EgyptSearch Forums: Silent Millennia: Mediterranean Africa, ca. 4000-900 BC

This is topic Silent Millennia: Mediterranean Africa, ca. 4000-900 BC in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010608

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344949644_New_Light_on_the_Silent_Millennia_Mediterranean_Africa_ca_4000-900_BC

New Light on the Silent Millennia: Mediterranean Africa, ca. 4000-900 BC
Springer
March 2021African Archaeological Review 38(1)
DOI:10.1007/s10437-020-09411-9
Project: Archaeological deep history and dynamics of Mediterranean Africa, ca.9600-700 BC
Authors:
Giulio Lucarini
Italian National Research Council
Youssef Bokbot
Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine, Morocco,

The so-called neolithization process (ca. 6000/5500–4000 BC) in Mediterranean Africa and the Sahara has been increasingly researched in recent years. In contrast, relatively little is known, especially in Mediterranean Africa, of the period between the beginnings of irreversible climatic deterioration in the Sahara, around 4000–3500 BC, and the onset of Iron Age to broadly Classical times. Why, with the exception of the Nile Delta, is our knowledge of the period between the fourth millennium BC and the threshold of the first Iron Age Phoenician and Greek colonies so limited? To what extent can this information gap be attributed to aridification in the Mediterranean zone, or is it rather a product of the failure to look for the right kinds of materials and sites, and of their relative visibility? In order to answer these questions, this paper focuses specifically on Mediterranean Africa (with the exception of Egypt) from about 4000 BC to ca. 900 BC. It is mainly based on the data made available on MedAfriCarbon, a spatially linked, publicly accessible database and web app comprising the 14C chronometric evidence from Mediterranean Africa from 12,000 to 600 cal. BC, with details of associated cultural and economic information. Analysis of these data shows that most of Mediterranean Africa beyond the Nile was occupied to different extents throughout the 3000-year period covered in this article and that, with a few important exceptions, the robust and resilient nature of local, mainly pastoral, ways of life militated against a shift towards a fully agricultural economy.

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

^ Interesting. I'll take a read though recall the situation in epipaleolithic Fayum.

Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :

The paper reports an interesting new finding :

quote:
The source is the long-known site of Oued Beht, near modern Khémisset, inland between Rabat and the Middle Atlas. This site is now under concerted archaeological investigation for the first time and has yielded radiocarbon dates of ca. 3350–2900 BC (see Table 2). It appears to be a large village that extended over about 20 ha, with fortifications, numerous large rock-cut silos, post-hole footings for houses, and a super-abundant ground-stone assemblage, including hundreds of polished axes, quarrying or mining picks, and large grinding querns—a signature without precedent in the Western Maghreb and persuasively indicative of a substantial and possibly socially complex agricultural society. Equally striking is the quantity and diversity of the Oued Beht pottery, including substantial numbers of painted and polychrome pieces unique to date in northwest Africa and with parallels in southern Spain (Carrasco Rus et al. 2012).

again highlighting links with Iberia :

quote:
However, the pattern south of the Gibraltar strait and in Atlantic Morocco may eventually turn out to be quite different. Despite the paucity of radiocarbon dates here (just one, from a burial in the Hafa II cave [Ramos et al. 2011]), an early to mid-second millennium BC date is likely for a series of coffer-grave cemeteries with strong parallels in Argaric Spain, and perhaps for the extraordinary megalithic circle of Mzora (Bokbot 2008).

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :

This paper is basically acknowledging the coast of North Africa were not key to the evolution of African culture and civilization in ancient times. Because European scholars have always tried to model the history of civilization and culture in Africa as the result of Eurasian migrants into North Africa from which everything slowly drifted Southward. Now that the facts show clearly that most of these things originated further south or from time periods before Eurasians even existed, that model has been demolished. So they are just left trying to turn coastal North Africa into some ancient "buffer zone" between Africa and Europe which does not make sense either since we know for a fact that Africans have been migrating through North Africa to Europe since many thousands of years ago. Meaning they want ancient North Africa to be a distinct and separate population from the rest of Africa that is primarily an outpost of Eurasian culture and heritage not connected to Africa.

quote:

MedAfrica focuses on this zone not merely because its little-understood internal patterning is of intrinsic interest, but also in the belief that a deeper time appreciation of its role as a connecting zone or buffer between the societies and networks of Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa, on the one hand, and the Mediterranean world, on the other, may help us to understand and better contextualize the later long-term history of interaction between these regions (Broodbank and Lucarini 2019 for the overall results of this research initiative).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344949644_New_Light_on_the_Silent_Millennia_Mediterranean_Africa_ca_4000-900_BC

Note the hypocrisy here in that they never ever say that Mediterranean Europe was "less European" than the rest of Europe even though much of the culture and civilization there derives from Africa and the Levant, which was very different than the culture elsewhere in Europe. Not to mention they never call it a "buffer zone". And they even refer to another paper which uses Gabriel Camps as one of their primary references on this concept of coastal North Africa. And Gabriel Camps, the French scholar was quite famous in trying to model coastal North Africa as some ancient bastion of Eurasian culture and identity. Yet at the same time they claim this ancient Eurasian heritage they also at the same time argue that Rome and Carthage did not change the culture of coastal North Africa.......

quote:

Questions, Knowledge and Frameworks

In fact, from time to time many of the right kinds of fundamental questions have already been asked of Mediterranean Africa; the problem, to date, has been the speculative nature of the answers. Gabriel Camps, the first, greatest synthesiser of Mediterranean Africa’s early past, hit upon several over 40 years ago (Camps 1974) is naturally dated in many respects, and shy of venturing east of Tunisia, but remains an invaluable repository of knowledge, and rich in wider insights). How did infuences and stimuli from the Saharan and Mediterranean worlds shape the zone in between them? How did this balance alter as the Sahara dried, and what vectors mattered when? How did ways of life arise that were neither straight-forwardly Saharan nor Mediterranean, and how might Mediterranean Africa’s societies be under-stood in their own terms? Could it be right, as Mitchell (2005: 3) has more recently proposed, that ‘[j]udged across the last 10,000 years, its commonly touted Mediterranean orientation might even be considered a phenomenon that only truly
began in classical times’?

https://www.academia.edu/41864067/The_Dynamics_of_Mediterranean_Africa_ca_9600_1000_bc_An_Interpretative_Synthesis_of_Knowns_and_Unknowns

And it is from this line of scholarship that the modern concept of Berber studies originated in France. Which leads to this modern identity crisis of whether Berbers are Eurasian or Africans, especially considering how Europeans don't really see them as Europeans.

quote:

In the book's third and final section, "Varieties of Representation," Mokhtar Ghambou criticizes
the Amazigh movement's use of ancient Greek and Roman texts to recover their history, pointing
to their pernicious intent (conquest), and the similar use made of them by colonial historians. Celebrating "Numidia" (the Greek- and Roman-era term denoting portions of modern-day Algeria and Tunisia), he says, perpetuates the accompanying negative stereotype of ancient Berbers as "no‐
mads," from which the term allegedly derives. (Curiously, he ignores the view of Gabriel Camps
that the word actually has a Berber origin, with adifferent meaning than the Greek word for nomads.[3])

https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=32530

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :

@Doug M

Informative post, never heard of Gabriel Camps before, I need to learn more for sure

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :

Interesting that pastoralism seems to have been more significant than growing crops for the coastal Maghreb during pre-Iron Age times. During Roman times, the Maghrebi coast was one of the empire's major breadbaskets along with Egypt. Seems like a major transformation in lifestyle took place during the Iron Age.

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

Of relevance...

Neolithic (Josef Eiwanger 1987)

Orange: Cardial and Impressoceramics
Brown: Neolithic Capsian tradition
light green: Saharo-Sudanese cultures (Khartoum culture, Shaheinab culture)
red: Neolithic of the Niger
purple: Levant - Old Neolithic (Fayum Neolithic, Merimde)
green: Upper Egyptian Neolithic (Badari)

Ancient Genomes of North Africa

IAM (Early Neolithic) people did not possess any of the European SNPs associated with light pigmentation, and most likely had dark skin and eyes. IAM samples contain ancestral alleles for pigmentation-associated variants present in SLC24A5 (rs1426654), SLC45A2 (rs16891982), and OCA2 (rs1800401 and 12913832) genes. On the other hand, KEB (Late Neolithic) individuals exhibit some European-derived alleles that predispose individuals to lighter skin and eye color, including those on genes SLC24A5 (rs1426654) and OCA2 (rs1800401).

Early Neolithic rock painting from Atlas Mountains

^ Note not only the dark colored bodies but steatopygous forms.

There's no denying that migrations were occurring across the Straits of Gibraltar during the Late Neolithic that brought European people and culture into the coastal Maghreb.

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :

skin color is important to you?

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :

@ Yatunde
Camps is a longtime authority on things "Berber."
Honestly I'm quite surprised by that book cover.
I wonder whose choice it was?

=-=-=-=-=

@ ES in general
Migration from the western north to south Mediterranean wasn't solely via the Alboran
when post-stone age tool kits, trade items, and architecture are brought to witness.

* c.2000BCE Ceuta&Tetuan bell shaped vessels from Iberia
* c.1500BCE N.Africa copper/bronze arrowheads from Iberia
* c.1500BCE N.Africa obsidian products from Sicily&Pantellaria via Lipari
* c.1400BCE N.Africa industrial influences from Cyprus&Asia Minor via Malta&Pantellaria&Sicily
* Algeria&Tunisia dolmens from Malta prototypes
* late bronze age Cap Bon chamber tombs style preceded in Sicily

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

^ Correct. The Straits of Gibraltar are narrow and easy for migrations to occur either way.

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

skin color is important to you?

No. But it is for Antalas who seems to think there were no blacks in North Africa until recently due to slave trade. LOL [Big Grin]

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
@ Yatunde
Camps is a longtime authority on things "Berber."
Honestly I'm quite surprised by that book cover.
I wonder whose choice it was?

=-=-=-=-=

@ ES in general
Migration from the western north to south Mediterranean wasn't solely via the Alboran
when post-stone age tool kits, trade items, and architecture are brought to witness.

* c.2000BCE Ceuta&Tetuan bell shaped vessels from Iberia
* c.1500BCE N.Africa copper/bronze arrowheads from Iberia
* c.1500BCE N.Africa obsidian products from Sicily&Pantellaria via Lipari
* c.1400BCE N.Africa industrial influences from Cyprus&Asia Minor via Malta&Pantellaria&Sicily
* Algeria&Tunisia dolmens from Malta prototypes
* late bronze age Cap Bon chamber tombs style preceded in Sicily

I think that cover is a later edition.

Yes these migrations are very late

Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :

>admit many european migrations to NW africa as old as the late neolithic
>pretend if north africans are light skinned it's because of the XVIIth century barbary slave trade

XD

the KEB samples were already admixed (IAM/TOR) but Djehuti want us to believe his fictional black populations magically stayed untouched and didn't mix with any of these "european" until arabs came hahahaha again we hopefully now have samples from the coastal area and not a single one has a black profile they are all similar to modern north africans.

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
@ Yatunde
Camps is a longtime authority on things "Berber."
Honestly I'm quite surprised by that book cover.
I wonder whose choice it was?

=-=-=-=-=

@ ES in general
Migration from the western north to south Mediterranean wasn't solely via the Alboran
when post-stone age tool kits, trade items, and architecture are brought to witness.

* c.2000BCE Ceuta&Tetuan bell shaped vessels from Iberia
* c.1500BCE N.Africa copper/bronze arrowheads from Iberia
* c.1500BCE N.Africa obsidian products from Sicily&Pantellaria via Lipari
* c.1400BCE N.Africa industrial influences from Cyprus&Asia Minor via Malta&Pantellaria&Sicily
* Algeria&Tunisia dolmens from Malta prototypes
* late bronze age Cap Bon chamber tombs style preceded in Sicily

quote:
GLOBETROTTER shows a subtle preference for Western Sahara as a source of north African DNA, as opposed to north Morocco. This might be explained if modern-day north Moroccan haplotypes are more similar to present-day Spanish individuals than the historical source population was. Indeed, a mixture analysis we performed of the north Moroccan group itself (Supplementary Figure 4; Methods) shows that this group has a non-trivial proportion of European-like ancestry while the Western Sahara donor group has none. Previous work showed similar results 30. If this European-like ancestry had arrived more recently than the detected admixture event, the north Moroccan donor group would be a poor proxy for the historical source population a and GLOBETROTTER would use a better alternative. Since GLOBETROTTER detects admixture based on the DNA received by the target population (Iberia) this would not affect the date estimates 25.

quote:
We also detect a genetic footprint of the Muslim conquest, and subsequent centuries of Muslim rule. Following the arrival of an estimated 30,000 combatants , a civilian migration of unknown numbers of people occurred, thought to be mainly Berbers from north Morocco and settling in many parts of the peninsula .

quote:
Our GLOBETROTTER results suggest that amongst the six potential African populations in our study, the best match to the predominant group involved in the actual admixture event is north-west African. Moreover, admixture mainly, and perhaps almost exclusively, occurred within the earlier half of the period of Muslim rule (Fig. 5b). Within Spain, north African ancestry occurs in all groups

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

^ Correct, Yatunde.

quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:

XD

the KEB samples were already admixed (IAM/TOR) but Djehuti want us to believe his fictional black populations magically stayed untouched and didn't mix with any of these "european" until Arabs came hahahaha again we hopefully now have samples from the coastal area and not a single one has a black profile they are all similar to modern north Africans.

Wrong as usual! Do you even know how to read??

Ancient Genomes of North Africa

IAM (Early Neolithic) people did not possess any of the European SNPs associated with light pigmentation, and most likely had dark skin and eyes. IAM samples contain ancestral alleles for pigmentation-associated variants present in SLC24A5 (rs1426654), SLC45A2 (rs16891982), and OCA2 (rs1800401 and 12913832) genes. On the other hand, KEB (Late Neolithic) individuals exhibit some European-derived alleles that predispose individuals to lighter skin and eye color, including those on genes SLC24A5 (rs1426654) and OCA2 (rs1800401).

IAM was not mixed but the later KEB was!

KEB is archaeologically associated with the Cardial Ceramic Culture of Europe.

Neolithic (Josef Eiwanger 1987)

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

Getting back to the paper of topic.

The study focuses on these six areas of coastal North Africa below:

The authors suggest that Neolithic technology did spread from the east but with varying degrees of utilization over time:

^ Note that the constant source of food production has been from animal pastoralism but not so much agriculture. This is no doubt due to the limited sources of fresh water and that good irrigation techniques were not used in these areas until the arrival of the Phoenicians. Of course Egypt having the constant presence of the Nile had no such problems.

One thing I find interesting is the possible independent domestication of donkeys locally as well as cattle even though both the donkey and cattle show earlier domestication in the Northeastern part of Africa.

Many researchers postulate the Neolithic industry being introduced to the Maghreb by Taforalt related populations. Of course we've discussed the providence of Taforalt before here and here.

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :

Bumping this...

There are a couple of passages in the OP paper that I consider of interest.

quote:
If so, this raises the question as to what the mixed farming at Althiburos, which narrowly but decisively pre-dates the foundation of Carthage, actually represents. Is it the late phase of an otherwise invisible pan-Maghrebian farming, that extended unbroken from the mid-sixth to early first millennium BC? Or is it a relatively young and intrusive phenomenon that was associated with the widespread dolmen distribution in this same region, and therefore derived from an influx of farming groups from the northern side of the Sicilian strait during the second millennium BC—in other words, a separate overseas introduction preceding the better known Phoenician-Greek horizon?

quote:
A more likely reason for the delayed agricultural takeoff in most of Mediterranean Africa is the robust and resilient nature of local hunter-gatherer and pastoral groups. It appears that, by the time exogenous crops became locally available, Mediterranean Africa had for so long been in the orbit of the Saharan foraging and pastoral world that most of its inhabitants effectively rejected agricultural lifestyles. Conversely, by the time the grand tradition of Saharan societies was destroyed by desertification, this choice may have become in effect locked in until new, intrusive farmers reappeared several millennia later.

The impression I'm getting from these two passages is that the peoples of the Maghreb were primarily pastoralists before the first millennium BC, but afterward farmers from Southern Europe showed up in significant numbers on the Maghrebi coast and established an agricultural civilization there. I believe those coastal farmers of European origin could be the source of the so-called "olive-skinned Mediterranean" phenotype in the Maghreb. On the other hand, since the pastoralists were continuing a tradition common to early Afroasiatic-speakers in the Sahara, they were probably the first Berber-speakers, even if many of the later farmers would come to adopt their language and become the public's most common image of Berbers.

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

^ Your assessment was pretty much confirmed by others such as the Fregel et al. 2018 Study:

By 3,000 BCE, a continuity in the Neolithic spread brought Mediterranean-like ancestry to the Maghreb, most likely from Iberia. Other archaeological remains, such as African elephant ivory and ostrich eggs found in Iberian sites, confirm the existence of contacts and exchange networks through both sides of the Gibraltar strait at this time. Our analyses strongly support that at least some of the European ancestry observed today in North Africa is related to prehistoric migrations, and local Berber populations were already admixed with Europeans before the Roman conquest. Furthermore, additional European/Iberian ancestry could have reached the Maghreb after KEB people; this scenario is supported by the presence of Iberian-like Bell-Beaker pottery in more recent stratigraphic layers of IAM and KEB caves.

This is why Antalas is so salty, because he realizes that fair-skinned (WHITE) Amazigh like himself have such phenotypes due to European ancestry and NOT from indigenous North African ancestry. The indigenous types were originally darker (black) before being lightened (white-washed). This is why they suffer from a kind of identity crisis as White Africans unlike the Afrikaners of South Africa who obviously acknowledge their European heritage.

He then desperately tries to project this same white Berber image to the Egyptians farther east. How nutty is that.

Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

This is why Antalas is so salty, because he realizes that fair-skinned (WHITE) Amazigh like himself have such phenotypes due to European ancestry and NOT from indigenous North African ancestry. The indigenous types were originally darker (black) before being lightened (white-washed). This is why they suffer from a kind of identity crisis as White Africans unlike the Afrikaners of South Africa who obviously acknowledge their European heritage.

He then desperately tries to project this same white Berber image to the Egyptians farther east. How nutty is that. [/QB]

Go ahead and show me where I've said iberomaurusians were light skinned. You clearly have no argument against what I say so you start making straw man. Earliest presence of these "european" farmers goes back to the VIth millenium B.C. that's way before your fancy claim of north africans being whitewashed by arabs or even the few thousands european slaves of the XVIIth century XD I shouldn't remind you that iberomaurusians were not berbers and that this component peaks in modern day north africans not any other population.

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :

And the winning answer is: All the above contributed to the proven "whitewash" of N Afr. Since pre and early historic southern Europeans through Arabo and later Ottoman East Mediterraneans both with their European slaves and on to Spaniard, French, and Italian colonizers (emulating the Romans?).

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The SudaneseSaharans, accredited founders of Sahra Neolithic pastoralism, were AfroAsian speakers? Were the Bir Kiseiba/Nabta Playa cattle cult folk AfroAsian speakers too?

quote:
Originally posted by BrandonP:

pastoralists ... tradition common to early Afroasiatic-speakers in the Sahara,

.

Apparently earliest, though sparse, Maghrebi cattle remains are at Grotte Capeletti, Algeria ~7400bp and they precede sites to the east like Hawa Fateah 6700 and Merimde beni Salama 6750. They fall within a Gafsa/Capsian Neolithic sphere.

Cattle were borrowed or introduced from much further south. Neolithic SudaneseSaharan pastoralism dates 8260 and 8250 respectively at Enneri Bardague, Tibesti Chad and Ti n Torha, Akakus Libya. Dates per David Wright (2017).

* underlines are lynx

The further east we go from the Fezzan, the further south the Neolithic of Gafsian Tradition spreads. They're ancestral to 6th Dyn AE documented Tjemehu just as Neolithic SudaneseSahrans are to Nehesi.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

quote:
Originally posted by BrandonP:

a passage[] in the OP paper that I consider of interest.

quote:
If so, this raises the question as to what the mixed farming at Althiburos, which narrowly but decisively pre-dates the foundation of Carthage, actually represents. Is it the late phase of an otherwise invisible pan-Maghrebian farming, that extended unbroken from the mid-sixth to early first millennium BC? Or is it a relatively young and intrusive phenomenon that was associated with the widespread dolmen distribution in this same region, and therefore derived from an influx of farming groups from the northern side of the Sicilian strait during the second millennium BC—in other words, a separate overseas introduction preceding the better known Phoenician-Greek horizon?

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

^ Your assessment was pretty much confirmed by others such as the Fregel et al. 2018 Study:

By 3,000 BCE, a continuity in the Neolithic spread brought Mediterranean-like ancestry to the Maghreb, most likely from Iberia. Other archaeological remains, such as African elephant ivory and ostrich eggs found in Iberian sites, confirm the existence of contacts and exchange networks through both sides of the Gibraltar strait at this time. Our analyses strongly support that at least some of the European ancestry observed today in North Africa is related to prehistoric migrations, and local Berber populations were already admixed with Europeans before the Roman conquest. Furthermore, additional European/Iberian ancestry could have reached the Maghreb after KEB people; this scenario is supported by the presence of Iberian-like Bell-Beaker pottery in more recent stratigraphic layers of IAM and KEB caves.

.

I agree guys. Relevant to the OP article which only mentions "coffer-grave cemeteries with strong parallels in Argaric Spain". No mention of these also during the "Silent Years"

c.2000BCE Ceuta&Tetuan bell shaped vessels from Iberia
c.1500BCE N.Africa copper/bronze arrowheads from Iberia
c.1500BCE N.Africa obsidian products from Sicily&Pantellaria via Lipari
c.1400BCE N.Africa industrial influences from Cyprus&Asia Minor via Malta&Pantellaria&Sicily
Algeria&Tunisia dolmens from Malta prototypes
late bronze age Cap Bon chamber tombs style preceded in Sicily

Breaking silence, they speak to aspects of material culture borrowed or introduced from Europe or by Europeans present in N Afr.

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The SudaneseSaharans, accredited founders of Sahra Neolithic pastoralism, were AfroAsian speakers? Were the Bir Kiseiba/Nabta Playa cattle cult folk AfroAsian speakers too?

I don't know what language those Sudano-Saharan peoples would have spoken. But, when I spoke about early Afroasiatic speakers being pastoralists, I didn't say they were necessarily the ones that invented that lifestyle. They could have learned it from Nilo-Saharans for all I know.

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :

Chadic AfroAsian speakers from south in the Sahra no doubt were among the initiators of cattle domestication. Page 60g of the book linked to Enerri (previous post) gives archaeology evidence of African Humid Period people and Nilo-Saharan Bardai Tibbu 'continuity'. Briggs' Races of volumes may have the data to compare bone remains of the two.

Iinm, historically Tibesti Africans are taken for both the Garamante core and the Rock/Cave dwelling, swift running, squawk speeched targets of Libyan charioteers. Essentially any peoples of south Libya and far north Chad and far northeast Niger mentioned by Classical Authors were likely Chadics like today's central to eastern Sahran Teda Tibbus.

I suppose even if not distinct 10ky, by the mid-Holocene confluences between the three supra equatorial African phyla were resolved. Some linguist(s) made cattle related word lists. Iirc, there were similarities suggesting common roots for cattle terms.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=007264#000001

Wonder what U6 mommy N Afrs from the Maurusian to the early/mid Holocene cusp might've spoke? It was millennia later some U6 migrating back to the Maghreb from southeast Libya/northwest Sudan with 'Libyic' acquired from their E-M78/81 mates.

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

Whether or not Nilo-Saharan speakers actually invented pastoralism in Africa, they sure had a significant influence on the Egyptian language, according to Ehret.

One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.

Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East. Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era.

But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)

Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.

From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.

One key feature of classical Egyptian political culture, usually assumed to have begun in Egypt, also shows strong links to the southern influences of this period. We refer here to a particular kind of sacral chiefship that entailed, in its earliest versions, the sending of servants into the afterlife along with the deceased chief. The deep roots and wide occurrence of this custom among peoples who spoke Eastern Sahelian languages strongly imply that sacral chiefship began not as a specifically Egyptian invention, but instead as a widely shared development of the Middle Nile Culture Area.

After about 3500 B.C., however, Egypt would have started to take on a new role vis-a-vis the Middle Nile region, simply because of its greater concentration of population. Growing pressures on land and resources soon enhanced and transformed the political powers of sacral chiefs. Unification followed, and the local deities of predynastic times became gods in a new polytheism, while sacral chiefs gave way to a divine king. At the same time, Egypt passed from the wings to center stage in the unfolding human drama of northeastern Africa.

Also, I believe there were other language phyla spoken in the Saharan region other than Afrisian or Nilo-Sharan. In fact some of the languages spoken today have at best a tenuous position within Nilo-Saharan".

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Also, I believe there were other language phyla spoken in the Saharan region other than Afrisian or Nilo-Sharan. In fact some of the languages spoken today have at best a tenuous position within Nilo-Saharan".

I agree that is indeed possible. It always seemed weird to me that most African languages could be sorted into just four linguistic phyla (Niger-Congo, Afrasian, Nilo-Saharan, and Khoisan) despite humans having lived in that continent longer than anywhere else. Isn't Nilo-Saharan sometimes considered a wastebasket classification anyway?

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :

No matter how long Africa's been inhabited, that has nothing to do with the age of extant ethnic groups and their languages.

Hal Pulaaren can culturally be shown to have early Holocene beginnings. Yet Pulaar is not old and its immediate parent lects were never in SE Algeria.

African language classification is in such a quandry because all we get are ideas from Europeans who don't know any single African lect as their mother tongue or everyday use language nor do they dream in any African language.

A good number of non-scholar Africans know at least three languages; mother tongue, dominant local or lingua franca, foreign colonizer's tongue

African's own attempts at writing about their languages are denied, as UNESCO did to Lwanga-Lunyiigo, or given "the silent treatment".

Totally off the Greenberg etc path and never considered much

quote:

Rather than genetic families, Dalby proposes
region wide affinity of speech overlaid by
fragmentation of unaffiliated speakers.

Geosectors simply refer to a continent.

Phylosectors refer to affinity.

Phylozones correspond to wider or narrower affinities.

Geozones correspond to convenient geographical groupings that may
* sometimes share a geo-typological relationship
* simply be isolated languages
* groupings of diverse languages spoken in the same geographic area
code:
0.  AFRICA / AFRIQUE géosecteur      1.  AFRO-ASIAN / AFRO-ASIATIQUE phylosecteur 
      00.  MANDIC phylozone                10.  TAMAZIC phylozone 
      01.  SONGHAIC phylozone              11.  EGYPTIC phylozone 
      02.  SAHARIC phylozone               12.  SEMITIC phylozone 
      03.  SUDANIC phylozone               13.  BEJIC phylozone 
      04.  NILOTIC phylozone               14.  CUSHITIC phylozone 
      05.  EAST SAHEL géozone              15.  EYASIC phylozone 
      06.  KORDOFANIC phylozone            16.  OMOTIC phylozone 
      07.  RIFT VALLEY géozone             17.  CHARIC phylozone 
      08.  KHOISANIC phylozone             18.  MANDARIC phylozone 
      09.  KALAHARI géozone                19.  BAUCHIC phylozone 

9.  TRANSAFRICAN / TRANSAFRICAIN phylosecteur 
      90.  ATLANTIC phylozone 
      91.  VOLTAIC phylozone 
      92.  ADAMAWIC phylozone 
      93.  UBANGIC phylozone 
      94.  MELIC phylozone 
      95.  KRUIC phylozone 
      96.  AFRAMIC phylozone 
      97.  DELTIC phylozone 
      98.  BENUIC phylozone 
      99.  BANTUIC phylozone 
From Table A : Geolinguistic framework of referential sectors & zones
©David Dalby, Observatoire linguistique 1993-2007
GEOSECTORS comprising geozones & independent phylozones; plus
PHYLOSECTORS comprising phylozones (interrelated witin each phylosector)

.

An old comparison I did of Obenga Greenberg and Dalby

Dalby introduced the Fragmentation Belt where languages within the belt defy assignment to any one family because different criteria will land them in different families.

Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Your assessment was pretty much confirmed by others such as the Fregel et al. 2018 Study:

By 3,000 BCE, a continuity in the Neolithic spread brought Mediterranean-like ancestry to the Maghreb, most likely from Iberia. Other archaeological remains, such as African elephant ivory and ostrich eggs found in Iberian sites, confirm the existence of contacts and exchange networks through both sides of the Gibraltar strait at this time. Our analyses strongly support that at least some of the European ancestry observed today in North Africa is related to prehistoric migrations, and local Berber populations were already admixed with Europeans before the Roman conquest. Furthermore, additional European/Iberian ancestry could have reached the Maghreb after KEB people; this scenario is supported by the presence of Iberian-like Bell-Beaker pottery in more recent stratigraphic layers of IAM and KEB caves.

This is why Antalas is so salty, because he realizes that fair-skinned (WHITE) Amazigh like himself have such phenotypes due to European ancestry and NOT from indigenous North African ancestry. The indigenous types were originally darker (black) before being lightened (white-washed). This is why they suffer from a kind of identity crisis as White Africans unlike the Afrikaners of South Africa who obviously acknowledge their European heritage.

He then desperately tries to project this same white Berber image to the Egyptians farther east. How nutty is that.

Is it curious that there doesn't seem to be much R1b in North Africa? At least from what we see from the ancient bones they have tested so far. I remember they did a DNA test on the bell beakers found in Morocco some time ago, but I have never seen any published work on what Y-Chromosome haplogroup they belonged to.

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by typeZeiss:
Is it curious that there doesn't seem to be much R1b in North Africa? At least from what we see from the ancient bones they have tested so far. I remember they did a DNA test on the bell beakers found in Morocco some time ago, but I have never seen any published work on what Y-Chromosome haplogroup they belonged to. [/qb]

On the whole there is little R1b in Africa
However Africa has a unique clade or R1b called
R1b-V88 which was discovered around 2010.
Sometimes people may just call it V88 for short but it is a type of R1b
It is found in some populations of the Chad Cameron basin at high frequency
and a few other places at very low frequency.
Some people in the Siwa Oasis in Egypt carry it
Some of the kings of the 18th dynasty were DNA tested in 2020 and determined R1b but the clade was not specified
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010350

Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :

quote:
Originally posted by typeZeiss:
Is it curious that there doesn't seem to be much R1b in North Africa? At least from what we see from the ancient bones they have tested so far. I remember they did a DNA test on the bell beakers found in Morocco some time ago, but I have never seen any published work on what Y-Chromosome haplogroup they belonged to. [/QB]

Actually the guanche samples had substantial number of R1b :

Don't be deceived by the current HG repartition since the expansion of E-m81 in the region is quite recent (2k years old) and might have erased the previous diversity

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:
Originally posted by typeZeiss:
Is it curious that there doesn't seem to be much R1b in North Africa? At least from what we see from the ancient bones they have tested so far. I remember they did a DNA test on the bell beakers found in Morocco some time ago, but I have never seen any published work on what Y-Chromosome haplogroup they belonged to.
Actually the guanche samples had substantial number of R1b :

Don't be deceived by the current HG repartition since the expansion of E-m81 in the region is quite recent (2k years old) and might have erased the previous diversity [/QB]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2728732/

BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 181.
Published online 2009 Aug 3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-181
PMCID: PMC2728732
PMID: 19650893

Demographic history of Canary Islands male gene-pool: replacement of native lineages by European
Rosa Fregel

Conclusion
The presence of autochthonous North African E-M81 lineages, and also other relatively abundant markers (E-M78 and J-M267) from the same region in the indigenous population, strongly points to that area as the most probable origin of the Guanche ancestors. This is in accordance with previous genetic studies performed on the same material at mtDNA level [24], and in support of the cultural connections found between the Berbers and the indigenous islanders people [9,15,52]. In addition to this mainly NW African colonization, the detection in the indigenous sample of markers like I-M170 and R-M269 of clear European ascription might suggest that other secondary waves also reached the Archipelago, most likely from the Mediterranean basin. This would again be in agreement with the multiple settlement theory proposed to explain the physical and cultural diversity found between and within the different islands [3,52]. However, as these markers are also present in N Africa, albeit in low frequencies, it could be that they arrived in the islands during the same African wave(s) that brought E-M81 and reached relatively high frequencies there due to founder and genetic-drift effects. If so, the presence of these markers in N Africa may be older than previously proposed [17].

Compared to the original natives, the 17th–18th century historical sample mainly differs by harboring lower frequencies of NW African haplogroups such as E-M81 (11.9% vs 26.7%), E-M78 (11.9% vs 23.3%) and J-M267 (11.9% vs 16.7%), and higher frequencies for European haplogroups like R-M269 (42.9% vs 10.0%) or R-M173, (9.5% vs 0.0%). A notable exception was I-M170 because it was not detected in the historical sample, despite being moderately frequent in the aborigines (6.7%).

Different founder effects on different islands could be a plausible explanation, since all the natives carrying I-M170 were from Gran Canaria, whereas the historical sample was taken from Tenerife. Another difference between these two samples is the higher, albeit not significant, frequency of sub-Saharan lineages (7.1% vs 3.3%) in this historical population. However, these differences were not detected at mtDNA level [24,25], as the NW African haplogroup U6 (10.2% vs 10.0%) and the most abundant and widespread European haplogroup H (46.9% vs 52.1%) showed similar frequencies in both samples. The sharp and swift change observed for the indigenous male and female genetic pools can be satisfactorily explained if it is accepted that indigenous females were reproductively more successful after the conquest than males, who were displaced by male European colonizers. Although sampling bias and drift effects could also explain these differences, the genetic data corroborate historical chronicles that narrated frequent mass killings and deportations of mainly males during the conquest [1,9]. Even after that first violent period, the better social and economical position held by the Europeans continued to favor their mating with indigenous females.

The asymmetric sexual evolution of the mixed population is also corroborated when quantitative admixture estimates are independently applied to their female and male genetic pools at different times (Table (Table3).3). The Iberian contribution to the male genetic pool increases from 63% in the 17th–18th centuries to 83% in the present-day population, which is accompanied by a parallel dropping of the male indigenous (31% vs 17%) and sub-Saharan (6% vs 1%) contributions. However, relative proportions in the female pool are strikingly constant for Iberians (48% vs 55%) and aborigines (40% vs 42%), from the 17th–18th centuries to the present [53], and only the sub-Saharan female contribution shows an important decrease (12% vs 3%).

These results indicate that indigenous males were negatively discriminated, not only at the beginning of the conquest but also afterwards. In the case of the sub-Saharan lineages, it seems that their mating disadvantage affected both sexes, although more so in males.

It has been stated that the Canary Islands served as a laboratory for the later conquest and settlement of the American Continent by the Spaniards [54,55]. In fact, recent genetic studies on Iberoamerican populations [56-58] have also detected considerable sexual asymmetry, showing that the European male contribution to their present-day genetic pools is significantly greater than the female, as happens in the Canary Islands. Ironically, autochthonous male M81 and female U6 lineages from the Canaries have also been detected in Iberoamerica [57], demonstrating that Canary Islanders with indigenous ancestors actively participated in the American colonization.