posted
Sample : 70 male skulls and 54 female Algerian skulls, 19 male skulls and 18 female skulls from the Punic period.
Protohistoric and Punic sites cited in the text :
Strong sexual dimorphism :
quote:On several occasions, we have underlined in the preceding paragraphs the existence of a rather pronounced sexual dimorphism, in particular a much less robustness in the women resulting in a general gracility of the cranial superstructures contrasting with the robustness of many male skulls ; in the mandible, absence of extroversion of the goniac region and effacement of bony reliefs; significantly lower stature.
quote:The height was high in men (average 173 cm), lower it seems in Punics (average 167 cm). Sexual dimorphism is important, with protohistoric women falling into the over-medium and high categories (mean 159 cm), while men mostly fall into the high category.
Presence of Negroid features :
quote:On some skulls, there is a more or less accentuated platyrrhiny associated with a more or less marked prognathism. These are all traits that one might consider negroid. If one is only based on the association of these two traits, ten skulls could be considered as negroid. Some are typical, such as Gastel's skull 3.52 which has a sub-nasal groove, flattened nasal bones, accentuated facial and alveolar prognathism, an erased chin, as well as Djelfa's wife (2.11) whose face, although narrow and long, is strongly prognathic with a grooved infra-nasal rim, flattened nasal bones and, a cultural trait common in African Melanoderms, an image of an upper incisor. Others are less typically negroid, but can nevertheless be considered as such, they are the skulls of Beidj (2.10), Tiddis (5.02), Roknia (3.05 and 3.37), Gastel (3.54), Sigus (coll. Thomas 3.79) , Carthage (4.27 and 4.36).
quote:The nose has an average width in absolute value, its height is quite high. The individual distribution of the index is however quite variable with a similar number of lepto- and mesorhinal individuals among protohistoric, Punic and Roman men. Women are more Mesorhinian. We also note the existence of a significant proportion of Platyrrhine individuals (25% of men and women) in protohistoric and Roman burials in Algeria. They are much rarer in Punic burials.
Presence of Mechtoid features :
quote:We can isolate 6 skulls, 5 in the eastern region of Algeria and one in Carthage, showing typical mechtoid features, i.e. great robustness, developed supraorbital arches, extroverted gonions, protruding nasal bones, face short.
Anthropological position and affinities :
-Mediterranean elements being dominant at 74.07% (79.16% for punics and 71.92% for protohistoric algerians) -Brachycephaly being present at 6.17% (8.33% for punics and 5.26% for protohistoric algerians) -Mechtoid (IBM) element being present at 7.40% (4.16% for punics and 8.77% for protohistoric algerians) -Negroid element being present at 12.34% (8.33% for punics and 14.03% for protohistoric algerians)
Overall punics show great affinities with algerians, Tarragone skulls from the roman era, guanches and to a lesser extent Abydos (XVIIIth dynasty),Etruscans, Bronze age syrians (Euphrate), skulls from the dolmen of Lozere . In the case of protohistoric algerians they show great affinities with punics,abydos,guanches,catalans and bronze age syrians
quote:Examination of these tables yields some interesting remarks. If Algerians and Punics are oriented more towards the populations of the western Mediterranean, we nevertheless note affinities with two near-eastern series of the first millennium BC In particular, the distance is quite low with the Syrian series of the Euphrates. Compared to the protohistoric populations of the central and southern Sahara, the distances are relatively high.
Among the populations of the western Mediterranean, the series from northern Spain and the islands of the western Mediterranean (Catalonia, and Tarragona, Mallorca, Eneolithic Sardinia) are closer to North Africans than the series from southern Spain (Valence). Among the populations of northern Africa, two Egyptian series, Abydos of the 2nd millennium (Upper Egypt) and Giza of the 1st millennium (Middle Egypt), as well as the general series of Canarians, pre-Hispanic of Gran Canaria (and not that of the Gaidar tumulus ), seem quite close to the Algerians of the protohistoric burials.
quote:All in all, the anthropological position of the Algerian and Punic Protohistoric people when it comes to the populations of the Mediterranean Basin agrees quite well with their geographical situation. Located halfway between the countries of the western Mediterranean and northeastern Africa, they offer affinities with the ancient inhabitants of northern Spain and Egypt. On the other hand, to the extent that among the ancient inhabitants of eastern Syria the Mediterranean type predominated, it is not surprising to note similarities between the latter and the protohistoric Algerians where this morphological type predominated. But we must not forget either that the Algerians of the protohistoric era were descendants of the Protomediterranean Capsians and Neolithic. The men who brought the Capsian culture to North Africa probably have a Near Eastern origin. Large dolicho- and mesocephalic type individuals from protohistoric burials may well be their descendants, while more slender individuals resemble the slender Western protomediterranean type that is already found in the Neolithic period in Algeria and Tunisia.
quote:Chamla (1975, 1976, using Penrose’s measure, found a “protohistorical” Algerian series (1500 BC) to be most similar to Carthaginian remains (900-200 BC); Bronze Age Spanish, early Grand Canary, and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian crania showed the next greatest affinities. A Carthaginian series proved to be most similar to the Algerian series, followed by late North Spanish, early Grand Canary, Bronze Age French, Etruscan, Parthian Syrian, and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian crania from Abydos. The results of the tests of individual variables used showed that there was no statistical difference for these variables between the Algerian and Carthaginian series ."
S.O.Y. Keita, Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa, p. 37
Dental morphology of Guanches show strong similarities with Carthaginians :
quote:The very low MMD between the Canary Islanders and Carthaginians, who originated in West Asia, suggests a particularly close affinity, despite the geographic distance between these two populations. This result, again, may reflect Berber/Carthaginian admixture.
posted
that's the proof you didn't get my point; as you can see I do not deny some blacks here and there but like I said multiple times they always were outliers and blacks were mostly found more inland especially in the Sahara. So either slaves or mixed individuals coming from pre-saharan regions.
The same way I don't start claiming to be indigenous to sardinia or Iberia because of north african remains being found there nor do I claim they were commonly seen in such territories.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: that's the proof you didn't get my point; as you can see I do not deny some blacks here and there but like I said multiple times they always were outliers and blacks were mostly found more inland especially in the Sahara. So either slaves or mixed individuals coming from pre-saharan regions.
The same way I don't start claiming to be indigenous to sardinia or Iberia because of north african remains being found there nor do I claim they were commonly seen in such territories.
What do you mean by pre-Saharan?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: that's the proof you didn't get my point; as you can see I do not deny some blacks here and there but like I said multiple times they always were outliers and blacks were mostly found more inland especially in the Sahara. So either slaves or mixed individuals coming from pre-saharan regions.
The same way I don't start claiming to be indigenous to sardinia or Iberia because of north african remains being found there nor do I claim they were commonly seen in such territories.
What do you mean by pre-Saharan?
In french we talk about "steppes pré-sahariennes", roughly the area between the atlas chain and the Sahara or the northern fringes of the Sahara if you want
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway the datas I posted clearly show again that carthaginians/punics were in fact punicized north africans and that these first phoenician settlers got gradually absorbed by the berber mass. The same way "arabs" in North africa are in most cases just arabized north africans.
As expected no big differences between these ancient remains and modern north africans. It seems the slave trade and arab conquest only impacted some specific areas but overall the genepool didn't change much.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing this data is showing is that Mediterranean populations have an overall general affinity due to their geographic location. It does not mean that North Africans aren't Africans or Southern Europeans are not Europeans. It also shows that the historical record of interactions around the Mediterranean also affected these populations at various times.
All historic populations are related by a clinal gradient where populations farther away from each other have greater distinction in traits than those closer to each other. This is something that has been known since forever. Northern Tunisia is extremely close to Europe and it would be expected that populations there inhabit a region with very similar environmental characteristics as southern Europeans. That isn't really surprising. However, this has nothing to do with the whole of North Africa and them being "intermediate" simply means that compared to Northern European populations and Central Africans as opposing populations, these groups around the Mediterranean fall in between due to clinal gradient. That said most of these groups cluster together before they cluster with anyone else.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only thing this data is showing is that Mediterranean populations have an overall general affinity due to their geographic location. It does not mean that North Africans aren't Africans or Southern Europeans are not Europeans. It also shows that the historical record of interactions around the Mediterranean also affected these populations at various times.
All historic populations are related by a clinal gradient where populations farther away from each other have greater distinction in traits than those closer to each other. This is something that has been known since forever. Northern Tunisia is extremely close to Europe and it would be expected that populations there inhabit a region with very similar environmental characteristics as southern Europeans. That isn't really surprising. However, this has nothing to do with the whole of North Africa and them being "intermediate" simply means that compared to Northern European populations and Central Africans as opposing populations, these groups around the Mediterranean fall in between due to clinal gradient. That said most of these groups cluster together before they cluster with anyone else.
The point he's tryna make here is that North Africans or Berber carried his phenotype and remained undifferentiated until the increase in Sub-Saharan ancestry in recent times. There is a point to be made here when the data legitimately shows from both an anthrological and genetic perspective that there were literal movement of people from Europe directly into these areas. You can say that they were culturally African but the point of contention & where the debate lies is their phenotype and how much which-ever phenotype played into their biological history.
The gradient argument doesn't really hold light to anything being said, as we know for certain the immediate ancestors of most North Africans (in question) were primarily from Europe. on site or In situ adaptations to form a gradient will work against your ideal, for the narrative will be that North Africans are climate adapted Europeans, like Villabruna I for example. This is why it's important you keep up to date with these findings.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only thing this data is showing is that Mediterranean populations have an overall general affinity due to their geographic location. It does not mean that North Africans aren't Africans or Southern Europeans are not Europeans. It also shows that the historical record of interactions around the Mediterranean also affected these populations at various times.
All historic populations are related by a clinal gradient where populations farther away from each other have greater distinction in traits than those closer to each other. This is something that has been known since forever. Northern Tunisia is extremely close to Europe and it would be expected that populations there inhabit a region with very similar environmental characteristics as southern Europeans. That isn't really surprising. However, this has nothing to do with the whole of North Africa and them being "intermediate" simply means that compared to Northern European populations and Central Africans as opposing populations, these groups around the Mediterranean fall in between due to clinal gradient. That said most of these groups cluster together before they cluster with anyone else.
The point he's tryna make here is that North Africans or Berber carried his phenotype and remained undifferentiated until the increase in Sub-Saharan ancestry in recent times.
North Africa isn't unique or special in anthropology. Human diversity exists everywhere so his idea that North Africa is a single phenotype that exists throughout time and space is false. There is no data supporting that and most of the time the only reason folks believe that is because they focus on isolated regions and make false conclusions based on limited data sets.
For example, the point of the thread suggests that these coastal sites in North Africa represent the whole entire history of North African populations and these sites are all exclusively within 100 miles of the coast. That is simply not even statistically relevant to all diversity in North Africa. Just looking at the geography, Tunisia is 300 miles North of Alexandria in Egypt and over 500 miles north of Cairo. If you define North Africa using such a definition then most of North Africa is not included, including most ancient population centers along the Nile. And then there is the whole history of the Sahara wet phase which again would be excluded from being included in this definition of "North Africa".
Another issue that is being suggested by this line of thinking is that these "North Africans" were isolated from the rest of Africa again throughout time and space. Obviously this cannot be true in any context as Africans have always been moving around Africa. And we have many sites of habitation in North Africa going back over 100,000 years meaning that there is no data saying that Africans were ever cut off from North Africa. If Africans could migrate out of Africa to settle the entire planet, then they could migrate to North Africa.
That said, there is evidence to suggest that due to fluctuations in population density over time some groups of North Africans did become bottle necked due to environment change and so forth. This population would likely have been somewhere in the region identified as Iberomaurisan. And this window is likely somewhere in the 20,000 to 10,000 BC time frame just before the surge of the Saharan wet phase. The question then is whether that population was African in origin or Eurasian in origin. Data from the oldest DNA found yet from Africa suggests that this population was African in origin, with little European mixture. This has been discussed to death already, so it isn't like this is new. But the idea that there was some population of "Eurasians" that migrated across the coast of North Africa and created these isolated populations of "Eurasians" along the coasts of North Africa with no input from either Africans or later Eurasians is overly simplistic and simply more of an ideological argument. And it is quite odd considering that no other part of the world has such isolation as the overwhelming evidence from Europe is showing massive sweeping influence of migrations from the Levant and elsewhere over the last 10,000 years. But in these parts of North Africa along the coast they are supposed to be some kind of special isolated case. That is simply nonsense.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: There is a point to be made here when the data legitimately shows from both an anthrological and genetic perspective that there were literal movement of people from Europe directly into these areas. You can say that they were culturally African but the point of contention & where the debate lies is their phenotype and how much which-ever phenotype played into their biological history.
As mentioned above the issue boils down to whether there was an ancient 20,000 year old population cluster of Eurasian origin that existed as an isolate somewhere within 100 miles of the coast of North Africa that was isolated from all other populations. That is the only way such population clines or gradients are not relevant when they are relevant everywhere else. And in anthropology the underyling assumption is that all populations evolve and change over time and are not fixed due to migration, evolution and environmental factors. So this idea that these coastal North Africans don't follow that pattern just amounts to special pleading along ideological grounds not science.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The gradient argument doesn't really hold light to anything being said, as we know for certain the immediate ancestors of most North Africans (in question) were primarily from Europe. on site or In situ adaptations to form a gradient will work against your ideal, for the narrative will be that North Africans are climate adapted Europeans, like Villabruna I for example. This is why it's important you keep up to date with these findings.
I never said that North Africans are climate adapted Europeans. What I suggested was that SOME North Africans in places like Tunisia and Morocco would have similar adaptation to populations in Southern Europe. But that is not what is actually at issue here. It is the idea that there was a cluster of populations in North Africa of Eurasian origin that remained genetically isolated from all other groups through the last 20,000 years. And as part of this isolation they had a distinct phenotype that could be best described as very light skinned and Eurasian looking, possibly even including blonde or red hair, going back 20,000 years. Keep in mind that this phenotype wasn't even common in Europe or the Levant 20,000 years ago but somehow it was present in North Africa and stayed the same as an isolate over all that time.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent’s stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn’t necessarily support."
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carthage was a multi-ethnic cosmopolitan empire based in Africa and involving Phoenicians and Southern Europeans. The data is simply reinforcing what was already understood to be a culture that spanned the Mediterranean.
Just to be clear, my stance against these theories about North Africa isn't specific to any individual on these forums. This concept was created 100s of years ago and long before anybody here was even born. "Race" is not something that came from Africa or African scientists.
The problem is that even in today's world of anthropology in "North Africa" the European scholars focus exclusively on coastal North African populations. Thereby promoting this idea that modern North Africans along the coast are the best representatives of not only all North Africans across Northern Africa, but also all ancient North Africans. And by focusing on the DNA and remains of populations along the coast they are implicitly promoting a theory of ancient Eurasians in North Africa going back thousands of years. So of course some folks who engage in online debates will pick up on this but these facts and concepts originate in Europe.
Such as:
quote: The lectures which appear in this volume were delivered at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, in the early months of 1890. They have since been written out, and references added in the foot-notes to a number of works and articles, which will enable the student to pursue his readings on any point in which he may be interested. My endeavor has been to present the results of the latest and most accurate researches on the subjects treated; though no one can be better aware than myself that in compressing such an extensive science into so limited a space, I have often necessarily been superficial. It is some excuse for the publication, if one is needed, that I am not aware of any other recent work upon this science written in the English language.
....
The purest types of the whites in any large number have always been found in Western Europe and Northwestern Africa. There the blondes were represented by the Suevi, the Goths, the Vandals, the Cymri, the Berbers; the brunettes by the Euskarians, the Celts, and the native Italic tribes. In the Orient, the Parsees, the high-caste Brahmins, the Siagosch of the Hindu Kusch, and some Caucasian tribes, have by close intermarriage retained in a measure the traits of the race; but confessedly not in the same distinctness as the nations of Western Europe; nor do the Semitic peoples of Asia present the purity of the type with anything like the distinctness of the descendants of the Libyans in the valleys of the Atlas. Finally, we do not anywhere in Asia find the physical conditions favorable to the development of the white race—the moist, cool, cloudy climate, the extensive shady forests covering broad areas of low elevation, with absence of malaria and diminished demand on the chylopoietic organs. ....
I. The Hamitic Stock.
The affinity between the Hamitic and Semitic stocks is distinctly shown by their physical traits and the character of their languages. The latter statement, which was long in doubt, has now been acknowledged by the most competent students, such as Friedrich Müller and A. H. Sayce.53
Within their own lines the Hamites are divided into three groups, the Libyan, the Egyptian and the East African groups, each distinguished by physical and linguistic differences.
1. The Libyan Group.
Of these the Libyan group occupies the region furthest to the west, and presents the purest type of the stock. From time immemorial it has occupied the land from the Nile Valley to the Atlantic, and from the Mediterranean to the Soudan. In the classical geographies its tribes are referred to as Numidians, Libyans, Mauritanians and Getulians, and at present they are known as Berbers, Rifians, and Shilhas in Morocco, the Tuariks and Tibbus of the desert, the Kabyles and Zouaves in Algeria, the Ghadames, Serkus, Mzabites of the south, the Senegas of Senegal, and many others. The Guanches, who once inhabited Teneriffe, and are now extinct, belonged to the Rifian tribes of this stock, and the rulers of the once powerful empire of Ghanata, which for centuries before the rise of Mohammedanism controlled the valley of the Upper Niger, were allied to the Moroccan family. Arab historians of the seventh century tell us that at that time the Berbers were "the lords of Maghreb (Africa), from the Arabian Gulf to the western ocean, and from the middle sea to the Soudan."
The physical appearance of the Libyan peoples distinctly marks them as members of the White Race, often of uncommonly pure blood. As the race elsewhere, they present the blonde and brunette type, the latter predominant, but the former extremely well marked. Among the Kabyles in Algeria, I have seen many fine specimens of blondes, with yellow hair, light eyes, auburn beard, and tall stature. An English traveller who visited last year some remote villages in the mountains of Morocco, describes their inhabitants as "for the most part fair, with blue eyes and yellow beards, perfectly built and exceedingly handsome men." This has been from the earliest times the characteristic of the Libyans, and there is abundant evidence that it was more general in former centuries than it is now. The Guanches of Teneriffe are described by the first voyagers as unusually tall and fair, their yellow hair reaching below their waists.
The Greek poet Callimachus, who was librarian of the famous library at Alexandria two hundred and fifty years before the Christian era, applies the same adjective blonde or auburn, to the Libyan women, which Strabo and other Greeks do to the Goths and blonde Celts of Germany.
Long before this, again, in monuments of the XIXth dynasty of Egypt, the Libyans are painted as of a pronounced blonde type, with light eyes and skins, and are mentioned by a term which signifies fair or blonde. The extended researches of ethnologists on this point have accumulated a mass of facts proving that the ancient Libyans were in appearance strikingly similar to the North Germans and Scandinavians, having a fair skin, yellow or auburn hair, blue or grey eyes, full blonde beards, the face medium, the skull dolichocephalic, the orbital ridges prominent, the chin square and firm, forehead vertical or slightly retreating, the stature tall, and the body powerful.
This identity of type impressed me very much among the Kabyles, and I note that the German ethnologist, Quedlinfeldt, who was among the Berbers in Morocco lately, writes of them: “I very often met individuals with flaxen hair and blue eyes, who in face and form corresponded perfectly to the ordinary type of our North German people.”62 For this reason, I give it the name of the “Libyo-Teutonic” type.
In the pure-blooded clans who still dwell in the fastnesses of the Atlas and the Djurdjura, this antique type is that which is general; but in the valleys, in the desert and in Tunisia the type is darker, having been corrupted by admixture with negro, Arabic and other stocks. The fact which I wish especially to impress on you is that nowhere do we find a purer type of the white race than in northern Africa, and that this was recognized by the earliest writers and records as that especially belonging to this stock.
...
The Libyans have possessed from time immemorial the country in which we find them. They are its indigenous inhabitants—all others, as Carthaginians, negroes and Arabs, being demonstrably intruders. Can we obtain any clue to their monuments in prehistoric times by the aid of archæology and linguistics? Some able students have thought they could, and have brought forward some singular surmises. There is a series of structures of huge stones, called dolmens, menhirs and cromlechs, extending over northern and central France, southern England, northern Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Algiers, and central Tunisia. They are much alike, and seem to have been constructed by some one people in very ancient times. The skulls in them are often long, like those of the Libyans and Teutons. Hence several French writers have suggested that the ancestors of the white Libyans moved from central Europe into Morocco, along the line of these megalithic structures.
So literally this idea of ancient "whites" in North Africa isn't anything new and has always been the fetish of European anthropology which started as "race science". It is just that modern day DNA studies have now created this myth that these ancient "whites" in North Africa go back over 20,000 years because of certain "Eurasian" DNA lineages. Even though again, those Eurasians over 20,000 years ago weren't "white". The core of the ideology being to separate Europeans from their specifically BLACK ancestors in Africa through all sorts of deceptive naming schemes and concepts.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Carthage was a multi-ethnic cosmopolitan empire based in Africa and involving Phoenicians and Southern Europeans. The data is simply reinforcing what was already understood to be a culture that spanned the Mediterranean.
Just to be clear, my stance against these theories about North Africa isn't specific to any individual on these forums. This concept was created 100s of years ago and long before anybody here was even born. "Race" is not something that came from Africa or African scientists.
The Book of Gates started it
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug I'm assuming you completely missed the point and not take your response as the alternative, intentional strawman. Furthermore to show that you're not on the same point:
quote:Doug M said: "For example, the point of the thread suggests that these coastal sites in North Africa represent the whole entire history of North African populations and these sites are all exclusively within 100 miles of the coast. That is simply not even statistically relevant to all diversity in North Africa. Just looking at the geography, Tunisia is 300 miles North of Alexandria in Egypt and over 500 miles north of Cairo. If you define North Africa using such a definition then most of North Africa is not included, including most ancient population centers along the Nile. And then there is the whole history of the Sahara wet phase which again would be excluded from being included in this definition of "North Africa"."
You're talking 10's and 100's of thousands of years and we're talking specifically about the Neolithic Era. There were prehistoric white people in North Africa. They came during the Neolithic. There is no true argument against that. Post bronze age they were even documented as being there.
What would your argument be against the idea that coastal North Africa weren't homogeneous EEF transplants since the Bronze age?
For example could you debate that the more recent gracile Mediterraneans types weren't just biologically to Southern European?
These are the relevant questions.
ANywho my point is...You can debate certain things better if you actually look at the data. The most "North African" individual found Southern Europe (I15940) produced a lot of phenotype calls.. He was black. There's no need to mention 20,ky north Africans in this context.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ANywho my point is...You can debate certain things better if you actually look at the data. The most "North African" individual found Southern Europe (I15940) produced a lot of phenotype calls.. He was black. There's no need to mention 20,ky north Africans in this context.
Assuming this is based on analysis of the skin color alleles...that is most juicy. Is this your own finding, or was it mentioned in the paper studying him?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The most "North African" individual found Southern Europe (I15940) produced a lot of phenotype calls.. He was black. There's no need to mention 20,ky north Africans in this context. [/QB]
Where have you seen that he was "black" ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Doug I'm assuming you completely missed the point and not take your response as the alternative, intentional strawman. Furthermore to show that you're not on the same point:
quote:Doug M said: "For example, the point of the thread suggests that these coastal sites in North Africa represent the whole entire history of North African populations and these sites are all exclusively within 100 miles of the coast. That is simply not even statistically relevant to all diversity in North Africa. Just looking at the geography, Tunisia is 300 miles North of Alexandria in Egypt and over 500 miles north of Cairo. If you define North Africa using such a definition then most of North Africa is not included, including most ancient population centers along the Nile. And then there is the whole history of the Sahara wet phase which again would be excluded from being included in this definition of "North Africa"."
You're talking 10's and 100's of thousands of years and we're talking specifically about the Neolithic Era. There were prehistoric white people in North Africa. They came during the Neolithic. There is no true argument against that. Post bronze age they were even documented as being there.
What would your argument be against the idea that coastal North Africa weren't homogeneous EEF transplants since the Bronze age?
For example could you debate that the more recent gracile Mediterraneans types weren't just biologically to Southern European?
These are the relevant questions.
ANywho my point is...You can debate certain things better if you actually look at the data. The most "North African" individual found Southern Europe (I15940) produced a lot of phenotype calls.. He was black. There's no need to mention 20,ky north Africans in this context.
I never said that there weren't Eurasians in North Africa since 5,0000 years ago. That isn't me. You never heard me say that and that isn't my point. My point ultimately is that all of North Africa isn't the coast and that even with Eurasian mixture North Africa has always been diverse.
The problem is that there are some fringe groups online and in the real world that push nonsense. And some of them indeed push the idea that ancient North Africans were always the same and never had any black phenotypes. Again, a lot of this comes from Europeans and they are the ones who have historically been pushing it. That is the only thing I take issue with and again, that has nothing to do with any specific individual on this forum.
No one claims that the French 10,000 years ago looked the same as they do today as there was no France.
No one claims the British 10,000 years ago looked the same as they do today as there was no Britain.
Yet in North Africa people are constantly pushing this nonsense that they are special and have been the same for tens of thousands of years as "berbers". That is nonsense. And the reason they do this and the part I am calling out is because they are distinguishing these people from Africans. There are two distinct historical theories at play here. One is based on an African base population in North Africa from 20,000 years ago that has bottle necked and received waves of migration over time. And the other is one where a Eurasian population migrated into North Africa and stayed isolated and distinct over the same period of time from Africans. Those are two distinct theories of North African settlement and goes hand in hand with the fact that nobody to this day has produced an ancient African DNA lineage for North Africa as opposed to Eurasia. Therefore to many people it gives credence to the latter settlement theory versus the former. And I personally lean towards the former versus the latter theory. Black in this context is a synonym for African.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: because they are distinguishing these people from Africans. There are two distinct historical theories at play here. One is based on an African base population in North Africa from 20,000 years ago that has bottle necked and received waves of migration over time. And the other is one where a Eurasian population migrated into North Africa and stayed isolated and distinct over the same period of time from Africans. Those are two distinct theories of North African settlement and goes hand in hand with the fact that nobody to this day has produced an ancient African DNA lineage for North Africa as opposed to Eurasia. Therefore to many people it gives credence to the latter settlement theory versus the former. And I personally lean towards the former versus the latter theory. Black in this context is a synonym for African.
This is why I criticize your posts all the time. It's hot air. Right now we literally are seeing a resident contemporary North African trying to shift the North African Autochthonous component to the Aterian. There might not be such a strong resolution of ancient lineages in Africa yet compared to Europe etc, but there is a notable North African lineage discovered. Anyone who looks at any iota of relevant data will not conclude that North Africans had been an Isolate set of pure Eurasian immigrants for 10's of thousands of years, nothing supports that.
I also suggest you stay out of some circles, it ain't healthy... Especially when people have some moral or immoral stake in the data which they argue or present. Why consume elitist content?
@Antalas & BrandonP hmm... To be fair it is difficult to find, I looked into it myself which is how I ended up rediscovering it was actually published.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: hmm... To be fair it is difficult to find, I looked into it myself which is how I ended up rediscovering it was actually published.
Looking at that table, I notice that individuals with "dark to black" pigmentation are present even in some of the Roman-era samples. I wonder if any of these were of North African ancestry too?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: hmm... To be fair it is difficult to find, I looked into it myself which is how I ended up rediscovering it was actually published.
Looking at that table, I notice that individuals with "dark to black" pigmentation are present even in some of the Roman-era samples. I wonder if any of these were of North African ancestry too?
You can ignore any sample that has an "intermediate" denotation in either skin color columns. being that it's aDNA liable for missing data, it'll be safer to assume they were whiter, or at-least Antalas complexion.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: hmm... To be fair it is difficult to find, I looked into it myself which is how I ended up rediscovering it was actually published.
Looking at that table, I notice that individuals with "dark to black" pigmentation are present even in some of the Roman-era samples. I wonder if any of these were of North African ancestry too?
You can ignore any sample that has an "intermediate" denotation in either skin color columns. being that it's aDNA liable for missing data, it'll be safer to assume they were whiter, or at-least Antalas complexion.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: because they are distinguishing these people from Africans. There are two distinct historical theories at play here. One is based on an African base population in North Africa from 20,000 years ago that has bottle necked and received waves of migration over time. And the other is one where a Eurasian population migrated into North Africa and stayed isolated and distinct over the same period of time from Africans. Those are two distinct theories of North African settlement and goes hand in hand with the fact that nobody to this day has produced an ancient African DNA lineage for North Africa as opposed to Eurasia. Therefore to many people it gives credence to the latter settlement theory versus the former. And I personally lean towards the former versus the latter theory. Black in this context is a synonym for African.
This is why I criticize your posts all the time. It's hot air. Right now we literally are seeing a resident contemporary North African trying to shift the North African Autochthonous component to the Aterian. There might not be such a strong resolution of ancient lineages in Africa yet compared to Europe etc, but there is a notable North African lineage discovered. Anyone who looks at any iota of relevant data will not conclude that North Africans had been an Isolate set of pure Eurasian immigrants for 10's of thousands of years, nothing supports that.
I also suggest you stay out of some circles, it ain't healthy... Especially when people have some moral or immoral stake in the data which they argue or present. Why consume elitist content?
@Antalas & BrandonP hmm... To be fair it is difficult to find, I looked into it myself which is how I ended up rediscovering it was actually published.
Antalas, have you used YSEQ? Upload your data and compare it.
You aren't addressing what I said.
I am not speaking to you as a proxy for anyone else and I said specifically what I meant. Very few if any populations on earth have stayed distinct and isolated from surrounding groups for 10,000 years and outside of the general application of clinal variability. Southern Africans are in a cline with populations of Central Africa. In fact, in Algera alone this same clinal gradient exists from the Coast of the Mediterranean to the South of the country which is on the same parallel as Sudan. In fact the distance from the coast of Algeria in the Mediterranean to the Southern tip is longer than Egypt at over 1,200 miles in distance. This gradient variability exists across populations everywhere and is not simply a skin color issue, even though that is the most obvious way of seeing it.
The data shows that North Africans were diverse and a mixture of populations in the Carthagenian Era.
It does not say this kind of diversity is the same as populations from 10,000 years BC because it can't.
Notice nowhere in my initial reply did I say anything about skin color. Yet here we are.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You aren't addressing what I said.
I am not speaking to you as a proxy for anyone else and I said specifically what I meant.
The data shows that North Africans were diverse and a mixture of populations in the Carthagenian Era.
It does not say this kind of diversity is the same as populations from 10,000 years BC because it can't.
Notice nowhere in my initial reply did I say anything about skin color. Yet here we are.
If I didn't address something you said before, it's because it was irrelevant.
Once again, no one says that modern variation in North Africa reflects the region 10,000 years ago. ^Tell me this statement is ignoring what your saying... lol. This is me actually directly addressing your (fundamentally irrelevant) statement.
Secondly what data are you referring to about the Carthaginians? That's what you should be referring to as it's actually relevant.
Skin color's more relevant to the OP than your replies, you don't have to address it personally if it don't apply to you. Ignore it.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You aren't addressing what I said.
I am not speaking to you as a proxy for anyone else and I said specifically what I meant.
The data shows that North Africans were diverse and a mixture of populations in the Carthagenian Era.
It does not say this kind of diversity is the same as populations from 10,000 years BC because it can't.
Notice nowhere in my initial reply did I say anything about skin color. Yet here we are.
If I didn't address something you said before, it's because it was irrelevant.
Once again, no one says that modern variation in North Africa reflects the region 10,000 years ago. ^Tell me this statement is ignoring what your saying... lol. This is me actually directly addressing your (fundamentally irrelevant) statement.
Secondly what data are you referring to about the Carthaginians? That's what you should be referring to as it's actually relevant.
Skin color's more relevant to the OP than your replies, you don't have to address it personally if it don't apply to you. Ignore it.
Its fine. But Algeria is the largest country in "North Africa" and it is impossible to lump them all into one category at any time period. That was my actual point. So calling Carthagenians along the coast "proto historicalAlgerians" when Carthage never covered an area the size of Algeria is ridiculous to begin with by any metric. That said it makes sense that the crania mentioned would all be close to each other in metric traits as they all exist on the same relative geographical latitude within 200 miles of the coast. But if you compared those skulls with skulls from the central Sahara you would see the clinal gradient.
Obviously I shouldn't have to mention the fact that variations in skin color were present in these populations as well. But skulls can't tell you skin color, they can only give you a general affinity which is why it is pointless to discuss it in this context.
@Antalas & BrandonP hmm... To be fair it is difficult to find, I looked into it myself which is how I ended up rediscovering it was actually published.
Antalas, have you used YSEQ? Upload your data and compare it. [/QB]
Quite ambiguous tbh, many other european samples are labelled as such therefore "black" would be a bit far-fetched but autosomally wise the sample was perfectly north african clustering with modern north africans. I can imagine him being dark like this for example :
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Its fine. But Algeria is the largest country in "North Africa" and it is impossible to lump them all into one category at any time period. That was my actual point. So calling Carthagenians along the coast "proto historicalAlgerians" when Carthage never covered an area the size of Algeria is ridiculous to begin with by any metric. That said it makes sense that the crania mentioned would all be close to each other in metric traits as they all exist on the same relative geographical latitude within 200 miles of the coast. But if you compared those skulls with skulls from the central Sahara you would see the clinal gradient.
Obviously I shouldn't have to mention the fact that variations in skin color were present in these populations as well. [/QB]
SMH...the paper doesn't speak only about carthaginians but also protohistorical algerians who had nothing to do with carthaginians/punics.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. The concept of "protohistorical" North Africa is something that came from Gabriel Camps.
quote: Gabriel Camps (May 20, 1927 – September 7, 2002) was a French archaeologist and social anthropologist, the founder of the Encyclopédie berbère and is considered a prestigious scholar on the history of the Berber people.
The definition of 'protohistorical' only refers to megalithic sites along the coasts of Algeria and do not go back prior to 1000 BC. And they do not extend into the South of Algeria. This is a translation from the link to the Encyclopedia Berbere written in French that you linked to.
quote: Anthropology (Protohistory and Antiquity) (M.-C. Chamla)
From the beginning of the conquest of Algeria, the discovery of the megalithic monuments that can be found there by the tens of thousands aroused the interest of archaeologists and anthropologists, on this period that was called, for a long time, pre-Islamic, but which it is currently customary to call protohistoric following G. Camps who in 1961 devoted a fundamental work to them.
The megalithic ensembles of North Africa constitute an original group that cannot be linked to the large megalithic ensemble of Western Europe, although among them, the dolmens, in their coastal forms — different from those of the interior — are similar to the dolmens of Mediterranean countries, Languedoc, Sardinia and peninsular Italy.
A classification of their forms, which are varied and numerous as well as their distribution, was proposed by Camps in 1961, 1963 and 1965. Among the most common, dolmens are very numerous in eastern Algeria and central Tunisia, but are becoming rarer in central Algeria where they are confined to the coastal region and are practically absent in Oranie and Morocco. To the south, they do not exceed the Saharan Atlas. The southernmost necropolises are found in the region of Tébessa, in the Aurès, and, further west, in the region of Djelfa. In Tunisia, the distribution of haouanet (hypogeums), another very widespread form of burials with dolmens, is more limited. They are concentrated in the north and north-east of Tunisia. While in Morocco and western Algeria, it is the forms with tumuli that predominate.
While in Morocco and western Algeria there are undeniable traces of Iberian cultural traits in these burials (metallurgy, bell-shaped vases, cist and silo-shaped tombs), in the east, in eastern Algeria and Tunisia, the Megalithic burials and hypogea seem to have a central and eastern Mediterranean origin. The material collected, in particular modeled ceramics, offers remarkable affinities with Italico-Szekler pottery, both in terms of shapes and decoration (Camps, 1959 and 1974).
The megalithic civilization of North Africa is certainly less ancient than that of Europe. This existed in the south of Spain and Italy at the end of the 3rd and during the 2nd millennium. The date of its introduction into North Africa is not known. The dating of North African monuments is in fact encountering difficulties due, on the one hand, to the paucity of the funerary furniture, which does not allow chronological markers to be set, but also to the variety of objects from various periods that are sometimes found there, even in burials which had not yet been devastated — as many had been — before their systematic excavation.
The remains found in the protohistoric burials are more or less contemporary with those found in Tunisia in the Punic period burials. The Punic period, which is between the ninth century and the second century BC . J.-C., must be included in the protohistory of the Maghreb (Camps, 1970). The megalithic culture, however, seems to have arrived in the Maghreb before that of the Punics, it remained there for a long time, as shown by the dates obtained from the furniture and the bone remains of certain burials, after the end of the Punic period. , until the beginning of Roman times.
And then from that it introduces the context of the study:
quote: Remains from the Punic period discovered in the tombs of Carthage and Utica, in the jar burials, in the shaft tombs or those found in the gable roof tombs, and perhaps older, have made the object of studies mainly by Bertholon in 1890, 1911 and 1913, by Hamy (in Quatrefages and Hamy, 1882) and by Collignon (1892).
Overall, these publications are not sufficiently synthetic for a very precise idea of the morphology of the population of the protohistoric period of North Africa to emerge. Recent excavations having allowed the discovery of new remains coming to be added to the series deposited in the collections of the museum of Bardo in Algiers and the museum of the Man mainly, it is possible to envisage a general study on the population of this period currently fairly well known from an archaeological point of view.
Archaeological data has shown the introduction of completely new cultural traits into North Africa with megalithic burials that offer affinities with the western and central Mediterranean world. Can we also detect affinities on the anthropological level between Protohistoric and Punic peoples of North Africa and other populations of the Mediterranean Basin living at the same time? Are these affinities, if they exist, due to the arrival of new elements important enough to modify the composition of the population? We will try to answer the first question in the present study, the second can only be approached by means of a diachronic analysis of human remains from previous periods.
The overall point here being to try and identify how much influence these other groups had on the populations in the region over the time period of the first millenium Bc. It is showing that these populations in the region generally cluster together even with Punic, Iberian and Southern European influence or mixture. Again, as expected. But this is not exactly a comprehensive treaty on phenotype in the region. And to properly understand the placement of these populations overall in the context of Africa you would need skulls from the same time period in the Sahara and Sahel.
And as for clinal gradients, if there was no mediterranean there would be a straight gradual change from central African tropical phenotype to Norhtern European phenotype, with the area of the Mediterranean and Northern Sahara being intermediate.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carthaginian Affinities with Ancient and Recent Maghreban and Levantine Groups: Craniometric Analyses Using Distance and Discrimination by S.O.Y. Keita, 2018 :
quote:In both the 23- and 13-variable analyses, the Carthaginian series shows the greatest affinity to the ancient Maghreban series, with the Phoenicians being next in similarity based on Mahalanobis distances (Table 1). The CVA plot also shows this (Fig. 1); the distancedirected graph provides more clarity about the relationships by showing the rank of affinity of the Carthaginian series. A similar pattern emerges with the 13-variable analysis (plots not shown). In summary, the Carthaginian sample shows affinity first to the ancient Maghreban series and then to the Phoenicians (3.93 vs. 5.98) in the 23-variable analysis, and the same in the 13-variable analysis with a less marked difference in distance (2.37 vs. 2.92)"
quote:The exploratory hypothesis of a greatest affinity to the Phoenician series and then to modern Levantines is not supported. The finding that the second affinity is with the Phoenicians, and not the modern Kabyle series from Algeria, connects the Carthaginian sample with both ancient series. These findings are consistent with an interpretation that the sample reflects both local and Levantine ancestry due to specific interactions in the ancient period.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The presence of African individuals in Punic populations from the Island of Ibiza (Spain): contributions from physical anthropology
quote:The Meshwesh (often abbreviated in ancient Egyptian as Ma) was an ancient Libyan Berber tribe,[2] along with other groups like Libu and Tehenou/Tehenu.[3]
Early records of the Meshwesh date back to the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt from the reign of Amenhotep III. During the 19th and 20th dynasties (c. 1295 – 1075 BC), the Meshwesh were in almost constant conflict with the Egyptian state. During the late 21st Dynasty, increasing numbers of Meswesh Libyans began to settle in the Western Delta region of Egypt. They would ultimately take control of the country during the late 21st Dynasty first under Osorkon the Elder.
Relief block with the heads of three Libyans Period: New Kingdom, Amarna Period Dynasty: Dynasty 18 Date: ca. 1353–1323 B.C. Geography: From Egypt, Upper Egypt; Thebes, Karnak Medium: Sandstone, paint Credit Line: Gift of Ernst E. Kofler, 1965 Accession Number: 65.100.1
quote:The sidelocks of the people on this relief block identify the men as Libyans. They need not be prisoners but could be members of the Egyptian army or envoys at a festival. As usual with sandstone relief pieces the block was part of a temple decoration at Karnak.
(Metmuseum)
(British Museum, This decorative tile from a royal palace made between 1184 and 1153 BC and found in Tell el-Yahudiyah shows a Libyan captive).
(A bronze statuette of an ancient Libyan, Louvre museum. Oric Bates "thinks" it represents a Libyan from the Meshwesh tribe (?). It appears that the statuette once had the usual Libyan beard.)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic