quote:" At Kerkouane, a Carthaginian town on the Cap Bon peninsula in Tunisia (see extended description in Materials), we observe a highly heterogeneous population, spanning across the PCA space in Fig. 3 from modern Mozabite populations to modern Sicilian populations, consisting of three primary genetic clusters.
Didn't I say that I was expecting a main north african background with some european outliers ? hahah seems again I was right !
quote:These results indicate that autochthonous North African populations contributed substantially to the genetic makeup of Kerkouane. The contribution of autochthonous North African populations in Carthaginian history is obscured by the use of terms like “Western Phoenicians”, and even to an extent, “Punic”, in the literature to refer to Carthaginians, as it implies a primarily colonial population and diminishes indigenous involvement in the Carthaginian Empire. As a result, the role of autochthonous populations has been largely overlooked in studies of Carthage and its empire. Genetic approaches are well suited to examine such assumptions, and here we show that North African populations contributed substantially to the genetic makeup of Carthaginian cities. The high number of individuals with Italian and Greek-like ancestry may be due to the proximity of Kerkouane to Magna Graecia, as well as key trans-Mediterranean sailing routes passing by Cap Bon (1, 28). Yet, surprisingly, we did not detect individuals with large amounts of Levantine ancestry at Kerkouane. Given the roots of Carthage and its territories as Phoenician colonies, we had anticipated we would see individuals with ancestry similar to Phoenician individuals, such as those published in (12). One possible explanation is that the colonial expansion of Phoenician city-states at the start of the Iron Age did not involve large amounts of population mobility, and may have been based on trade relationships rather than occupation. Alternatively, this could potentially be due to differential burial practices (although Phoenician burial practices were thought to have shifted from cremations to interments in the central and western Mediterranean around 650 BCE (29), predating the individuals in the study), or to a disruption in connections between Carthaginian territories and the Eastern Mediterranean, after the fall of the Phoenician city-states to Babylon."
quote:When compared to other ancient individuals using qpWave analysis (Fig. 5), this individual forms a clade with ancient Canary Island inhabitants thought to be representative of the original founding population (25).
A Genetic History of Continuity and Mobility in the Iron Age Central Mediterranean Moots et al , 2022
So where are these punics who were 100% lebanese ?? WHo were these black punics who got replaced by arabs ? Hhahaha that never existed, punics were basically punicized north africans and genetically no that much different from modern north africans.
[ 21. May 2022, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are from the same timeframe and what a coincidence that they are similar to modern day north africans.
Anyway read what they have to say about it :
quote: The Iron Age appears to be a key period for the formation of the current genetic structure of North Africa. Previous research suggests present-day central and western North African populations can be modeled as having four primary ancestry components: a local/autochthonous Maghrebi component derived from paleolithic hunter-gatherer populations in the region (20, 31, 32); a Near Eastern component thought to have been introduced with Arab rule of the region in the Medieval period (26); a sub-Saharan African component that was introduced in the last 5,000 years (16, 20); and a European component originally thought to have arrived due to historical population movements. While many papers have suggested the Near Eastern and European components resulted from recent historical movements, such as Arab rule in Medieval North Africa and trans-Mediterranean trade in the last 500 years, we see evidence for these components being present in North Africa in the Iron Age, around 2,500 years ago. Fregel et al. 2018 show the European component is, at least partially, linked to the farming expansion and is similar to Anatolian and early European farmers (20).
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: I'm referring to the Greek and Italian ancestry.
West Sicily was under carthaginian influence for a long time so I'm not surprised it attracted migrants/merchants from there. There was also a substantial number of iberian and italian mercenaries in the carthaginian armies and we do know some carthaginian aristocrats who were half sicilian (but from a culturally greek background)
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerkouane Kerkouane is an exceptionally well-preserved Punic town located on Tunisia’s Cap Bon Peninsula and provides one of the best-surviving windows into Carthaginian daily life (29, 40–42). Originally inhabited from 650 - 250 BCE, the population of Kerkouane is thought to have been around 1,200 with an economy primarily based on the production and export of marine resources from the region
"The sub-Saharan ancestry we observe at Kerkouane may result either from direct contact or indirect contact through the nomadic populations of the Sahara. These nomadic groups, known to the Greeks as Numidians, are thought to be ancestral to Amazigh populations living in North Africa today. Trans-Saharan trade routes, made easier by a greener, less arid Sahara than today, had connected the communities of North Africa with their sub-Saharan counterparts since the Bronze Age (36, 37). Herodotus noted the coexistence of sedentary peoples and nomadic peoples in the land of the "libou" in the 5th century BCE (38). In addition to overland networks, these connections to sub-Saharan Africa also occurred by sea. Herodotus described Phoenician trade routes as extended far beyond the Mediterranean to the British Isles and West Africa via the Atlantic coast and even that a Phoenician and Egyptian expedition had circumnavigated Africa the previous century (1, 39). The Iron Age may have been a key period for gene flow across the Sahara as well."
Like Africans could not walk the even greener sahara before the iron age...
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
@yatunde lisa ??? what are you talking about ? Are you aware modern north africans already have black ancestry ? Are you aware this individual plots with modern north africans and guanches ?
It's over afrocentrists should start claiming something else because they keep losing over and over.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Didn't I say that I was expecting a main north african background with some european outliers ? hahah seems again I was right !
what is the ha ha element?
Is there some kind of gotcha here?
There are users who argue Berbers were a lot more SSA in ancient times than today, so this is a big win for him, it proves that there is a lot of continuity.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
Didn't I say that I was expecting a main north african background with some european outliers ? hahah seems again I was right !
what is the ha ha element?
Is there some kind of gotcha here?
There are users who argue Berbers were a lot more SSA in ancient times than today, so this is a big win for him, it proves that there is a lot of continuity.
OK I just went back and noticed I missed the last line of the OP
Antalas: "So where are these punics who were 100% lebanese ?? WHo were these black punics who got replaced by arabs ? Hhahaha that never existed, punics were basically punicized north africans and genetically no that much different from modern north africans."
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Didn't I say that I was expecting a main north african background with some european outliers ? hahah seems again I was right !
what is the ha ha element?
Is there some kind of gotcha here?
There are users who argue Berbers were a lot more SSA in ancient times than today, so this is a big win for him, it proves that there is a lot of continuity.
I'm still trying to see where his big win is. 2,500 from present goes to around 478 BC. Admixture happening before the Arabs shouldn't be a surprise or a gotcha moment for any member here? And I don't know anyone of any credibility who says all people living in North Africa were 100% Black/dark skinned until the Arabs arrived when population movements had been ongoing. Despite the admixture by that date historical writers still cited the continued existence of substantial black populations such as the Mauri, Numidians, Garamantes etc at that point in time.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: I'm still trying to see where his big win is. 2,500 from present goes to around 478 BC. Admixture happening before the Arabs shouldn't be a surprise or a gotcha moment for any member here? And I don't know anyone of any credibility who says all people living in North Africa were 100% Black/dark skinned until the Arabs arrived when population movements had been ongoing. Despite the admixture by that date historical writers still cited the continued existence of substantial black populations such as the Mauri, Numidians, Garamantes etc at that point in time.
Not to mention the presence of one outlier in this sample whose ancestry could be modeled as mostly IAM- or Taforalt-like (called "Early Neolithic Moroccan" in the text of the paper).
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: I'm still trying to see where his big win is. 2,500 from present goes to around 478 BC. Admixture happening before the Arabs shouldn't be a surprise or a gotcha moment for any member here? And I don't know anyone of any credibility who says all people living in North Africa were 100% Black/dark skinned until the Arabs arrived when population movements had been ongoing. Despite the admixture by that date historical writers still cited the continued existence of substantial black populations such as the Mauri, Numidians, Garamantes etc at that point in time. [/QB]
None of these people were described as black except some garamantes but even in the case of garamantes it seems greco-roman authors were not sure how to define them and often used terms that underlined their mixed appearance.
black = aethiopians = black skinned, frizzy hair, snub-nosed, etc located in the sahara and sub-saharan african regions
swarthy/dark (like modern north africans) = Mauri, numidians, libyans, etc located in North africa but reality wasn't black/white there has always been a cline in terms of pigmentation with more inland people being darker than coastal mediterranean populations same in egypt.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Not to mention the presence of one outlier in this sample whose ancestry could be modeled as mostly IAM- or Taforalt-like (called "Early Neolithic Moroccan" in the text of the paper). [/QB]
They actually proposed three different models for him let's wait for his G25 coordinates so we'll model him properly and if he was really 70% IBM I don't think he would have plot with modern north africans like he does.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting study... The outlier doesn't have a profile typical of a modern North African. This is also the first publication to point out the difference between Moroccan_EN (IAM) and Taforalt, The former having more of an Affinity to East Africans (Mota).
However, -No guanches. -No inclusion of related North Africans of Ancient Europe. -No comment on the poor continuity of MT Haplogroups despite using Late Neolithic samples for everything?? -No comment on very low North-African MT haps? -No Ydna haplogroups? -No Idea which samples carried which MtDNA haplogroup??
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Interesting study... The outlier doesn't have a profile typical of a modern North African. This is also the first publication to point out the difference between Moroccan_EN (IAM) and Taforalt, The former having more of an Affinity to East Africans (Mota).
However, -No guanches. -No inclusion of related North Africans of Ancient Europe. -No comment on the poor continuity of MT Haplogroups despite using Late Neolithic samples for everything?? -No comment on very low North-African MT haps? -No Ydna haplogroups? -No Idea which samples carried which MtDNA haplogroup??
He was similar to modern north africans and guanches :
quote:For R11759, who projects near modern Mozabite and Moroccan populations in PCA space [...] When compared to other ancient individuals using qpWave analysis (Fig. 5), this individual forms a clade with ancient Canary Island inhabitants thought to be representative of the original founding population (25).
and what's your point with low NA mtdna that was already the case for late neolithic moroccans and modern north africans
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Interesting study... The outlier doesn't have a profile typical of a modern North African. This is also the first publication to point out the difference between Moroccan_EN (IAM) and Taforalt, The former having more of an Affinity to East Africans (Mota).
However, -No guanches. -No inclusion of related North Africans of Ancient Europe. -No comment on the poor continuity of MT Haplogroups despite using Late Neolithic samples for everything?? -No comment on very low North-African MT haps? -No Ydna haplogroups? -No Idea which samples carried which MtDNA haplogroup??
He was similar to modern north africans and guanches :
quote:For R11759, who projects near modern Mozabite and Moroccan populations in PCA space [...] When compared to other ancient individuals using qpWave analysis (Fig. 5), this individual forms a clade with ancient Canary Island inhabitants thought to be representative of the original founding population (25).
and what's your point with low NA mtdna that was already the case for late neolithic moroccans and modern north africans
What does "form a clade" in qpWave mean Antalas?
And why would he "form a clade" with Canary Islanders in one analysis but cluster with Mainland North Africans in PCA analysis?
The point about mtdna was literally in the post you responded to.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: What does "form a clade" in qpWave mean Antalas?
And why would he "form a clade" with Canary Islanders in one analysis but cluster with Mainland North Africans in PCA analysis?
The point about mtdna was literally in the post you responded to. [/QB]
Wait are you aware these canary islanders are guanches ? They obviously don't talk about modern canary islanders lol
and I answered you about this mtdna, you talk about no continuity but I don't see based on what you're saying this ?? Their mtdna profile is very similar to ours ; low continuity with late neolithic moroccans doesn't surprise me when you take the context into account and between them and these iron age samples you have a strong bell beaker influence along the mediterranean coast.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: What does "form a clade" in qpWave mean Antalas?
And why would he "form a clade" with Canary Islanders in one analysis but cluster with Mainland North Africans in PCA analysis?
The point about mtdna was literally in the post you responded to.
Wait are you aware these canary islanders are guanches ? They obviously don't talk about modern canary islanders lol
and I answered you about this mtdna, you talk about no continuity but I don't see based on what you're saying this ?? Their mtdna profile is very similar to ours ; low continuity with late neolithic moroccans doesn't surprise me when you take the context into account and between them and these iron age samples you have a strong bell beaker influence along the mediterranean coast. [/QB]
I assumed they were talking about Modern Canary Islanders cause they didn't list them in the Ancient population list... Nonetheless the point still stands. I can tell you what they're trying to say with the QPWav analysis, but I also want to know what that means to you.
Late neolithic Moroccans were used for every analysis except for the ones that failed. But the MtDNA haplogroups don't reflect continuity from them despite showing similarities with southern European populations. ..No comment.
Modern North Africans share that same sentiment with Elevated SSA and NA haplogroups. ...No comment.
I don't fully understand what you're saying either.. Are you saying the Bell-beaker influence is responsible for the lack of continuity? Bell beaker samples in Czechia have more African Mt-DNA frequency than these guys combined. What about Bell beakers explain the mt-DNA profile of Iron age North Africans in relation to Earlier N.Africans?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: I'm still trying to see where his big win is. 2,500 from present goes to around 478 BC. Admixture happening before the Arabs shouldn't be a surprise or a gotcha moment for any member here? And I don't know anyone of any credibility who says all people living in North Africa were 100% Black/dark skinned until the Arabs arrived when population movements had been ongoing. Despite the admixture by that date historical writers still cited the continued existence of substantial black populations such as the Mauri, Numidians, Garamantes etc at that point in time.
None of these people were described as black except some garamantes but even in the case of garamantes it seems greco-roman authors were not sure how to define them and often used terms that underlined their mixed appearance.
black = aethiopians = black skinned, frizzy hair, snub-nosed, etc located in the sahara and sub-saharan african regions
swarthy/dark (like modern north africans) = Mauri, numidians, libyans, etc located in North africa but reality wasn't black/white there has always been a cline in terms of pigmentation with more inland people being darker than coastal mediterranean populations same in egypt. [/QB]
"And the Mauretanii of that place held also the land to the west of Aurasium, a tract both extensive and fertile. And beyond these dwelt other nations of the Mauretanii, who were ruled by Ortaďas, who had come, as was stated above, as an ally of Solomon and the Romans. And I have heard this man say that beyond the country which he ruled there was no habitation of men, but desert land extending to a great distance, and that beyond that there are men, not black-skinned like the Mauretanii, but very white in body and fair-haired." https://sites.google.com/site/persuasionpast/home/procopius-on-mauretania
Silius Italicus wrote “on his hot steed unused to curb or reign, a black Numidian prances o’er the plain” quoted by from Records of Roman History from Cnćus Pompeius to Tiberius Constantinus Volume 1 p. 357, 1860.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: I'm still trying to see where his big win is. 2,500 from present goes to around 478 BC. Admixture happening before the Arabs shouldn't be a surprise or a gotcha moment for any member here? And I don't know anyone of any credibility who says all people living in North Africa were 100% Black/dark skinned until the Arabs arrived when population movements had been ongoing. Despite the admixture by that date historical writers still cited the continued existence of substantial black populations such as the Mauri, Numidians, Garamantes etc at that point in time.
None of these people were described as black except some garamantes but even in the case of garamantes it seems greco-roman authors were not sure how to define them and often used terms that underlined their mixed appearance.
black = aethiopians = black skinned, frizzy hair, snub-nosed, etc located in the sahara and sub-saharan african regions
swarthy/dark (like modern north africans) = Mauri, numidians, libyans, etc located in North africa but reality wasn't black/white there has always been a cline in terms of pigmentation with more inland people being darker than coastal mediterranean populations same in egypt.
"And the Mauretanii of that place held also the land to the west of Aurasium, a tract both extensive and fertile. And beyond these dwelt other nations of the Mauretanii, who were ruled by Ortaďas, who had come, as was stated above, as an ally of Solomon and the Romans. And I have heard this man say that beyond the country which he ruled there was no habitation of men, but desert land extending to a great distance, and that beyond that there are men, not black-skinned like the Mauretanii, but very white in body and fair-haired." https://sites.google.com/site/persuasionpast/home/procopius-on-mauretania
You were saying?
In this very study (OP) they tried to pass off the SSA correspondence to being that of Numidians:
quote:The sub-Saharan ancestry we observe at Kerkouane may result either from direct contact or indirect contact through the nomadic populations of the Sahara. These nomadic groups, known to the Greeks as Numidians, are thought to be ancestral to Amazigh populations living in North Africa today. Trans-Saharan trade routes, made easier by a greener, less arid Sahara than today, had connected the communities of North Africa with their sub-Saharan counterparts since the Bronze Age (36, 37). Herodotus noted the coexistence of sedentary peoples and nomadic peoples in the land of the "libou" in the 5th century BCE (38).
We're in weird times.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Antalas, make one more demonstrably false statement and you'll be having a vacation. Stick to the study instead of ranting about afrocentrist boogeymen.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Wow. Thanks for pointing that out Maestro.
Antalas, make one more demonstrably false statement and you'll be having a vacation. Stick to the study instead of ranting about afrocentrist boogeymen.
Edit: actually I'm just now seeing your comments in the Egyptology forum about "afro-americans with 20% anglo dna".
Enjoy the trip.
I think you should let him rock.
Despite the low level thought process his POV is good for engagement.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea... I also agree with Elmaestro. Lets let Antalas rock. He's just your typical North African who can be very nationalistic about his culture/people. As long as he isn't being racist or trolling the forum, I say let him rock because he actually contributes.
We shouldn't block out people who share differing views from us. Instead engage them, as long as there is no trolling.
Egyptsearch ALWAYS had Eurasiancentric leaning posters. Again as long as he isn't trolling or being racist.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazigh are a political minority in countries run by Muslims. Therefore they do not want anyone to suggest something that might question their indigenousness and thus territorial claims. There is more at stake as they see it.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I assumed they were talking about Modern Canary Islanders cause they didn't list them in the Ancient population list... Nonetheless the point still stands.
They're actually listed :
So the point doesn't stand. Guanches cluster with modern north africans and this outlier cluster with both guanches and modern north africans which makes perfectly sense.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I can tell you what they're trying to say with the QPWav analysis, but I also want to know what that means to you.
You're not telling anything simply trying to play on semantics as usual. It means that he's similar to guanches that's it.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Late neolithic Moroccans were used for every analysis except for the ones that failed. But the MtDNA haplogroups don't reflect continuity from them despite showing similarities with southern European populations. ..No comment.
Morocco_LN is already a bad proxy to model such population we all know it, the fact that it failed for him might be indicative of a higher taforalt component (and low EEF) in contrast with the southern european shifted samples.
As far as MtDNA is concerned are you implying that the EEF people of Morocco_LN were perfectly similar to Sicily_BA in terms of lineages ? Cluster 1 is obviously a mixed group of local north africans and hellenic sicilians.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Modern North Africans share that same sentiment with Elevated SSA and NA haplogroups. ...No comment.
Only one sample here is actually fully north african the rest are mixed therefore I'm not expecting much from their haplogroups.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I don't fully understand what you're saying either.. Are you saying the Bell-beaker influence is responsible for the lack of continuity? Bell beaker samples in Czechia have more African Mt-DNA frequency than these guys combined. What about Bell beakers explain the mt-DNA profile of Iron age North Africans in relation to Earlier N.Africans? [/QB]
Yes I'm saying that the lack of continuity between the two period might be influenced by the bell beaker influx and the more contemporary contacts with sicily/Magna Graecia and Iberia. The Bell beaker samples from bronze age iberia and italy show MtDNAs similar to what we can find in this study.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: In this very study (OP) they tried to pass off the SSA correspondence to being that of Numidians:
quote:The sub-Saharan ancestry we observe at Kerkouane may result either from direct contact or indirect contact through the nomadic populations of the Sahara. These nomadic groups, known to the Greeks as Numidians, are thought to be ancestral to Amazigh populations living in North Africa today. Trans-Saharan trade routes, made easier by a greener, less arid Sahara than today, had connected the communities of North Africa with their sub-Saharan counterparts since the Bronze Age (36, 37). Herodotus noted the coexistence of sedentary peoples and nomadic peoples in the land of the "libou" in the 5th century BCE (38).
We're in weird times. [/QB]
Actually both you and the authors of this paper show their ignorance in regards to these people since numidians weren't all nomads nor did they live in the Sahara lol it's actually quite shocking that they post such information and here we're in Kerkouane that's really far from the Sahara and this area was previously under heavy berber influence :
quote:The historian also gives precious information on the toponymy of the place and the Numidian environment of the region of the Cape Bon: "Before it was irrigated by the Punic culture, the region seems to have been inhabited by Libyan tribes. [...] Traces of their indigenous origins can be seen in the toponymy, which is fundamentally Libyan; most of the names of places, towns, villages, rivers, fields, etc., belong to the substratum of Berberism: Taguerdouch, Tafelloune, Tazoghrane, Tazerka, Taouzdra, etc. ... [The Punic city of Kerkouane also seems to have had a toponym of Libyan origin: we believe we have recognized it in the place called Tamezrat. A Berber city of Matmata, in Tunisia of the Southeast, carries this same toponym ". 10.6.3 The excavations have also confirmed the presence of an indigenous population, thus confirming the established interbreeding. "With regard to the background of the population, there are clues that would favor a strong Libyan component: architectural programs, including the enfilade layout, certain funerary practices, such as the use of red ochre, and especially the burial in contracted lateral decubitus.
So this outlier is most probably a local who wasn't mixed with sicilian foreigners that's it.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I assumed they were talking about Modern Canary Islanders cause they didn't list them in the Ancient population list... Nonetheless the point still stands.
They're actually listed :
So the point doesn't stand. Guanches cluster with modern north africans and this outlier cluster with both guanches and modern north africans which makes perfectly sense.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I can tell you what they're trying to say with the QPWav analysis, but I also want to know what that means to you.
You're not telling anything simply trying to play on semantics as usual. It means that he's similar to guanches that's it.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Late neolithic Moroccans were used for every analysis except for the ones that failed. But the MtDNA haplogroups don't reflect continuity from them despite showing similarities with southern European populations. ..No comment.
Morocco_LN is already a bad proxy to model such population we all know it, the fact that it failed for him might be indicative of a higher taforalt component (and low EEF) in contrast with the southern european shifted samples.
As far as MtDNA is concerned are you implying that the EEF people of Morocco_LN were perfectly similar to Sicily_BA in terms of lineages ? Cluster 1 is obviously a mixed group of local north africans and hellenic sicilians.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Modern North Africans share that same sentiment with Elevated SSA and NA haplogroups. ...No comment.
Only one sample here is actually fully north african the rest are mixed therefore I'm not expecting much from their haplogroups.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I don't fully understand what you're saying either.. Are you saying the Bell-beaker influence is responsible for the lack of continuity? Bell beaker samples in Czechia have more African Mt-DNA frequency than these guys combined. What about Bell beakers explain the mt-DNA profile of Iron age North Africans in relation to Earlier N.Africans?
Yes I'm saying that the lack of continuity between the two period might be influenced by the bell beaker influx and the more contemporary contacts with sicily/Magna Graecia and Iberia. The Bell beaker samples from bronze age iberia and italy show MtDNAs similar to what we can find in this study. [/QB]
How are you so capable of responding to something without actually responding to it. It seems as if you absolutely have no Idea what I'm talking about. Just responding to respond. talking to talk.
It doesn't matter if they were guanches or modern Canarians, you used both examples in different analysis to infer that the one "pure" sample was the same as modern North Africans. Are Tunisians best modeled as 75% IAM??
Which modern PURE Maghrebi by your standards(lacks Slave admixture) is 25% Mota-related? Your argument is once again like saying Taforalt is a Horner because they "cluster" with Horners in PCA... It's stupid.
also QPWave tests for possible ancestral populations... Not relatedness. It's not semantics its comprehension. Both Canary Islanders and this sample have had similar contributions from admixing populations. IAM-related + Neolithic Farmer related. Other additive in the other Punic individuals pulled them into another "cluster." (qpwave doesn't work with "clusters" for your info)
And you can just go ahead and ignore the mtDNA thing. If you believe there's only one pure N.African then the results should make sense to you. Other than that, I don't think you even comprehended why I was concerned about the lack of attention given to the MTDNA haplogroup distribution in the study.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Read this as you will, for the forum and the sake of transparency. I need to make sure I ain't tripping.
Notice how the study passes off these clusters. Antalas says: cluster 1 (the blue cluster) is definitely a mixed group. cluster 3 (the yellow cluster) is definitely a pure North African
The study implies: Cluster 1 is the North African group Cluster 3 represents some type of transaharan contact
Modern population genetics ideals says: Modern North Africans are essentially unchanged with the exception of Additional SSA ancestry from slavery.
realities from the study Cluster 3 plots near modern North Africans. Cluster 1 plots near Neolithic North Africans
Iron out these ideals as you wish. Who's right? and why does each party come to such a conclusion? --find out next time on... ________ <-insert meme->
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: How are you so capable of responding to something without actually responding to it. It seems as if you absolutely have no Idea what I'm talking about. Just responding to respond. talking to talk.
It doesn't matter if they were guanches or modern Canarians, you used both examples in different analysis to infer that the one "pure" sample was the same as modern North Africans. Are Tunisians best modeled as 75% IAM??
Which modern PURE Maghrebi by your standards(lacks Slave admixture) is 25% Mota-related? Your argument is once again like saying Taforalt is a Horner because they "cluster" with Horners in PCA... It's stupid.
also QPWave tests for possible ancestral populations... Not relatedness. It's not semantics its comprehension. Both Canary Islanders and this sample have had similar contributions from admixing populations. IAM-related + Neolithic Farmer related. Other additive in the other Punic individuals pulled them into another "cluster." (qpwave doesn't work with "clusters" for your info)
And you can just go ahead and ignore the mtDNA thing. If you believe there's only one pure N.African then the results should make sense to you. Other than that, I don't think you even comprehended why I was concerned about the lack of attention given to the MTDNA haplogroup distribution in the study. [/QB]
Don't pretend these models are the best way to model them, they are obviously flawed people already complained many times about the used of Morocco_LN and they also lacked proper natufian and subsaharan proxies (they literally brought mota lmao) lol When we'll get his G25 coordinates you'll see how much lower IAM he'll get ....I mean how do you explain that someone that is supposed to be 70% IAM ends up clustering with modern mozabites and moroccans XD like I told you he probably had more IAM and less EEF than these four euro shifted samples.
What's your point with QPWave ? Where did you see that it pulled them into another cluster ? As for the MtDNA I already told you that you shouldn't be so quick to draw conclusions for obvious reasons.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Read this as you will, for the forum and the sake of transparency. I need to make sure I ain't tripping.
Notice how the study passes off these clusters. Antalas says: cluster 1 (the blue cluster) is definitely a mixed group. cluster 3 (the yellow cluster) is definitely a pure North African
The study implies: Cluster 1 is the North African group Cluster 3 represents some type of transaharan contact
Modern population genetics ideals says: Modern North Africans are essentially unchanged with the exception of Additional SSA ancestry from slavery.
realities from the study Cluster 3 plots near modern North Africans. Cluster 1 plots near Neolithic North Africans
Iron out these ideals as you wish. Who's right? and why does each party come to such a conclusion? --find out next time on... ________ <-insert meme-> [/QB]
Why do you pretend they know what they are talking about when it comes to history ? I literally just pointed out one historical mistake they made.
Cluster 1 is definitely a mixed group, it's exactly what we would expect from a mix North Africa - sicily BA and that's in line with historical and archaeological datas. Cluster 3 literally plots with modern north africans what should I naturally conclude lol ?
According to your logic, I should believe that the fact that these mixed samples are pulled towards sicily in a context of intense commercial exchanges with sicily (western sicily was under carthaginian rule btw) is simply a coincidence and that we're here dealing with a strange very euro shifted north african population different from all the ancient samples we have including those neo-punics : https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03014460.2021.1944313
XDD Incredible to see how you manage to always interpret these datas in a way that is really baffling or else you really but really don't really know much about the region to believe such thing.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
...I can't model any north African with available data as 75% IAM.
But you probably couldn't comprehend how significant that is anyways.
You didn't ask me once what I thought about the samples themselves but you assume my logic. I was probably the first person you heard point out KEB were outliers and consistently poor fits. But you believe I'm taking this article or any article at all at face value. You just tried to use the QpWave statement to prove closeness with the guanche samples, don't lecture me about what the Author know or don't know.
It's funny how my initial comment was a critique on the study and yet you took it as a personal attack. It's a wild duality when talking to you, but it probably stems from cognitive dissonance.
It's not that I agree that the Outlier represents a Saharan... It's the reason why the Authors assume he is that's important. Your ideals were simply an adjacent. They're barely important, I wasn't speaking to you when I noted: "the outlier doesn't have a profile typical of a modern North African." Judging by my expertise, he doesn't.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Elmaestro let's wait for his coordinates and you'll see with proper taforalt, natufian and west african sources he'll end up probably scoring like rich IBM berbers like soussis, mozabites, etc and again (and this is a serious question) can you explain to me how is a sample with 75% IAM supposed to plot next to modern day mozabites and moroccans ?
Alright tell me what you think these 4 samples might represent other than what I proposed.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @Elmaestro let's wait for his coordinates and you'll see with proper taforalt, natufian and west african sources he'll end up probably scoring like rich IBM berbers like soussis, mozabites, etc and again (and this is a serious question) can you explain to me how is a sample with 75% IAM supposed to plot next to modern day mozabites and moroccans ?
Where else would they plot in that PCA? You probably aren't aware but ancient samples are projected onto PCAs, the coordinates are typically determined by the modern samples. I don't see where you're going with that line of reasoning.
Anyways that doesn't even matter, we're moving the goal post as usual. No modern published sample can be modeled as 75% IAM with qpADM. And though the fits are awful KEB can be used to model ancestry in Moroccans and Mozab. R11759 clusters with those same samples despite behaving different in formal stats, It's not the first time this phenomena occurred.
posted
The problem with all of these papers on "North Africa" is they distort the definition of the region and historical population movements. To start, they focus exclusively on the populations like this one on the extreme coast as the core population of ancient "North Africa". Yet the extreme coasts of "North Africa" are not the locations of all the key populations of the region going back 10,000 years. Those populations would have been in the Sahara during the last wet phase over that time. And it is in the Sahara where most of the evidence for the Neolithic transition is found and often earlier than the Near East. But they keep focusing on the DNA of these extreme coastal regions of North Africa as if that is the "center" of North African history and pretending that no other populations existed anywhere else in Africa except thousands of miles away in "Sub Saharan" Africa. Implying that the Sahara was never populated by Africans or the site of key developments in culture during the holocene and neolithic.
And the result is a bunch of nonsensical back and forth about how to model mixture in these coastal populations. As if all "North Africans" are mixed with Eurasians over tens of thousands of years of history.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The problem with all of these papers on "North Africa" is they distort the definition of the region and historical population movements. To start, they focus exclusively on the populations like this one on the extreme coast as the core population of ancient "North Africa". Yet the extreme coasts of "North Africa" are not the locations of all the key populations of the region going back 10,000 years. Those populations would have been in the Sahara during the last wet phase over that time. And it is in the Sahara where most of the evidence for the Neolithic transition is found and often earlier than the Near East. But they keep focusing on the DNA of these extreme coastal regions of North Africa as if that is the "center" of North African history and pretending that no other populations existed anywhere else in Africa except thousands of miles away in "Sub Saharan" Africa. Implying that the Sahara was never populated by Africans or the site of key developments in culture during the holocene and neolithic.
And the result is a bunch of nonsensical back and forth about how to model mixture in these coastal populations. As if all "North Africans" are mixed with Eurasians over tens of thousands of years of history.
Why do you always obsessed over the sahara ? We're talking about the iron age here not the early holocene. Yes the core of north africa's history was along the coast that's where we see the moorish kingdom, numidian kingdom, massyle and massaesyle entities, carthaginian empire, etc The sahara was already a desert back then with a lower demography than today.
So yes these papers keep showing that NAs were not black so of course it bothers you.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The problem with all of these papers on "North Africa" is they distort the definition of the region and historical population movements. To start, they focus exclusively on the populations like this one on the extreme coast as the core population of ancient "North Africa". Yet the extreme coasts of "North Africa" are not the locations of all the key populations of the region going back 10,000 years. Those populations would have been in the Sahara during the last wet phase over that time. And it is in the Sahara where most of the evidence for the Neolithic transition is found and often earlier than the Near East. But they keep focusing on the DNA of these extreme coastal regions of North Africa as if that is the "center" of North African history and pretending that no other populations existed anywhere else in Africa except thousands of miles away in "Sub Saharan" Africa. Implying that the Sahara was never populated by Africans or the site of key developments in culture during the holocene and neolithic.
And the result is a bunch of nonsensical back and forth about how to model mixture in these coastal populations. As if all "North Africans" are mixed with Eurasians over tens of thousands of years of history.
Why do you always obsessed over the sahara ? We're talking about the iron age here not the early holocene. Yes the core of north africa's history was along the coast that's where we see the moorish kingdom, numidian kingdom, massyle and massaesyle entities, carthaginian empire, etc The sahara was already a desert back then with a lower demography than today.
So yes these papers keep showing that NAs were not black so of course it bothers you.
This is about being consistent with data and facts. "North Africa" is not an island historically separate from the rest of Africa. And most of North Africa's history going back 10,000 years is NOT along the coast and the development of traditions and techniques such as pottery and animal domestication took place within the Sahara and not along the coast. But beyond that, it is also blatantly false to claim that the only populations that existed in "North Africa" were along the coast and therefore were isolated from the rest of Africa. And that would imply that the Sahara was completely empty of humans over the last 10,0000 years. Using that nonsense, they imply that the only other populations of Africans that could have come into North Africa had to come from thousands of miles away in "Sub Saharan" Africa in places like Nigeria or Kenya. So according to this "model" of history Southern Algeria, Southern Libya, Northern Mai, Northern Chad and Northern Niger don't exist and weren't populated by anybody for 10s of thousands of years which is a lie.
And specifically what I am talking about is the "reference populations" they use in these papers talking about "North African" DNA. So there is no DNA on any ancient Saharan populations like Numidiand, Garamantes, populations from Tassili N'ajjer or elsewhere in the Sahara. The only "African" populations they use are those far away in Kenya,Nigeria and so forth. Then they try and pretend this is a realistic baseline set of populations for modeling ancient North African history. All of this implies that there is no "Saharan" population and associated set of DNA lineages relevant to the history of North Africa. Implying that the DNA of the coastal North Africans is not directly related to populations of Africans living in the Sahara over the last 10,000 years. Even though there are many populations in the Sahara to this day and throughout history.
quote: The extent to which prehistoric migrations of farmers influenced the genetic pool of western North Africans remains unclear. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Neolithization process may have happened through the adoption of innovations by local Epipaleolithic communities or by demic diffusion from the Eastern Mediterranean shores or Iberia. Here, we present an analysis of individuals’ genome sequences from Early and Late Neolithic sites in Morocco and from Early Neolithic individuals from southern Iberia. We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans (∼5,000 BCE) are similar to Later Stone Age individuals from the same region and possess an endemic element retained in present-day Maghrebi populations, confirming a long-term genetic continuity in the region. This scenario is consistent with Early Neolithic traditions in North Africa deriving from Epipaleolithic communities that adopted certain agricultural techniques from neighboring populations. Among Eurasian ancient populations, Early Neolithic Moroccans are distantly related to Levantine Natufian hunter-gatherers (∼9,000 BCE) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers (∼6,500 BCE). Late Neolithic (∼3,000 BCE) Moroccans, in contrast, share an Iberian component, supporting theories of trans-Gibraltar gene flow and indicating that Neolithization of North Africa involved both the movement of ideas and people. Lastly, the southern Iberian Early Neolithic samples share the same genetic composition as the Cardial Mediterranean Neolithic culture that reached Iberia ∼5,500 BCE. The cultural and genetic similarities between Iberian and North African Neolithic traditions further reinforce the model of an Iberian migration into the Maghreb.
The problem with the above is that the Neolithic transition in "North Africa" did not happen in Morocco. It happened far to the South in the Sahara, but they don't have that represented in any of the DNA or population models of North Africa.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Sahara acted as a strong genetic and cultural barrier for at least the last 5000 years and trans-saharan contacts only really started during the early medieval period. Moreover the paper does not imply anything of what you wrote here ; it's just you being desesperate at trying to establish networks which didn't exist. Yes there were populations in the sahara during the iron age but they did not make up most of north africa's population which is not surprising. Moreover no pottery and animal domestication in coastal north africa are not related to the independent developpement in the sahara and the sahel. If you had a minimum of knowledge about those genetic tools you would have known that when proxies aren't good enough to model a population they can see it so stop with your muh saharan dna based on the genetic tools we don't need them to model any north african population whether ancient or modern.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
The problem with the above is that the Neolithic transition in "North Africa" did not happen in Morocco. It happened far to the South in the Sahara, but they don't have that represented in any of the DNA or population models of North Africa. [/QB]
??? Neolithization in Morocco did not happen thanks to its independent developpement further south but thanks to demic-diffusion (that's genetically proven)
Here the most up to date map on neolithization in the mediterranean area :
"Expansion of farming in western Eurasia, 9600 - 4000 cal BC by Detlef Gronenborn"
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
The problem with the above is that the Neolithic transition in "North Africa" did not happen in Morocco. It happened far to the South in the Sahara, but they don't have that represented in any of the DNA or population models of North Africa.
??? Neolithization in Morocco did not happen thanks to its independent developpement further south but thanks to demic-diffusion (that's genetically proven)
Here the most up to date map on neolithization in the mediterranean area :
"Expansion of farming in western Eurasia, 9600 - 4000 cal BC by Detlef Gronenborn"
[/QB]
The point is that the Neolithic transition in "North Africa" did not start in Morocco. So constantly referencing Morocco as a key part of the Neolithic transition when most of the key sites of early Neolithic transition are further South is the problem. And that is exactly how most of these papers and studies try to frame the conversation knowing full well that this is nowhere near a valid representation of the scope of the Neolithic transition over the last 10,000 years in Africa.
Also, note that you are now posting citations that openly state that there was mixture in coastal North Africa during the Neolithic transition due to gene flow from Europe..... So you agree with that now?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ]The point is that the Neolithic transition in "North Africa" did not start in Morocco. So constantly referencing Morocco as a key part of the Neolithic transition when most of the key sites of early Neolithic transition are further South is the problem. And that is exactly how most of these papers and studies try to frame the conversation knowing full well that this is nowhere near a valid representation of the scope of the Neolithic transition over the last 10,000 years in Africa.
Also, note that you are now posting citations that openly state that there was mixture in coastal North Africa during the Neolithic transition due to gene flow from Europe..... So you agree with that now? [/QB]
You're paranoid they didn't imply african neolithization first appeared in Morocco. They studied places in Morocco and showed that neolithization there was brought by european farmers who crossed the strait that's it ...and you come reacting hysterically crying over the sahara. Again Strawman... Also stop projecting the current borders of north africa unto the past. Coastal north africans were not similar to people in the sahara nor did they feel any kind of kinship with such people.
And wtf I already acknowledged before this admixture event, it seems you either don't pay attention to what I post or understand it. But as you can see such admixture is NEOLITHIC in origin not your "roman" "white slaves".
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Isn't it plain to see from the Atlas to the seas Mediterranean coastline Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia had a Neolithic cultural tool kit wise distinct from the north Sahra to Atlas to Gulf of Sirte to Nile Gafsa/Capsian Neolithic culture.
Any instigation or cultural diffusion re Sudanese Neolithic Sahara <---> Gafsian Neolithic North Africa is something for ES to revisit again for the facts per 'stones and bones' realizing there was no one singular Sahra to Mediterranean inclusive North Africa Neolithic.
Still find Briggs' Stone Age Races most pertinent to scholastic study of cultures and peoples of Tropical to Med coastal North Africa. ES still do books?
Tropical North Africa/Sahra has never been any kind of effective isolating barrier between north and south as even with its current severe aridity people live smack dab in the middle of the desert. Most of them descend from African Humid Period's Green Sahara peoples. The rest are southerners and northerners there since trade from Lake Tschad to Chott el Gharsah, a very ancient route in continuous use throughout the entire Holocene from the later stone age to right now.
=-=-=-=
Not that it's new but has Carthage's Priestess of Tanit and her Aethiopoid morphology been discussed in this thread? Goes to prove neither NorthAfrocentrics nor Blackcentrics are right about a uni-physical type Carthage.
In a way this Phoenician colony can be compared to Iberian colonies. The impetus is from abroad but the people are a medley dominated by one ethnic culture.
The problem with the above is that the Neolithic transition in "North Africa" did not happen in Morocco. It happened far to the South in the Sahara, but they don't have that represented in any of the DNA or population models of North Africa.
??? Neolithization in Morocco did not happen thanks to its independent developpement further south but thanks to demic-diffusion (that's genetically proven)
Here the most up to date map on neolithization in the mediterranean area :
"Expansion of farming in western Eurasia, 9600 - 4000 cal BC by Detlef Gronenborn"
The point is that the Neolithic transition in "North Africa" did not start in Morocco. So constantly referencing Morocco as a key part of the Neolithic transition when most of the key sites of early Neolithic transition are further South is the problem. And that is exactly how most of these papers and studies try to frame the conversation knowing full well that this is nowhere near a valid representation of the scope of the Neolithic transition over the last 10,000 years in Africa.
Also, note that you are now posting citations that openly state that there was mixture in coastal North Africa during the Neolithic transition due to gene flow from Europe..... So you agree with that now? [/QB]
No, I am not being paranoid. The point is that these papers and studies talking about"North Africa" always focus on Morocco and Taforalt as if that was the origin point or center of the Neolithic transition in "North Africa". It is not. And by doing so they present a false historical narrative that "North African" history was always exclusively made up of populations along the coast, separate from populations further South.
The Sahara is North Africa and has always been populated and those populations in history and their patterns of settlement are a key to the history of North Africa. But they keep excluding the Sahara from any reference to "North Africa", especially when it comes to DNA.
Anyway, all of that to say, populations in coastal North Africa are not monolithic and were not monolithic in history as having a single phenotype. This is nonsense yet you keep coming here pushing, trying to pretend that people are denying light skinned populations in North Africa. That isn't what I am saying. What I am saying is that the historic references to black people in North Africa is because it is in Africa and black people have always been there even though of course there are also plenty of lighter skinned Africans and mixed populations in present day North Africa. Nobody is denying that or claiming otherwise. However, what I personally have always been saying on this web site is that Africa is the birthplace of human diversity and most human features come from there even if those populations had dark skin. Face shape, nose shape and lip shape are all part of that diversity along with a range of hair textures and types. This "racial" thinking of trying to separate populations based on phenotypes as if they cannot overlap is something I do not believe in and isn't supported by historical facts.
These are Africans, some with lighter skin, having mixture on top of that. But even still black features have always been there. And on top of that, Berber is not a race but a language and culture originating in Africa and the Sahara and practiced over history among a wide geographic area, not just along the coast. They have never been a monolith in terms of phenotype or features.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No, I am not being paranoid. The point is that these papers and studies talking about"North Africa" always focus on Morocco and Taforalt as if that was the origin point or center of the Neolithic transition in "North Africa". It is not. And by doing so they present a false historical narrative that "North African" history was always exclusively made up of populations along the coast, separate from populations further South.
The Sahara is North Africa and has always been populated and those populations in history and their patterns of settlement are a key to the history of North Africa. But they keep excluding the Sahara from any reference to "North Africa", especially when it comes to DNA.
Anyway, all of that to say, populations in coastal North Africa are not monolithic and were not monolithic in history as having a single phenotype. This is nonsense yet you keep coming here pushing, trying to pretend that people are denying light skinned populations in North Africa. That isn't what I am saying. What I am saying is that the historic references to black people in North Africa is because it is in Africa and black people have always been there even though of course there are also plenty of lighter skinned Africans and mixed populations in present day North Africa. Nobody is denying that or claiming otherwise. However, what I personally have always been saying on this web site is that Africa is the birthplace of human diversity and most human features come from there even if those populations had dark skin. Face shape, nose shape and lip shape are all part of that diversity along with a range of hair textures and types. This "racial" thinking of trying to separate populations based on phenotypes as if they cannot overlap is something I do not believe in and isn't supported by historical facts.
No what you're trying to do is clear and in line with the usual afrocentrist narrative. You try to depict ancient coastal north africa as if it was New york or Brazil with a very heterogeneous populations and "blacks" here and there all of this in order to claim our civilizations that's why you keep bringing "Africa" "Sahara" "they were not separated from blacks further south" " the sahara was at one point green huh okay ?! "
The studies clearly show that the neolithic tradition in coastal north africa was not similar to traditions found in the Sahara and was not brought by any saharan population. Moreover they also show that throughout its history coastal north africa was not the brazil 2.0 you try to push but an area dominated by caucasoid populations who showed affinities with other west eurasian populations instead of sub-saharan africans.
Stop obsessing over a region that has absolutely nothing to do with you.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Anyway, diversity in Tunisia:
These are Africans, some with lighter skin, having mixture on top of that. But even still black features have always been there. And on top of that, Berber is not a race but a language and culture originating in Africa and the Sahara and practiced over history among a wide geographic area, not just along the coast. They have never been a monolith in terms of phenotype or features. [/QB]
Videos are ok except the third one since people from Douz are predominantely arab genetically according to a DNA paper (I also checked their results with G25)
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No, I am not being paranoid. The point is that these papers and studies talking about"North Africa" always focus on Morocco and Taforalt as if that was the origin point or center of the Neolithic transition in "North Africa". It is not. And by doing so they present a false historical narrative that "North African" history was always exclusively made up of populations along the coast, separate from populations further South.
The Sahara is North Africa and has always been populated and those populations in history and their patterns of settlement are a key to the history of North Africa. But they keep excluding the Sahara from any reference to "North Africa", especially when it comes to DNA.
Anyway, all of that to say, populations in coastal North Africa are not monolithic and were not monolithic in history as having a single phenotype. This is nonsense yet you keep coming here pushing, trying to pretend that people are denying light skinned populations in North Africa. That isn't what I am saying. What I am saying is that the historic references to black people in North Africa is because it is in Africa and black people have always been there even though of course there are also plenty of lighter skinned Africans and mixed populations in present day North Africa. Nobody is denying that or claiming otherwise. However, what I personally have always been saying on this web site is that Africa is the birthplace of human diversity and most human features come from there even if those populations had dark skin. Face shape, nose shape and lip shape are all part of that diversity along with a range of hair textures and types. This "racial" thinking of trying to separate populations based on phenotypes as if they cannot overlap is something I do not believe in and isn't supported by historical facts.
No what you're trying to do is clear and in line with the usual afrocentrist narrative. You try to depict ancient coastal north africa as if it was New york or Brazil with a very heterogeneous populations and "blacks" here and there all of this in order to claim our civilizations that's why you keep bringing "Africa" "Sahara" "they were not separated from blacks further south" " the sahara was at one point green huh okay ?! "
The studies clearly show that the neolithic tradition in coastal north africa was not similar to traditions found in the Sahara and was not brought by any saharan population. Moreover they also show that throughout its history coastal north africa was not the brazil 2.0 you try to push but an area dominated by caucasoid populations who showed affinities with other west eurasian populations instead of sub-saharan africans.
Stop obsessing over a region that has absolutely nothing to do with you.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Anyway, diversity in Tunisia:
These are Africans, some with lighter skin, having mixture on top of that. But even still black features have always been there. And on top of that, Berber is not a race but a language and culture originating in Africa and the Sahara and practiced over history among a wide geographic area, not just along the coast. They have never been a monolith in terms of phenotype or features.
Videos are ok except the third one since people from Douz are predominantely arab genetically according to a DNA paper (I also checked their results with G25) [/QB]
There is no Afrocentric narrative. Africa is Africa and there have always been black Africans in Africa. Your obsession with claiming otherwise is just absurd. And according to you white Europeans saying there were black Africans in North Africa are also "Afrocentric". That is just you and your usual gibberish.
There is a long history of black people in the Mediterranean some with "caucasoid" features and straight hair. All your attestations otherwise are irrelevant, as if these people just "made it up":
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There is no Afrocentric narrative. Africa is Africa and there have always been black Africans in Africa. Your obsession with claiming otherwise is just absurd. And according to you white Europeans saying there were black Africans in North Africa are also "Afrocentric". That is just you and your usual gibberish.
Africa is a continent not a country and the continent that host the highest ethnic diversity. Being a dark skinned african from a specific region doesn't mean you're native of all parts of Africa. The same way an indian is not native to Japan despite being an asian and japan located in Asia. So the only absurdity here is your muh african but we all know why you bring this.
White Scholars never said there were native black populations in coastal north africa or Egypt but only in the Sahara and the sahara wasn't seen as north africa back in ancient and medieval times you're simply projecting the modern borders unto the past ones.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There is a long history of black people in the Mediterranean some with "caucasoid" features and straight hair. All your attestations otherwise are irrelevant, as if these people just "made it up":
There was no "long history of black people in the mediterranean" historical sources show that they were rarely seen in this region (much less than today that's for sure) and were seen as very exotic/alien. The people you post here are minoans and we already have the dna results of such people they're related to modern south europeans certainly not any "black" population. The fact that they depicted the men as darker than the females is an old mediterranean artistic convention that we found in egypt, italy, greece, etc
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And of course this was also true in North Africa.
How do you know this is not a descendent of slave ? Even the french author of this pic wrote "negresse " so not even berber, north african, arab, etc
How many times are you going to deny this reality :
quote:Mass Arab enslavement of Black Africans began in the seventh century , soon after the founding of Islam and the beginning of Arab-Islamic civilisation. It lasted at least until the early part of the twentieth century. Roughly 4,820,000 Black Africans were taken into slavery in North Africa between 650 and 1600 AD alone (Harich et al. 2010). Approximately 14 million Blacks were wrenched from their homelands and forced into slavery in the Muslim World as a whole from the seventh to twentieth century (Harich et al. 2010).
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic