quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The white-Berbers are descendants of the Meshwesh, who are descendants of the People of the Sea; and the Vandals.
Since the Meshwesh only arrived in Delta as the peoples of the Sea, and later we have the Vandals influencing the Berbers there is no way to associate the Tehenu people, with the contemporary Berbers.
As a result the idea of a ancient relationship between contemporary Berber speakers and any African group is ludicris.
.
I believe you are being too limited. Africans brought white slaves into the Maghreb from the time the Mauritanian Muslims struck spain and controlled much of the European Mediterranean in the 700 c.e. until about 1700s. One professor said a million whites were introduced as slaves into north africa in a one hundred year time span, and they brought slaves in for far long than just the 100 yrs he decided to look at. So the amount of whites that diluted that area is nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't be shocked if these white slaves also contributed to the look of some Fulas today as well as some Igbos.
They may have contributed somewhat to both Fulani and Igbo. But the Fulani phenotype is recognizable in the Central Sahara since the Neolithic along with their single sidelock hair-style later found on C-group Libyan Temehou.
Thankfully Trollpatrol posted a photo of the rock art in Sahara showing this.
Fulas vary in their look. Some of them are black like petrol and others are brown. They vary, so I am not sure about the "phenotype", or what you mean by that.
Why would you surmise that the Fulani were influenced by white slaves, TypeZeiss.
When colonialists spoke of Fulani they talked of them as being part "hamites" they were obviously not just talking about people who spoke Fula and are partly mixed with Takruri and other populations.
I imagine it is for the same reason you suppose they may have been mixed with white slaves. Although in particular don't see the slightest resemblance of Fulani of big boned European faces to the narrow faces and often refined or narrow featured faces of the Fulani which as I said are found in pastoralist "Bovidian" rock art of the Central Sahara thousands of years B.C., along with other AFrican populations.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Have a look at Keita's chapel hill lecture he gave. He stated the X chromosome has some European markers, how do you suppose that got there? he quoted sources of the Mansa in Mali purchasing white women in Egypt and also asking for Spanish virgins as payment from someone who wanted to move to his kingdom. The idea isn't far fetched. I don't understand though, why do black people think we couldn't have done this? YOu think white hatred for African people is just because they are a hateful bunch? They love their dogs way to much to be purely evil (semi joke).
My point is, I believe we Africans went damn crazy in Europe and had our way with them. I think their hatred stems from that. It is not far fetched to think we could have sold them far and wide. I don't believe in Evolution though, I find the notion silly. But I do find enslaving white women and having our way with a number of them, enough so to change the look of a population, to be highly plausible.
I don't believe african people were cruel to Europeans.
Keita is wrong, y-chromosome R probably originated in Africa. See:
posted
Oric Bates, Arkell and others have noted the relationship between the pastoral Fulani, Temehou and C-group.
The early Temehou were called Libou and Tjehenou all originally portayed alike.
The feather- earing Meshwesh, Imakuhek, Kuhek, Esbet (Isabaten) all fell under the Libou category and certainly the "The Chiefs of the Meshwesh" had little problem portraying themselves darker than the Egyptians even when they were ruling Egypt in the North.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The white-Berbers are descendants of the Meshwesh, who are descendants of the People of the Sea; and the Vandals.
Since the Meshwesh only arrived in Delta as the peoples of the Sea, and later we have the Vandals influencing the Berbers there is no way to associate the Tehenu people, with the contemporary Berbers.
As a result the idea of a ancient relationship between contemporary Berber speakers and any African group is ludicris.
.
I believe you are being too limited. Africans brought white slaves into the Maghreb from the time the Mauritanian Muslims struck spain and controlled much of the European Mediterranean in the 700 c.e. until about 1700s. One professor said a million whites were introduced as slaves into north africa in a one hundred year time span, and they brought slaves in for far long than just the 100 yrs he decided to look at. So the amount of whites that diluted that area is nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't be shocked if these white slaves also contributed to the look of some Fulas today as well as some Igbos.
They may have contributed somewhat to both Fulani and Igbo. But the Fulani phenotype is recognizable in the Central Sahara since the Neolithic along with their single sidelock hair-style later found on C-group Libyan Temehou.
Thankfully Trollpatrol posted a photo of the rock art in Sahara showing this.
Fulas vary in their look. Some of them are black like petrol and others are brown. They vary, so I am not sure about the "phenotype", or what you mean by that.
Why would you surmise that the Fulani were influenced by white slaves, TypeZeiss.
When colonialists spoke of Fulani they talked of them as being part "hamites" they were obviously not just talking about people who spoke Fula and are partly mixed with Takruri and other populations.
I imagine it is for the same reason you suppose they may have been mixed with white slaves. Although in particular don't see the slightest resemblance of Fulani of big boned European faces to the narrow faces and often refined or narrow featured faces of the Fulani which as I said are found in pastoralist "Bovidian" rock art of the Central Sahara thousands of years B.C., along with other AFrican populations.
White slaves where brought into Africa from 700 to about 1700s, I would assume less so around 1700s. Whites colonist did not come in there during the height of this trade so they are speaking of people after the fact. As for the rest of what you said concerning features, lets b e serious. The same way Africans vary in looks and features, so do Europeans. Also, Keita mentions in one of his lectures what is found in the X chromosome concerning some fulas which helps to prove my point.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The white-Berbers are descendants of the Meshwesh, who are descendants of the People of the Sea; and the Vandals.
Since the Meshwesh only arrived in Delta as the peoples of the Sea, and later we have the Vandals influencing the Berbers there is no way to associate the Tehenu people, with the contemporary Berbers.
As a result the idea of a ancient relationship between contemporary Berber speakers and any African group is ludicris.
.
I believe you are being too limited. Africans brought white slaves into the Maghreb from the time the Mauritanian Muslims struck spain and controlled much of the European Mediterranean in the 700 c.e. until about 1700s. One professor said a million whites were introduced as slaves into north africa in a one hundred year time span, and they brought slaves in for far long than just the 100 yrs he decided to look at. So the amount of whites that diluted that area is nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't be shocked if these white slaves also contributed to the look of some Fulas today as well as some Igbos.
I can not disagree entirely with this statement, but, your timeline is recent not ancient.
Can you cite a source where it is mentioned that Fula and Igbos purchased 'white' slaves?
.
Meshwesh or Maazaawazou - still a Tuareg name - could have nothing to do with Vandals. If they are connected at all to any of the "people of the sea" it could only have been some black ones like the Philistines or some other Canaanite supposedly occupying Syria, Crete and other parts of the Aegean.
Philistine supposedly in Aegean wear (period of the Ramessids)
Linguistically, I don't see any relationship between Meshwesh and Maazaawazou.
Below is one of the Sea People.
Are you claiming that after the Egyptians defeated the Sea People they did not deposit them in the Delta?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The white-Berbers are descendants of the Meshwesh, who are descendants of the People of the Sea; and the Vandals.
Since the Meshwesh only arrived in Delta as the peoples of the Sea, and later we have the Vandals influencing the Berbers there is no way to associate the Tehenu people, with the contemporary Berbers.
As a result the idea of a ancient relationship between contemporary Berber speakers and any African group is ludicris.
.
I believe you are being too limited. Africans brought white slaves into the Maghreb from the time the Mauritanian Muslims struck spain and controlled much of the European Mediterranean in the 700 c.e. until about 1700s. One professor said a million whites were introduced as slaves into north africa in a one hundred year time span, and they brought slaves in for far long than just the 100 yrs he decided to look at. So the amount of whites that diluted that area is nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't be shocked if these white slaves also contributed to the look of some Fulas today as well as some Igbos.
They may have contributed somewhat to both Fulani and Igbo. But the Fulani phenotype is recognizable in the Central Sahara since the Neolithic along with their single sidelock hair-style later found on C-group Libyan Temehou.
Thankfully Trollpatrol posted a photo of the rock art in Sahara showing this.
Fulas vary in their look. Some of them are black like petrol and others are brown. They vary, so I am not sure about the "phenotype", or what you mean by that.
Why would you surmise that the Fulani were influenced by white slaves, TypeZeiss.
When colonialists spoke of Fulani they talked of them as being part "hamites" they were obviously not just talking about people who spoke Fula and are partly mixed with Takruri and other populations.
I imagine it is for the same reason you suppose they may have been mixed with white slaves. Although in particular don't see the slightest resemblance of Fulani of big boned European faces to the narrow faces and often refined or narrow featured faces of the Fulani which as I said are found in pastoralist "Bovidian" rock art of the Central Sahara thousands of years B.C., along with other AFrican populations.
White slaves where brought into Africa from 700 to about 1700s, I would assume less so around 1700s. Whites colonist did not come in there during the height of this trade so they are speaking of people after the fact. As for the rest of what you said concerning features, lets b e serious. The same way Africans vary in looks and features, so do Europeans. Also, Keita mentions in one of his lectures what is found in the X chromosome concerning some fulas which helps to prove my point.
White slave women are mentioned as being imported into AFrica by the Mauri in Claudian's time and are mentioned as late as th last century as being imported by the Moors.
I think I have posted enough about that including this from Claudian complaining of Gildo imported Roman noble woman from Syria.
Of course that doesn't mean white slaves weren't coming in earlier to North Africa. We do hear Lucan and others talking about white slaves imported by the Romans.
I am not sure where you are getting your information but i can givem any sources showing the continuation of the white slave trade up until the last century.
In fact I would not be surprised if it were not still going on today as it is in many Middle eastern socieites.
The Fula speakers are mixed in various areas of Africa with diverse peoples, so of course they are going to look diverse. Of course that doesn't mean the earliest Fulani or even Berbers were as diverse as modern Berber-speakers are today.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The white-Berbers are descendants of the Meshwesh, who are descendants of the People of the Sea; and the Vandals.
Since the Meshwesh only arrived in Delta as the peoples of the Sea, and later we have the Vandals influencing the Berbers there is no way to associate the Tehenu people, with the contemporary Berbers.
As a result the idea of a ancient relationship between contemporary Berber speakers and any African group is ludicris.
.
I believe you are being too limited. Africans brought white slaves into the Maghreb from the time the Mauritanian Muslims struck spain and controlled much of the European Mediterranean in the 700 c.e. until about 1700s. One professor said a million whites were introduced as slaves into north africa in a one hundred year time span, and they brought slaves in for far long than just the 100 yrs he decided to look at. So the amount of whites that diluted that area is nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't be shocked if these white slaves also contributed to the look of some Fulas today as well as some Igbos.
I can not disagree entirely with this statement, but, your timeline is recent not ancient.
Can you cite a source where it is mentioned that Fula and Igbos purchased 'white' slaves?
.
Meshwesh or Maazaawazou - still a Tuareg name - could have nothing to do with Vandals. If they are connected at all to any of the "people of the sea" it could only have been some black ones like the Philistines or some other Canaanite supposedly occupying Syria, Crete and other parts of the Aegean.
Philistine supposedly in Aegean wear (period of the Ramessids)
Linguistically, I don't see any relationship between Meshwesh and Maazaawazou.
Below is one of the Sea People.
Are you claiming that after the Egyptians defeated the Sea People they did not deposit them in the Delta?
.
Some people consider this Pel(r)eset a Philistine while others, like the alternative chronologists such as Velikovsky consider it a Persian.
In any case he isn't necessarily a European especially if its a Philistine or early Persian, and definitely not supposed to be representative of the Libyans. Meshwesh, Tehenou and other Libyans were said to have been allies of the Sea Peoples, not sea-peoples themselves.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The textual material on the Meshwesh is contraditory.The first mention of the Meshwesh in Ramses III inscriptions date to 1188. In this text Eygpt was the attackd by the Tehenu, by the Meshwqesh, Soped and Sea People . David O'Connor makes it clear that the the records of Ramses III acknowledge that the Meshweshy "savagely" attacked the Tehenu and looted their cities during their advance to Egypt (p.35 & 105).
This text indicates that the Meshwesh were enemies of the Tehenu and allies of the Sea People. Since they were allies to th Meshwesh, the indo-European speaking peoples of the Sea would have been easy absored by the Meshwesh when they were deposited in the Delta. This would explain the change in phenotype which led to the ‘white’ Meshwesh.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Tehenu probably spoke a Niger-Congo language.
] The original inhabitants of the Sahara, the Proto-Saharans where the Kemetic civilization originated were Blacks not Berbers or Indo-European speakers. These Blacks formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC.
This ancient homeland of the Dravidians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Niger-Kordofanian-Mande and Elamite speakers is called the Fertile African Crescent. (Anselin, 1989, p.16; Winters, 1981,1985b,1991). We call these people the Proto-Saharans (Winters 1985b, 1991). The generic term for this group is Kushite. This explains the analogy between the Bafsudraalam languages outlined briefly above. 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.
Reference:
Bonnet,C. (1986). Kerma: Territoire et Metropole. Cairo: Instut Francais D'Archeologie Orientale du Caire. This is a fine examination of the Kerma culture of Nubia which existed in Nubia before the Egyptians established rule in this area.
Diop,A.(1986). "Formation of the Berber Branch". In Libya Antiqua. (ed.) by Unesco,(Paris: UNESCO) pp.69-73. In this article Diop explains that the original inhabitants of Libya were Blacks.
Farid,El-Yahky. (1985). "The Sahara and Predynastic Egypt an Overview".The Journal for the Society for the Study Egyptian Antiquities, 17 (1/2): 58-65. This paper gives a detailed discussion of the affinities between Egyptian civilization and the Saharan civilizations which we call Proto-Saharan.The evidence presented in this paper support the Saharan origin of the Egyptians.
Jelinek,J. (1985). "Tillizahren,the Key Site of the Fezzanese Rock Art". Anthropologie (Brno),23(3):223-275. This paper gives a stimulating account of the rock art of the Sahara and the important role the C-Group people played in the creation of this art.
Quellec,J-L le. (1985). "Les Gravures Rupestres Du Fezzan(Libye)". L'Anthropologie, 89 (3):365-383. This text deals comprehensively with the dates and spread of specific art themes in the ancient Sahara.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The white-Berbers are descendants of the Meshwesh, who are descendants of the People of the Sea; and the Vandals.
Since the Meshwesh only arrived in Delta as the peoples of the Sea, and later we have the Vandals influencing the Berbers there is no way to associate the Tehenu people, with the contemporary Berbers.
As a result the idea of a ancient relationship between contemporary Berber speakers and any African group is ludicris.
.
I believe you are being too limited. Africans brought white slaves into the Maghreb from the time the Mauritanian Muslims struck spain and controlled much of the European Mediterranean in the 700 c.e. until about 1700s. One professor said a million whites were introduced as slaves into north africa in a one hundred year time span, and they brought slaves in for far long than just the 100 yrs he decided to look at. So the amount of whites that diluted that area is nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't be shocked if these white slaves also contributed to the look of some Fulas today as well as some Igbos.
They may have contributed somewhat to both Fulani and Igbo. But the Fulani phenotype is recognizable in the Central Sahara since the Neolithic along with their single sidelock hair-style later found on C-group Libyan Temehou.
Thankfully Trollpatrol posted a photo of the rock art in Sahara showing this.
Fulas vary in their look. Some of them are black like petrol and others are brown. They vary, so I am not sure about the "phenotype", or what you mean by that.
Why would you surmise that the Fulani were influenced by white slaves, TypeZeiss.
When colonialists spoke of Fulani they talked of them as being part "hamites" they were obviously not just talking about people who spoke Fula and are partly mixed with Takruri and other populations.
I imagine it is for the same reason you suppose they may have been mixed with white slaves. Although in particular don't see the slightest resemblance of Fulani of big boned European faces to the narrow faces and often refined or narrow featured faces of the Fulani which as I said are found in pastoralist "Bovidian" rock art of the Central Sahara thousands of years B.C., along with other AFrican populations.
White slaves where brought into Africa from 700 to about 1700s, I would assume less so around 1700s. Whites colonist did not come in there during the height of this trade so they are speaking of people after the fact. As for the rest of what you said concerning features, lets b e serious. The same way Africans vary in looks and features, so do Europeans. Also, Keita mentions in one of his lectures what is found in the X chromosome concerning some fulas which helps to prove my point.
White slave women are mentioned as being imported into AFrica by the Mauri in Claudian's time and are mentioned as late as th last century as being imported by the Moors.
I think I have posted enough about that including this from Claudian complaining of Gildo imported Roman noble woman from Syria.
Of course that doesn't mean white slaves weren't coming in earlier to North Africa. We do hear Lucan and others talking about white slaves imported by the Romans.
I am not sure where you are getting your information but i can givem any sources showing the continuation of the white slave trade up until the last century.
In fact I would not be surprised if it were not still going on today as it is in many Middle eastern socieites.
The Fula speakers are mixed in various areas of Africa with diverse peoples, so of course they are going to look diverse. Of course that doesn't mean the earliest Fulani or even Berbers were as diverse as modern Berber-speakers are today.
Thank you, as always, great posting and great information. Where did I get my info from? Reading various books on ancient Egypt, was the first time I found out about these people being enslaved in GREAT numbers, into Africa by the people of Kemet, which continued until the fall of the empire.
Then I came across a book titled "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters". I like how when its their people, they try to remove color from the equation, but when it is us, it is all about color, but whatever. Anyway, then I listened to Keita speak at Chapel Hill, where he mentions the white slaves brought into Africa.
I also used some reasoning skills. The Habashi people ruled over Arabia for many centuries. I assumed this could explain why some present day Habashis (what are now termed Ethiopians) look the way they do. Not because there was some mutual corporation between the two, but because Africans once again enslaved non Africans and mated with them. I also believe that is how Sabeanism spread. I do not believe it started in the middle east. I believe it came out of Habasha and into the middle east. Masters do not take on the religion and culture of those he conquerors, unless of course the ones conquered had a superior culture to the ones doing the conquering. However, we know those people in Yemen were and are hill billies, so this isn't the case there.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I was thinking the same thing-- Berber lineages only date back to the Neolithic whereas Capsian culture is older. In fact the Capsian culture began around 10,000 B.C.E. and ended 6,000 B.C.E. right when 'Berber' lineages appeared in the area. Capsian Culture is the direct descendant of the Oranian a.k.a. 'Iberomaurusian' Culture 18,000-11,000 B.C.E.
Indeed, whats interesting is that the starting date of the latter culture fits nicely with Frigi's analysis of Tunisian maternal lineages. L3* was said to have been brought from Eastern Africa to North Africa around 20,000 years ago, though pre-berbers people in Nothern Africa are undoubtedly much older, and related to Capsian people. Old modern North African lineages such as U6 strongly point to a very ancient presence of pre-Berbers in the region, and we also wouldn't expect Capsians to group away from Africans in limb proportians and cranio-facial affinity if the ancestral Capsian people were only 20ky migrants from Eastern Africa.
The ancestor of the Oranian Culture is the Halfan Culture (24,000-15,000 B.C.E.) which began in the Egypto-Sudanese area and spread northwest giving rise to the Oranian as well as northeast giving rise to the Kebaran Culture in the Levant (18,000-10,000 B.C.E).
What's surprising is that even Mathilda admitted as much!: "This is me looking for the earliest appearance of the Halfan derived Kebaran culture arriving in Israel. The Kebarans appeared to have moved out of Northern Nubia and up as far as Syria, and as far as the Afalou site site IN North Africa. This seems to have been because of a new found taste for eating wild grasses which gave them access to a new food source, allowing greater population density which leads to a popultion expansion. All the North African populations from Algeria to Israel show varying levels of sub-Saharan ancestry at this point, but the population didn’t seem to reach as far as Morocco, or into Turkey."
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I think you're on to something here. So what about pharaonic origins in the Eastern Deserts per scholars like Toby Wilkinson? Do you think such origins are associated with early Afrasian speakers??
I don't think there are enough remains that would allow one to objectively make a statement in that regard, although body measurements might be a useful marker in the future. Medjay people, and Nubians in general, were, on average, somewhat taller than Predynastic Egyptians, probably because they were they were still very much living a hunter gatherer life style.
I find it strange you say this, considering that most hunter-gatherers are relatively short. Usually tall stature is associated with pastoralism. I'm not saying that these people were necessarily pastoralists since this advancement in food production happened only later and farther west in the central Sahara. Also, reconstructed proto-Afrisian shows no evidence of animal domestication and only hunting and foraging. I will point out that the tall statures and even cranial features of the people in the Red Sea hills bear a striking resemblance to later peoples across the Red Sea in neolithic and Bronze Age Arabia as per sources cited by Dana.
quote:If the Predynastic Eastern Desert remains turn out to show more affinity with the later Medjay people in this regard, we may be able to conclude from that that they were more similar to modern groups in the Eastern Desert (e.g., Beja) than to Ancient Egyptians.
The thing that complicates the answer to your question is that (Southern) Egyptians didn't live exclusively along the Nile before and around the time of the Badarians. They were semi nomads, and so, there is no telling where they might have went other than the most obvious Plata's, Wadi's and Oases. So, even if the remains turn out to show more affinity to Medjay people than to Predynastic Egyptians, you still can't rule out the drawings were made by Predynastic Egyptians
Another thing that complicates things is that remains give no indication whatsoever about language or culture which is fluid and easily transmitted or adopted by different populations.
Interesting piece about the Halfan culture. Is there more information on this?
As for the height thing, you're right that today most people associate tall groups in Africa with Pastoralism. However, when you look at figures all over they world, or even in stature estimations of Egypto-Nubians, you'll see that Palaeolithic people and Mesolithic people were the tallest, and Neolithic people the shortest. We as a people (humans) are just now recovering, and getting back to our Palaeolithic height.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think its wrong to identify Proto-Berbers, or even Proto-Chadians (exclusively) with the Capsian culture. There were obviously lineages in Northern Africa that predate the onset of the Holocene. Why is Ehret making such rudimentary errors? The typical Berber paternal NRY marker E-M81, which may be used to identify their expansion into North Africa, originated less than 6000 years ago.
-Afrasan speakers are NOT the original people of the wider Sahara.
-Despite their language having commonalities with Semitic and Berber languages, the core of the Ancient Egyptian population was probably much more related to the indigenous Northeast African people, who predate those languages, and who may be exemplified by Nazlet Khater. Their ancestry probably had much more affinity with contemporary hunter gatherer Africans all over Sub Saharan Africa, than to ancestral Ethiopians and Somali's and Berber speakers, who seem to be in their own lane, with much of their ancestry being specific to the section of Africa they inhabit, and who are also partially descended from the OOA population(s). This relationship of Palaeolithic Egyptians to contemporary Sub Saharan Africans was not only shown skeletally by Pinhasi, but can also been seen in numerous other ways, such as the presence of severe cases of sickle cell in predynastic Egypt, blood type similarities with groups with Sub-Saharan affinity (Harratin) to dynastic Egyptians, and the latest evidence being stong alleles matches between Egyptians and groups literally all over Sub-Saharan Africa, from Pygmies, to San, and other groups who now reside below the equator.
-During the Holocene, we get the migration of Proto-Afrasan people towards the Nile Valley, which is why we have their lineages and languages (Medjay, Ancient Egyptian, Berber) in Egypt, the Middle East and possibly all three languages in Ancient Sudan as well. These Holocenic demographic changes are what cause people to think that the core Egyptian population must have been genetically identical to Proto-Afrasan speakers, even though Neolithic Egyptians/Northern Sudanese display numerous signs of local differentiation, consistent with above described relatively distant relationship of most Ancient Egyptians to ancestral Somali's and Ethiopians.
one thing i don't know much about is linguistic connections of the ancient world. The one thing I do know about is the physical and biological afiliations of the Holocene North Afircans. There are considered two groups of Capsians one related physiologially to the Natufians and the other two the gracile Mediterranean or of ancient Sahara and Nubia.
Thus I am rather interested in where you have derived your information concerning the early Capsians. It was noticed long ago by archaeologists that the Capsian culture appears very similar to that practiced modern East Africans including both Nilotes and Cushitic speakers. This includes such details their usage of ostrich eggs, capping of their tombs with cattle horns, and many other features exclusive to the region. It is one of the important connections I had assumed led Ehret to conclude the Erthyraiotes were of Capsian origin which would mean they looked like the robust Natufian maechotoid types that dominated most of the Maghreb and for that matter AFrican landscape at that time.
As far I know and am concerned Berbers did not live in the last 6000 years in North Africa. People probably simliar to hte Haratin Badarian AFro-San type did however live there. While elongated types are not found anywhere until the Neolithic and thus we don't know where they originated. But the fact the Naqqada population shows so much similarity to the neolithic North African and Somali who appear to fit in between the early gracile North AFrican and elongated African type could very well link the Capsians to early Afro-san speakers.
I don't think there has ever been a proper statistical analysis that has ever grouped the Mushabean affiliated Natufians with Capsian people (though I'm sure affinity exist between Kebaran affiliated Natufians and Capsian people).
The sharing of a generalized morphology is not evidence of relatedness. This why your outdated terms like 'gracile Mediterranean', which is actually a phenotype that is shared by many distantly related people, don't make any sense. For instance, Strouhal found gracile Mediterranean elements among Badarains, which is, of course, total bullshit if you take it literal. Yes certain aspects of that phenotype existed among them, but the Badarians were a single population, not a blend of populations. That is why Zakrzewski found that, metrically speaking, of the late Dynastic E series (which DOES show affinity with Mediterranean people), not a single cranium classified in the Badarian series, in her factor analysis.
Both Somali's and Naqaddans have tropical limb proportions, why is the same not the case for the Taforalt population?
quote:Univariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from North or Sub-Saharan African samples. In contrast, multivariate analyses (PCA, PCO with minimum spanning tree, NJ and UPGMA cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba hominins is closest to that of recent Sub-Saharan Africans, and different from that of either the Natufians or the northwest African “Iberomaurusian” samples.
Hence, no recent common ancestry between the Jebel Sahaba and Capsian people. Their common ancestry will have to be either way back in time, but well after OOA, or their common ancestors lived during or before OOA. If the latter is the case, I would presume that the Taforalt and Afalou people were predominantly Iberian in origin.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
*If it is the case that pre Berber North Africans had common ancestry with Mesolithic Nubians that is as equidistant as Non-African groups are to Mesolithic Nubians, I would presume that the Taforalt and Afalou populations were predominantly Southern European in origin.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I myself postulate that the Afalou and Taforalt types represent aboriginal North Africans who adapted to the Mediterranean coastal environment. The fact that their skeletons are more so cold adapted than tropical adapted remind me of the Khoisan of southern Africa who also live in a Mediterranean-like climate.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As most of you have already figured out, this entire board consists of ONE sick degenerate that has created ficticious names to talk to itself in. Just a few of these names are CLYDE WINTERS, MIKE111 and THE LIONESS. however ALL of the posters on this site EXCEPT for MYSELF are this one sick degenerate! There is NOONE on this site that can be trusted but me. The only links on this site that can be trusted are the ones that I provide for you! Here is a link that you can use as a resource and can be trusted! http://www.raceandhistory.com/
When you have finished reading this post check out this site to learn the truth about history and ALL civilzations. Do NOT be fooled by the real history link that the filthy monkey created using the race and history link as a guide. This is the ONLY site that can be trusted http://www.raceandhistory.com/
Isnt it funny how this one little link destroys all of the charts, graphs and pics that the filthy monkey lies to us with? You now understand why the filthy monkey continues to spam the board with photos of modern day populations that had absolutely NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt
The next time one of these degenerates tries to tell you a lie just refer the moonkey to the latest DNA analysis on the ancient Egyptians, and then tell the faggot to crawl back in its cave!
The pig just keeps showing us why these crackers should not exist! They have genetically recessive genes and ion 50 years they will be the minority in BRITAIN!! THAT ALONE SHOULD TELL YOU THAT THEY WILL EVENTUALLY DIE OUT LIKE THE UNATURAL ABOMINATIONS THAT THEY ARE!
Look at the low IQ monkey with its charts and pictures LOL tHE dna analysis does not matter to this monkey, because it lives in a world of fantasy! lol
Folks, the monkey performs at my commend. I am this monkeys master!But then again all one needs to do is take a cursury look at this monkeys youtube page to understand the tenuous grip on reality that this monkey has! LOL http://www.youtube.com/user/phoenician7
When the DNA analysis irrefutably shows that the modern day populations of South Africa, West Africa anmd central Africa are the ancestors of the ancient Egyptians what does a low IQ monkey do???
The low IQ monkey shows pictures and charts and munbles on and on about haplogroups while completely ignoring what the DNA analysis of the ancient Egyptians actually says LOL
the DNA analysis irrefutably shows that the modern day populations of South Africa, West Africa anmd central Africa are the ancestors of the ancient Egyptians. Thats what the DNA says, thats what the science says. This monkey in all of its fake names is very pathetic isnt it?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I myself postulate that the Afalou and Taforalt types represent aboriginal North Africans who adapted to the Mediterranean coastal environment. The fact that their skeletons are more so cold adapted than tropical adapted remind me of the Khoisan of southern Africa who also live in a Mediterranean-like climate.
Indeed It would be interesting to see to what extend Khoisan groups group with Capsian and Capsian related people, in terms of post cranial body measurements. If you notice, Trenton said the latter (Capsian related people) weren't really distinguished in univariate analysis, but they WERE distinguished in multivariate analysis.
This calls to mind a morphological trend that's similar to Gough's Cave 1, aka Cheddar Man, who also cannot be separated from Africans in certain forms of univariate analysis (crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices), but there emerged a different picture in multi variate analysis:
quote:"Stature, body mass, and body proportions are evaluated for the Cheddar Man (Gough's Cave 1) skeleton. Like many of his Mesolithic contemporaries, Gough's Cave 1 evinces relatively short estimated stature (ca. 166.2 cm [5' 5']) and low body mass (ca. 66 kg [146 lbs]). In body shape, he is similar to recent Europeans for most proportional indices. He differs, however, from most recent Europeans in his high crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices. Thus, while Gough's Cave 1 is characterized by a total morphological pattern considered 'cold-adapted', these latter two traits may be interpreted as evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans." (TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY a1 and STEVEN E. CHURCHILL. (2003). Gough's Cave 1 (Somerset, England): an assessment of body size and shape, Bulletin of the Natural History Museum: Geology, 58:37-44 Cambridge University Press)
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I myself postulate that the Afalou and Taforalt types represent aboriginal North Africans who adapted to the Mediterranean coastal environment. The fact that their skeletons are more so cold adapted than tropical adapted remind me of the Khoisan of southern Africa who also live in a Mediterranean-like climate.
Where did you read about Taforalt being cold adapted Djehuti
I think it has been pretty well shown by the numerous genetically-determined traits shared by epi-Paleolithic peoples of the Levant (Natufians) and the Maghreb (Afalou/Taforalt) that they were closely related and directly ancestral to later gracile Mediterraneans.
"... the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou/Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geographically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found. "
None of these groups showed any near connection to modern Europeans Basques and their relatives in coastal North Africa represented at Tizi Ouzou and oter places), but only to predynastic Egyptians and east Africans.
I think his studies have made clear the early Natufians and Afalou/Taforalt were related and probably ancestral to later more gracile blacks of the Mediterranean as found in ancient Merimde and Naqqada culture.
These in turn bore some connectio to the Mechtoid type populations among the early Capsians and Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa as speculated earlier by folks like Fred Wendorf and Marie Claude Chamla.
The so-called "Negroid" element in them was probably represented by the brachycranic broad- nosed element among the Afalou.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think its wrong to identify Proto-Berbers, or even Proto-Chadians (exclusively) with the Capsian culture. There were obviously lineages in Northern Africa that predate the onset of the Holocene. Why is Ehret making such rudimentary errors? The typical Berber paternal NRY marker E-M81, which may be used to identify their expansion into North Africa, originated less than 6000 years ago.
-Afrasan speakers are NOT the original people of the wider Sahara.
-Despite their language having commonalities with Semitic and Berber languages, the core of the Ancient Egyptian population was probably much more related to the indigenous Northeast African people, who predate those languages, and who may be exemplified by Nazlet Khater. Their ancestry probably had much more affinity with contemporary hunter gatherer Africans all over Sub Saharan Africa, than to ancestral Ethiopians and Somali's and Berber speakers, who seem to be in their own lane, with much of their ancestry being specific to the section of Africa they inhabit, and who are also partially descended from the OOA population(s). This relationship of Palaeolithic Egyptians to contemporary Sub Saharan Africans was not only shown skeletally by Pinhasi, but can also been seen in numerous other ways, such as the presence of severe cases of sickle cell in predynastic Egypt, blood type similarities with groups with Sub-Saharan affinity (Harratin) to dynastic Egyptians, and the latest evidence being stong alleles matches between Egyptians and groups literally all over Sub-Saharan Africa, from Pygmies, to San, and other groups who now reside below the equator.
-During the Holocene, we get the migration of Proto-Afrasan people towards the Nile Valley, which is why we have their lineages and languages (Medjay, Ancient Egyptian, Berber) in Egypt, the Middle East and possibly all three languages in Ancient Sudan as well. These Holocenic demographic changes are what cause people to think that the core Egyptian population must have been genetically identical to Proto-Afrasan speakers, even though Neolithic Egyptians/Northern Sudanese display numerous signs of local differentiation, consistent with above described relatively distant relationship of most Ancient Egyptians to ancestral Somali's and Ethiopians.
one thing i don't know much about is linguistic connections of the ancient world. The one thing I do know about is the physical and biological afiliations of the Holocene North Afircans. There are considered two groups of Capsians one related physiologially to the Natufians and the other two the gracile Mediterranean or of ancient Sahara and Nubia.
Thus I am rather interested in where you have derived your information concerning the early Capsians. It was noticed long ago by archaeologists that the Capsian culture appears very similar to that practiced modern East Africans including both Nilotes and Cushitic speakers. This includes such details their usage of ostrich eggs, capping of their tombs with cattle horns, and many other features exclusive to the region. It is one of the important connections I had assumed led Ehret to conclude the Erthyraiotes were of Capsian origin which would mean they looked like the robust Natufian maechotoid types that dominated most of the Maghreb and for that matter AFrican landscape at that time.
As far I know and am concerned Berbers did not live in the last 6000 years in North Africa. People probably simliar to hte Haratin Badarian AFro-San type did however live there. While elongated types are not found anywhere until the Neolithic and thus we don't know where they originated. But the fact the Naqqada population shows so much similarity to the neolithic North African and Somali who appear to fit in between the early gracile North AFrican and elongated African type could very well link the Capsians to early Afro-san speakers.
I don't think there has ever been a proper statistical analysis that has ever grouped the Mushabean affiliated Natufians with Capsian people (though I'm sure affinity exist between Kebaran affiliated Natufians and Capsian people).
The sharing of a generalized morphology is not evidence of relatedness. This why your outdated terms like 'gracile Mediterranean', which is actually a phenotype that is shared by many distantly related people, don't make any sense. For instance, Strouhal found gracile Mediterranean elements among Badarains, which is, of course, total bullshit if you take it literal. Yes certain aspects of that phenotype existed among them, but the Badarians were a single population, not a blend of populations. That is why Zakrzewski found that, metrically speaking, of the late Dynastic E series (which DOES show affinity with Mediterranean people), not a single cranium classified in the Badarian series, in her factor analysis.
Both Somali's and Naqaddans have tropical limb proportions, why is the same not the case for the Taforalt population?
quote:Univariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from North or Sub-Saharan African samples. In contrast, multivariate analyses (PCA, PCO with minimum spanning tree, NJ and UPGMA cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba hominins is closest to that of recent Sub-Saharan Africans, and different from that of either the Natufians or the northwest African “Iberomaurusian” samples.
Hence, no recent common ancestry between the Jebel Sahaba and Capsian people. Their common ancestry will have to be either way back in time, but well after OOA, or their common ancestors lived during or before OOA. If the latter is the case, I would presume that the Taforalt and Afalou people were predominantly Iberian in origin.
Ibero-Maurusians as far as I can tell were just some black type that occupied Europe ,much like the earliest Cro-Magnon, none of these groups appear to have differed much from the earliest Mechtoid.
"Mechtoids, named after the type population of Mechta-Afalou, ...Mechtoids are known for the whole expanse of Africa during the Terminoal Pleistocene from Egypt and the Sudan (Wadi Kubbaniyya c. 20,000, Jebel Sahaba 14,000-12,000 BPand Wadi Halfa, c. 11,950 - 6400 BP ) to the Maghereb Mechta Afalou and Taforalt 20,000 - 10,000 BP)...Mechtoids have also been identified in the malian Sahara by Dutour (1989) at Hassi el Abiod and Asselar... and at Cap Juby on the Mauritanian litterol (6,000 BP). More recent Mechtoid populations are known from the Recent Holocene at Kobadi." p. 46 Blench Archaeology and Language Vol. 2 1998.
The early Natufian/Capsian type is considered by French archaelogists like Chamla to be one belonging to the proto-Mediterranean "Caucasoid "type. It is simply code phrase for the early ancestors of the later gracile Mediterraneans i.e. black Caucasoids (East AFrican NEGROES).
Hence we have silliness like this. "The Proto-Mediterranean class of physical remains is comprised of skeletons not displaying classic Mechtoid traits and exhibiting the broad physical characteristics of modern Mediterranean "Caucasoid " populations: no marked alveolar prognathism rounded sagital contour, narrow nasal aperture (Chamla 1968). This physical type is first identified in Africa with the Capsian material culture (9000-6000 BP) in the Maghreb. Ferembach has proposed physical links between the Capsian populations and the Natufian populations of the Levant" Archaelogy and Language Vol. 2 page 45 Blench and Spriggs
There are strong cultural and physical correlations between Capsians and the early Natufians which have now been verified by the multivariate non-metrical studies using genetic determinants.
Similarly the Kenya Capsians (Elmenteitans) to whom early North AFrican Capsians were evidently related have been ruled Mediterranean "Caucasoids" by the Francophone academy. But Americans like Ehret have seen through such designations.
Also Ferembach has shown the specimens associated with teh Aterian as at Dar el Soltan II and other Moroccan sites can be regarded as ancestral to teh Mechta-Afalou type.
Again, contrary to what Chamla and others have speculated the multivariate analysis of genetic determinants done by both Brace and also Lubell has confirmed for them that the Mechtoids were not invaded by some Caucasian Proto-Mediterraneans that developed into the Capsians, but were in fact linked to the earlier Mechtoids as a mass according to the analyses and were a continuation of them in more gracilized form. A Dictionary of Archaeology by Ian Shaw p. 388, 2002.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:"... the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou/Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geographically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found. "
Brace's analysis obviously picks up on the fact that all the groups which shared ties with the Natufians, had common traits that resulted from them being prehistoric in origin. In fact, he too implies that at least some of the ties of the mentioned samples to the Natufians exist because they are robust, and, according to Brace, this ''sets them apart from recent inhabitants''.
If what you're saying is true, then it would also have to be true that bronze age Mongolians are genetically closer to Natufians than bronze age Nubians, bronze age Egyptians and Neolithic Palestinians (Jericho) are. Why isn't it picked up by Brace's analysis that Egypto-Nubians and Neolithic Palestinians would have been closer to Natufians in genetic make up than bronze age Mongolians? Its is because of the aforementioned reasons (sharing a generalized appearance).
quote:Ibero-Maurusians as far as I can tell were just some black type that occupied Europe ,much like the earliest Cro-Magnon, none of these groups appear to have differed much from the earliest Mechtoid.
Ibero-Maurusians ARE the North African antecedants of the Capsians. Despite the name, their remains have been excavated in Northwest Africa, and they are the Afalou & Taforalt remains that were studied by Brace. See Djehuti's post regarding the phases of the archaeology of the Maghreb.
quote:"Mechtoids, named after the type population of Mechta-Afalou, ...Mechtoids are known for the whole expanse of Africa during the Terminoal Pleistocene from Egypt and the Sudan (Wadi Kubbaniyya c. 20,000, Jebel Sahaba 14,000-12,000 BPand Wadi Halfa, c. 11,950 - 6400 BP ) to the Maghereb Mechta Afalou and Taforalt 20,000 - 10,000 BP)...Mechtoids have also been identified in the malian Sahara by Dutour (1989) at Hassi el Abiod and Asselar... and at Cap Juby on the Mauritanian litterol (6,000 BP). More recent Mechtoid populations are known from the Recent Holocene at Kobadi." p. 46 Blench Archaeology and Language Vol. 2 1998.
Mechtoid is a label that is predicated on a visual impression that the remains conveyed to early anthropologists. This visual impression (robustness among other things) is what all prehistoric remains display, hence, its not population specific, or suitable as a specific description of particularly related people.
It never designated a metric statistical reality, hence why groups who are now known to be statistically significantly different (Mesolithic Northeast African samples), were once (and are sometimes still) grouped under the ''Mechtoid'' label, which originally only encompassed Maghrebian remains.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:"... the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou/Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geographically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found. "
Brace's analysis obviously picks up on the fact that all the groups which shared ties with the Natufians, had common traits that resulted from them being prehistoric in origin. In fact, he too implies that at least some of the ties of the mentioned samples to the Natufians exist because they are robust, and, according to Brace, this ''sets them apart from recent inhabitants''.
If what you're saying is true, then it would also have to be true that bronze age Mongolians are genetically closer to Natufians than bronze age Nubians, bronze age Egyptians and Neolithic Palestinians (Jericho) are. Why isn't it picked up by Brace's analysis that Egypto-Nubians and Neolithic Palestinians would have been closer to Natufians in genetic make up than bronze age Mongolians? Its is because of the aforementioned reasons (sharing a generalized appearance).
quote:I am sorry but I am not understanding what you asking or the assumptions you are making here. Bronze Age "Mongolians". I didn't any mention of them in that paper. The degree of robusticity has little to do with why Bronze Age people in Chandman were found to cluster with Mesolithic Natufians.
[QUOTE]"Mechtoids, named after the type population of Mechta-Afalou, ...Mechtoids are known for the whole expanse of Africa during the Terminoal Pleistocene from Egypt and the Sudan (Wadi Kubbaniyya c. 20,000, Jebel Sahaba 14,000-12,000 BPand Wadi Halfa, c. 11,950 - 6400 BP ) to the Maghereb Mechta Afalou and Taforalt 20,000 - 10,000 BP)...Mechtoids have also been identified in the malian Sahara by Dutour (1989) at Hassi el Abiod and Asselar... and at Cap Juby on the Mauritanian litterol (6,000 BP). More recent Mechtoid populations are known from the Recent Holocene at Kobadi." p. 46 Blench Archaeology and Language Vol. 2 1998.
Mechtoid is a label that is predicated on a visual impression that the remains conveyed to early anthropologists. This visual impression (robustness among other things) is what all prehistoric remains display, hence, its not population specific, or suitable as a specific description of particularly related people.
It never designated a metric statistical reality, hence why groups who are now known to be statistically significantly different (Mesolithic Northeast African samples), were once (and are sometimes still) grouped under the ''Mechtoid'' label, which originally only encompassed Maghrebian remains.
I agree with some of what you say here although there are metric measuring involved, nevertheless in the same way I agree names Ibero-Maurusian and Cro--Magnon was a generic term for certain early types in Europe.
However we now have in anthropology have studies done on genetically-determined traits which are not based on locality or closeness of geographical proximity or even period and certainly not on degree of robusticity.
If Bronze Age Natufians clustered more with the Bronze Age Chandman population, it means their wasn't as much change of genetically-determined traits, nothing more and nothing less.
Just like certain people that some are inclined to call "Austrics" cluster more with archaic types of man regardless of the fact they are living far away from AFrica. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]"... the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou/Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geographically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found. "
Brace's analysis obviously picks up on the fact that all the groups which shared ties with the Natufians, had common traits that resulted from them being prehistoric in origin. In fact, he too implies that at least some of the ties of the mentioned samples to the Natufians exist because they are robust, and, according to Brace, this ''sets them apart from recent inhabitants''.
If what you're saying is true, then it would also have to be true that bronze age Mongolians are genetically closer to Natufians than bronze age Nubians, bronze age Egyptians and Neolithic Palestinians (Jericho) are. Why isn't it picked up by Brace's analysis that Egypto-Nubians and Neolithic Palestinians would have been closer to Natufians in genetic make up than bronze age Mongolians? Its is because of the aforementioned reasons (sharing a generalized appearance).
Your first assumption was irrelevant from what I know of physical anthropology and studies using multivariate analysis. I am also not understanding what your asking or the assumptions you are making here. Bronze Age "Mongolians"? I didn't see any mention of them in Brace's paper unless your talking about a geographical region, like Brace was. And degree of robusticity has little to do with why Bronze Age people in Chandman were found to cluster with Mesolithic Natufians i.e. remained Natufian "Negroid" in osteology.
Anthropologists are measuring discrete non-metrical traits not robustness or lack of it.
BTW - in any case similar conclusions were reached by much earlier specialists who based on just metric studies pronounced the Ubaid Mesopotamians and robust "Negroid" types in Iran/Central Asia as at Tepe Sialk and Tepe Hissar as robust or large Negroids with "Mongoloid" affinity.
I find it just fascinating that the new types of analysis in anthropology seem to confirm the conclusions of earlier studies based on metric measurements.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The white-Berbers are descendants of the Meshwesh, who are descendants of the People of the Sea; and the Vandals.
Since the Meshwesh only arrived in Delta as the peoples of the Sea, and later we have the Vandals influencing the Berbers there is no way to associate the Tehenu people, with the contemporary Berbers.
As a result the idea of a ancient relationship between contemporary Berber speakers and any African group is ludicris.
.
I believe you are being too limited. Africans brought white slaves into the Maghreb from the time the Mauritanian Muslims struck spain and controlled much of the European Mediterranean in the 700 c.e. until about 1700s. One professor said a million whites were introduced as slaves into north africa in a one hundred year time span, and they brought slaves in for far long than just the 100 yrs he decided to look at. So the amount of whites that diluted that area is nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't be shocked if these white slaves also contributed to the look of some Fulas today as well as some Igbos.
They may have contributed somewhat to both Fulani and Igbo. But the Fulani phenotype is recognizable in the Central Sahara since the Neolithic along with their single sidelock hair-style later found on C-group Libyan Temehou.
Thankfully Trollpatrol posted a photo of the rock art in Sahara showing this.
Fulas vary in their look. Some of them are black like petrol and others are brown. They vary, so I am not sure about the "phenotype", or what you mean by that.
Why would you surmise that the Fulani were influenced by white slaves, TypeZeiss.
When colonialists spoke of Fulani they talked of them as being part "hamites" they were obviously not just talking about people who spoke Fula and are partly mixed with Takruri and other populations.
I imagine it is for the same reason you suppose they may have been mixed with white slaves. Although in particular don't see the slightest resemblance of Fulani of big boned European faces to the narrow faces and often refined or narrow featured faces of the Fulani which as I said are found in pastoralist "Bovidian" rock art of the Central Sahara thousands of years B.C., along with other AFrican populations.
White slaves where brought into Africa from 700 to about 1700s, I would assume less so around 1700s. Whites colonist did not come in there during the height of this trade so they are speaking of people after the fact. As for the rest of what you said concerning features, lets b e serious. The same way Africans vary in looks and features, so do Europeans. Also, Keita mentions in one of his lectures what is found in the X chromosome concerning some fulas which helps to prove my point.
White slave women are mentioned as being imported into AFrica by the Mauri in Claudian's time and are mentioned as late as th last century as being imported by the Moors.
I think I have posted enough about that including this from Claudian complaining of Gildo imported Roman noble woman from Syria.
Of course that doesn't mean white slaves weren't coming in earlier to North Africa. We do hear Lucan and others talking about white slaves imported by the Romans.
I am not sure where you are getting your information but i can givem any sources showing the continuation of the white slave trade up until the last century.
In fact I would not be surprised if it were not still going on today as it is in many Middle eastern socieites.
The Fula speakers are mixed in various areas of Africa with diverse peoples, so of course they are going to look diverse. Of course that doesn't mean the earliest Fulani or even Berbers were as diverse as modern Berber-speakers are today.
Thank you, as always, great posting and great information. Where did I get my info from? Reading various books on ancient Egypt, was the first time I found out about these people being enslaved in GREAT numbers, into Africa by the people of Kemet, which continued until the fall of the empire.
Then I came across a book titled "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters". I like how when its their people, they try to remove color from the equation, but when it is us, it is all about color, but whatever. Anyway, then I listened to Keita speak at Chapel Hill, where he mentions the white slaves brought into Africa.
I also used some reasoning skills. The Habashi people ruled over Arabia for many centuries. I assumed this could explain why some present day Habashis (what are now termed Ethiopians) look the way they do. Not because there was some mutual corporation between the two, but because Africans once again enslaved non Africans and mated with them. I also believe that is how Sabeanism spread. I do not believe it started in the middle east. I believe it came out of Habasha and into the middle east. Masters do not take on the religion and culture of those he conquerors, unless of course the ones conquered had a superior culture to the ones doing the conquering. However, we know those people in Yemen were and are hill billies, so this isn't the case there.
I don't to mean to sound at all contentious ,but some of the things your saying are just plain wrong because they are based on the belief that people in the ancient Arabia were similar to todays populations.
Himyarites and Habesh were the same people. In fact the name Habesh is also an ancient Arabian tribal name as is Afar, Hadorab, Hadar, Harim, Beli, Bishar, Mahass, Hadandowa, Madhij, Sab, Sabtah, Yahar, Makhar and Mahara. Many of the people who are living now in Abyssinia, Nubia and Eritrea have always been on both sides of the Eritrean Sea. They were influenced early on around the time of Christ by merchants , Greco-Romans and Parthians and Seres(Scythians) and later mainly by Turks or mixed Turkish-Arab peoples from Oman. So yes, these people have indeed absorbed non -AFrican blood but it certainly has nothing to do with mixing with the Arabian Himyarites/Sabaeans. We have to remember that the Arabiam peninsula is literally 20 miles away from Africa in the area of the Erythraean Sea while in the North the Sinai is still the habitat of many African looking Arabs such as the Huweitat (who say they are the Nabataeans/Kedar) people who have been classified with the misnomer "Mediterranean Caucasoid", and yet explain why north Arabians are referred to in early Syrian texts as "blacks" even after the period of Christianity and early Islam.
It is time for us to face the fact that Arabia was essentially part of what was known to ancient Greeks as Ethiopia it is the heart of Cusha-Dwipa of the Puranas as James Baldwin said, and it is often the Kush spoken of in the Hebrew texts. This was long before black slaves were brought in in large numbers to the Gulf and other regions.
Himyarites i.e. Sabaeans, were and are black people who told colonialists they originated in Africa. Period. I have posted this info many times written by Bertram Thomas and others. The Himyarites still speak the Sabaean (Qahtan) dialects and have never been anything but black living in Nubia, Eritrea and Arabia. It is no doubt the Sabir culture which archaeologists are now unearthing in west Arabia is part of that original "Kushite" homeland spoken of in the Bible as Goldenberg has said.
Truth be told, Typezeiss, almost every name of people found in pre-islamic Nubia and extending well into the Sahara were also found in the Arabian peninsula in early Islamic times and before - I just haven't talked about it on Egyptsearch, yet.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: However we now have in anthropology have studies done on genetically-determined traits
What do you mean with genetically determined traits? Please clarify.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: which are not based on locality or closeness of geographical proximity or even period and certainly not on degree of robusticity.
You are wrong. There are consistent results that have been replicated over and over, that DO correlate with locality, time period and degree of robusticity. This is why similarities with Prehistoric people from Europe (''cro-magnons’’) and North Africa (''mechtoids’’) and China (Zhoukoudian) and America (Palaeo Americans) were drawn in the first place, and why modern people who live in certain climates have similar features despite being divergent genetically.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: If Bronze Age Natufians
There is no such thing as a bronze age Natufian
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: clustered more with the Bronze Age Chandman population, it means their wasn't as much change of genetically-determined traits, nothing more and nothing less.
Like I said, I have no idea what you mean with ''genetically-determined traits’’. Please clarify.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: And degree of robusticity has little to do with why Bronze Age people in Chandman were found to cluster with Mesolithic Natufians i.e. remained Natufian "Negroid" in osteology.
I never said Bronze age Mongolians clustered with Natufians, solely because of their robusticity; I said that they all shared traits that can be found all over the prehistoric world, that set them apart from most modern populations, and that Brace’s analysis picked up on that.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Anthropologists are measuring discrete non-metrical traits not robustness or lack of it
This is false, of course. First, you cannot measure a discrete trait (that is why they are called non-metric), and there are various ways of inferring robustness, and they are all employed by anthropologists, for various reasons.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: BTW - in any case similar conclusions were reached by much earlier specialists who based on just metric studies pronounced the Ubaid Mesopotamians and robust "Negroid" types in Iran/Central Asia as at Tepe Sialk and Tepe Hissar as robust or large Negroids with "Mongoloid" affinity.
And I’m sure there were more ''similar conclusions’’ all over the place. I’m certainly not denying them; I’m only saying that you can’t infer from their skeletal closeness that these various people were necessarily genetically related, and to what extent.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The white-Berbers are descendants of the Meshwesh, who are descendants of the People of the Sea; and the Vandals.
Since the Meshwesh only arrived in Delta as the peoples of the Sea, and later we have the Vandals influencing the Berbers there is no way to associate the Tehenu people, with the contemporary Berbers.
As a result the idea of a ancient relationship between contemporary Berber speakers and any African group is ludicris.
.
I believe you are being too limited. Africans brought white slaves into the Maghreb from the time the Mauritanian Muslims struck spain and controlled much of the European Mediterranean in the 700 c.e. until about 1700s. One professor said a million whites were introduced as slaves into north africa in a one hundred year time span, and they brought slaves in for far long than just the 100 yrs he decided to look at. So the amount of whites that diluted that area is nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't be shocked if these white slaves also contributed to the look of some Fulas today as well as some Igbos.
They may have contributed somewhat to both Fulani and Igbo. But the Fulani phenotype is recognizable in the Central Sahara since the Neolithic along with their single sidelock hair-style later found on C-group Libyan Temehou.
Thankfully Trollpatrol posted a photo of the rock art in Sahara showing this.
Fulas vary in their look. Some of them are black like petrol and others are brown. They vary, so I am not sure about the "phenotype", or what you mean by that.
Why would you surmise that the Fulani were influenced by white slaves, TypeZeiss.
When colonialists spoke of Fulani they talked of them as being part "hamites" they were obviously not just talking about people who spoke Fula and are partly mixed with Takruri and other populations.
I imagine it is for the same reason you suppose they may have been mixed with white slaves. Although in particular don't see the slightest resemblance of Fulani of big boned European faces to the narrow faces and often refined or narrow featured faces of the Fulani which as I said are found in pastoralist "Bovidian" rock art of the Central Sahara thousands of years B.C., along with other AFrican populations.
White slaves where brought into Africa from 700 to about 1700s, I would assume less so around 1700s. Whites colonist did not come in there during the height of this trade so they are speaking of people after the fact. As for the rest of what you said concerning features, lets b e serious. The same way Africans vary in looks and features, so do Europeans. Also, Keita mentions in one of his lectures what is found in the X chromosome concerning some fulas which helps to prove my point.
White slave women are mentioned as being imported into AFrica by the Mauri in Claudian's time and are mentioned as late as th last century as being imported by the Moors.
I think I have posted enough about that including this from Claudian complaining of Gildo imported Roman noble woman from Syria.
Of course that doesn't mean white slaves weren't coming in earlier to North Africa. We do hear Lucan and others talking about white slaves imported by the Romans.
I am not sure where you are getting your information but i can givem any sources showing the continuation of the white slave trade up until the last century.
In fact I would not be surprised if it were not still going on today as it is in many Middle eastern socieites.
The Fula speakers are mixed in various areas of Africa with diverse peoples, so of course they are going to look diverse. Of course that doesn't mean the earliest Fulani or even Berbers were as diverse as modern Berber-speakers are today.
Thank you, as always, great posting and great information. Where did I get my info from? Reading various books on ancient Egypt, was the first time I found out about these people being enslaved in GREAT numbers, into Africa by the people of Kemet, which continued until the fall of the empire.
Then I came across a book titled "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters". I like how when its their people, they try to remove color from the equation, but when it is us, it is all about color, but whatever. Anyway, then I listened to Keita speak at Chapel Hill, where he mentions the white slaves brought into Africa.
I also used some reasoning skills. The Habashi people ruled over Arabia for many centuries. I assumed this could explain why some present day Habashis (what are now termed Ethiopians) look the way they do. Not because there was some mutual corporation between the two, but because Africans once again enslaved non Africans and mated with them. I also believe that is how Sabeanism spread. I do not believe it started in the middle east. I believe it came out of Habasha and into the middle east. Masters do not take on the religion and culture of those he conquerors, unless of course the ones conquered had a superior culture to the ones doing the conquering. However, we know those people in Yemen were and are hill billies, so this isn't the case there.
I don't to mean to sound at all contentious ,but some of the things your saying are just plain wrong because they are based on the belief that people in the ancient Arabia were similar to todays populations.
Himyarites and Habesh were the same people. In fact the name Habesh is also an ancient Arabian tribal name as is Afar, Hadorab, Hadar, Harim, Beli, Bishar, Mahass, Hadandowa, Madhij, Sab, Sabtah, Yahar, Makhar and Mahara. Many of the people who are living now in Abyssinia, Nubia and Eritrea have always been on both sides of the Eritrean Sea. They were influenced early on around the time of Christ by merchants , Greco-Romans and Parthians and Seres(Scythians) and later mainly by Turks or mixed Turkish-Arab peoples from Oman. So yes, these people have indeed absorbed non -AFrican blood but it certainly has nothing to do with mixing with the Arabian Himyarites/Sabaeans. We have to remember that the Arabiam peninsula is literally 20 miles away from Africa in the area of the Erythraean Sea while in the North the Sinai is still the habitat of many African looking Arabs such as the Huweitat (who say they are the Nabataeans/Kedar) people who have been classified with the misnomer "Mediterranean Caucasoid", and yet explain why north Arabians are referred to in early Syrian texts as "blacks" even after the period of Christianity and early Islam.
It is time for us to face the fact that Arabia was essentially part of what was known to ancient Greeks as Ethiopia it is the heart of Cusha-Dwipa of the Puranas as James Baldwin said, and it is often the Kush spoken of in the Hebrew texts. This was long before black slaves were brought in in large numbers to the Gulf and other regions.
Himyarites i.e. Sabaeans, were and are black people who told colonialists they originated in Africa. Period. I have posted this info many times written by Bertram Thomas and others. The Himyarites still speak the Sabaean (Qahtan) dialects and have never been anything but black living in Nubia, Eritrea and Arabia. It is no doubt the Sabir culture which archaeologists are now unearthing in west Arabia is part of that original "Kushite" homeland spoken of in the Bible as Goldenberg has said.
Truth be told, Typezeiss, almost every name of people found in pre-islamic Nubia and extending well into the Sahara were also found in the Arabian peninsula in early Islamic times and before - I just haven't talked about it on Egyptsearch, yet.
Ummm I don't think so, you are a bit confused. If those groups were in Arabia before Islam, which they were, it's because they conquered the area and lived there. No different than Anglo Saxons being found in America as a result of them conquering. Doesn't make them indigenous.
There are books like seerat Muhammad that explain who the orginal Arabs are, before any outside influence. I am positive you can not produce any literature that would substantiate your claim.
To be clear I am disputing your claims that people now found in Africa such as habashi, afar etc. originated in Arabia. Also, I can not say for certain what the original people in Arabia looked like. It is impossible to make such claims based on modern people because of past and present influences.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not at all convinced that it was Africans who brought slaves into Africa. Especially in the millions count as stated above. I find it more feasible that Albino slaves were brought in and sold by other Albinos due to the fact that this was probably their greatest asset of value to be used in exchange for African goods and services. Even in WW-II we see Ashkenazi Jews controlling and selling white slaves by the millions to Nazi Germany and any other entity who offered exchange for human resources.
As example, many of today's multi-nation corporations made their money by selling white slave; Bayer and Prescott Bush's old Nazi German company, IG Farben.
Today, these slavers are being labeled as "barbary pirates" or Moors, but the evidence points to these slaves being brought into Africa by European slavers.
Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
As many of you have already figured out, this entire board consists of ONE sick degenerate that has created ficticious names to talk to itself in. Just a few of these fake names include CLYDE WINTERS, MIKE111,Egmond Codfried, Djehuti, NAMERTHOTH and THE LIONESS. These are just a FEW of the fake names that spend all day talking to itself because the ENTIRE site is comprised of this same ONE sick degenerate that has created fake names to talk to itself ALL DAY LONG! The only REAL and legitimate poster on this site is MYSELF and the rest cannot be trusted! DO NOT CLICK ON ANY OF THE LINKS OR BANNERS ON THIS SITE, unless they are links that I provide for you! There is NOONE on this site that can be trusted but me. The only links on this site that can be trusted are the ones that I provide for you! Here is a link that you can use as a resource and can be trusted! http://www.raceandhistory.com/
When you have finished reading this post check out this site to learn the truth about history and ALL civilzations. Do NOT be fooled by the real history link that the filthy monkey created using the race and history link as a guide. This is the ONLY site that can be trusted http://www.raceandhistory.com/
Isnt it funny how this one little link destroys all of the charts, graphs and pics that the filthy monkey lies to us with? You now understand why the filthy monkey continues to spam the board with photos of modern day populations that had absolutely NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt
The next time one of these degenerates tries to tell you a lie just refer the moonkey to the latest DNA analysis on the ancient Egyptians, and then tell the faggot to crawl back in its cave!
The pig just keeps showing us why these crackers should not exist! They have genetically recessive genes and ion 50 years they will be the minority in BRITAIN!! THAT ALONE SHOULD TELL YOU THAT THEY WILL EVENTUALLY DIE OUT LIKE THE UNATURAL ABOMINATIONS THAT THEY ARE!
Look at the low IQ monkey with its charts and pictures LOL tHE dna analysis does not matter to this monkey, because it lives in a world of fantasy! lol
Folks, the monkey performs at my commend. I am this monkeys master!But then again all one needs to do is take a cursury look at this monkeys youtube page to understand the tenuous grip on reality that this monkey has! LOL http://www.youtube.com/user/phoenician7
When the DNA analysis irrefutably shows that the modern day populations of South Africa, West Africa anmd central Africa are the ancestors of the ancient Egyptians what does a low IQ monkey do???
The low IQ monkey shows pictures and charts and munbles on and on about haplogroups while completely ignoring what the DNA analysis of the ancient Egyptians actually says LOL
the DNA analysis irrefutably shows that the modern day populations of South Africa, West Africa anmd central Africa are the ancestors of the ancient Egyptians. Thats what the DNA says, thats what the science says. This monkey in all of its fake names is very pathetic isnt it?
I asked for you to consider mod'ing your boiler plate, and I guess you have thought about it and complied by adding me to your list. With your flair and repetition, you could be a Hollywood Ashkenazi script writers. You are missing your true calling; Lying like a Jew. Everyone here knows I am but one person. You messed up, Man, so stop trying to Jew me down.
Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Narmerthoth: I'm not at all convinced that it was Africans who brought slaves into Africa. Especially in the millions count as stated above. I find it more feasible that Albino slaves were brought in and sold by other Albinos due to the fact that this was probably their greatest asset of value to be used in exchange for African goods and services. Even in WW-II we see Ashkenazi Jews controlling and selling white slaves by the millions to Nazi Germany and any other entity who offered exchange for human resources.
As example, many of today's multi-nation corporations made their money by selling white slave; Bayer and Prescott Bush's old Nazi German company, IG Farben.
Today, these slavers are being labeled as "barbary pirates" or Moors, but the evidence points to these slaves being brought into Africa by European slavers.
Well I guess the big difference here is that I have researched what I am saying it is backed up by books, while it seems your statement is based on unresearched conjecture. We need to get past the stage of emotionalism and embrace using facts as our starting point.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Where did you read about Taforalt being cold adapted Djehuti
From data that Swenet, Explorer, and others have presented.
Actually they are not really as cold adapted as Europeans but their limb proportions do represent an outlier when compared to other Africans. This may in fact be due to reduction in stature as many Pygmies also show the same limb proportion as many Euros per the study of Holliday et. al.
quote:I think it has been pretty well shown by the numerous genetically-determined traits shared by epi-Paleolithic peoples of the Levant (Natufians) and the Maghreb (Afalou/Taforalt) that they were closely related and directly ancestral to later gracile Mediterraneans.
"... the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou/Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geographically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found. "
None of these groups showed any near connection to modern Europeans Basques and their relatives in coastal North Africa represented at Tizi Ouzou and oter places), but only to predynastic Egyptians and east Africans.
I think his studies have made clear the early Natufians and Afalou/Taforalt were related and probably ancestral to later more gracile blacks of the Mediterranean as found in ancient Merimde and Naqqada culture.
These in turn bore some connectio to the Mechtoid type populations among the early Capsians and Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa as speculated earlier by folks like Fred Wendorf and Marie Claude Chamla.
The so-called "Negroid" element in them was probably represented by the brachycranic broad- nosed element among the Afalou.
But all these sources you mention speak of cranial traits. By 'cold-adaptation' we are speaking of the limb proportions of the skeletal body.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Interesting piece about the Halfan culture. Is there more information on this?
I don't have access the data banks like I did when I was in school. The only sources I could find online was from google scholar and they are mostly mentioned in old sources about the prehistory of Nubia as well as sources about the Kebaran Culture.
quote:As for the height thing, you're right that today most people associate tall groups in Africa with Pastoralism. However, when you look at figures all over they world, or even in stature estimations of Egypto-Nubians, you'll see that Palaeolithic people and Mesolithic people were the tallest, and Neolithic people the shortest. We as a people (humans) are just now recovering, and getting back to our Palaeolithic height.
Now that you mention it, it does remind me of the short stature of neolithic Egyptians, in particular the Badarians though one could argue the Badarians immigrated from the west. You are right that even the Paleolithic humans in Europe were said to be very tall and retain tropical linear builds. As far as Mesolithic Egypt and in particular Sudan, I am reminded of a close resemblance to Mesolithic inhabitants of Arabia as well as the neolithic Umm An Nar people of the Gulf area who were found to be very tall. I agree with Dana that there is some connection especially since both the Umm An Nar Culture and Kerma Culture share a connection.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The white-Berbers are descendants of the Meshwesh, who are descendants of the People of the Sea; and the Vandals.
Since the Meshwesh only arrived in Delta as the peoples of the Sea, and later we have the Vandals influencing the Berbers there is no way to associate the Tehenu people, with the contemporary Berbers.
As a result the idea of a ancient relationship between contemporary Berber speakers and any African group is ludicris.
.
I believe you are being too limited. Africans brought white slaves into the Maghreb from the time the Mauritanian Muslims struck spain and controlled much of the European Mediterranean in the 700 c.e. until about 1700s. One professor said a million whites were introduced as slaves into north africa in a one hundred year time span, and they brought slaves in for far long than just the 100 yrs he decided to look at. So the amount of whites that diluted that area is nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't be shocked if these white slaves also contributed to the look of some Fulas today as well as some Igbos.
They may have contributed somewhat to both Fulani and Igbo. But the Fulani phenotype is recognizable in the Central Sahara since the Neolithic along with their single sidelock hair-style later found on C-group Libyan Temehou.
Thankfully Trollpatrol posted a photo of the rock art in Sahara showing this.
Fulas vary in their look. Some of them are black like petrol and others are brown. They vary, so I am not sure about the "phenotype", or what you mean by that.
Why would you surmise that the Fulani were influenced by white slaves, TypeZeiss.
When colonialists spoke of Fulani they talked of them as being part "hamites" they were obviously not just talking about people who spoke Fula and are partly mixed with Takruri and other populations.
I imagine it is for the same reason you suppose they may have been mixed with white slaves. Although in particular don't see the slightest resemblance of Fulani of big boned European faces to the narrow faces and often refined or narrow featured faces of the Fulani which as I said are found in pastoralist "Bovidian" rock art of the Central Sahara thousands of years B.C., along with other AFrican populations.
White slaves where brought into Africa from 700 to about 1700s, I would assume less so around 1700s. Whites colonist did not come in there during the height of this trade so they are speaking of people after the fact. As for the rest of what you said concerning features, lets b e serious. The same way Africans vary in looks and features, so do Europeans. Also, Keita mentions in one of his lectures what is found in the X chromosome concerning some fulas which helps to prove my point.
White slave women are mentioned as being imported into AFrica by the Mauri in Claudian's time and are mentioned as late as th last century as being imported by the Moors.
I think I have posted enough about that including this from Claudian complaining of Gildo imported Roman noble woman from Syria.
Of course that doesn't mean white slaves weren't coming in earlier to North Africa. We do hear Lucan and others talking about white slaves imported by the Romans.
I am not sure where you are getting your information but i can givem any sources showing the continuation of the white slave trade up until the last century.
In fact I would not be surprised if it were not still going on today as it is in many Middle eastern socieites.
The Fula speakers are mixed in various areas of Africa with diverse peoples, so of course they are going to look diverse. Of course that doesn't mean the earliest Fulani or even Berbers were as diverse as modern Berber-speakers are today.
Thank you, as always, great posting and great information. Where did I get my info from? Reading various books on ancient Egypt, was the first time I found out about these people being enslaved in GREAT numbers, into Africa by the people of Kemet, which continued until the fall of the empire.
Then I came across a book titled "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters". I like how when its their people, they try to remove color from the equation, but when it is us, it is all about color, but whatever. Anyway, then I listened to Keita speak at Chapel Hill, where he mentions the white slaves brought into Africa.
I also used some reasoning skills. The Habashi people ruled over Arabia for many centuries. I assumed this could explain why some present day Habashis (what are now termed Ethiopians) look the way they do. Not because there was some mutual corporation between the two, but because Africans once again enslaved non Africans and mated with them. I also believe that is how Sabeanism spread. I do not believe it started in the middle east. I believe it came out of Habasha and into the middle east. Masters do not take on the religion and culture of those he conquerors, unless of course the ones conquered had a superior culture to the ones doing the conquering. However, we know those people in Yemen were and are hill billies, so this isn't the case there.
I don't to mean to sound at all contentious ,but some of the things your saying are just plain wrong because they are based on the belief that people in the ancient Arabia were similar to todays populations.
Himyarites and Habesh were the same people. In fact the name Habesh is also an ancient Arabian tribal name as is Afar, Hadorab, Hadar, Harim, Beli, Bishar, Mahass, Hadandowa, Madhij, Sab, Sabtah, Yahar, Makhar and Mahara. Many of the people who are living now in Abyssinia, Nubia and Eritrea have always been on both sides of the Eritrean Sea. They were influenced early on around the time of Christ by merchants , Greco-Romans and Parthians and Seres(Scythians) and later mainly by Turks or mixed Turkish-Arab peoples from Oman. So yes, these people have indeed absorbed non -AFrican blood but it certainly has nothing to do with mixing with the Arabian Himyarites/Sabaeans. We have to remember that the Arabiam peninsula is literally 20 miles away from Africa in the area of the Erythraean Sea while in the North the Sinai is still the habitat of many African looking Arabs such as the Huweitat (who say they are the Nabataeans/Kedar) people who have been classified with the misnomer "Mediterranean Caucasoid", and yet explain why north Arabians are referred to in early Syrian texts as "blacks" even after the period of Christianity and early Islam.
It is time for us to face the fact that Arabia was essentially part of what was known to ancient Greeks as Ethiopia it is the heart of Cusha-Dwipa of the Puranas as James Baldwin said, and it is often the Kush spoken of in the Hebrew texts. This was long before black slaves were brought in in large numbers to the Gulf and other regions.
Himyarites i.e. Sabaeans, were and are black people who told colonialists they originated in Africa. Period. I have posted this info many times written by Bertram Thomas and others. The Himyarites still speak the Sabaean (Qahtan) dialects and have never been anything but black living in Nubia, Eritrea and Arabia. It is no doubt the Sabir culture which archaeologists are now unearthing in west Arabia is part of that original "Kushite" homeland spoken of in the Bible as Goldenberg has said.
Truth be told, Typezeiss, almost every name of people found in pre-islamic Nubia and extending well into the Sahara were also found in the Arabian peninsula in early Islamic times and before - I just haven't talked about it on Egyptsearch, yet.
Ummm I don't think so, you are a bit confused. If those groups were in Arabia before Islam, which they were, it's because they conquered the area and lived there. No different than Anglo Saxons being found in America as a result of them conquering. Doesn't make them indigenous.
There are books like seerat Muhammad that explain who the orginal Arabs are, before any outside influence. I am positive you can not produce any literature that would substantiate your claim.
To be clear I am disputing your claims that people now found in Africa such as habashi, afar etc. originated in Arabia. Also, I can not say for certain what the original people in Arabia looked like. It is impossible to make such claims based on modern people because of past and present influences.
TypeZeiss - why would you claim that I said the Afar and Sabaeans originated in Arabia when I just finished telling you that the Himyarite speakers living in ARabia claim they came from Africa in remote times. When I just said there was an Afro-Arabian culture extending between Nubia and the Yemen. This is not something i am "confused" over; this something that is known through archaeological findings and studies of many specialists. This was a community of peoples for thousands of years on both sides of the Erythraean sea. Arabia WAS AS MUCH ETHIOPIA for the early Greeks as was the modern Eritrea, Somalia and Nubia. Just as "Arabia" for the Greeks was Abyssinia and Eritrea and everything east of the Nile for the later Greeks like Strabo and Diodorus.
Archaelogy also has shown that there was in fact movement of people at diverse times (pre Christian era) back into Africa from the Arabian peninsula whether we like it or not.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Germanic peoples in Kabylia are not the only Europeans that influenced the Berber-speakers.
Robert Brown put it well not too long ago - “The many European races, including the Vandals under Genseric, and the endless European slaves who, turning renegade, became absorbed into the population must have left their mark over the all the Barbary states” ( 1896). A History and Description of Africa: and of the notable things therein contained, 1. London: Haykluyt Society p. 203).
There is definitely no intelligibility between the dialects as a result of these foregn influences.
These foreign influences however would not have to do with the Masmuda, Sanhaja, Zaghawa, Ketama, Hawara, Djerawa, Zanata, or other descendants of these original black woolly-haired people known as Berbers in the texts.
The linguistic evidence makes it clear that Romans , Greeks and other Europeans have influenced the Berbers.
I have never read that Tuareg has any Indo-European elements. Tuareg, as opposed to the other Berber languages is closely related to Hausa and Songhay.
Andre Basset in La Langue Berbere, has discussed the I-E elements in the Berber languages. There is also a discussion of these elements in Schuchardt, Die romanischen Lehnworter im Berberischen (Wien,1918). Basset provides a few examples in his monograph. I have posted the page so you can examine the material yourself.
Germanic peoples in Kabylia are not the only Europeans that influenced the Berber-speakers.
Robert Brown put it well not too long ago - “The many European races, including the Vandals under Genseric, and the endless European slaves who, turning renegade, became absorbed into the population must have left their mark over the all the Barbary states” ( 1896). A History and Description of Africa: and of the notable things therein contained, 1. London: Haykluyt Society p. 203).
There is definitely no intelligibility between the dialects as a result of these foregn influences.
These foreign influences however would not have to do with the Masmuda, Sanhaja, Zaghawa, Ketama, Hawara, Djerawa, Zanata, or other descendants of these original black woolly-haired people known as Berbers in the texts.
I have never read that Tuareg has any Indo-European elements. Tuareg, as opposed to the other Berber languages is closely related to Hausa and Songhay.
And since the Tuareg and Songhai are the only people referred to as Berber before 1700 and not Andalusians, Vandals, Turks/Slavs and European slaves I guess that resolves the matter. Berbers speak only an African dialects.
The Berbers in North Africa especially along the coast have been replaced by other genetic biologically as evidenced by the descriptions of Berbers and Moors along the coast and Riff of Morocco and mountains of Algeria.
The ORIGINAL Berber-speakers are people whom Syrians and ARabians met in the Riff and coast of Morocco across from Gibraltar before they went to attack in Iberia. “ They [i.e. the Syrian Arabs] decided on their own initiative to hasten to the sea, crossing the territory of the Moors to attack Tangiers with the Swords. But the army of the Moors, realizing this immediately burst forth from the mountains to the battle naked girded only WITH LOIN-CLOTHS covering their shameful parts. When they joined with each other in battle at the Nava river, the Egyptian horses immediately recoiled in flight, as the MOORS on their beautiful horses REVEALED THEIR REPULSIVE COLOUR AND GNASHED THEIR WHITE TEETH. Despairing, they launched another attack, the Arab cavalry again instantly recoiled due to the colour of the Moors’skin.” from the Latin Chronicle of 754 also known as Chronica Mozarabica.
“…the Latin Chronicle of 754 is the earliest record of the Arab defeat by the Syrian commander Kulthum b. Iyad al Qushayri. “ See p. 71 Ibn Garcia’s Shu’ubiyya Letter: Ethnic and Theological Tensions in Medieval by Goran Larsson 2003 published by Brill.
Anyone trying to deny the original people who spoke Berber and were designated "the Berbers" were not black is deluding themselves and ignoring the obvious. To speak of Berbers as a population today is especially inaccurate. There is no need to mix them up with modern much mixed peoples of North Africa whose dialects are not even mutually intelligible to one another today.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
I have never read that Tuareg has any Indo-European elements. Tuareg, as opposed to the other Berber languages is closely related to Hausa and Songhay.
Andre Basset in La Langue Berbere, has discussed the I-E elements in the Berber languages. There is also a discussion of these elements in Schuchardt, Die romanischen Lehnworter im Berberischen (Wien,1918). Basset provides a few examples in his monograph. I have posted the page so you can examine the material yourself.
The book says very clearly the Tuareg came down from the Mediterranean to the Sudan and have BORROWED a certain number of names (words) from the neighboring tribes Songhai, Hausa etc. Of course the Tuareg dialect is an early form of east African like the modern Mahra, Sabaeans, Somali, Amhara and THE ANCIENT SABAEANS AND PHOENICIANS they still claim descent from.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
I have never read that Tuareg has any Indo-European elements. Tuareg, as opposed to the other Berber languages is closely related to Hausa and Songhay.
Andre Basset in La Langue Berbere, has discussed the I-E elements in the Berber languages. There is also a discussion of these elements in Schuchardt, Die romanischen Lehnworter im Berberischen (Wien,1918). Basset provides a few examples in his monograph. I have posted the page so you can examine the material yourself.
The book says very clearly the Tuareg came down from the Mediterranean to the Sudan and have BORROWED a certain number of names (words) from the neighboring tribes Songhai, Hausa etc. Of course the Tuareg dialect is an early form of east African like the modern Mahra, Sabaeans, Somali, Amhara and THE ANCIENT SABAEANS AND PHOENICIANS they still claim descent from. [/QB]
Most linguists claim Taureg is closest to Hausa and Songhay. please cite some articles showing a link between Amhara and Taureg.
So you are claiming that Taureg came from Arabia and or East Africa?
How are you going to cite a book page that says the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue when it comes to the origin of the Tuareg.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Narmerthoth: I'm not at all convinced that it was Africans who brought slaves into Africa. Especially in the millions count as stated above. I find it more feasible that Albino slaves were brought in and sold by other Albinos due to the fact that this was probably their greatest asset of value to be used in exchange for African goods and services. Even in WW-II we see Ashkenazi Jews controlling and selling white slaves by the millions to Nazi Germany and any other entity who offered exchange for human resources.
As example, many of today's multi-nation corporations made their money by selling white slave; Bayer and Prescott Bush's old Nazi German company, IG Farben.
Today, these slavers are being labeled as "barbary pirates" or Moors, but the evidence points to these slaves being brought into Africa by European slavers.
Well I guess the big difference here is that I have researched what I am saying it is backed up by books, while it seems your statement is based on unresearched conjecture. We need to get past the stage of emotionalism and embrace using facts as our starting point.
Actually, every fact I have shared above are well documented in many published books/articles, by many authors of various areas of study.
Very likely I am able to correlate these published facts into valid conclusions because my initial goal is always to intentionally detect specific patterns in specific areas of study. A less conscience, less experience researcher like yourself would most probably overlook these consistencies to your focus being more associated with achieving assimilation and thereby reviewing a much smaller data set.
Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
No YOU can't read, for a second time in a row, that is. I never attributed anything Dana said, to you. You tried to isolate Tamasheq and make it a language exempt from European influences, when the whole page goes against what you're saying.
Cite where the passage says that ''the South Tuareg either come from the Mediterranean, Sahara or Sudan'', and translate it.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde is par examplar of what Dana said when anybody can get a 'doctorate' nowadays. I weep for the future of academia in the U.S. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No YOU can't read, for a second time in a row, that is. I never attributed anything Dana said, to you. You tried to isolate Tamasheq and make it a language exempt from European influences, when the whole page goes against what you're saying.
Cite where the passage says that ''the South Tuareg either come from the Mediterranean, Sahara or Sudan'', and translate it.
Correct, It probably has been influenced by I-E languages.
The difference in Berber, Nilo-Saharan and Egyptian plural elements suggest a non-African influence on the Berber languages.
Linguist claim that the plural in Egyptian, Nilo-Saharan etc is -u or -w.
The presence of the German plural suffix -en, n, e.g., [Ger.] frau 'woman', frauen 'women; bauer 'farmer', bauern 'farmers' ; in the Berber languages [Tamazight] atbir 'bird', itbirane 'birds'. aydy 'dog', ydane 'dogs' probably indicates, as Diop suggested a Germanic influence on the Berber language.
It is interesting to note that Latin and German may have a substratum inluence on Berber plurals, given the fact that the Latin 'a' plural element, and German 'n' are present in Berber plurals e.g., a+n, e.g., itbirane birds= itbir+a+ne.
The Taureg/Tamashek term for son is ægg 'son [of] .The fact that the 'white' Berber term for child agrees with the Greco-Roman term 'angelus', since it is a kinship term, and kinship terms are rarely borrowed, is indicative of a I-E substratum influence on the Berber language.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic