posted
Yes they were, egyptian berbers originally of the western desert close to the the nile.
Egyptians/thebians didn't like them and their heretic worship that's why the sanctioned Piye of Napata to overthrow the 24th berber dynasty and establish the 25th kushite dynasty.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could they all have been Tamazight-speakers? Possible.
Were they all *definitely* Tamazight-speakers? Questionable. Where is the concrete evidence that each of the said groups spoke one?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No they were not Berbers. The Tuareg should not be considered Berbers.
Many researchers falsely states that the Berber speakers were Libyans. This is false, as proven by Diop (1977). Diop (1977) illustrates that the Berber genealogies place their origin in Saudi Arabia, and point to a very recent settlement(2000 years ago) in the Central Sahara. Diop (1977) believes that the Berbers are the result of the early mixture of Africans and Germanic speaking Vandals. (Diop 1986) This would explain the evident close relationship between the Berber and German languages.
These Proto-Saharans were called Ta-Seti and Tehenu by the Egyptians. Farid (1985,p.82) noted that "We can notice that the beginning of the Neolithic stage in Egypt on the edge of the Western Desert corresponds with the expansion of the Saharian Neolithic culture and the growth of its population". (emphasis that of author)
The inhabitants of the Fezzan were round headed Africans. (Jelinek, 1985,p.273) The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and the people of Ta-Seti . The C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 BC (Jelinek 1985).
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South. (Diop 1986) A Tehenu personage is depicted on Amratian period pottery (Farid 1985 ,p. 84). The Tehenu wore pointed beard, phallic-sheath and feathers on their head.
The Temehus are called the C-Group people by archaeologists.(Jelinek, 1985; Quellec, 1985). The central Fezzan was a center of C-Group settlement. Quellec (1985, p.373) discussed in detail the presence of C-Group culture traits in the Central Fezzan along with their cattle during the middle of the Third millennium BC.
The Temehus or C-Group people began to settle Kush around 2200 BC. The kings of Kush had their capital at Kerma, in Dongola and a sedentary center on Sai Island. The same pottery found at Kerma is also present in Libya especially the Fezzan.
The C-Group founded the Kerma dynasty of Kush. Diop (1986, p.72) noted that the "earliest substratum of the Libyan population was a black population from the south Sahara". Kerma was first inhabited in the 4th millennium BC (Bonnet 1986). By the 2nd millennium BC Kushites at kerma were already worshippers of Amon/Amun and they used a distinctive black-and-red ware (Bonnet 1986; Winters 1985b,1991). Amon, later became a major god of the Egyptians during the 18th Dynasty.
There are similarities between Egyptian and Saharan motifs(Farid,1985). It was in the Sahara that we find the first evidence of agriculture, animal domestication and weaving (Farid , 1985, p.82). This highland region is the Kemites "Mountain of the Moons " region, the area from which the civilization and goods of Kem, originated.
The rock art of the Saharan Highlands support the Egyptian traditions that in ancient times they lived in the Mountains of the Moon. The Predynastic Egyptian mobiliar art and the Saharan rock art share many common themes including, characteristic boats (Farid 1985,p. 82), men with feathers on their head (Petrie ,1921,pl. xvlll,fig.74; Raphael, 1947, pl.xxiv, fig.10; Vandier, 1952, p.285, fig. 192), false tail hanging from the waist (Vandier, 1952, p.353; Farid, 1985,p.83; Winkler 1938,I, pl.xxlll) and the phallic sheath (Vandier, 1952, p.353; Winkler , 1938,I , pl.xvlll,xx, xxlll).
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
But do you think that those tribes (Tjehenu, Libu, Tamahu, Meshwesh...) belonged to one ethnic group (although several tribes)?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] No they were not Berbers. The Tuareg should not be considered Berbers.
Many researchers falsely states that the Berber speakers were Libyans. This is false, as proven by Diop (1977). Diop (1977) illustrates that the Berber genealogies place their origin in Saudi Arabia, and point to a very recent settlement(2000 years ago) in the Central Sahara. Diop (1977) believes that the Berbers are the result of the early mixture of Africans and Germanic speaking Vandals. (Diop 1986) This would explain the evident close relationship between the Berber and German languages.
This quote is the only argument for denying their origin. The rest is general information. If not, how can we see those informations as arguments for their non-Berber origin?
Another question: Why should the touaregs not be considered as Berbers??Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mazigh: Thanks Clyde Winters,
But do you think that those tribes (Tjehenu, Libu, Tamahu, Meshwesh...) belonged to one ethnic group (although several tribes)?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] No they were not Berbers. The Tuareg should not be considered Berbers.
Many researchers falsely states that the Berber speakers were Libyans. This is false, as proven by Diop (1977). Diop (1977) illustrates that the Berber genealogies place their origin in Saudi Arabia, and point to a very recent settlement(2000 years ago) in the Central Sahara. Diop (1977) believes that the Berbers are the result of the early mixture of Africans and Germanic speaking Vandals. (Diop 1986) This would explain the evident close relationship between the Berber and German languages.
This quote is the only argument for denying their origin. The rest is general information. If not, how can we see those informations as arguments for their non-Berber origin?
Another question: Why should the touaregs not be considered as Berbers??
The Taureg have traditionally been associated with the Western Sudan and Sahel. Not North Africa.
The Libyans can not be homogenous because beginning with the invasion of the Peoples of the Sea numerous ethnic groups were deposited in the Delta and other parts of North Africa.
But it is a basical fact that the Berbers is not Germanic. It is an afro-asiatic language. The claim that is it would be a germanic language is completely unfounded:
The used argument to classify (doe-it-self-classification) is like stated in another topic (one of yours) wrong. The T-T is found in the Afro-asiatic languages: "Teweret", "Tanit", "Tefnakht" "Tekelot"... all this ancient names are not Germanic.
I wonder if such structure is found in Germanic languages. English is one those Germanic languages, and i speak also Dutch which is also a Germanic language. That structure is no where based.
As far as the Touareg are concerned, their language is also classified as a Berber language. They consider themselves as Berbers. More then that, their own name referring to themselves: Tamashaq, tamahaq... is nothing others than the Berber real name "Imazighen". The difference in the names: sh/h/j in place of "Z" and the Q in place of "Gh" is due to the phoenitical changes. The touareg dialects tends to change in the letter "z" in "ch/h/j" and the "gh" in "q".
Anta diop used also another argument to prove the non-african origine of the Berbers: the genealogy of classic Berbers.
To him, it is not contradictory with the Germanic/Vandal hypothese. Because both of the arguments deny their african origin. But scientifiacally it is an absurd methodology.
The date of the supposed Arab migration to North Africa (2000 ago) is also strage and has no place in considerable methodology. Why would those arabs lose their arabic language? Why didn't the Romans mention that, since North Africa was in Roman hands at that time in full power.
Those arguments cannot resist in front of any rational analyse. It is can be only seen a afro-centric attempt to deny the non-balck popluations of North Africa.
posted
^^ Diop is not saying that German is a Berber language, don't be ridiculous. He is stating that many of the word spoken by 'some' modern day Berbers are 'loan' words from the German language. It's just like other scholars and linguists that show several Berber words with 'Arabic' loan words, what's the difference? Berber is not some pure language. There are different dialects spoken amongst different populations. It has yet to be "standardized".
I cannot say whether the Tuareg consider themselves "Berber" using the etymology of the term Berber per se, but one could argue that they consider themselve distinct from other North African groups classified as 'Berbers' and linguistic studies has shown their language to be a more "pure form of Berber" without many loan words from outside 'invaders'. They are identified as one of the only groups to still use the ancient "Berber" or should I say "Libyan" script,"Tifinagh." They claim descent from the Fezzan and the ancient Garamante, so it's very probable that they are descendants of who the AE refer to as the Temehu.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: ^^ Diop is not saying that German is a Berber language, don't be ridiculous. He is stating that many of the word spoken by 'some' modern day Berbers are 'loan' words from the German language.
posted
The Tuareg are the remnant of people called and still called Aulamidden, Iforas, Maghira, Imazighen and Imaketan those ancient peoples lining the coasts of North and East Africa referred to by the Romans as Ifuraces, Makkhuritae, Mazikes, and Macetae or Macutuni. Also referred to in Arab texts as Lamtuna, Beni Ifren or Ferwan, Maghrawa, Mazigh, and Ketama.
The term Berber originally referred to related people in east Africa still called Afar also known as Danakil. These people called there towns Berber after water wells.
Modern Berbers are not a singular cultural or biological population and are only linked linguisticaly and on a nationalistic basis. Tuareg are the people the Greeks called the Ethiopians sundered in twain stretching to the Atlas who have mixed with Syrians, Turks and Tartars (according to African manuscripts).
Leo Africanus calls the Lamtuna and other Tuareg tribes a remnant of "the Numidians".
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Tuareg are the remnant of people called and still called Aulamidden, Iforas, Maghira , Imazighen and Imaketan those ancient peoples lining the coasts of North and East Africa referred to by the Romans as Ifuraces, Makkhuritae, Mazikes, and Macetae or Macutuni . Also referred to in Arab texts as Lamtuna, Beni Ifren or Ferwan, Maghrawa , Mazigh, and Ketama.
Stop making up your own tribes/ethnicities, when exactly are you going to provide sources for all these wild claims you make here?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it seems a long list. It is safe to say that they are part of the Berber peoples/groups. The most probale is that they're remnants of the Getules.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mazigh: It is so with those blackcentric people.....
I don't understand what you mean? Do you have a problem accepting that there are "Black" Berbers, or would you rather assume the 'true' Berbers are 'White-skinned' who absorbed 'Blacks' thru slavery?
There was a "Black" mummy discovered by Professor Fabrizio several years ago in the central Libyan desert, carbon dated to be older than Egyptian culture, and frankly for a "Spanish" scholar to label the mummy as "Black" it must have exhibited all the physical attributes typified to be "negroid", because we are all too aware of those dark skinned 'caucasoids' aren't we?
Is it difficult for you to imagine people with melanin-rich skin could have actually crossed the South Saharan desert and migrate northwards in prehistoric times?
The Egyptians did depict the Tehenu with very dark skin, this is a fact. There were BLACK Ancient Libyans, deal with it.
Were the Celtics Black, I can't say they were, were the Ancient Germans Black, highly dubious at best, but I can assure you, that prehistoric Africans were BLACK, before they mixed with other ethnic groups, and I don't give a damn if you label this as BLACK-centric!
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not againt the idea of black berbers, especially when they really are, like Garamantes who were possibly black. But i'm againt the blackisation of the world, and the used methodes like denying the existence of white north africans by claiming they're remnants of the Vandals or sea people. That is the question.
My remark in your quote, is because you said 'don't be reiduclous'.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mazigh: I'm not againt the idea of black berbers, especially when they really are, like Garamantes who were possibly black. But i'm againt the blackisation of the world, and the used methodes like denying the existence of white north africans by claiming they're remnants of the Vandals or sea people. That is the question.
My remark in your quote, is because you said 'don't be reiduclous'.
Ok, I didn't understand where you were coming from, so I apologize. But I don't think anyone could deny an African their origins no matter what complexion they are. The oldest surviving African tribe on the continent WITHOUT foreign admixture, so happens to be the light-skinned color Khoisan, and that is also a fact. Africans are not all one 'jet black' color, just as all Europeans are not pale White with blonde hair blue eyes. There is no such thing as a 'pure race'. It's only natural that humans that border other continents will have two-way migrations with each other, which is why they would share DNA, languages, etc.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Did they belong to one ethnic group (a speakers of one language)?
If so, then we don't have to proove that all of them spoke an X language.
Mazigh, tell me, short of speculation, why you take it that either the Tehenu, Tamahu, Libu or Meshwesh particularly spoke Tamazight, other than assuming so, because they purportedly lived west of Egypt and in northern Africa? Give me some substance to work with here.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Listen up, you are a fat, lousy, no good, dirty rotten, pig looking, azz eating, mischeif starting, chaos causing, European turd juice breath, Mofo............
Real talk, you need to go on with all that lying and shyt. You be one lying white piece of EuroShyt.
Fvck a blue-eye, blonde haired, dysfunctional family, and the African Black Nuts That Made You!
I Miss You From Stormfront BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 220 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mazigh: I'm not againt the idea of black berbers, especially when they really are, like Garamantes who were possibly black. But i'm againt the blackisation of the world, and the used methodes like denying the existence of white north africans by claiming they're remnants of the Vandals or sea people. That is the question.
My remark in your quote, is because you said 'don't be reiduclous'.
posted
The Berber languages as pointed out by numerous authors is full of vocabulary from other languages. Many Berbers may be descendants of the Vandels (Germanic) speaking people who ruled North Africa and Spain for 400 years. Commenting on this reality Diop in The African Origin of Civilization noted that: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st. Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori, for German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain, and established an empire that they ruled for 400 years….Furthermore, the plural of 50 percent of Berber nouns is formed by adding en, as is the case with feminine nouns in German, while 40 percent form their plural in a, like neuter nouns in Latin.
Since we know the Vandals conquered the country from the Romans, why should we not be more inclined to seek explanations for the Berbers in the direction, both linguistically and in physical appearance: blond hair, blue eyes, etc? But no! Disregarding all these facts, historians decree that there was no Vandal influence and that it would be impossible to attribute anything in Barbary to their occupation” (p.69).
The influence of European languages on the Berber languages and the grammar of the Berber languages indicate that many contemporary Berbers are probably of European, especially Vandal origin.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Germanic languages are not spoken in Southern Europe. Germanic languages are spoken in Northern Europe. The only German people who could have influenced the grammar and vocabulary of the Berbers were the Germanic speaking Vandals.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Berber, or Amazigh, people live in Northern Africa throughout the Mediterranean coast, the Sahara desert and Sahel which used to be a Berber world before the arrival of Arabs. Today, there are large groups of Berber people in Morocco and Algeria, important communitites in Mali, Niger and Libya, and smaller groups in Tunis, Mauritania, Burkina-Faso and Egypt. The Tuareg of the desert also belong to the Berber group. The Berber people speak 26 closely related languages.
Consonants
Berber consonants include:
glottalized consonants, so called because the space between the vocal cords (glottis) is constricted during their pronunciation; implosive consonants produced with the air sucked inward; ejective consonants produced with the air "ejected" or forced out; geminate (doubled) consonants produced by holding them in position longer than for their single counterparts. Click here to listen to a Berber song recorded in Morocco.
Grammar
Noun phrase
Berber nouns have two cases. One case is used for the subject of intransitive verbs, while the other is used for the subject of transitive verbs and objects of prepositions. There are two genders: masculine and feminine. The plural of nouns has a masculine and a feminine form.
Verb phrase
Verbs are marked for tense and aspect. The perfective of the verb is formed by reduplication of the second consonant of the root, or by the prefix -tt-.
Vocabulary Most of the vocabulary is Berber in origin with borrowings from Latin, Arabic, French, Spanish, and other sub-Saharan languages. There is generally little or no intelligibility between the dialects.
.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The oldest surviving African tribe on the continent WITHOUT foreign admixture, so happens to be the light-skinned color Khoisan, and that is also a fact.
How is any of the highlighted aspects a fact; according to what specifics?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mazigh: I'm not againt the idea of black berbers, especially when they really are, like Garamantes who were possibly black. But i'm againt the blackisation of the world, and the used methodes like denying the existence of white north africans by claiming they're remnants of the Vandals or sea people. That is the question.
My remark in your quote, is because you said 'don't be reiduclous'.
The Garamante, were Mande speakers--not Berbers.
.
"Dr" Clyde Winters, when exactly do you think is the best time for your retirement?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Originally posted by homeylu: -------------------------------------------------- "The oldest surviving African tribe on the continent WITHOUT foreign admixture, so happens to be the light-skinned color Khoisan, and that is also a fact." --------------------------------------------------- How is any of the highlighted aspects a fact; according to what specifics?
According to the diversity of their DNA, simply put, and the fact that they evolved 'isolated' from foreign(meaning outside of Africa) influences.
“The genetic structure of the indigenous hunter-gatherer peoples of southern Africa, the oldest known lineage of modern human, is important for understanding human diversity.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20164927
We paid particular attention to the Khoi and San (Khoisan) people of South Africa because they are considered to be a unique relic of hunter-gatherer lifestyle and to carry paternal and maternal lineages belonging to the deepest clades known among modern humans……Our results suggest that the early settlement of humans in Africa was already matrilineally structured and involved small, separately evolving isolated populations.”
I realize that there are 'older' clades in the Ethiopian population, but some of their genetic structure involves back migration from Asia, as their geographic location is not completely 'isolated'.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Mazigh, tell me, short of speculation, why you take it that either the Tehenu, Tamahu, Libu or Meshwesh particularly spoke Tamazight, other than assuming so, because they purportedly lived west of Egypt and in northern Africa? Give me some substance to work with here. [/QB]
Tell me why not?
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
According to the diversity of their DNA, simply put, and the fact that they evolved 'isolated' from foreign(meaning outside of Africa) influences.
“The genetic structure of the indigenous hunter-gatherer peoples of southern Africa, the oldest known lineage of modern human, is important for understanding human diversity.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20164927
I had a feeling that you would cite something like that, without actually giving me the *precise* matter that it is, which is supposed to make KhoiSans the "oldest" people on earth. What about the diversity of their DNA; how is that anymore diverse than those of other Africans?
Further sign of the dubious quality of your claim about "non-foreign admixture" in KhoiSans is highlighted by the contradiction elicited in your acknowledgement of "diversity of" KhoiSan DNA; how was such diversity attained in a *single* inbreeding group without "foreign admixture" from an out-group at some point or another? And in this aspect, how is the KhoiSan different from any other African populations?
homeylu then cites the following as her defense...
quote: We paid particular attention to the Khoi and San (Khoisan) people of South Africa because they are considered to be a unique relic of hunter-gatherer lifestyle and to carry paternal and maternal lineages belonging to the deepest clades known among modern humans……Our results suggest that the early settlement of humans in Africa was already matrilineally structured and involved small, separately evolving isolated populations.”
What are these "deepest" clades, as per your understanding? Do only KhoiSans have such clades?
quote: I realize that there are 'older' clades in the Ethiopian population, but some of their genetic structure involves back migration from Asia, as their geographic location is not completely 'isolated'.
If you realize that there are older clades in Ethiopian populations, then why did you make that claim about KhoiSans being the "oldest" African "tribe"? I know...you are likely going to qualify that with your claim about the lack of "foreign admixture in their DNA", yet another dubious observation as questioned above and needs answering.
Mazigh...
quote:Originally posted by Mazigh:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Mazigh, tell me, short of speculation, why you take it that either the Tehenu, Tamahu, Libu or Meshwesh particularly spoke Tamazight, other than assuming so, because they purportedly lived west of Egypt and in northern Africa? Give me some substance to work with here.
Tell me why not?
In other words, you simply cannot provide a substantive reasoning that guides you to claim that said groups must have spoken Tamazight? If so, it is just as probable that they were *not* Tamazight speakers, and then what say you?
Also, you claim that the groups you mentioned were of a single ethnicity. That is obviously a misguided statement to make, for the Meshwesh would not have been distinguished from the Tamahu, and they in turn would not have been distinguished from the Tehenu and so forth. As a matter of fact, observers have noted distinct geographical locations of one or another of these groups from the other, to the west of Egypt. How do you go about addressing those viewpoints?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
@The explorer, Lets say that i can provide a substative reasoning for their Berber language.
But you have also to acknowledge, that you also have no right to say the contrary, since you didn't too provide the eleminating argument.
I've copied some for you:
quote: . The Tjehenu : this population is generally identified as “Libyans” (FAULKNER, Dict Middle Eg, p. 305). But on several victory reliefs from the Old- and Middle Kingdoms the names of captive Tjehenu are definitely Egyptian, and their leader bears the title of hatya (Hatj-a), which is also an Egyptian military title. So I wonder whether the Tjehenu were Libyans, Berbers at all. Wouldn’t they be good candidates to be Egyptians left behind in the desert when others withdrew to the Valley ? From what I’ve read, Berber languages are only distantly related to Ancient Egyptian, so the Tjehenu with their Egyptian names and titles wouldn’t have been Berbers then. Since they’re the people, the name of whose region is written with the stick, a similarity with the perch of the Buto Heron-god, even if it was true, contra GARDINER, wouldn’t prove a link with Berber peoples from the Sahara, but with “desert-Egyptians”. As to their appearance, it can easily be reconciled with that of archaic Egyptians : they wear penis sheaths, they wrap (leather ?) bandlets around their chest (as Egyptian warriors did), their hair is long (Egyptians represented their primeval gods as primitives, and these have long hair too)... The main difference I can see is the braided beard of gods, not a Tjehenu feature AFAIK. If it’s they who had the sign of Neith tattooed on their skin, and if they were indeed desert-Egyptians, this would be one proof relative to a Neith-worship by Berber Saharan peoples which one would need to drop. You once made a remark which I understood as attesting to a similarity between the name of another Sahara people, the Temehu or Tjemehu (FAULKNER, p. 304), and a Berber root such as seen in the word Tamachek etc. This would then be interesting, for these putative Berbers, the Tjemehu, are attested as early as the 6th dyn. (inscriptions from tomb of Her-khou-f in Aswan), when they apparently lived far to the west of Yam (= Kerma ?), i.e. rather far south (latitude of S. Tibesti or N. Ennedi). Did they live in these mountains, rather than in the arid plains of the Sahara ? BTW, are Libyan names such as Sheshanq, Osorkon, Tiklat understandable for a specialist in Berber tongues ? (by J.D. Degreef )
@The explorer, Lets say that i can provide a substative reasoning for their Berber language.
But you have also to acknowledge, that you also have no right to say the contrary, since you didn't too provide the eleminating argument.
I don't need to "provide eliminating argument", since *no evidence* has been put forward to eliminate.
quote:
I've copied some for you:
quote: . The Tjehenu : this population is generally identified as “Libyans” (FAULKNER, Dict Middle Eg, p. 305). But on several victory reliefs from the Old- and Middle Kingdoms the names of captive Tjehenu are definitely Egyptian, and their leader bears the title of hatya (Hatj-a), which is also an Egyptian military title. So I wonder whether the Tjehenu were Libyans, Berbers at all. Wouldn’t they be good candidates to be Egyptians left behind in the desert when others withdrew to the Valley ? From what I’ve read, Berber languages are only distantly related to Ancient Egyptian, so the Tjehenu with their Egyptian names and titles wouldn’t have been Berbers then. Since they’re the people, the name of whose region is written with the stick, a similarity with the perch of the Buto Heron-god, even if it was true, contra GARDINER, wouldn’t prove a link with Berber peoples from the Sahara, but with “desert-Egyptians”. As to their appearance, it can easily be reconciled with that of archaic Egyptians : they wear penis sheaths, they wrap (leather ?) bandlets around their chest (as Egyptian warriors did), their hair is long (Egyptians represented their primeval gods as primitives, and these have long hair too)... The main difference I can see is the braided beard of gods, not a Tjehenu feature AFAIK. If it’s they who had the sign of Neith tattooed on their skin, and if they were indeed desert-Egyptians, this would be one proof relative to a Neith-worship by Berber Saharan peoples which one would need to drop. You once made a remark which I understood as attesting to a similarity between the name of another Sahara people, the Temehu or Tjemehu (FAULKNER, p. 304), and a Berber root such as seen in the word Tamachek etc. This would then be interesting, for these putative Berbers, the Tjemehu, are attested as early as the 6th dyn. (inscriptions from tomb of Her-khou-f in Aswan), when they apparently lived far to the west of Yam (= Kerma ?), i.e. rather far south (latitude of S. Tibesti or N. Ennedi). Did they live in these mountains, rather than in the arid plains of the Sahara ? BTW, are Libyan names such as Sheshanq, Osorkon, Tiklat understandable for a specialist in Berber tongues ? (by J.D. Degreef )
I fail to see how this helps you; in fact, it's premise seems to be arguing against you.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
- Denying is not the established fact. So you cannot deny they're Berbers too. Conclusion: Neither I nor you gave an answer. (No confirmation and no refutation).
-I posted it to help you with giving the arguments of their non-Berber origin. I'm helpful Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ah but Mazigh, you don't get it: I cannot deny something that is *not* an established fact to begin with. To deny something, you'd have to establish that it is in fact real, but that I choose not to face reality.
quote: So you cannot deny they're Berbers too.
I don't rule out the possibility that one or some of the named groups could have been related to contemporary Tamazight speakers, but this is just based on speculation on my part, and one I'm willing to acknowledge. By the same token, I don't rule out the possibility that they could not have been Tamazight speakers either; in fact this one would be less speculative than the former, since it is predicated on lack of positive evidence of Tamazight-speaking by the mentioned groups.
The burden is on you really, because what I'm saying here, is that you made a specific claim but you don't have evidence in your corner to back it up; namely, writing off the groups you mentioned as simply "Berbers".
quote: Conclusion: Neither I nor you gave an answer. (No confirmation and no refutation).
Correction: *You* gave no answer. We are dealing with *your* position. I am not the one calling them "Berbers", or anything other than what the ancients called them; you are.
quote: -I posted it to help you with giving the arguments of their non-Berber origin. I'm helpful
Well, you did it in vain, because I did not need one. The posting you cited does not reflect my position; it reflects your *assumption* of my position.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: homeylu...
I had a feeling that you would cite something like that, without actually giving me the *precise* matter that it is, which is supposed to make KhoiSans the "oldest" people on earth. What about the diversity of their DNA; how is that anymore diverse than those of other Africans?
Further sign of the dubious quality of your claim about "non-foreign admixture" in KhoiSans is highlighted by the contradiction elicited in your acknowledgement of "diversity of" KhoiSan DNA; how was such diversity attained in a *single* inbreeding group without "foreign admixture" from an out-group at some point or another? And in this aspect, how is the KhoiSan different from any other African populations?
Now we're exhibiting a lack of understanding in population genetics. The more DIVERSE human genetics are between certain groups, the OLDER those markers are. The LONGER a population has existed, the MORE diversity in it's genetic make-up. This is how population geneticist are able to pinpoint the location where modern humans first evolved. KhoiSAN is simply a generic term to describe the union between Khoi people and Sandawe (San) people. The Sandawe supposedly originated in East Africa and are genetic ancestors to what is now described as khoi-SAN.
quote:how was such diversity attained in a *single* inbreeding group without "foreign admixture" from an out-group at some point or another?
Seriously, their diversity between eachother, does not mean 1 khoisan mixed with an Asian, another mixed with a European, another mixed with an Arab, this is simply naive. What it means is that they harbor the genomes to give rise to all genotypes we see amongst outsiders, rather than all outsiders breeding to give rise to THEM.
For example the Khoisan belong to Haplogroup A; Haplogroup A is the FATHER for all the other Haplogroups. On their MtDNA side they have the HIGHEST frequency Haplogroup L0, which is the oldest direct lineage to Mitochondial Eve. This doesn't mean that other African groups do NOT carry frequencies of L0, it means that the frequency is HIGHEST in Khoisan.
If they were heavily "mixed" with foreigners, they would carry other types, such as M, N, etc... whereas in Ethiopian populations, which I pointed out to you earlier, you find L0, but you also find L1-L6, M, and N as well.
I hope this is clear enough for you.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Now we're exhibiting a lack of understanding in population genetics.
That's exactly what I noticed about your post, a lack of understanding of what you cited.
quote: The more DIVERSE human genetics are between certain groups, the OLDER those markers are.
This further demonstrates your delving into a matter you obviously don't have a good grasp of.
quote: The LONGER a population has existed, the MORE diversity in it's genetic make-up.
Really? I've asked you in the last post to give us concrete data of what makes the "KhoiSan" more diverse than any other group in Africa; instead you came back with more blabber and no data.
quote: This is how population geneticist are able to pinpoint the location where modern humans first evolved.
LOL, this simplistic assessment is symptomatic of laypersons who simply try to debate matters they don't fully comprehend.
quote: KhoiSAN is simply a generic term to describe the union between Khoi people and Sandawe (San) people. The Sandawe supposedly originated in East Africa and are genetic ancestors to what is now described as khoi-SAN.
Non-issue.
quote:Seriously, their diversity between eachother, does not mean 1 khoisan mixed with an Asian, another mixed with a European, another mixed with an Arab, this is simply naive.
Want to see naive, then here it is -- your poor reading comprehension, and hence, inability to deliver a relevant answer. Who said anything about "Europeans" et al. other than yourself of course?
quote:
For example the Khoisan belong to Haplogroup A; Haplogroup A is the FATHER for all the other Haplogroups.
And so, you imagine that KhoiSans are the only groups who have this clade, right?...which would make them the "oldest" surviving people on earth.
quote:This doesn't mean that other African groups do NOT carry frequencies of L0, it means that the frequency is HIGHEST in Khoisan.
More BS. Even if it were true, which it isn't, how does having the highest frequency become tantamount to being the "oldest"?
Further, enlighten me how your mtDNA works with the Y-DNA information to demonstrate a scenario wherein the KhoiSan would have emerged before any other group, and hence, the "oldest" surviving "tribe"?
quote: If they were heavily "mixed" with foreigners, they would carry other types, such as M, N, etc... whereas in Ethiopian populations, which I pointed out to you earlier, you find L0, but you also find L1-L6, M, and N as well.
This is funny. So, only when clades come from out-groups who are not Africans, do you then consider gene flow from an out-group as "foreign admixture"?
quote:
I hope this is clear enough for you.
This is what's clear to me: That even you don't seem to be sure about what you are saying and whether it makes sense...but we will very soon see who is ignorant about genetics here.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Additional sets of RFLPs subdivided macrohaplogroup L* into two extended haplogroups—L1 and L2—both of which appeared in the Kung and Khwe. Besides revealing the significant substructure of macrohaplogroup L* in African populations, these data showed that the Biaka Pygmies have one of the most ancient RFLP sublineages observed in African mtDNA and, thus, that they could represent one of the oldest human populations.
quote:In addition, the Kung exhibited a set of related haplotypes that were positioned closest to the root of the human mtDNA phylogeny, suggesting that they, too, represent one of the most ancient African populations
I don't know but this maybe what Homeylu is referring to.
Now, Explorer, if you have knowledge or information that contests the above, why can't you just simply state it without being an a-hole? Homeylu turned you down when you asked for the number? Bad day today?
Why must you engage in the most assholistic, back-and-forth, childish, moronic, nit-picking banter that dissolves almost every thread here into a needless form of debate as if a trophy is awarded to the winner?
Simply state information you have and add some value to the thread.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: That's exactly what I noticed about your post, a lack of understanding of what you cited.
This further demonstrates your delving into a matter you obviously don't have a good grasp of.
Really? I've asked you in the last post to give us concrete data of what makes the "KhoiSan" more diverse than any other group in Africa; instead you came back with more blabber and no data.
LOL, this simplistic assessment is symptomatic of laypersons who simply try to debate matters they don't fully comprehend.
Non-issue.
Want to see naive, then here it is -- your poor reading comprehension, and hence, inability to deliver a relevant answer. Who said anything about "Europeans" et al. other than yourself of course?
And so, you imagine that KhoiSans are the only groups who have this clade, right?...which would make them the "oldest" surviving people on earth.
More BS. Even if it were true, which it isn't, how does having the highest frequency become tantamount to being the "oldest"?
This is funny. So, only when clades come from out-groups who are not Africans, do you then consider gene flow from an out-group as "foreign admixture"?
"You don't understand..you don't have a grasp..you don't comprehend" << Is this your elementary way of refuting a statement, WITHOUT offering an alternative view? Dissecting and critiquing individual statements out of its original context appears to be what you do best, yet in all this negating, you didn't offer a single alternative. Why?? Because you don't have one, and it's typical, next you'll be far off the original argument, choosing to debate individual sentences, which is also typical.
You have yet to show an understanding of genetic diversity WITHIN the same group, which is definitely measured separately from diversity BETWEEN separate groups. If you don't understand this basis, then how can you possibly understand the theory of modern humans originating in Africa. It should be known by anyone claiming knowledge in this area, that the higher diversity WITHIN the same groups, helps determine the AGE of genes, I don't know what else I can add, except advice to read up more on it, and gain a better understanding.
Why not simply show another tribe with genetics OLDER than the group I listed above without outside admixture, which would qualify as a REAL refutation, then come back and prove the statement inaccurate.
And when you do, have it published in a scientific journal such as the one I posted above, and then you could be credited with not only refuting ME, but the SCIENTIST who published the information themselves. These are MEASURED results. When another group is sequenced to show a higher diversity, only then are the results of these findings invalidated.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Gaul: From a relatively old 2000 study replete with the overusage of the word "pygmy" and refers to Wolof/Madinka as "bantu":
quote:Additional sets of RFLPs subdivided macrohaplogroup L* into two extended haplogroups—L1 and L2—both of which appeared in the Kung and Khwe. Besides revealing the significant substructure of macrohaplogroup L* in African populations, these data showed that the Biaka Pygmies have one of the most ancient RFLP sublineages observed in African mtDNA and, thus, that they could represent one of the oldest human populations.
quote:In addition, the Kung exhibited a set of related haplotypes that were positioned closest to the root of the human mtDNA phylogeny, suggesting that they, too, represent one of the most ancient African populations
I don't know but this maybe what Homeylu is referring to.
Now, Explorer, if you have knowledge or information that contests the above, why can't you just simply state it without being an a-hole? Homeylu turned you down when you asked for the number? Bad day today?
Why must you engage in the most assholistic, back-and-forth, childish, moronic, nit-picking banter that dissolves almost every thread here into a needless form of debate as if a trophy is awarded to the winner?
Simply state information you have and add some value to the thread.
Actually I already presented him with the latest study which is dated FEB 2010. The one you posted is a bit outdated, but it shows how new studies can refute older studies, which is what I'm waiting on him to provide.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes you're right, but I guess it's useless to exchange information with some who have the decorum of a rabid fox whenever they disagree.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
Now, Explorer, if you have knowledge or information that contests the above, why can't you just simply state it without being an a-hole? Homeylu turned you down when you asked for the number? Bad day today?
Why must you engage in the most assholistic, back-and-forth, childish, moronic, nit-picking banter that dissolves almost every thread here into a needless form of debate as if a trophy is awarded to the winner?
Simply state information you have and add some value to the thread.
Homeless vampire, go and suck the blood off yo mama's cunt, and stop being a tampon-wearing sycophant non-factor here.
homeylu's non-responsive reply entails...
quote: "You don't understand..you don't have a grasp..you don't comprehend" << Is this your elementary way of refuting a statement, WITHOUT offering an alternative view?
Alternative view to something you clearly don't understand; how does that work?
quote:
You have yet to show an understanding of genetic diversity WITHIN the same group
I see that I've at least clued you in about the difference between diversity "within" groups vs. "between certain groups". Yes, that clearly shows you as the one in the understanding, LOL.
And no, contrary to your simpleton view, diversity within a group alone doesn't suffice to make a "population" the oldest "tribe" on the planet.
...diversity of which you still haven't specified to us.
quote: It should be known by anyone claiming knowledge in this area, that the higher diversity WITHIN the same groups, helps determine the AGE of genes, I don't know what else I can add, except advice to read up more on it, and gain a better understanding.
What is known to me, is you simply don't have a clue about what you are talking. Tell me, how does "higher diversity" within the same group become tantamount to said group being the "oldest tribe" on earth; give me details on how this works. How does this apply to KhoiSans vs. other Africans...data is what's wanted, not cheap gossip.
quote: Why not simply show another tribe with genetics OLDER than the group I listed above without outside admixture
Easy. Unlike you, I understand that Group I clades in Semino et al.'s post is not restricted to KhoiSans. You have merely demonstrated your inability to understand your own sources.
quote:
And when you do, have it published in a scientific journal such as the one I posted above, and then you could be credited with not only refuting ME, but the SCIENTIST who published the information themselves. These are MEASURED results. When another group is sequenced to show a higher diversity, only then are the results of these findings invalidated.
Chit chat all aside, here's the deal: You are not correctly reading your own source, and what it is *actually* demonstrating. Hence you confuse your confusion with my not having data to refute you. And publishing does not automatically make a claim accurate, as you seem suckered into thinking.
Ps: Don't think I haven't noticed you dodged the requests for specific data, which is why you refrained from addressing them as put to you in the point by point format.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah but Mazigh, you don't get it: I cannot deny something that is *not* an established fact to begin with. To deny something, you'd have to establish that it is in fact real, but that I choose not to face reality.
I don't understand how someones like Anta Diop could say that nonsense. This because it can only understood as blackcentrism...
He would claim that the modern Egyptians are not the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, like the modern Berbers are not the descendants of the Ancient Libyans.
But this no the correct principe. If he/you cannot prove that there were a genocide, or great escape migration, or wide spread illness that brought the original popluation to death, or..., then he cannot simply justify their end. Even if the modern Egyptians do not speak the ancient Egyptian language, they are remain their descendatns. This proces is called "arabization".
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Homeless vampire, go and suck the blood off yo mama's cunt
LOL Jew boy at his best. He gets this passionate too when he cant prove his people were gassed. Oh the memories. lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are not correctly reading your own source, and what it is *actually* demonstrating. Hence you confuse your confusion with my not having data to refute you. And publishing does not automatically make a claim accurate, as you seem suckered into thinking.
Ps: Don't think I haven't noticed you dodged the requests for specific data, which is why you refrained from addressing them as put to you in the point by point format.
Which is it, the publishing is not accurate, or the interpretation of it is not accurate? Or you simply can't find a valid argument?
You have reference to the data, if you need "specifics" then access the 'full abstract'. It is not worth the investment of my time or money, to provide data to YOUR satisfaction.
You seem intent on pointing out my discrepancies, why don't we flip the script, and YOU ENLIGHTEN ME, try this angle.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
He would claim that the modern Egyptians are not the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, like the modern Berbers are not the descendants of the Ancient Libyans.
Your rantings about Diop have zip to do with our ongoing discussion.
quote: But this no the correct principe. If he/you cannot prove that there were a genocide, or great escape migration, or wide spread illness that brought the original popluation to death, or..., then he cannot simply justify their end. Even if the modern Egyptians do not speak the ancient Egyptian language, they are remain their descendatns. This proces is called "arabization".
Absence of positive proof of "genocide" as you attempt to put it, is not equivalent to absence of demographic shifts. What does this mean? It means that it is not inconceivable that an earlier population could have moved from its traditional location or could have integrated into newcomers. You speak of the AE and contemporary Egyptians, but the AE are different from modern Egyptians in many respects, both biologically and culturally. For one, they were not Arabic speakers; add to this, subsequent series of demic diffusions into the region over a protracted period of time. Likewise, even if one were to assume that one or the other of the groups you mentioned are related to contemporary Imazighen, it doesn't serve as positive proof that either of said groups were Tamazight speakers. It is your position that they were Tamazight speakers, and so, the burden is on you to demonstrate this. It is not for me or some other to disprove a negative, in order for you to claim that you are making some legitimate case. The negative in this case, is your non-existent evidence for your claim.
homeylu...
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
Which is it, the publishing is not accurate, or the interpretation of it is not accurate? Or you simply can't find a valid argument?
Nonsense. The fault lies with *your* comprehension skills, not your source. It is out of sync with what's actually being demonstrated in that Semino et al. journal you cited. I'll probably repeat this ad infinitum before it soaks in.
quote: You have reference to the data, if you need "specifics" then access the 'full abstract'.
Yes, I have access to the said data. Quite simply, it doesn't support your dubious post.
quote: It is not worth the investment of my time or money, to provide data to YOUR satisfaction.
If you don't have the necessary "investment" to back up your unsupported opinions, then perhaps you might reconsider thinking twice about making them.
quote: You seem intent on pointing out my discrepancies, why don't we flip the script, and YOU ENLIGHTEN ME, try this angle.
That's silly. It is not so much as "discrepancies" as it is your making stuff up or blindly parroting hearsay claims, and then after the fact, frantically googling for a source you hardly understand, just to concoct the desperately needed material support you're being pressed for. You might get away with such shabby scholarship...only if you were dealing with your fellow rookies.
--
Ps: In case you need reminding of your obligations, here they are:
1)You claim that Semino et al.'s Group I clade makes KhoiSans the "oldest" surviving "tribes". This clearly not the position of the journal, nor is it factually apparent, since Group I clades are not restricted to KhoiSans in African gene pool. So, how then does Group I make KhoiSans the "oldest" surviving "tribe"?
2)On the other hand, you acknowledge that mtDNA L0 is not restricted to them, but you speak of " high frequencies". How does that make KhoiSans the "oldest" surviving "tribe"?
3)How does the biohistorical processes of mtDNA L0 factor in with the Y-DNA information you posted, in demonstrating how the KhoiSans are the "oldest" surviving "tribes"?
4)You claim that "the more DIVERSE human genetics are between certain groups, the OLDER those markers are." Where did you get that kind of thinking from?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mazigh i think the berbers bring the most confusion to historians because they look at there color and think its out of place in North Africa.
If u read arab historians on the origins of Berbers their claims all contradict eachother one says they came from Khadar amongst the families of Khadar jews, another arabic tarikh al sahara says the Berbers are pagans non arabs.
What do socalled Berbers claim there origins to be
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explorer, what makes you a faux scholar, and I hope it is evident to the more intelligent amongst us, is that you are amongst the FIRST to jump on the view that a Biological Race does not exist. While simultaneously DENYING that such a view canNOT exist when it comes to Africans.
Hence you are desperately trying to deny the claim that Africans have the most DIVERSE genetics on the planet; Because they carry the OLDEST DNA, known to mankind.
All humans can trace their lineage to a single source on the African continent.
Not only is there more diversity between Khoisans and other Khoisans, there is more diversity between biological WEST Africans and other WEST Africans, as well as EAST Africans and other EAST Africans.
Yet you join the ranks of the 'intellectually' impaired, because in your naive view of genetics, I'm sure you're trying to figure out how could people who share the same PHENOTYPE, have such diverse GENOTYPES.
Well the diversity occurs when genes have been mutating over a long period of time, even if they have NEVER left the continent, as is the case with remote tribes like the Khoisan. By counting the mutation rates, is how scientist are able to determine the age.
This is why the OLDEST genes exist in Africa, this is how scientist theorize that all humans descend from Africa, and this is how they are able to trace the OLDEST DNA to a given living tribe in AFRICA. So although Khoisans apparently share the same "physical features", BIOLOGICALLY speaking they are more diverse than any other group in the world. Why is that, the "naive may ask", because the genes that account for our PHYSICAL features make up such a small insignificant portion of our entire genetic make-up. Of the several million genes in our biological make up, only a handful could explain our eye color, another handful to explain our skin color, and another handful to explain our hair texture. Yet we have millions of other genes that distinguish us from one another; and the reason Khoisan have millions of these other genes that diversify them genetically, is because they are the OLDEST group known to scientist.
Instead of just repeatedly issuing ignorant remarks that serve no purpose other than attempting to make yourself appear as an authority on the subject; Go out and find a group with DNA older than the Khoisan group, otherwise accept the evidence that has been presented to you.
And you can keep referring to this post as my final position on the matter. Thanks.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
@The explorer, the modern Egyptians are not Blacks (also not Nordic), therefore, Afrocentrism isn't seeing them as descendants of ancient Egyptians. The language change is called "arabization". Culture can be changed like the language. If you follow well this discussion, you see i didn't use any argument in favour of the Berber background of those Tehenu, Libu..., but you fail to give the opposate arguemnt...
@AswaniAswad, how relevant are the classic arab historians/genealogists to the history of the Berbers or the history generally? You act like if the Arabs could see the supposed Berber movements...
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the modern Egyptians are not Blacks (also not Nordic), therefore, Afrocentrism isn't seeing them as descendants of ancient Egyptians. The language change is called "arabization". Culture can be changed like the language.
Wrong "some" Modern Egyptians are not blacks others are most definitely so and state that fact very clearly. agree with the Arabization though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBz0Cllbch4 And please be more specific about your supposed Afrocentrics not seeing Modern Egyptians as descended from the Ancient Kemites other-wise you are making a blanket statement.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic