derived from Near eastern expansions.
Originally posted by Elmaestro: Anywho, It's time to end this, lucky for you... you don't need to paper hop.
quote:Just retract your 40kya statement. It was wrong. It's over. [/QB]
"The Ibero-Maurusian culture was thought to have emerged either as a result of the migration of Cro-Magnon people from the Iberian Peninsula, hence the name, or from the local Aterian culture. Ibero-Maurusian culture existed between 10,120 and 8,550 BC. Subsequent study suggests that the Ibero- Maurusian industry is derived from a Nile River valley culture known as Halfan, which dates from about 17,000 BC." The Ibero-Maurusian people belonged to the Mechtoid anthropological type. The Mechta-Afalou, or Mechtoid, are an extinct people of North Africa. Mechtoids inhabited northern Africa during the late Paleolithic and Mesolithic (Ibero-Maurusian archaeological culture).
[...]
Anatomically modern humans arose first in Africa (Crevecoeur et al. 2009). Craniometric studies in North Africa have revealed several more or less complete crania of modern type that date to between about 40,000 and 20,000 years (from Dar es Soltan, Morocco; and Nazlet Khater and Wadi Kubbaniya). The specimens from Nazlet Khater studied by Crevecoeur et al. (2009) were shown to be different from those of Pestera Cu Oase (Romania) and Hofmeyer (South Africa). But this observation provides a glimpse into late Pleistocene human phenotypic diversity.The study of Crevecoeur et al. (2009) is compatible with the suggestion from genetic studies that living humans represent only a restricted part of past modern human variation [...] Certainly the European and North African Upper Paleolithic samples appear to exhibit greater craniometric variability than recent human samples.
[...]
Furthermore, historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both Late Dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region (Keita 1990). Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes as well as intermediate patterns are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern Predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the the agents of microevolution and migration.
quote:https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aar8380 (supplementary text)
The chronology of the Iberomaurusian has been the subject of intensive study over the last ten years. New dating from Grotte des Pigeons, Taforalt, has established a long sequence of over 50 accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dates for Iberomaurusian cultural deposits covering a time-span from 23,459 to 12,548 cal. yBP (32, 33). Further dates for the Iberomaurusian have been published from Afalou Bou Rhummel (34), Ifri n’Ammar (35), Ifri el Baroud (35) and Kehf el Hammar (36, 37), none of which are older than Taforalt (Fig. S1). A slightly earlier age of 25,845-25,270 cal. yBP exists for the oldest Iberomaurusian deposits at Tamar Hat in Algeria (26). Critically, the start date for the Eastern Oranian at the Haua Fteah appears to be no earlier than ~17-19,000 yBP (38), which would suggest that the Iberomaurusian is older in the west than in Cyrenaica.
quote:Okay lmaoo sure! that's my point... what is yours? How many of the Aterians were classified as tropically adapted Negroids?
From my perspective they appear to be imported. Anyway your point is that you don't have to go as far as 40k back in order to find "blacks" in coastal north africa ? and that's based on a few tropically adapted remains ? Come on be serious
quote:Alright then who were these "ANA-rich" populations you talked about ? And where are the evidence of such expansions during that time period of such populations.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The Holocene expansions I eluded to were not speaking towards ANA ancestry in Taforalt, but for ANA ancestry in SSA's...
quote:This is what your quote says : " the Ibero- Maurusian industry is derived from a Nile River valley culture known as Halfan, which dates from about 17,000 BC ."
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The age of the IBM doesn't matter, the age of their ancestry from North east Africa does. And it fits perfectly with the coalescence age of their paternal haplogroup. This is proof you don't even understand what you're arguing.
quote:Archaeology actually show movements/migrations in the opposite direction...
Originally posted by Elmaestro: He repeats The ancestry peaks in SSA's but the SSAs who carry this ancestry the most are in the region where Taforalt likely receive their most recent ancestry from. The point literally went over his head.... it's embarrassing.[/i]
quote:I literally didn't make any comment about skhul and Qafzeh but ok...
Originally posted by Elmaestro: You also failed to realize I was being facetious about Skhul and Qafzeh.... They strongly share traits with the Aterian. Of-course they don't look like SSA's... and you agreed... You Gotta hold that L
quote:Like before you're not able to explain why these SSA shifted individuals are always outliers ...why it's always a few individuals why don't they make any stable population like capsians or iberomaurusians ? Why are they not associated with their own industry ? So yes the most likely explanation would be imported folks and I already told you why aterians would more likely overlap more with modern SSAs than any other populations. It's actually the first time I see someone questionning this and no matter how much you try to play on the "pleistocene diversity" it won't change the fact that they would still overlap more with modern SSAs.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Okay lmaoo sure! that's my point... what is yours? How many of the Aterians were classified as tropically adapted Negroids?
This is a textbook display of arguing just to argue... & This man is tryna lecture me about ANA's distribution
[/QB]
quote:Carleton S. Coon, The living races of man, p. 93-94
But the earlier Mouillians, who occupied the coastal regions of Morocco and Algeria, were different. The many skeletons found in the caves of Afalou Bou Rhummel, Algeria, and Taforalt, Morocco, and individual ones from other sites, indicate the presence of a tall, heavy-boned people with massive skulls, wide faces, craggy jaws, and wide nasal openings. Although essentially Caucasoid, they clearly show the absorption of an indigenous element, which can only have comme from the previous inhabitants, the Aterians. The Aterian people were derived from the local Ternefine-Tangier line and, according to our interpretation of the evidence, were unreduced ancestral Bushmen. Traces of this indigenous element may still be seen in living populations of North Africa.
quote:Encyclopedia of global archeology, 2020, Fossil records of early modern humans, pp. 4345
The Jebel Irhoud hominids resemble in some respects the marginally more Homo sapiens-like 80 ka (Barton et al. 2009) cranium from Dar es-Soltan, also in Morocco, and perhaps additionally a very badly crushed and fractured 108 ka adolescent cranium from a third Moroccan site, Contrebandiers Cave (Balter 2011). Together, all of these specimens may turn out to constitute a morphologically (and perhaps also culturally) distinctive regional morph, one that might have shared a fairly recent common ancestry with more fully recognizable Homo sapiens
quote:https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/tanyasmith/files/23_0.pdf
The dental remains found in the Moroccan Aterian sites provide us with important information on populations that may have played a significant role in the colonization of Eurasia. Our comparative analysis confirms the essentially modern nature of these humans. Until 50 ka, Europe and Africa represented distinct bio-geographical barriers that were peopled by well-separated entities. In terms of metrical as well as non-metrical traits, the dental morphology"
quote:Again, Lioness, I have told you this before stop getting ahead of yourself and pretend to speak for me. You don't know what you are talking about.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:According to Doug yes, the Iberomausrian is black because he says that black is skin color alone
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
________________________________________BLACK ______________________________________
Adrian Holmes Uncle Phil Bel Air..
This is the match
However most Americas would probably say no, the bone straight hair of the Iberomausrian makes him not black.
Some also say "black" has features implications as well and means "Negroid"
So since "black" has this much disagreement as to what it means I think it should be not brought up in anthropology discussions
Instead if "dark skinned" is used it greatly refines the conversation.
Someone might say "how is dark or not dark measured" yes that is also up to interpretation however if "dark skinned" is used instead of "black" it refines the conversation because it instantly eliminates hair and features
But people don't really want that. It's more fun to use the ambiguous, very politicized term "black" so that endlessly pictures can be posted and then people can give their opinions if the person is "black" or not
I don't think it makes sense for somebody to use "black" today and then argue it means skin alone and argue because classical writers said "black skinned" and just meant color
because we aren't ancient Greeks and Romans and skin alone is not modern usage, so it only leads to confusion. If you want a skin alone term say "dark skinned" instantly we know the topic is skin alone, no question about it
quote:https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/content/part/EANHS/XVI_No.%204___5__73___74__169_1942_Leakey.pdf
In the series of skulls belonging to the makers of the Elmenteitan Mesolithic culture the lowest cranial index is that of skull Elmenteita "A" with a figure of 67.45, all the others in the series having indices of over 71. Such is the difference between the nasal and also between the orbital indices of this Naivasha skull and the nearest comparable specimen from the Elrilenteitan series that the similarity in the cranial indices cannot be sustained; for the nasal and orbital indices of Elmenteita "A" are respectively 49.7 (the highest in all that series), and 70.07 (the lowest in all that series), as compared with a nasal index of 55.93 and an orbital index of 85.7 in the Naivasha skull.
quote:https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1975.77.1.02a00030
When the Broken Hill cranium is examined in this fashion, results are not greatly surprising. Thirty-three measurements relating to the facial skeleton and brain case can be used to construct a discriminant framework made up of Bushman, Hottentot, South and East African Negro, and Egyptian populations wherein both sexes are represented. These twelve groups overlap to some extent, of course, as is clear if they are arrayed in only the first two or three of the eleven possible dimensions defined in the analysis (see Figure 2). Bushmen and Hottentots lie close to one another but are removed from the Negroes; these latter (Negro) populations are all generally similar but emerge as distinct from the Egyptian Caucasoids, which occupy quite another part of the test space. Taken together, these several samples should describe and limit the range of cranial variation among living peoples for a part of Africa anyway; and some of the obvious exceptions (e.g., West Africa) are perhaps not too crucial to the problem at hand. When the Broken Hill fossil is fitted into this framework, it is clearly not very close to any of the possible parent populations. It is most distant from Bushmen and Egyptians, and makes a sort of approach only to Hottentot and to South African Negro (Venda) male crania, but even here the differences are great. Broken Hill falls well beyond even the calculated .005 probability limits of these distributions. This means simply that the later Pleistocene hominid is quite outside of the probable range of variation for modern cranial form as defined by the measurements used. Without doubt the Hopefield specimen would behave similarly if it could be tested in the same framework, and probably both represent a population differing morphologically from any now in Africa. Whether this Pleistocene population is ancestral to any of today’s peoples is another question, difficult to answer.
quote:https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/catryon/files/tryon_etal_2015_pnassi_published.pdf
KNM-LH 1 occurs within occurrence E at 138-140 cmbs, dates to ~23 kya, and is the only hominin cranium found with an LGM/ LSA assemblage from eastern Africa. KNM-LH 1 thus plays an important role in our understanding of the morphology of these populations. Our formal description of KNM-LH 1 extends the description of Gramly and Rightmire (29), augmented by com- puted tomography (CT). KNM-LH 1 preserves two-thirds of the frontal bone and most of the left parietal bone (Fig. S3). The superciliary ridges are very pronounced and joined medially by a projecting glabella that is clearly separated from the rest of the frontal bone. A sulcus separates the ridges from the robust lat- eral trigone [supraorbital torus grade 4 (50)]. This morphology is rare among recent modern humans (RMHs) from Africa but is well represented in our Late Pleistocene North African (LPA)sample (Table S2) where preserved (25%, n = 67).
......
KNM-LH 1 (compare Fig. 2C). Although located in a small area of the calvaria and associated with no other criteria (e.g., absence of cribra orbitalia, presence of frontal sinus), this thickening, together with the external porosity, could be related to healed expression of light porotic hyperostosis (53). The alternate hypothesis for the localized porotic cranial changes on the right side of the frontal bone is that they are related to periosteal reactions resulting from trauma infection (54). In either case, the TPE does not seem to be associated with bone remodeling. In their formal description of the specimen, Gramly and Rightmire (29) emphasized the low and receding morphology of the frontal region as being distinct from the morphology seen in modern African populations. Here, we expand the comparison of the KNM-LH 1 partial cranium to a geographically and
temporally diverse sample through univariate and multivariate analyses. The comparative sample groups are listed in Table S2 and include Middle Pleistocene to Holocene individuals from Europe, Southwest Asia, and across Africa. The measurements.
KNM-LH 1 (compare Fig. 2C). Although located in a small area of the calvaria and associated with no other criteria (e.g., absence of cribra orbitalia, presence of frontal sinus), this thickening, together with the external porosity, could be related to healed expression of light porotic hyperostosis (53). The alternate hypothesis for the localized porotic cranial changes on the right side of the frontal bone is that they are related to periosteal reactions resulting from trauma infection (54). In either case, the TPE does not seem to be associated with bone remodeling. In their formal description of the specimen, Gramly and Rightmire (29) emphasized the low and receding morphology of the frontal region as being distinct from the morphology seen in modern African populations. Here, we expand the comparison of the KNM-LH 1 partial cranium to a geographically and temporally diverse sample through univariate and multivariate analyses. The comparative sample groups are listed in Table S2 and include Middle Pleistocene to Holocene individuals from Europe, Southwest Asia, and across Africa. The measurements of KNM-LH 1 were made on the 3D reconstruction of the calvaria with Avizo 7 and are given in Table S3 with the comparative ranges of variation of the early modern human (EMH), Late Pleistocene modern human (LPMH), and RMH samples. KNM-LH 1 differs from the LPMH sample in relation to its vault thickness and the morphology of the frontal bone [frontotransverse index (IFT)]. KNM-LH 1 possesses a significantly less divergent frontal squama (IFT = 92.79) than the LPMH group, lying in the EMH range of variation (IFT = 87.9 ± 3.5, n = 10; Table S3). Compared with the RMH group, KNM-LH 1 falls outside the upper limit of the RMH variation regarding its anterior frontal breadths (bifrontal breadth and interorbital breadth) and the frontal length [frontal chord (FRC)]. Focusing on calvarial shape, we performed a principal component analysis on five size-adjusted measurements (55, 56). The results are shown in Fig. 3. In terms of the shape of the calvaria, KNM-LH 1 is distinct from recent Africans and Holocene LSA samples. It is also distinct from most of the comparably aged European Upper Paleolithic (EUP) samples, except, interestingly, Pes ¸tera cu Oase, the oldest EUP cranium. Instead, KNM-LH 1 and several Late Pleistocene African crania (e.g., Nazlet Khater 2, Iwo Eleru, the LPA group) fall outside of the RMH variation along the first axis. The separation along the first axis is related to the combination of large anterior frontal breadths in relation to the maximal frontal breadth and the FRC. The separation of KNM-LH 1 along the third axis is related to its relatively great frontal length.
quote:https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI625219
Definition
White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.
Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black or African American," or report entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.
quote:What do you mean I don't know what I'm talking about? You have always said "black" pertains to skin color alone and above we have two black people although Will Smith is a bit on the light side, just barely darker than caramel unless it's the Summertime.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Again, Lioness, I have told you this before stop getting ahead of yourself and pretend to speak for me. You don't know what you are talking about.
Originally posted by the lioness,
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] You know I get what Antalas is saying on one level, but on another I disagree completely.
On the one hand if one looks at Berbers along the coasts of North Africa you obviously will see a lot of very light skinned individuals.
quote:A great collection of videos.. educational, fascinating and enlightening
Originally posted by Doug M:
You know I get what Antalas is saying on one level, but on another I disagree completely.
On the one hand if one looks at Berbers along the coasts of North Africa you obviously will see a lot of very light skinned individuals. And yes this goes back thousands of years. So for him, he cannot understand how all these "moors" are depicted as black in history. However, the problem is that there is no evidence that all "historical" North Africans only came from that small area along the coast. And this is where the disagreement comes from and a lot of that goes back to the rise of Berber studies and Berber history since the 1980s. And in trying to carve out an identity for 'berbers' as separate from invading Arabs and European colonists they have kind of created this concept of being separate and distinct from everybody else, including other Africans. And this is where this disdain at the notion of black berbers comes from due to that historiography. Much of this is documented in the Berber encyclopedia which basically takes the depictions of light skinned Libyans as its starting point for "berber" history. And as such focuses exclusively on light skinned Africans along the coast as the origin of "Berbers". Obviously I don't agree with this but that is kind of the root of this issue. Of course Europeans love this idea because it fits well with their racial theories. And this is why such Berber studies are centered in France, partly because North African governments see themselves as Arab. But also because the French want to use this for leverage especially due to having large numbers of North Africans in France. Then on top of that you have the problem that there is no historical "Berber" civilization in North Africa. Most of the civilizations we know of are those created due to foreign influence, such as Carthage, Roman Mauretania, the Islamic states and so forth. So because of this the idea of Berber identity becomes one of disentangling the original natives from those various waves of invading cultures and influence.
Anyway, here are some videos from the British showing the various Berber populations they filmed in the last 100 years. And of course a lot of them are light skinned, but a lot of them are also darker skinned and obviously African. But none of them would be confused with "Sudanese" as in those from West Africa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMYp49ac1wM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jmo1gKzeHM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhP_gNSNGIk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AP3AOFndWQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXO9pmDL0m8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJtAZLuDaQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtlVQpwfvWo
quote:Historia Augusta, ‘Septimius Severus’, 22.4-5
After inspecting the wall near the rampart in Britain… just as he [Severus] was wondering what omen would present itself, an Ethiopian from a military unit, who was famous among buffoons and always a notable joker, met him with a garland of cypress. And when Severus in a rage ordered that the man be removed from his sight, troubled as he was by the man's ominous colour and the ominous nature of the garland, [the Ethiopian] by way of jest cried, it is said, “You have been all things, you have conquered all things, now, O conqueror, be a god.”
quote:Exactly. His issue isn't with characters not being correctly portrayed -- he just hates black people. It's clear as day
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I mean would you have been upset if they got a European/British man to play Septimius Severus...I feel like you would'nt care, only blacks upset you.
quote:Ancient Israelites were not Black, they were Levantine people related to todays Jews, Arabs and Samaritans.
Originally posted by KING:
Nice picture of King Solomon
Biblical figures are Black look how the Isrealites lifed inside Egypt for years intermixing with the Black Egyptians is something that would of happen.
Heres what a egyptian looked like from Egypt Blackest and African
--
Gahuhad who I Worship chose the Isrealites as his chosen people and ordered them out of Egypt after many years of Black mixing Black going on. We see the importance of Egypt with Jesus Chryist hiding inside Egypt. Egypt is not middle east its part of Africa and shows the importance of Africans inside the Holy Bible
quote:How ďo wood boats carry 4million people from one side of earth to the other.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Ancient Israelites were not Black, they were Levantine people related to todays Jews, Arabs and Samaritans.
Originally posted by KING:
Nice picture of King Solomon
Biblical figures are Black look how the Isrealites lifed inside Egypt for years intermixing with the Black Egyptians is something that would of happen.
Heres what a egyptian looked like from Egypt Blackest and African
--
Gahuhad who I Worship chose the Isrealites as his chosen people and ordered them out of Egypt after many years of Black mixing Black going on. We see the importance of Egypt with Jesus Chryist hiding inside Egypt. Egypt is not middle east its part of Africa and shows the importance of Africans inside the Holy Bible
There are other threads about ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. This blackwashing of the ancient Israelites is just pathetic. Do not African Americans have a history of their own? Better cherish that instead of trying to claim other peoples ancestors. Just pathetic.
Btw, is not you the one who denied the trans Atlantic slave trade? Weird. It is like hearing a Jew deny the Holocaust.
quote:^ "Genetic evidence", hilarious because ancient Israelite DNA has never been examined or sequenced. Feel free to produce any studies saying otherwise. Just because remains were found in Israel does not mean they were Israelite. This is a pseudo argument just like all of your other arguments. Pseudo misrepresentations.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
As proven in other threads we have genetic evidence and pictorial evidence that Canaanites, Hebrews and other West Asiatic people were not black Africans (or "negroids" as Tazarah puts it). [/URL]
quote:^ did you even read who the authors of my last post/source are, the credentials they hold, and the work they've done? Of course not, because you don't read.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Btw Tazarah, have you ever been to Israel? Have you visited the museums there? Have you talked to any archaeologists, geneticists or historians from there? The way you claim to know everything about ancient Israel one could be led to believe that you have been there, and maybe even done some archaeological fieldwork, or at least talked with Israeli researchers at universities and museums. [/URL]
quote:Funny, because I'm the one who told you to contact the museum and I don't claim to know everything. You're too stupid to realize that your position is still wrong and debunked because those black negroid people with afros were egyptians according to the museum you contacted. And it's a known fact that ancient egyptians and ancient Israelites were identical in appearance.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
No one can take Tazarah seriously since his blooper with the Egyptian wooden figures he stubbornly claimed to be Hebrews. When I consulted an expert at the museum the figures were housed in it of course turned out that they did not depict Hebrews but Egyptians.
quote:^^^ Completely hilarious, all of the people who you argue have "Israelite" DNA have J Y-DNA markers, or markers other than what actual proto-semites had, which would be E.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
You can not know if any of the people in the articles about ancient Levantine DNA identified as Hebrews or not. They were all found in Israel and they were genetically related to todays Jews and Arabs.
If no one knows about the DNA of ancient Israelites then you would not have a clue of any African affinities either. But fact is, what we find in Israel from Biblical times is not African DNA but DNA which corresponds to todays Jews, Arabs, Samaritans and similar Levantine groups.
But you will of course deny that since it does not fit your blackcentric agenda.
But no one takes you seriously anyway. Have you ever taken one single university course in archaeology, anthropology, ancient history or genetics?
quote:
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Got an answer from Ny Carlsbergs Glyptotek regarding if the people in the granary from the tomb of Gemni were Hebrews or not. As I expected there is nothing that indicates that they are Hebrews.
quote:
Dear xxxxx
Sorry for this late answer. I am the Egyptologist at the Glyptotek and your question was forwarded to me.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the people shown in the model ÆIN 1630 from the tomb of Gemni should be Hebrews. Or at the time of Gemni in the beginning of the Middle Kingdom the neighbours of Egypt to the north would be called 'aamu' normally translated as Asiatics (not as in the Far East, but what we call the Middle East today). The scribe in the model is writing down how much grain it carried to the granary and that is in hieratic hieroglyphs and there is no reason why all the people should not be Egyptian.
Hope this helps your discussion.
Best wishes,
Tine
quote:We must go after the DNA we find. From the time of the ancient Biblical Hebrews we find among others haplogroup J. That is what is important. Canaanites and Hebrews were closely related, so the most plausible is that they had similar DNA, especially as todays Jews, Samaritans and others also share DNA. What older protosemites had for DNA is not really relevant.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Reading comprehension is key, arch. The article I referenced says that proto-semites (proto-afro-asiatics), which are the ancestors of the Israelites, had E Y-DNA markers. Which means their descendants must have had E as well. That's genetic fact. Stop being pseudo, there's no way around it.
quote:Yes that was a common tradition in roman art to portray men much darker than women (a tradition also found in many other mediterranean civilization) :
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Septimius Severus in Color with Darker Skin than his Syrian Wife...
quote:That's an artistic reconstruction so nothing serious here and he did the same thing with the bust of macrinus then apologized and made a new one saying he didn't know how ancient north africans were supposed to look like.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Reconstruction based on the color Tondo...
quote:your point ? In terms of pigmentation that's not an average north african.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Of course but that british/european actor would still be physically closer to him than this nigerian actor.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I mean would you have been upset if they got a European/British man to play Septimius Severus...I feel like you would'nt care, only blacks upset you.
quote:again go educate yourself :
Originally posted by Thereal:
Stop lying, there are frescos of Black/dark skin people regardless of gender.
quote:
It was a widespread custom in the ancient Mediterranean to use skin color as an indicator of gender. Men were often portrayed with dark reddish-brown skin, women with pale yellow-white skin. This artistic convention reflects a conventional ideology in which the socially acceptable activities for men were agriculture and war, outdoor occupations which exposed them to the sun. Women were similarly expected to stay indoors, working in the home and preserving their pale skin.
quote:https://co-geeking.com/2018/03/12/race-in-antiquity-skin-color-in-art/#:~:text=It%20was%20a%20widespread%20custom,with%20pale%20yellow%2Dwhite%20skin.
Skin color could also be used to indicate other features of identity. Darker skin, for instance, was associated with age, lighter skin with youth. Children were often depicted with light-colored skin, regardless of gender. In this portrait of the family of the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus, Septimius’ skin is distinctly darker than his wife Julia Domna’s, but their son Caracalla’s skin is even a little paler than his mother’s. (Their other son Geta’s face was obliterated in antiquity after Caracalla became emperor and assassinated his brother).
quote:Historia Augusta, ‘Septimius Severus’, 22.4-5
After inspecting the wall near the rampart in Britain… just as he [Severus] was wondering what omen would present itself, an Ethiopian from a military unit, who was famous among buffoons and always a notable joker, met him with a garland of cypress. And when Severus in a rage ordered that the man be removed from his sight, troubled as he was by the man's ominous colour and the ominous nature of the garland, [the Ethiopian] by way of jest cried, it is said, “You have been all things, you have conquered all things, now, O conqueror, be a god.”
quote:I couldn't have said it better and that's why they are not going to produce that kind of thing here or else we'll go to the court.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Indeed. In the future it would be better if more countries could do historic films and TV-series about their own history, and not letting Americans or Brits define how other peoples ancestors looked like, based on commercial or ideological considerations.
quote:Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 (2021)
Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267
The major branch—J1a1a1-P58—evolved during the early Holocene ~ 9500 years ago somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and southern Mesopotamia. Haplogroup J1-M267 expanded during the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Most probably, the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the arid zones, or both of these events together explain the distribution of haplogroup J1-M267 we see today in the southern regions of West Asia.
quote:Good, I will also abstain from the Jewish DNA debate in this thread if only Tazarah keeps away, or discuss the topic of the thread.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
post
deleted by the lioness,
we have plenty of threads on Israelites
you are not going to be in this forum talking about Jews or Israelites in any random thread and trying to continue non-productive repetitive banter going in circles imported from
other threads
~lioness
quote:Is this the complexion of the average Maghrebian ?
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:yep that's closer to the average so olive skinned and what do you mean by race ? NW africans are their own thing they are not really close to any surrounding population.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Is this the complexion of the average Maghrebian ?
Originally posted by Antalas:
If not what is?
.
.
Is this the complexion of the average Maghrebian ?
what race is this? [/QB]
quote:How? If people can come then people can go out.
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:yep that's closer to the average so olive skinned and what do you mean by race ? NW africans are their own thing they are not really close to any surrounding population. [/QB]
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Is this the complexion of the average Maghrebian ?
Originally posted by Antalas:
If not what is?
.
.
Is this the complexion of the average Maghrebian ?
what race is this?
quote:You're asking why we're distinct ? Because of multiple factors like genetic drift, our profile itself is unique and the fact that we have black ancestry compared to other eurasians inflate our genetic distances, we're also the only mediterranean population that managed to preserve 30-40% of mesolithic ancestry.
Originally posted by Thereal:
How? If people can come then people can go out.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Is this the complexion of the average Maghrebian ?
quote:This guys are light brown
Originally posted by Antalas:
yep that's closer to the average so olive skinned... NW africans are their own thing they are not really close to any surrounding population.
quote:
Olive skin is a human skin colour spectrum. It is often associated with pigmentation in the Type III to Type IV and Type V ranges of the Fitzpatrick scale. It generally refers to light or moderate tan skin, and it is often described as having yellow, green, or golden undertones.
People with olive skin can sometimes become paler if their sun exposure is limited. Lighter olive skin still tans more easily than light skin does, and generally still retains notable yellow or greenish undertones.
quote:
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Here is one definition of olive skin.
quote:Olive skin-Wiki
Olive skin is a human skin colour spectrum. It is often associated with pigmentation in the Type III to Type IV and Type V ranges of the Fitzpatrick scale. It generally refers to light or moderate tan skin, and it is often described as having yellow, green, or golden undertones.
People with olive skin can sometimes become paler if their sun exposure is limited. Lighter olive skin still tans more easily than light skin does, and generally still retains notable yellow or greenish undertones.
An example from Greece: "A baker with olive skin from Greece, an archetypal olive-skinned region"
quote:My apologies I went back in the thread and see yes it was Archeopteryx who brought this up
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] I did not bring up DNA, archeotypery did. I also did not bring up Israel.
quote:There is no standardization in any of these charts, names of colors are applied randomly
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Seems they also sometimes use the name Olive skin tone for the kind of colors you described for Maghrebians and Khoisans and others. Seems like the definitions vary depending on which articles one reads.
Here is yet another chart
Maybe the definition of olive differs a bit depending on if we talk about skin color, or if we talk about colors in general?
quote:God forgive me if I spelled your name wrong. I was listening to outside people.
Originally posted by KING:
Nice picture of King Solomon
Biblical figures are Black look how the Isrealites lifed inside Egypt for years intermixing with the Black Egyptians is something that would of happen.
Heres what a egyptian looked like from Egypt Blackest and African
Gahuhad who I Worship chose the Isrealites as his chosen people and ordered them out of Egypt after many years of Black mixing Black going on. We see the importance of Egypt with Jesus Chryist hiding inside Egypt. Egypt is not middle east its part of Africa and shows the importance of Africans inside the Holy Bible
quote:Indeed. And assorted complaints also fail to realize that the city of Carthage did
Originally posted by Djehuti:
The very title of this thread is nonsensical and idiotic.
There is NO SUCH THING as "darkwashing". You can't wash something "dark" only WHITE. Hence the phrase is white-washing.
I believe the actual term the thread author intentionally means is DARK-PAINTING or BLACK-PAINTING. Since objects are painted darker but are washed lighter or whiter.
That's my only contribution to this thread. The author of this thread may have a point-- to a degree, at least in Northwest Africa but his complaints pale in comparison to the centuries of constant white-washing that Western media has done on North Africans particularly Egyptians and even academia on Sub-Saharans! So I find his complaints of the opposite hilarious.
That's all.
quote:Idiot I'm well aware of the roman colony of Carthage but the show is referring to the destruction of Carthage in 146BC. And black actors are certainly not representative of the ancient carthaginian population.
Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova:
Indeed. And assorted complaints fail to realize that the city of Carthage did
not end with the Roman destruction during the 3rd Punic War. A new city of Carthage
was constructed during later Roman times by Julius Caesar and continued all
the way into the early Christian period, which overlaps with the Germania
background of the series. Indeed Carthage became an early center of Christianity
in North Africa. So to claim that the depicted actress as a Carthaginian
"doesn't make sense" is both inaccurate and dubious.
QUOTE:
".. Julius Caesar later sent a number of landless
citizens there, and in 29 BCE Augustus centred the administration
of the Roman province of Africa at the site. Thereafter
it became known as Colonia Julia Carthago, and it soon grew
prosperous enough to be ranked with Alexandria and Antioch.
Carthage became a favourite city of the emperors, though none
resided there... ..
From the end of the 2nd century, it had its own Christian
bishop, and among its luminaries were the Church Fathers Tertullian
and St. Cyprian.."
https://www.britannica.com/place/Carthage-ancient-city-Tunisia
See also:
https://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/Carthage#Roman_Carthage [/QB]
quote:You clearly haven't watched it the season 2 is in 10 A.D and she's talking about her family being killed by romans; I'm not aware of any roman massacre in carthage during that time period and the first settlers of the roman carthage were italians. Nothing make sense, stop trying to pretend you know better than me about this time period.
Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova:
[QB] The show is set in Germania circa 6 AD. This easily overlaps the later Carthagian city.
The actress did not say ancient Carthage which was long gone, so the only other
alternative was the later city. So to say it "doesn't make sense" actually
makes no sense at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:
I was watching the new season of Barbarians and of course they couldn't resist putting at least one black actress in the middle of Germany but worse she's apparently a carthaginian (+ chronologically it doesn't even make sense since she talks about her family being killed by the romans while the destruction of Carthage occured more than 150 years before she existed lol) :
her carthaginian father in the serie :
I suppose north african actors are only good for criminal and terrorist roles.
quote:Seems like you don't have any argument since I already told you I knew about roman carthage but the show makes it eminently clear that it is about the destruction of the punic one in 146bc. I brought the first settlers because the city was rebuilt a few decades before she existed making her parents among the first settlers.
Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova:
[QB] So far you have shown you know very little about the period else you would have
known that Carthage was rebuilt and ruled by Rome, and that the city continued
on into the Christian era. And who says the woman had to be among the
"first settlers" in the reloaded Carthage? That's like saying a white guy can't
be an American because his ancestors were not among the Indian "first settlers."
Another dubious assumption is that you need some sort of reported "massacre" to
serve as some sort of "proof" that your family was killed. Using this line of
reasoning, the killings of black families in the Jim Crow South never happened
because various groups of terrorists, night riders, or local collaborators
did not report, or the newspapers or authorities did not report a "massacre."
quote:Yes romans and carthaginians looked nigerian back then but then they got replaced by north european tribes like the vandals and ostrogoths who bleached them
Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
She looks like Roman Era Algerians.
This has nothing on whitewashes. I've seen North Africans who look like her father. Hell you had Roman era Euros who looked like her father.
quote:.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Wow
Did the Algerian government stamp issuer alter the colors even if the Italian website imgs are kinda off color its resolution is superior.
I been had
I been took
Algeria's gov
Made me a schnook
quote:.
She looks like Roman Era Algerians.
quote:Macros
Macros (Noel Clarke)
A legionary of the second cohort of the Ninth Legion. Originally from Numidia, he was a noted marathon runner in Greece before joining the army.
