quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ^Actually you are citing me, in responce to qoucela. He/she appears to be having problems with the quotation function.
I'm lost, which comment is yours?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
^Actually you are citing me, in responce to qoucela. He/she appears to be having problems with the quotation function.
I'm lost, which comment is yours?
When you posted this piece, wherein it states 'originally posted by qoucela', that question was actually mine, in response to qoucela's post:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Who said Tuareg originated outside of Africa?
Are you saying Tamasheq speakers [Taureg] originated in Africa....migrated into Arabia, came back into Africa, then disappeared from Arabia?
Lay out your chronology for the African origin of the Tamasheq - their expansion into Arabia, return to Africa....and mysterious disappearance without a trace from Arabia, and all within the last 4,000 years...of *recorded* history. (???)
thanks.
^qoucela appears to be having some difficulty with properly using the quotation function, and so, I can understand where the confusion must have come from. But like I said in my edited last post, you've still managed to capture his/her mentality, with regards to the "Tuaregs".
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
My son needs to use the computer so this will be the last time I respond tonight. I already responded to your finding that genetics is confirming the eastern African and Bedja affiliation of the Tuareg, which I spoke about in my article on the Berbers in Dr. Van Sertima's the Golden Age of the Moors without the help of the genetics that has arisin in the last 20 years.
My name is Dana Reynolds-Marniche. The surname Marniche is Kabyle and having lived among them I've come to conclude they have much more affiliation with Greeks Romans and EuroMediterraneans than they do with Tuareg and the bulk of other dark Amazigh.
It is my understanding that Berber is part of the Afro-Asiatic linguistic grouping and that scholars have already discovered that the Tamashek dialect is related to other dialects of that group in and outside of Africa. The Tuareg name for their written script is Tifinagh meaning "belonging to the Phoenicians" (in case you didn't know it).
Finally - documented claims of the Lamtuna (Aulemmiden) Tuareg of Niger to Sir Richmond Palmer in the early 20th century were that they once lived in and came from Asia Minor (Levant) centuries before Alexander the Great. Other European explorers in the early 20th and 19th centuries, as well as many previous ones have been told similarly by the Tuareg and Bedja, Danakil and certain Ethio-semitic speakers. And yes, much of the early Arabian tradition does say that possible ancestors of the Tuareg - the tribes of Ad, Chadad, Thamud, Amlakhu, Pharis, Gathar Djurdjan (Triton)to name a few were either kicked out or exterminated from Arabia, and that after settling in and ruling Egypt "that many advanced to the Maghrib".
Again, I'll have to say I believe making assumptions about modern population movements has got to take into account cultural and ethnohistorical contexts and just because a certain population is or isn't present in Africa or Arabia now doesn't mean they were or were not in a certain location 3000 years ago.
Those who want some biography can read my articles in Dr. Van Sertima's books and start with those. Otherwise they can wait til I get my web-site back up again in which I will provide all of the evidence that is available to us as researchers.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
I don't consider the fact that the bulk of the ancestors of the Tuareg could have lived between the Gulf of Ailah and the southern Levant between 3000 years ago evidence of recent intrusion. However, most of the evidence that shows a connection to populations of the area is mostly archeological, physical anthropological, ethnohistorical, linguistic and logical. Sorry, there is no model to invoke here, but you can provide your multi-disciplinary model showing where the Tuareg tribes came from since you've implied there is one.
You bet.
Lineages:
code:
Y chromosomes---> Hg E - African . mtDNA-----------> Haplogroups L1, L2, L3,U6 - African
Language: "Berber"/Tamazigh - strictly African
Cultural anthropology: Documented accounts involving "Tuareg" groups: all place them strictly in Africa at the time of documentation.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I already responded to your finding that genetics is confirming the eastern African and Bedja affiliation of the Tuareg, which I spoke about in my article on the Berbers in Dr. Van Sertima's the Golden Age of the Moors without the help of the genetics that has arisin in the last 20 years.
Evergreen Writes:
I have respect for you and I have respect for the work of Dr. Van Sertima. In fact, as a undergrad I was head of my BSU and led the effort to bring Dr. Van Sertima to our campus. But many things have changed within the last 20 years.
We now know that there were populations indigenous to the Americas that explain the so-called Negroid characteristics among the early Olmec. We also now know that the Tuareg are indigenous to Africa thanks to a multidisciplinary approach.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Again, I'll have to say I believe making assumptions about modern population movements has got to take into account cultural and ethnohistorical contexts and just because a certain population is or isn't present in Africa or Arabia now doesn't mean they were or were not in a certain location 3000 years ago.
Evergreen Writes:
Again, I'll have to say I believe making assumptions about modern population movements has got to take into account cultural, ethnohistorical contexts, botany AND genetics.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
I bold parts which I want to emphasize; nothing more or less. If you see 'plagiarized distortion' anywhere wherein I've cited you, please feel free to point it out, and the specifics of where the claim has wrongly been attributed to you.
quote:qoucela:
My son needs to use the computer so this will be the last time I respond tonight. I already responded to your finding that genetics is confirming the eastern African and Bedja affiliation of the Tuareg, which I spoke about in my article on the Berbers in Dr. Van Sertima's the Golden Age of the Moors without the help of the genetics that has arisin in the last 20 years.
Which I take it, would be on the mention of E-M81.
quote:qoucela:
My name is Dana Reynolds-Marniche. The surname Marniche is Kabyle and having lived among them I've come to conclude they have much more affiliation with Greeks Romans and EuroMediterraneans than they do with Tuareg and the bulk of other dark Amazigh.
In what terms?
quote:qoucela:
It is my understanding that Berber is part of the Afro-Asiatic linguistic grouping and that scholars have already discovered that the Tamashek dialect is related to other dialects of that group in and outside of Africa.
You bet. It is related most closely with the "Berber" sub-family than the others in the Afrasan [you know it as "Afro-Asiatic"] macrofamily. To the extent that it ultimately relates to the Afrasan macro-family, yes, it would be related to other Afrasan languages outside of Africa, namely the extra-African Semitic languages. However, this is immaterial to the fact that "Tamazigh" spoken by Tuaregs isn't spoken and indigenous to anywhere else but Africa.
quote:qoucela:
Finally - documented claims of the Lamtuna (Aulemmiden) Tuareg of Niger to Sir Richmond Palmer in the early 20th century were that they once lived in and came from Asia Minor (Levant) centuries before Alexander the Great. Other European explorers in the early 20th and 19th centuries, as well as many previous ones have been told similarly by the Tuareg and Bedja, Danakil and certain Ethio-semitic speakers. And yes, much of the early Arabian tradition does say that possible ancestors of the Tuareg - the tribes of Ad, Chadad, Thamud, Amlakhu, Pharis, Gathar Djurdjan (Triton)to name a few were either kicked out or exterminated from Arabia, and that after settling in and ruling Egypt "that many advanced to the Maghrib".
The following recap may well be instructive:
quote:Originally posted by ausar:
Most of the Tuaregs don't claim to come from Yemen. According to their own oral legends they come from a female named Tin Hanan from Southern Morocco. The problem with much of the oral legends of Africans that embrace Islam is that many try to connect themselves back to points in Islamic history--i.e. the Songhai claiming to desend from Yemanis and Hausa claming they come from Iraq. Islamicized Africans were known to have fabricated geneologies and legends.
The Sanhaja mentioned are not primarly comprised of Tuaregs but many different groups of Saharan Imazigh[berber] groups. Tuaregs were only one part of them.
Something about the Tuareg people have to keep in mind is that there are various different Kels. Kels are like clan divisions that Somalis have. Most claim desendant from Tin Hanan and some from Lemtuna. If you knew who Lemtuna was then you would know she was a legendary queen and matriarch.
The Tuareg[Kel Tamelsheq] unlike Arabs or Semitic speaking populations are matrilineal and even matriarchical. Most have no problem with having queens ruling over them and honor females through sucession.
Tuareg relate their origins as the following:
Tuareg origin myths relate the Tuareg to Lemtuna, the ancestress of the Berbers who lived around Ghadames in Tripolitania (Nicolaisen 1963: p. 405). Another myth relates the Tuareg to the legendary Queen Tin Hinan who came to Abalessa in the Ahaggar region from Tafilelt in Morocco (p. 69). According to Prasse, these legends suggest the Tuareg of southern Algeria came from Libya and Morocco, and the Kel Ayr and Kel Geres have Libyan origins. Tuareg from Mali claim to have come from Morocco or Mauritania (p. 71). Tuareg society has always been characterized by rivalry between groups, and in time different groups have enjoyed supremacy over others (p. 72). When the French arrived in the Hoggar they were met with great resistance and peace was reached in 1917. It lasted until independence in 1960. The French let the Tuareg continue their nomadic lifestyles; however, they saw to it that no concentration of power emerged (p. 80). Although the French did think of setting up an independent Tuareg state, the idea never materialized (p. 80)
Is there an objective reasoning to doubt that the above is the case?
quote:qoucela:
Again, I'll have to say I believe making assumptions about modern population movements has got to take into account cultural and ethnohistorical contexts and just because a certain population is or isn't present in Africa or Arabia now doesn't mean they were or were not in a certain location 3000 years ago.
And what do you think we've been counting on; genetics alone? Of course not; we've taken into account, the linguistic and historical issues, which I've laid out in the post you are replying to, but never actually addressed specifically.
quote:qoucela:
Those who want some biography can read my articles in Dr. Van Sertima's books and start with those. Otherwise they can wait til I get my web-site back up again in which I will provide all of the evidence that is available to us as researchers.
No problem, I'll wait for answers that 'specifically' address the points made in my post(s).
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, if my mother's MtDNA were to show that her ancestors were related to the Yoruba of Nigeria, that may say nothing of where the Yoruba were at the time her African American ancestors left Africa
But that's a rather odd and ineffetual disputation of what genetics can usually teach us.
Consider:
In this case, your mothers DNA has already told you something of profound importance about - her ansestry.
Namely genetics has confirmed that although she lives in North America, her ancestry is *not* native to North America, but rather to Africa.
Genetics has correctly charted the migration from Africa to America.
You offer the caveat that your mother's genetics give us limited information about 'where the Yoruba' were thousands of years ago.
Well, that's true, but then you are not studying Yoruba, you are studying single African American, which is not the proper basis for charting Yoruban migrations.
In other words by the logic of your own admission .... if you study the Yoruba, you can learn about the history of their migrations....just like you learned about the history of your mother(s) ancestry by studying her DNA.
In my opinion your example proves the opposite of what you intend. It proves that if you study population X, you can learn about its migration history. All you are saying is that studying X may not be informative about Y. [where X is your mother and Y is Yoruba]
But of course, why would it?
To learn about population Y....you study Y.
Population genetics is much more powerful and informative than you credit it for, and I predict that as you continue to research this, you will eventually come to agree. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice to have you onboard. I've read, studied, and quoted you from two of your works in Dr. Van Sertima's journals.
A while back I raised issues here (and on the old sister forum) as to the relations and impact of the north Mediterraneans/Aegeans on the original indigenous littoral and further inland North African populations.
I posit, based on certain Minoan depictions of what I assume to be the indigenous eastern Libyans, that north Meds/Aegeans were culturally absorbed by but physically altered primarily the littoral North African populations (most notably those west of Tunisie).
The Meshwesh invasion of eastern Libya and ancient Egypt is another thing I base my supposition on. Certain "Sea Peoples" also have esh suffixed ethnonyms. None of these peoples names, though all appearing in AEL documents, seem to bear AEL lexical value.
I hold that the Imazighen only go back to the Meshwesh, have little to no relationship to the THHNW known to the AE's, and only became known as TMHHW by way of generalization.
I'll bump up the threads delving into these points for your input and analysis.
The bolding of your writings in other members responses is an automatic UBB function to aid identifying whose text was written by who. It can be defeated but that's up to the replying individual to chose to do or not to do. Hi-liting text helps emphasize the point being made (or debated. And make no mistake, the main thrust here is debate not discussion).
It's a rough and tumble crew here, but stick around for a while. Teach yourself basic population genetics. It's the powerfullest tool we have in modern Africana studies. I came here with a standard Africana background, much like your own, and after applying population genetics made strides in linking once baffling components of ethnography into a more sensable and stronger chain.
I own Bates and Palmer, and while they're good for cultural, linguistic, literary, etc., understanding nothing can reveal population origins the way genetics does. What those old scholars can do for us is help interpret some of the movement indicated by the genetics. We're moving on into the 21st century we can't remain shackled outside progress by late 19th and early 20th century methodologies.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Unfortunately, I've been so busy recently find myself unable to continue hours long discussions on the web. Thanks much for letting me know how to find out where to use the UBB code here, I think I need to be using HTML though. Will try to change it on my profile. Hopefully, will have time to look into it soon.
I have to respectfully disagree about your use of the term Imazighen since the Romans and Byzantines used the term Mezikes for the same people they termed "Ethiopians". For them the "Mazikes" were one of the Ethiopian groups. From what I have read that term has only recently been adopted by certain coastal Berbers, like the Kabyle, for nationalist purposes.
By the way the earliest Meshwesh or Mazaa-uaza and Temehou are portraye as dark colored while the later seem to be fair-skinned showing the Egyptians may haved use the terms general for the tribes that came to live to teh West of them. See Bates the Eastern Libyans. These people only appear in Egyptian tomb paintings in or after the 12th dynasty.
Anyway, I'm afraid my point about the Tuareg has been missed because of certain general lack of knowledge of ancient history of Africa and the ancient Near East Levant - not so much by you as by some others I've been speaking to and, I'm guessing what evidence I do provide on this blog is not going to be of much use for now.
Many of the Tuareg clan names can be traced back to Roman times including Kel Cadenit, Magherawa, Kel Zigguratu, Ifuren and Iforas, Wasuri, Ahaggar, Imakitan, Imazuragh, Kel Uraghen etc. In fact, as I tried to explain previously their clan names appear connected to names of peoples on both sides of the Nile anciently and across Sinai peninsula. The Ihaggaren Tuareg are said to have named the "hills of Hagar" the region of Hoggar or Ahaggar. The Tuareg ancestors in the time of the Romans were considered to belong to the tall people camel-owning people occupying the entirety of the coastal Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts (Ketama, Khitim, Macetae, Biblical Hittites). It is the Tuareg and related African people the tall Afar-Danakil who are associated with owning camels and who if we are to believe archeology brought the camel into Africa from Arabia.
When one understands that the Bedja (Medjayu)were living in Sinai even as late as the 20th century and agrees that these were likely the same as the people now suspected to have been called Midianites (or Madiau in Josephus), one should not be surprised to find such other names as the sons of Keturah ( Ketu south node of the moon) or Hagar (Rahu north node of the moon) - said to be the same person in Muslim and Judaic writings - and Madiau (Bedja), Afar or Iforas (Epher or Afra, Pharusii), the Kel Inneg Tuareg and Danakil or Anag of the Bedja), Ephah (Yafaai), and other related peoples of Hagar and Keturah today all among the dark-skinned groups in the Red Sea area on both sides. I am in the process of writing a paper on this so I won't elaborate any more here. I believe as the ancients that the Tuareg are an eastern branch of the Bedja.
Would like to add again though that becoming familiar with population genetics of Africa quite a few years ago had led me to believe that one might be able to determine biological relationships, but not necessarily the remote geographical origins of people, especially at this stage in its development.
This is why you see scholars such as Strouhal interviewed on the Discovery channel still claiming that North Africa and the Sahara many thousands of years ago were occupied early on by both "whites" from the Near East and "black Africans" and other supposedly educational TV programs, claiming pharoanic Egyptians were essentially a non-black population while Nubia was black African - the land of the so called black Pharaohs.
I should have known it was coming. When I first began in the 1980s to look at population studies done to determine the origin of "the Berbers", I noticed these studies were usually being done on peoples that should never have been considered related to the original Berber-speakers- Tuareg or Kel Tamashek (Imazighen, Imoshagh) - in the first place. Because geneticists that were specializing in research on their ascertained Berbers(Kabyle, Shawia, and several northern Algerian and Moroccan tribes) were for the most part lacking historical, archeological and linguistic expertise of North Africa, they could only come to such conclusions as "the Berbers are largely of Eurasian and southern Mediterranean affiliation" and to such theories that fair-skinned Berbers must be essentially Caucasoid and have come arrived back in Africa over ten thousand years ago to help in the developent of the Saharan holocene. In fact, studies on physical anthropology had proven that most populations around the ancient Mediterranean and throughout the Near East involved in the neolithic agricultural revolution, including both the entire area of the Mediterranean, north and south, were greatly differentiated osteologically from modern day populations. As different as black and white.
This is why Sergi and others developed the terms "brown Mediterranean type" or "hamitic" "southern Mediterranean type". Unlike "Hamites", the modern fair-skinned Berbers, Euro-Mediterraneans and people of the Levant tend to be mesocranic and even brachycephalic as in the case of the Levant and southern Italy - unlike the ancient coastal North Africans and mostancient Mediterraneans previous to 1000 B.C. Tuareg on the other hand are often ultra-dolicocephalic and have many features in common with the Nilotes and Ethiopians.
Many Western and Central Africans also show more mesocranic connections, no doubt due to their being evolved from mixtures between the ancient dolicochocephals, mesocranic and brachycephals once occupying the Nile region and Sahara region. I understand a lot of scholars don't like to rely on cranial cephalic assessments any more, and when one looks at what was discovered by such early physical anthropologists as Sergi, Mellarte (Chatal Huyuk), Haddon, Grafton Elliot Smith and Coon one can easily understand why. For example, how could the Canaan of the Phoenicians be predominantly dolichocephalic and yet modern day populations of the same location considerably brachycephalic. Nationalism gets in the way. The fact is the Phoenicians have long disappeared from the Levant.
The ancient Levant, except for parts of Israel Palestine/Lashich etc. also until around 900 BC (probably due to some drastic change of population) became largely occupied by a stockier built, brachycephalic people ancestral to today's "Middle Eastern" population of that region.
Also, last time I dared to look, as far as I know, the so-called population genetics studies had led to conclusions that modern Egyptians evolved from ancient Egyptians, when in fact, the earlier genetic studies based on presence of genetic traits show that the homogeneity that was present in ancient Egypt stopped dead around the time of the Ptolemaic Greek intrusion into Egypt.
Therefore, ancient Egyptians, although having contributed to modern populations in Egypt should not be considered a heterogeneous people like todays Egyptian who is a product of a long evolution of amalgamating Eurasian and African peoples.
Also, please do not give up your ancient Fulani heritage which included a strong connection with Birzeit YaPhlet populations of the Near East (see Palmer's Bornu Sahara and Sudan on the Warith Fulata and Barzu Fulitani of Syrian provenance) just because some European has come along 3000 years later, conceiving studies to benefit himself and decided his direct ancestors were there in your stead.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Nice to have you onboard. I've read, studied, and quoted you from two of your works in Dr. Van Sertima's journals.
A while back I raised issues here (and on the old sister forum) as to the relations and impact of the north Mediterraneans/Aegeans on the original indigenous littoral and further inland North African populations.
I posit, based on certain Minoan depictions of what I assume to be the indigenous eastern Libyans, that north Meds/Aegeans were culturally absorbed by but physically altered primarily the littoral North African populations (most notably those west of Tunisie).
The Meshwesh invasion of eastern Libya and ancient Egypt is another thing I base my supposition on. Certain "Sea Peoples" also have esh suffixed ethnonyms. None of these peoples names, though all appearing in AEL documents, seem to bear AEL lexical value.
I hold that the Imazighen only go back to the Meshwesh, have little to no relationship to the THHNW known to the AE's, and only became known as TMHHW by way of generalization.
I'll bump up the threads delving into these points for your input and analysis.
The bolding of your writings in other members responses is an automatic UBB function to aid identifying whose text was written by who. It can be defeated but that's up to the replying individual to chose to do or not to do. Hi-liting text helps emphasize the point being made (or debated. And make no mistake, the main thrust here is debate not discussion).
It's a rough and tumble crew here, but stick around for a while. Teach yourself basic population genetics. It's the powerfullest tool we have in modern Africana studies. I came here with a standard Africana background, much like your own, and after applying population genetics made strides in linking once baffling components of ethnography into a more sensable and stronger chain.
I own Bates and Palmer, and while they're good for cultural, linguistic, literary, etc., understanding nothing can reveal population origins the way genetics does. What those old scholars can do for us is help interpret some of the movement indicated by the genetics. We're moving on into the 21st century we can't remain shackled outside progress by late 19th and early 20th century methodologies.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Unfortunately, I've been so busy recently find myself unable to continue hours long discussions on the web. Thanks much for letting me know how to find out where to use the UBB code here, I think I need to be using HTML though. Will try to change it on my profile. Hopefully, will have time to look into it soon.
I have to respectfully disagree about your use of the term Imazighen since the Romans and Byzantines used the term Mezikes for the same people they termed "Ethiopians". For them the "Mazikes" were one of the Ethiopian groups. From what I have read that term has only recently been adopted by certain coastal Berbers, like the Kabyle, for nationalist purposes.
By the way the earliest Meshwesh or Mazaa-uaza and Temehou are portraye as dark colored while the later seem to be fair-skinned showing the Egyptians may haved use the terms general for the tribes that came to live to teh West of them. See Bates the Eastern Libyans. These people only appear in Egyptian tomb paintings in or after the 12th dynasty.
Anyway, I'm afraid my point about the Tuareg has been missed because of certain general lack of knowledge of ancient history of Africa and the ancient Near East Levant - not so much by you as by some others I've been speaking to and, I'm guessing what evidence I do provide on this blog is not going to be of much use for now.
Many of the Tuareg clan names can be traced back to Roman times including Kel Cadenit, Magherawa, Kel Zigguratu, Ifuren and Iforas, Wasuri, Ahaggar, Imakitan, Imazuragh, Kel Uraghen etc. In fact, as I tried to explain previously their clan names appear connected to names of peoples on both sides of the Nile anciently and across Sinai peninsula. The Ihaggaren Tuareg are said to have named the "hills of Hagar" the region of Hoggar or Ahaggar. The Tuareg ancestors in the time of the Romans were considered to belong to the tall people camel-owning people occupying the entirety of the coastal Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts (Ketama, Khitim, Macetae, Biblical Hittites). It is the Tuareg and related African people the tall Afar-Danakil who are associated with owning camels and who if we are to believe archeology brought the camel into Africa from Arabia.
When one understands that the Bedja (Medjayu)were living in Sinai even as late as the 20th century and agrees that these were likely the same as the people now suspected to have been called Midianites (or Madiau in Josephus), one should not be surprised to find such other names as the sons of Keturah ( Ketu south node of the moon) or Hagar (Rahu north node of the moon) - said to be the same person in Muslim and Judaic writings - and Madiau (Bedja), Afar or Iforas (Epher or Afra, Pharusii), the Kel Inneg Tuareg and Danakil or Anag of the Bedja), Ephah (Yafaai), and other related peoples of Hagar and Keturah today all among the dark-skinned groups in the Red Sea area on both sides. I am in the process of writing a paper on this so I won't elaborate any more here. I believe as the ancients that the Tuareg are an eastern branch of the Bedja.
Would like to add again though that becoming familiar with population genetics of Africa quite a few years ago had led me to believe that one might be able to determine biological relationships, but not necessarily the remote geographical origins of people, especially at this stage in its development.
This is why you see scholars such as Strouhal interviewed on the Discovery channel still claiming that North Africa and the Sahara many thousands of years ago were occupied early on by both "whites" from the Near East and "black Africans" and other supposedly educational TV programs, claiming pharoanic Egyptians were essentially a non-black population while Nubia was black African - the land of the so called black Pharaohs.
I should have known it was coming. When I first began in the 1980s to look at population studies done to determine the origin of "the Berbers", I noticed these studies were usually being done on peoples that should never have been considered related to the original Berber-speakers- Tuareg or Kel Tamashek (Imazighen, Imoshagh) - in the first place. Because geneticists that were specializing in research on their ascertained Berbers(Kabyle, Shawia, and several northern Algerian and Moroccan tribes) were for the most part lacking historical, archeological and linguistic expertise of North Africa, they could only come to such conclusions as "the Berbers are largely of Eurasian and southern Mediterranean affiliation" and to such theories that fair-skinned Berbers must be essentially Caucasoid and have come arrived back in Africa over ten thousand years ago to help in the developent of the Saharan holocene. In fact, studies on physical anthropology had proven that most populations around the ancient Mediterranean and throughout the Near East involved in the neolithic agricultural revolution, including both the entire area of the Mediterranean, north and south, were greatly differentiated osteologically from modern day populations. As different as black and white.
This is why Sergi and others developed the terms "brown Mediterranean type" or "hamitic" "southern Mediterranean type". Unlike "Hamites", the modern fair-skinned Berbers, Euro-Mediterraneans and people of the Levant tend to be mesocranic and even brachycephalic as in the case of the Levant and southern Italy - unlike the ancient coastal North Africans and mostancient Mediterraneans previous to 1000 B.C. Tuareg on the other hand are often ultra-dolicocephalic and have many features in common with the Nilotes and Ethiopians.
Many Western and Central Africans also show more mesocranic connections, no doubt due to their being evolved from mixtures between the ancient dolicochocephals, mesocranic and brachycephals once occupying the Nile region and Sahara region. I understand a lot of scholars don't like to rely on cranial cephalic assessments any more, and when one looks at what was discovered by such early physical anthropologists as Sergi, Mellarte (Chatal Huyuk), Haddon, Grafton Elliot Smith and Coon one can easily understand why. For example, how could the Canaan of the Phoenicians be predominantly dolichocephalic and yet modern day populations of the same location considerably brachycephalic. Nationalism gets in the way. The fact is the Phoenicians have long disappeared from the Levant.
The ancient Levant, except for parts of Israel Palestine/Lashich etc. also until around 900 BC (probably due to some drastic change of population) became largely occupied by a stockier built, brachycephalic people ancestral to today's "Middle Eastern" population of that region.
Also, last time I dared to look, as far as I know, the so-called population genetics studies had led to conclusions that modern Egyptians evolved from ancient Egyptians, when in fact, the earlier genetic studies based on presence of genetic traits show that the homogeneity that was present in ancient Egypt stopped dead around the time of the Ptolemaic Greek intrusion into Egypt.
Therefore, ancient Egyptians, although having contributed to modern populations in Egypt should not be considered a heterogeneous people like todays Egyptian who is a product of a long evolution of amalgamating Eurasian and African peoples.
Also, please do not give up your ancient Fulani heritage which included a strong connection with Birzeit YaPhlet populations of the Near East (see Palmer's Bornu Sahara and Sudan on the Warith Fulata and Barzu Fulitani of Syrian provenance) just because some European has come along 3000 years later, conceiving studies to benefit himself and decided his direct ancestors were there in your stead.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Nice to have you onboard. I've read, studied, and quoted you from two of your works in Dr. Van Sertima's journals.
A while back I raised issues here (and on the old sister forum) as to the relations and impact of the north Mediterraneans/Aegeans on the original indigenous littoral and further inland North African populations.
I posit, based on certain Minoan depictions of what I assume to be the indigenous eastern Libyans, that north Meds/Aegeans were culturally absorbed by but physically altered primarily the littoral North African populations (most notably those west of Tunisie).
The Meshwesh invasion of eastern Libya and ancient Egypt is another thing I base my supposition on. Certain "Sea Peoples" also have esh suffixed ethnonyms. None of these peoples names, though all appearing in AEL documents, seem to bear AEL lexical value.
I hold that the Imazighen only go back to the Meshwesh, have little to no relationship to the THHNW known to the AE's, and only became known as TMHHW by way of generalization.
I'll bump up the threads delving into these points for your input and analysis.
The bolding of your writings in other members responses is an automatic UBB function to aid identifying whose text was written by who. It can be defeated but that's up to the replying individual to chose to do or not to do. Hi-liting text helps emphasize the point being made (or debated. And make no mistake, the main thrust here is debate not discussion).
It's a rough and tumble crew here, but stick around for a while. Teach yourself basic population genetics. It's the powerfullest tool we have in modern Africana studies. I came here with a standard Africana background, much like your own, and after applying population genetics made strides in linking once baffling components of ethnography into a more sensable and stronger chain.
I own Bates and Palmer, and while they're good for cultural, linguistic, literary, etc., understanding nothing can reveal population origins the way genetics does. What those old scholars can do for us is help interpret some of the movement indicated by the genetics. We're moving on into the 21st century we can't remain shackled outside progress by late 19th and early 20th century methodologies.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Unfortunately, I've been so busy recently find myself unable to continue hours long discussions on the web. Thanks much for letting me know how to find out where to use the UBB code here, I think I need to be using HTML though. Will try to change it on my profile. Hopefully, will have time to look into it soon.
I have to respectfully disagree about your use of the term Imazighen since the Romans and Byzantines used the term Mezikes for the same people they termed "Ethiopians". For them the "Mazikes" were one of the Ethiopian groups. From what I have read that term has only recently been adopted by certain coastal Berbers, like the Kabyle, for nationalist purposes.
By the way the earliest Meshwesh or Mazaa-uaza and Temehou are portraye as dark colored while the later seem to be fair-skinned showing the Egyptians may haved use the terms general for the tribes that came to live to teh West of them. See Bates the Eastern Libyans. These people only appear in Egyptian tomb paintings in or after the 12th dynasty.
Anyway, I'm afraid my point about the Tuareg has been missed because of certain general lack of knowledge of ancient history of Africa and the ancient Near East Levant - not so much by you as by some others I've been speaking to and, I'm guessing what evidence I do provide on this blog is not going to be of much use for now.
Many of the Tuareg clan names can be traced back to Roman times including Kel Cadenit, Magherawa, Kel Zigguratu, Ifuren and Iforas, Wasuri, Ahaggar, Imakitan, Imazuragh, Kel Uraghen etc. In fact, as I tried to explain previously their clan names appear connected to names of peoples on both sides of the Nile anciently and across Sinai peninsula. The Ihaggaren Tuareg are said to have named the "hills of Hagar" the region of Hoggar or Ahaggar. The Tuareg ancestors in the time of the Romans were considered to belong to the tall people camel-owning people occupying the entirety of the coastal Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts (Ketama, Khitim, Macetae, Biblical Hittites). It is the Tuareg and related African people the tall Afar-Danakil who are associated with owning camels and who if we are to believe archeology brought the camel into Africa from Arabia.
When one understands that the Bedja (Medjayu)were living in Sinai even as late as the 20th century and agrees that these were likely the same as the people now suspected to have been called Midianites (or Madiau in Josephus), one should not be surprised to find such other names as the sons of Keturah ( Ketu south node of the moon) or Hagar (Rahu north node of the moon) - said to be the same person in Muslim and Judaic writings - and Madiau (Bedja), Afar or Iforas (Epher or Afra, Pharusii), the Kel Inneg Tuareg and Danakil or Anag of the Bedja), Ephah (Yafaai), and other related peoples of Hagar and Keturah today all among the dark-skinned groups in the Red Sea area on both sides. I am in the process of writing a paper on this so I won't elaborate any more here. I believe as the ancients that the Tuareg are an eastern branch of the Bedja.
Would like to add again though that becoming familiar with population genetics of Africa quite a few years ago had led me to believe that one might be able to determine biological relationships, but not necessarily the remote geographical origins of people, especially at this stage in its development.
This is why you see scholars such as Strouhal interviewed on the Discovery channel still claiming that North Africa and the Sahara many thousands of years ago were occupied early on by both "whites" from the Near East and "black Africans" and other supposedly educational TV programs, claiming pharoanic Egyptians were essentially a non-black population while Nubia was black African - the land of the so called black Pharaohs.
I should have known it was coming. When I first began in the 1980s to look at population studies done to determine the origin of "the Berbers", I noticed these studies were usually being done on peoples that should never have been considered related to the original Berber-speakers- Tuareg or Kel Tamashek (Imazighen, Imoshagh) - in the first place. Because geneticists that were specializing in research on their ascertained Berbers(Kabyle, Shawia, and several northern Algerian and Moroccan tribes) were for the most part lacking historical, archeological and linguistic expertise of North Africa, they could only come to such conclusions as "the Berbers are largely of Eurasian and southern Mediterranean affiliation" and to such theories that fair-skinned Berbers must be essentially Caucasoid and have come arrived back in Africa over ten thousand years ago to help in the developent of the Saharan holocene. In fact, studies on physical anthropology had proven that most populations around the ancient Mediterranean and throughout the Near East involved in the neolithic agricultural revolution, including both the entire area of the Mediterranean, north and south, were greatly differentiated osteologically from modern day populations. As different as black and white.
This is why Sergi and others developed the terms "brown Mediterranean type" or "hamitic" "southern Mediterranean type". Unlike "Hamites", the modern fair-skinned Berbers, Euro-Mediterraneans and people of the Levant tend to be mesocranic and even brachycephalic as in the case of the Levant and southern Italy - unlike the ancient coastal North Africans and mostancient Mediterraneans previous to 1000 B.C. Tuareg on the other hand are often ultra-dolicocephalic and have many features in common with the Nilotes and Ethiopians.
Many Western and Central Africans also show more mesocranic connections, no doubt due to their being evolved from mixtures between the ancient dolicochocephals, mesocranic and brachycephals once occupying the Nile region and Sahara region. I understand a lot of scholars don't like to rely on cranial cephalic assessments any more, and when one looks at what was discovered by such early physical anthropologists as Sergi, Mellarte (Chatal Huyuk), Haddon, Grafton Elliot Smith and Coon one can easily understand why. For example, how could the Canaan of the Phoenicians be predominantly dolichocephalic and yet modern day populations of the same location considerably brachycephalic. Nationalism gets in the way. The fact is the Phoenicians have long disappeared from the Levant.
The ancient Levant, except for parts of Israel Palestine/Lashich etc. also until around 900 BC (probably due to some drastic change of population) became largely occupied by a stockier built, brachycephalic people ancestral to today's "Middle Eastern" population of that region.
Also, last time I dared to look, as far as I know, the so-called population genetics studies had led to conclusions that modern Egyptians evolved from ancient Egyptians, when in fact, the earlier genetic studies based on presence of genetic traits show that the homogeneity that was present in ancient Egypt stopped dead around the time of the Ptolemaic Greek intrusion into Egypt.
Therefore, ancient Egyptians, although having contributed to modern populations in Egypt should not be considered a heterogeneous people like todays Egyptian who is a product of a long evolution of amalgamating Eurasian and African peoples.
Also, please do not give up your ancient Fulani heritage which included a strong connection with Birzeit YaPhlet populations of the Near East (see Palmer's Bornu Sahara and Sudan on the Warith Fulata and Barzu Fulitani of Syrian provenance) just because some European has come along 3000 years later, conceiving studies to benefit himself and decided his direct ancestors were there in your stead.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Nice to have you onboard. I've read, studied, and quoted you from two of your works in Dr. Van Sertima's journals.
A while back I raised issues here (and on the old sister forum) as to the relations and impact of the north Mediterraneans/Aegeans on the original indigenous littoral and further inland North African populations.
I posit, based on certain Minoan depictions of what I assume to be the indigenous eastern Libyans, that north Meds/Aegeans were culturally absorbed by but physically altered primarily the littoral North African populations (most notably those west of Tunisie).
The Meshwesh invasion of eastern Libya and ancient Egypt is another thing I base my supposition on. Certain "Sea Peoples" also have esh suffixed ethnonyms. None of these peoples names, though all appearing in AEL documents, seem to bear AEL lexical value.
I hold that the Imazighen only go back to the Meshwesh, have little to no relationship to the THHNW known to the AE's, and only became known as TMHHW by way of generalization.
I'll bump up the threads delving into these points for your input and analysis.
The bolding of your writings in other members responses is an automatic UBB function to aid identifying whose text was written by who. It can be defeated but that's up to the replying individual to chose to do or not to do. Hi-liting text helps emphasize the point being made (or debated. And make no mistake, the main thrust here is debate not discussion).
It's a rough and tumble crew here, but stick around for a while. Teach yourself basic population genetics. It's the powerfullest tool we have in modern Africana studies. I came here with a standard Africana background, much like your own, and after applying population genetics made strides in linking once baffling components of ethnography into a more sensable and stronger chain.
I own Bates and Palmer, and while they're good for cultural, linguistic, literary, etc., understanding nothing can reveal population origins the way genetics does. What those old scholars can do for us is help interpret some of the movement indicated by the genetics. We're moving on into the 21st century we can't remain shackled outside progress by late 19th and early 20th century methodologies.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:By the way the earliest Meshwesh or Mazaa-uaza and Temehou are portraye as dark colored while the later seem to be fair-skinned showing the Egyptians may haved use the terms general for the tribes that came to live to teh West of them. See Bates the Eastern Libyans. These people only appear in Egyptian tomb paintings in or after the 12th dynasty.
Yes this is correct...also:
The Egyptians called the population of the neighboring Libya `Tehenu.' They were pictured with dark complexion and curly hair [Ahmed Fakhir, `Siwa Oasis', (Cairo, 1973), p. 75]Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Many of the Tuareg clan names can be traced back to Roman times including Kel Cadenit, Magherawa, Kel Zigguratu, Ifuren and Iforas, Wasuri, Ahaggar, Imakitan, Imazuragh, Kel Uraghen etc. In fact, as I tried to explain previously their clan names appear connected to names of peoples on both sides of the Nile anciently and across Sinai peninsula.
^ Assuming that this is so, how does it lead to the conclusion that they originate across the Sinai Peninsula?
It is already agreed the Berber Languages and perhaps even Semitic originated in East Africa, so even if we accept what you say, I'm not sure it proves what you claim?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Tuareg ancestors in the time of the Romans were considered to belong to the tall people camel-owning people occupying the entirety of the coastal Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts (Ketama, Khitim, Macetae, Biblical Hittites). It is the Tuareg and related African people the tall Afar-Danakil who are associated with owning camels and who if we are to believe archeology brought the camel into Africa from Arabia.
Are you saying that the Afar also come from Arabia?
Again let's say the Taureg and Afar and Fulani and others introduced the camel throughout North Africa - how would that prove they originate in Arabia?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When one understands that the Bedja (Medjayu)were living in Sinai even as late as the 20th century
Are you now implying the Beja originate in SouthWest Asia. (?)
It seems that your thesis is simply this - any East African who can ever been shown to have any contact with the levantine - must have originated in the Levantine. (??)
How is this any better than the worst of the Eurocentrist and Hamitic hypothesis? ?
^ sigh -> this is why you would be well served to study genetics. it would put a stop to the 'anything goes' approach to population history which wastes too much of our time as studients of african history. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I have to respectfully disagree about your use of the term Imazighen since the Romans and Byzantines used the term Mezikes for the same people they termed "Ethiopians". For them the "Mazikes" were one of the Ethiopian groups. From what I have read that term has only recently been adopted by certain coastal Berbers, like the Kabyle, for nationalist purposes.
From what I've come across, even Tuaregs refer to their languages under the general term of Tamazigh. What is your evidence that Romans invented this term, as opposed to have heard it from North Africans at the time? These African groups rarely refer to themselves by ethno-constructs from outsiders.
quote:qoucela By the way the earliest Meshwesh or Mazaa-uaza and Temehou are portraye as dark colored while the later seem to be fair-skinned showing the Egyptians may haved use the terms general for the tribes that came to live to teh West of them. See Bates the Eastern Libyans. These people only appear in Egyptian tomb paintings in or after the 12th dynasty.
If memory serves me correctly, the Tehenou were the earlier groups, usually represented in dark skin hues, while the Tamehou appellation was applied to the 'deshret' pale looking figures.
quote:qoucela:
Anyway, I'm afraid my point about the Tuareg has been missed because of certain general lack of knowledge of ancient history of Africa and the ancient Near East Levant - not so much by you as by some others I've been speaking to and, I'm guessing what evidence I do provide on this blog is not going to be of much use for now.
What point was missed, and specifically by whom?
quote:qoucela:
Many of the Tuareg clan names can be traced back to Roman times including Kel Cadenit, Magherawa, Kel Zigguratu, Ifuren and Iforas, Wasuri, Ahaggar, Imakitan, Imazuragh, Kel Uraghen etc.
Are these based on specific Roman sources, or...?
quote:qoucela:
In fact, as I tried to explain previously their clan names appear connected to names of peoples on both sides of the Nile anciently and across Sinai peninsula. The Ihaggaren Tuareg are said to have named the "hills of Hagar" the region of Hoggar or Ahaggar. The Tuareg ancestors in the time of the Romans were considered to belong to the tall people camel-owning people occupying the entirety of the coastal Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts (Ketama, Khitim, Macetae, Biblical Hittites). It is the Tuareg and related African people the tall Afar-Danakil who are associated with owning camels and who if we are to believe archeology brought the camel into Africa from Arabia.
When did they bring the camel to Africa?
quote:qoucela:
When one understands that the Bedja (Medjayu)were living in Sinai even as late as the 20th century and agrees that these were likely the same as the people now suspected to have been called Midianites (or Madiau in Josephus), one should not be surprised to find such other names as the sons of Keturah ( Ketu south node of the moon) or Hagar (Rahu north node of the moon) - said to be the same person in Muslim and Judaic writings - and Madiau (Bedja), Afar or Iforas (Epher or Afra, Pharusii), the Kel Inneg Tuareg and Danakil or Anag of the Bedja), Ephah (Yafaai), and other related peoples of Hagar and Keturah today all among the dark-skinned groups in the Red Sea area on both sides. I am in the process of writing a paper on this so I won't elaborate any more here. I believe as the ancients that the Tuareg are an eastern branch of the Bedja.
The Beja, like Tuaregs, speak languages that are exclusive to the African continent...and like the Tuareg, their bio-history places them within the African continent.
quote:qoucela:
Would like to add again though that becoming familiar with population genetics of Africa quite a few years ago had led me to believe that one might be able to determine biological relationships, but not necessarily the remote geographical origins of people, especially at this stage in its development.
This is where you made the miscalculation. DNA can be quite good trackers of remote geographical origins of people.
quote:qoucela:
This is why you see scholars such as Strouhal interviewed on the Discovery channel still claiming that North Africa and the Sahara many thousands of years ago were occupied early on by both "whites" from the Near East and "black Africans" and other supposedly educational TV programs, claiming pharoanic Egyptians were essentially a non-black population while Nubia was black African - the land of the so called black Pharaohs.
I should have known it was coming. When I first began in the 1980s to look at population studies done to determine the origin of "the Berbers", I noticed these studies were usually being done on peoples that should never have been considered related to the original Berber-speakers- Tuareg or Kel Tamashek (Imazighen, Imoshagh) - in the first place. Because geneticists that were specializing in research on their ascertained Berbers(Kabyle, Shawia, and several northern Algerian and Moroccan tribes) were for the most part lacking historical, archeological and linguistic expertise of North Africa, they could only come to such conclusions as "the Berbers are largely of Eurasian and southern Mediterranean affiliation" and to such theories that fair-skinned Berbers must be essentially Caucasoid and have come arrived back in Africa over ten thousand years ago to help in the developent of the Saharan holocene. In fact, studies on physical anthropology had proven that most populations around the ancient Mediterranean and throughout the Near East involved in the neolithic agricultural revolution, including both the entire area of the Mediterranean, north and south, were greatly differentiated osteologically from modern day populations. As different as black and white.
This is why Sergi and others developed the terms "brown Mediterranean type" or "hamitic" "southern Mediterranean type". Unlike "Hamites", the modern fair-skinned Berbers, Euro-Mediterraneans and people of the Levant tend to be mesocranic and even brachycephalic as in the case of the Levant and southern Italy - unlike the ancient coastal North Africans and mostancient Mediterraneans previous to 1000 B.C. Tuareg on the other hand are often ultra-dolicocephalic and have many features in common with the Nilotes and Ethiopians.
Many Western and Central Africans also show more mesocranic connections, no doubt due to their being evolved from mixtures between the ancient dolicochocephals, mesocranic and brachycephals once occupying the Nile region and Sahara region. I understand a lot of scholars don't like to rely on cranial cephalic assessments any more, and when one looks at what was discovered by such early physical anthropologists as Sergi, Mellarte (Chatal Huyuk), Haddon, Grafton Elliot Smith and Coon one can easily understand why. For example, how could the Canaan of the Phoenicians be predominantly dolichocephalic and yet modern day populations of the same location considerably brachycephalic. Nationalism gets in the way. The fact is the Phoenicians have long disappeared from the Levant.
The ancient Levant, except for parts of Israel Palestine/Lashich etc. also until around 900 BC (probably due to some drastic change of population) became largely occupied by a stockier built, brachycephalic people ancestral to today's "Middle Eastern" population of that region.
These sort of early anthropological assessments have now been discredited; many of these anthropological bagages about "Mediterranean" types were justified under the banner of studying "Paleolithic" crania from Europe [e.g., the likes of Cro-Magnon], and crania from late Paleolithic to early Holocene specimens from North Africa. However, population genetics has shown that the bulk of the gene pool of contemporary coastal North African "berber speakers" is not of paleolithic provenance.
quote:qoucela:
Also, last time I dared to look, as far as I know, the so-called population genetics studies had led to conclusions that modern Egyptians evolved from ancient Egyptians, when in fact, the earlier genetic studies based on presence of genetic traits show that the homogeneity that was present in ancient Egypt stopped dead around the time of the Ptolemaic Greek intrusion into Egypt.
Actually, population genetics notes that there was back-migration into the Nile Valley throughout various timeframes, and adding to the indigenous gene pool.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is why Sergi and others developed the terms "brown Mediterranean type" or "hamitic" "southern Mediterranean type". Unlike "Hamites", the modern fair-skinned Berbers, Euro-Mediterraneans and people of the Levant.
Agreed.
quote:Also, last time I dared to look, as far as I know, the so-called population genetics studies had led to conclusions that modern Egyptians evolved from ancient Egyptians.
Careful.
These comments are weak generalisations - state which genetic studies you are referencing so we can assess their conclusions specifically.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry to be so verbose, but I forgot to mention another frequently missed point. The fact that there are few people left in Arabia with DNA similar to Tuarek and Bedja says absolutely nothing of those ancient populations. The Tuarek and other tribes that left into Africa brought their names and DNA with them, those that remained have since mixed with other people.
I am so with that. I heared this from a moroccan who said that the berbers came from s. europe, levant, arabia, and east africa.
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
^The title/topic of this thread is 'anthroprometry and genetics.'
This kind of 'argument' is known as heresay. Heresay is not evidence. Heresay is the 'weak' semanticists attempt to bolster and unsound position in the absense of any evidence.
quote:The fact that there are few people left in Arabia with DNA similar to Tuarek and Bedja says absolutely nothing of those ancient populations
How many people there are in Arabia is completely irrelevant. There are 1 billion people in India, but they don't have the Native African lineages of the Toureg and Beja either.
But all other Africans do.
Lineage is *ancestry*.
You can't make Beja or Toureg imaginery immigrants into Africa because genetics shows they have the same *native* lineages - the same ancestry - as other Africans.
You can't make them imaginary Arabians because Arabians do not have these lineages [ancestry].
The fact is that the Toureg and Beja originate in Africa according to genetics and linguistics and archeology, historical record and anthropology.
You have no evidence from any discipline to the contrary because none exists.
quote:Tuarek and other tribes that left into Africa brought their names and DNA with them
If this were true their DNA would be distinct from Native Africans...yet it isn't.
However it is distinct from Arabians.
You really need to study genetics.
Between you with your Arabian Toureg and Winters and his Japanese Mandingo, well.... You are both asserting something that can be scientifically disproven, and asserting it ultimately based on ignorance of science.
It's as if you are claiming the world is flat, and not round, and denying the simple trigonometry that falsifies such a claim.
Such denial is only possible if you are ignorant of mathamatics and willfully so.
Same with genetics and your fanciful-origin hypothesis.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who is this 'qoucela' guy anyway? Is this our Berber fellow, Mazigh?
At first, his post seemed to be refuting the Hamitic hypothesis, then it turns out he is supporting it with his claims of Tuareg and Beja originating from Africa!
Rasol is correct that such claims are refuted by all 4 disciplines of linguistics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and genetics.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Post edited by Djehuti: Who is this 'qoucela' guy anyway? Is this our Berber fellow, Mazigh?
At first, his post seemed to be refuting the Hamitic hypothesis, then it turns out he is supporting it with his claims of Tuareg and Beja originating from ARABIA!
Rasol is correct that such claims are refuted by all 4 disciplines of linguistics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and genetics.
^Is what I meant to say.
Is this the same Dana Reynolds-Marniche who wrote various articles and books including some for Ivan Van-Sertima? I'm surprised that her of all people could be making such a claim now of Arabian originated Tuareg and Beja.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Post edited by Djehuti: Who is this 'qoucela' guy anyway? Is this our Berber fellow, Mazigh?
At first, his post seemed to be refuting the Hamitic hypothesis, then it turns out he is supporting it with his claims of Tuareg and Beja originating from ARABIA!
Rasol is correct that such claims are refuted by all 4 disciplines of linguistics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and genetics.
^Is what I meant to say.
Is this the same Dana Reynolds-Marniche who wrote various articles and books including some for Ivan Van-Sertima? I'm surprised that her of all people could be making such a claim now of Arabian originated Tuareg and Beja.
This is done for the same perverse reasoning that causes some Africanists scholars to attempt to move the Berber language to Arabia, or even Germany.
They are trying to show that the original inhabitants of the Sahara were Black.
They accept/assume that Berber means 'not black'... so they try to show that Berber are not native to Africa.
The folly involved in this effort is somewhat exasperating because it's and utterly self defeating discourse on their part, but they can't see that.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^LOL It seems that such 'Africanists' have bought into the debunked Eurocentric notion of non-black Berbers, even though all disciplines have refuted such a notion and even common sense says otherwise with the obviously large numbers of blacks who speak Berber languages today!
Such misguided views seem to be just as illogical or even moreso than that of the Eurocents.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reynolds-Marniche is heavily reliant on certain legends as well as Hebrew, Greco-Latin, and Arabic "best guess" etymologies and histories.
But the primary Kel Tagelmust origin mythos has them trekking furhter inland from toward the western coast under a queen and her maidservant whom they claim as their progenitors.
Nowhere does Reynolds-Marniche posit non-black origins for either Kel Tagelmust or Beja. She is of an old school which posits the existance of original peninsular culture "Arabian Kushites" who decreased in number and importance via "miscegenation" over time.
I notice a lot of inattentiveness to detail in misunderstanding some peoples work. Don't know if it's due simply to the desire to fearfully ridicule what one disagrees with, or to fuss and fight over nothing or perhaps printing out and using old fashion tools of analysis (hi-liter, short scribbled notes, footer definitions notes etc.) could aid in better understanding the details of what someone posts in lieu of falsely accusing them of what they never wrote and having them waste time in needless defensive replies.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:She is of an old school which posits the existance of original peninsular culture "Arabian Kushites"
Doubtless the earliest population of Arabia was Black - this is implied by the Afrisan language classification.
However you know there is no evidence that Cushitic or Berber speakers originate in Arabia.
quote:Reynolds-Marniche is heavily reliant on certain legends as well as Hebrew, Greco-Latin, and Arabic "best guess" etymologies and histories.
But the primary Kel Tagelmust origin mythos has them trekking furhter inland from toward the western coast under a queen and her maidservant whom they claim as their progenitors.
I agree. I found her discourse hear somewhat disappointing and surprisingly so; selectively reference of myth - disregard for bioanthropology.
I don't except that she 'left' because of ridicule though.
I think her ideas came under scrutiny and she seemed ill-prepared to back up her claims.
Sorry, but that's how it appeared to me.
No scholar can be 'that' delecate or afford to be.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was only one or two words of ridicule directed at her. All the rest of the replies essentially, and for the most part, successfully dismantled the ediface of "Arabian Kushite legendary/primitive historians origin for some things in mainland continental Africa."
I don't know about delicate, but I don't blame her one whit for not wasting her time rewriting here what one can read, and study, in her article appearing in Golden Age of the Moor.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I agree. I found her discourse hear somewhat disappointing and surprisingly so; selectively reference of myth - disregard for bioanthropology.
I don't except that she 'left' because of ridicule though.
I think her ideas came under scrutiny and she seemed ill-prepared to back up her claims.
Sorry, but that's how it appeared to me.
No scholar can be 'that' delecate or afford to be.
That's just it. Anyone who professes to be a scholar and cannot withstand scrutiny, well...what then in a public arena when other scholars won't hesitate to hold your work to intense scrutiny? Such scrutiny should be expected [by any scholar] to happen whether it is in public face-to-face forums, or in this day and age - online, by critiques of any background.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I notice a lot of inattentiveness to detail in misunderstanding some peoples work. Don't know if it's due simply to the desire to fearfully ridicule what one disagrees with, or to fuss and fight over nothing or perhaps printing out and using old fashion tools of analysis (hi-liter, short scribbled notes, footer definitions notes etc.) could aid in better understanding the details of what someone posts in lieu of falsely accusing them of what they never wrote and having them waste time in needless defensive replies.
Takruri, I hope this wasn't in reference to me because my critical comments weren't in anyway directed to Reynolds-Marniche but to Clyde Winters and his ilk who claim Berbers and original Semites to be not black at all!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't know exactly where I should post this and didn't want to start a new thread but noticed the same topic was last discussed here, and so ...
A post by Midogbe on ancient south of Atlas north of Sahara ethnies and the Tamazight term akli prompt this loosely related post.
The era between Byzantium and Islam seems key in understanding the arrival of Kel Tamasheq identity as it would later lend itself to Kel Tagelmust units.
A folk's tribal geneaology, though couched in lineage terms, doesn't necessarily correspond to modern/Euro/American ideas of biological genetic kinship relation. And I might add, with absolutely no apology, nor does it need to fit in the foreign detribalized western scientific straight jacket which is this forum's modus operendi.
All "Tuareg" don't have a single origin. Many clans in the Sahara came together to form those people we call "Tuareg." Some who moved south from Tunisia/Tripolitania took on a kel identity. Some from what's now the Morocco/Western Sahara southside of the Atlas and south of the Atlas went into the Sahara taking on a kel identity. Even those of the Hawwara who went Saharan rather than Egyptian or Maghribi made a kel identity for themselves.
To remain in sync with the passing of time, the "Tuareg" weren't the only or earliest veil wearers in the Sahara.
These "Veiled Ones" were the Mulathimun (wearers of the litham/veil) aka the Sanhaja al~Murabitun dynasty, not the chronologically later "Tuareg" called Kel Tagelmust of the Kel Tamasheq. Many of the Zenagaal Mulathimun were themselves very dark.
If one of the great divisions of Imazighen were the Sanhaja, then in turn one segment of Sanhaja were those who lived in the Sahara and wore the veil. The veil/litham/gelmus was a sign of distinction and identity for the al~Murabitun and no one in Almorabid dynasty Spain dare wear the veil if they in fact weren't of al~Murabitun.
All the following Saharan folk were Sanhaja and muLaththamun or veil-wearers:
Anbiya
Djuddala
Kakdam
Lamtuna
Lamta
Masufa
Targa
Tizki
Wurika
The veil was a fashionable necessity of post Roman/Byzantine era Saharan Sanhaja that became a uniform accessory of early Islamic era al~Murabitun far from the desert up in what would become Spain to finally be retained en vogue in our current era by the Kel Tagelmoust.
Ah, but did early metal age Saharans also wear the veil? Rock art and seemingly fanciful Greco-Latin accounts of humans with eyes in their chests or similar such approximations as heard from their supra-Saharan informants may very likely indicate that they did.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there any documentation for any Kel buying European females or males from the markets of the coastal Arabized Imazighen and Arabs?
I think the lightest skinned "Tuareg" are descendents of the "whites"
(Pliny's Leucæthiopians -- c. 50 CE; Book 5.8 -- and Procopius' fair-haired leucoderms -- c. 550 CE; Book 4.13.29 -- in the deserts south of the Mauretanii)
that the first ancestral Imaheren found already in the Sahara upon their arrival.
The Kel had/have a tri-tiered traditional society of
* amahar ("noble") -- descent from Tin Hinan, a Moroccan, by legend * amrid ("vassal") -- descent from Takama servant of Tin Hinan, by legend * akl ("servant") -- kin of the above plus outsider captives [non-chattels] attached to the family
A person's assignment to either generally follows the birth mother.
There're also "outlier" social groupings * inislimen (Islamic "clerics") * haratin (oasis sharecropping farmers) * enaden (smiths, craftsmen)
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: think the lightest skinned "Tuareg" are descendents of the "whites" (Pliny's Leucæthiopians and Procopius' fair-haired leucoderms of the deserts south of the Mauretanii) that the first ancestral Imaheren found already in the Sahara upon their arrival.
I agree with this part of Arredi's assessment....
In conclusion, we propose that the Y-chromosomal genetic structure observed in North Africa is mainly the result of an expansion of early food-producing societies. Moreover, following Arioti and Oxby (1997), we speculate that the economy of those societies relied initially more on herding than on agriculture, because pastoral economies probably supported lower numbers of individuals, thus favoring genetic drift, and showed more mobility than agriculturalists, thus allowing gene flow.
Some authors believe that languages families are unlikely to be >10 KY old and that their diffusion was associated with the diffusion of agriculture (Diamond and Bellwood 2003).
Since most of the languages spoken in North Africa and in nearby parts of Asia belong to the Afro-Asiatic family (Ruhlen 1991), this expansion could have involved people speaking a protoAfro-Asiatic language.
These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment *containing few humans.*
When this passage is cited, not everyone is gathering the significance of the -containing few humans- , as it pertains to the overall theme and title of the piece:
A Predominantly **Neolithic** Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment *containing few humans.*
When this passage is cited, not everyone is gathering the significance of the -containing few humans- , as it pertains to the overall theme and title of the piece:
A Predominantly **Neolithic** Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa.
Notwithstanding what you are emphasizing, it is that same statement that I find questionable. And here's why: it is suggested that the presence of J lineages in north Africa occurs before E-M81 presence there. It is also suggesting that these E and J would have arrived from the "Near East", because if J isn't deemed to be African MRCA, then where does that leave us? This in turn questions that context of the point of origin of these said "Neolithic Afro-Asiatic" speakers.
And you may recall the following, because we had gone through it:
I'm inclined to go with Nebel and Wells on the Islamic era spread of the J lineages into North Africa in the east-to-west direction. I think the controversy has something to do with the distribution of J and E3b (specifically E3b1) lineages, which are both rare in the greater part of Europe, but are relatively more represented in southern Europe and North Africa, with a decreasing east-to-west gradient of various J lineages. It should be kept in mind though, as with the various J east-to-west decrease in Southern Europe, E3b has a east-to-west decrease in frequency in Southern Europe, while E3b is well represented in North Africa, mainly with E3b2 increasing in a east-to-west direction. Semino et al. do a decent job of supporting Nebel and Wells position:
"In particular, the spatial distributions of J-M172*, J-M267, E-M78, and E-M123 indicate expansions from the Middle East toward Europe that most likely occurred during and after the Neolithic, that of J-M102 illustrates population expansions from the southern Balkans, and that of E-M81 reveals recent gene flow from North Africa. Distinct histories of J-M267* lineages are suggested: an expansion from the Middle East toward East Africa and Europe and a more-recent diffusion (marked by the YCAIIa-22/YCAIIb-22 motif) of Arab -people from the southern part of the Middle East toward North Africa..."
"...The lower internal variance of J-M267 in the Middle East and North Africa, relative to Europe and Ethiopia, is suggestive of two different migrations. In the absence of additional binary polymorphisms allowing further informative subdivision of J-M267, the YCAII microsatellite system provides important insights. The majority of J-M267 Y chromosomes harbor the single-banded motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 in the Middle East (>70%) and in North Africa (>90%), whereas this association is much less frequent in Ethiopia and only sporadically found in southern Europe..."
Furthermore,
"...the first migration, probably in Neolithic times, brought J-M267 to Ethiopia and Europe, whereas a second, more-recent migration diffused the clade harboring the microsatellite motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 in the southern part of the Middle East and in North Africa. In this regard, it is worth noting that the median expansion time of the J-M267-YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 clade was estimated to be 8.74.3 ky, by use of the TD approach (see fig. 4 legend), and that this clade includes the modal haplotype DYS19-14/DYS388-17/DYS390-23/DYS391-11/DYS392-11 of the Galilee (Nebel et al. 2000) and of Moroccan Arabs (Bosch et al. 2001). These results are consistent with the proposal that this haplotype was diffused in recent time by Arabs who, mainly from the 7th century A.D., expanded to northern Africa (Nebel et al. 2002)..."
On the J-distribution...
"...Finally, the J-M172* lineages display a decreasing frequency gradient from the Near East toward western Europe and strongly contribute to the overall gradient of Hg J. J-M267 is notable, since this haplogroup shows its highest frequencies in the Middle East, North Africa, and Ethiopia (fig. 2B) and its lowest in Europe, having been observed only in the Mediterranean area. Of its five subhaplogroups, only two have been observed: the J-M365 (in two Turks and one Georgian) and the new subclade J-M390 (in one Lebanese)… - Semino et al. 2004
Arredi et al., on the other hand, seem to draw their conclusion mainly from historical records on Arab conquests:
"Early Neolithic sites are documented in the eastern part of North Africa and later ones in the west, which would be compatible with an east-to-west movement at this time, and this is also the case for the Arab expansion. Historical records of the Arab conquest, however, suggest that its demographic impact must have been limited (McEvedy 1980)." - Arredi et al. 2004
Arredi et al., unlike Semino et al. and Nebel et al., don't provide us with much genetic reconstruction in support of the above position on the J distribution in Northwest Africa
^Where there appears to be contention, is the notion of whether much of the east-to-west spread of J lineages occurred during the Neolithic, or during the Islamic era. In my opinion, Nebel et al. and subsequently Semino et al. did a more satisfying job of making their case for the latter scenario, than Arredi et al, who simply refer to McEvedy's work on historical records of Arab conquest. I must admit though, that it would be a good idea for one to investigate these historical records further, so as to perhaps better grasp Arredi's position.
quote: Originally posted by Thought:
However, what she doesn't mention is the fact the this spread is based upon the Saharan-Sudanese culture and NOT a Near Eastern Neolithic culture.
Perhaps, Arredi et al. were influenced by Peter Bellwood's position on the Neolithic expansion; after all, both him and J. Diamond were referenced in the study. This would hold a view which contrasts what is stated above, in that, agriculture spread along with 'proto Afro-Asiatic' from the Levant... or perhaps, Arredi didn't feel the need to expound on this, presumably because she tought all that was relevant to the study, is the awareness of 'Afro-Asiatic' speakers being primarly involved in the Neolithic population spread across North Africa.
"we propose that the Y-chromosomal genetic structure observed in North Africa is mainly the result of an expansion of early food-producing societies. Moreover, following Arioti and Oxby (1997), we speculate that the economy of those societies relied initially more on herding than on agriculture, because pastoral economies probably supported lower numbers of individuals, thus favoring genetic drift, and showed more mobility than agriculturalists, thus allowing gene flow. Some authors believe that languages families are unlikely to be >10 KY old and that their diffusion was associated with the diffusion of agriculture (Diamond and Bellwood 2003). Since most of the languages spoken in North Africa and in nearby parts of Asia belong to the Afro-Asiatic family (Ruhlen 1991), this expansion could have involved people speaking a protoAfro-Asiatic language. These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans. " - Arredi et al. 2004
Knowing that E3b predominates the coastal Northwest African landscape, specifically the E-M81 derivatives, and Hg R is very rare:
What is Arredi et al.'s proposed evidence of J presence in north Africa prior to E3b carriers, i.e. E-M81 derivatives, rather than after arrival of the latter?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol:
These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment *containing few humans.*
When this passage is cited, not everyone is gathering the significance of the -containing few humans- , as it pertains to the overall theme and title of the piece:
A Predominantly **Neolithic** Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa.
quote:Notwithstanding what you are emphasizing, it is that same statement that I find questionable. And here's why: it is suggested that the presence of J lineages in north Africa before E-M78.
No, not in the passage that I cited, but you are right about...
quote: It is also suggesting that these E and J would have arrived from the "Near East", because if J isn't deemed to be African MRCA, then where does that leave us?
My view is as follows - J is a red hering, because the Berber are not predominently J, nor is their any signature J lineage that is Berber.
In fact I will quote geneticist Spencer Wells on this subject, because I think it cuts to the point:
Most men living in the area surrounding Carthage before the Phoenicians arrived should probably have carried variations of the M96, which is the aboriginal type in North and West Africa."
"No more than 20 percent of the men we sampled had Y Chromosomes that originated in the Middle East. [Haplogroup J, M168 to M89]
Most carried the aboriginal North African M96 [Haplotype E] pattern."Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment *containing few humans.*
When this passage is cited, not everyone is gathering the significance of the -containing few humans- , as it pertains to the overall theme and title of the piece:
A Predominantly **Neolithic** Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa.
quote:Notwithstanding what you are emphasizing, it is that same statement that I find questionable. And here's why: it is suggested that the presence of J lineages in north Africa before E-M78.
No, not in the passage that I cited, but you are right about...
That was a technicality error in my post, which was corrected in my post above to "E-M81". Apparently, you replied before I made some editions.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Note also the relationship between M81-E3b2 [Berber/African], and it's father M35 [E3b] [East African].
Notice that E3b and E3b2 are non existant in Oman.
Notice that both E3b and E3b2 are present in Egypt. [ignore the denotion of "Arab" Egyptians, since by this studies definition all Egyptians are Arabs]
Notice that E3b is present throughout Africa.
Notice the spread of E3b3 into Oman also from Africa..... E3b3 is also present in Ethiopia [Amhara esp.], however Berber have no E3b3.
Berber do not appear to have *anything* to do with Arabia genetically.
It's actually surprising...the degree to which the evidence reveals this, in my opinion.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Berber do not appear to have *anything* to do with Arabia genetically.
Which is interesting in that, notwithstanding the correspondence with which they posit E3b and J lineages in North Africa, after which E-M81 in North Africa is supposed to have arose in situ, Arredi et al. themselves note, in that same study in question:
The M35 lineage (see the phylogeny in fig. 1A for marker locations) is thought to have arisen in East Africa, on the basis of its high frequency and diversity there (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004), and to have given rise to M81 in North Africa. The TMRCA....E3b2 (2.8-8.2 KY) should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa.....Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, no populations within the North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution.....In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is rare in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.
- Arredi et al., A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa
Furthermore, they were aware of E-M81 chromosomes south of Egypt, as attested to this acknowledgement:
Second, just two haplogroups predominate within North Africa, together making up almost two-thirds of the male lineages: E3b2 and J* (42% and 20%, respectively). E3b2 is rare outside North Africa (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004 and references therein), and is otherwise known only from Mali, Niger, and Sudan to the immediate south, and the Near East and Southern Europe at very low frequencies....
...and of course, ages of the E-M81 chromosomes in Sudan would be instructive.
Not sure what specific location is in question here, by the mention of "Near East" above, or what it is supposedly based on, but I've yet to come duplication in any other study of the location of E-M81 chromosomes therein, and this even as Arredi et al. had just then noted its rarity outside of North Africa. Its small presence in Southern Europe is already understood from Tamazight/Berber migrations therein over the course of history.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Berber do not appear to have *anything* to do with Arabia genetically.
Which is interesting in that, notwithstanding the correspondence with which they posit E3b and J lineages in North Africa, after which E-M81 in North Africa is supposed to have arose in situ, Arredi et al. themselves note, in that same study in question:
The M35 lineage (see the phylogeny in fig. 1A for marker locations) is thought to have arisen in East Africa, on the basis of its high frequency and diversity there (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004), and to have given rise to M81 in North Africa. The TMRCA....E3b2 (2.8-8.2 KY) should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa.....Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, no populations within the North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution.....In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is rare in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.
- Arredi et al., A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa
Furthermore, they were aware of E-M81 chromosomes south of Egypt, as attested to this acknowledgement:
Second, just two haplogroups predominate within North Africa, together making up almost two-thirds of the male lineages: E3b2 and J* (42% and 20%, respectively). E3b2 is rare outside North Africa (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004 and references therein), and is otherwise known only from Mali, Niger, and Sudan to the immediate south, and the Near East and Southern Europe at very low frequencies....
...and of course, ages of the E-M81 chromosomes in Sudan would be instructive.
Not sure what specific location is in question here, by the mention of "Near East" above, or what it is supposedly based on, but I've yet to come duplication in any other study of the location of E-M81 chromosomes therein, and this even as Arredi et al. had just then noted its rarity outside of North Africa. Its small presence in Southern Europe is already understood from Tamazight/Berber migrations therein over the course of history.
E-M81 is not a language.
Lineage is not a language.
Language is not a lineage.
Berber is a language.
E-M81 is not a lineage.
The two are NOT the same.
E-M81 was spread by AFRICAN PEOPLE carrying a GENE not a LANGUAGE. The fact of E-M81 in certain areas outside of Africa is a reflection of POPULATION movements, not necessarily LANGUAGE movements.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Correct, however people have lineages and speak languages.
It's possible to use language and lineage to study population movement.
Sometimes populations migrate and carry languages with them, and sometimes populations migrate and the languages aren't carried.
However a population that migrates must carry their genes with them.
A good example of this is African Americans.
It would be very difficult to trace AA origins thru the langauges they speak.
However the genetic signature of the their African origin is very strong.
Another example of this would be Native Americans, for example Mexicans....who mostly speak Spanish, which accurately captures European migrations into Mexico, but not the linguistic origins of *native* Mexcian people.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Berber do not appear to have *anything* to do with Arabia genetically.
Which is interesting in that, notwithstanding the correspondence with which they posit E3b and J lineages in North Africa, after which E-M81 in North Africa is supposed to have arose in situ, Arredi et al. themselves note, in that same study in question:
The M35 lineage (see the phylogeny in fig. 1A for marker locations) is thought to have arisen in East Africa, on the basis of its high frequency and diversity there (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004), and to have given rise to M81 in North Africa. The TMRCA....E3b2 (2.8-8.2 KY) should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa.....Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, no populations within the North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution.....In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is rare in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.
- Arredi et al., A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa
Furthermore, they were aware of E-M81 chromosomes south of Egypt, as attested to this acknowledgement:
Second, just two haplogroups predominate within North Africa, together making up almost two-thirds of the male lineages: E3b2 and J* (42% and 20%, respectively). E3b2 is rare outside North Africa (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004 and references therein), and is otherwise known only from Mali, Niger, and Sudan to the immediate south, and the Near East and Southern Europe at very low frequencies....
...and of course, ages of the E-M81 chromosomes in Sudan would be instructive.
Not sure what specific location is in question here, by the mention of "Near East" above, or what it is supposedly based on, but I've yet to come duplication in any other study of the location of E-M81 chromosomes therein, and this even as Arredi et al. had just then noted its rarity outside of North Africa. Its small presence in Southern Europe is already understood from Tamazight/Berber migrations therein over the course of history. [
E-
M81 is not a language.
Lineage is not a language.
Language is not a lineage.
Berber is a language.
E-M81 is not a lineage.
The two are NOT the same.
E-M81 was spread by AFRICAN PEOPLE carrying a GENE not a LANGUAGE. The fact of E-M81 in certain areas outside of Africa is a reflection of POPULATION movements, not necessarily LANGUAGE movements.
Non-sequitur. Who said they are the same thing? You are reading imaginery things.
On the other hand, rather than disputing what hasn't been said, how about showing otherwise to what you are specifically citing.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sometimes populations migrate and carry languages with them, and sometimes populations migrate and the languages aren't carried.
However a population that migrates must carry their genes with them.
A good example of this is African Americans.
It would be very difficult to trace AA origins thru the langauges they speak.
However the genetic signature of the their African origin is very strong.
Put it this way: most of the time, people migrate and carry their 'pre-existing' languages with them; they don't just cease to speak it upon arrival. In some cases, due to acculturation, motivated by the socio-political/cultural environment in which the migrants arrived, this language may or may not change.
African captives who were brought to the Americas likely came with their pre-existing languages, until over time lost it, because of pressure of the need to assimilate into the predominating socio-cultural organizations which they were confronted with, while others had decided to work with fusion of various languages/dialects of the heterogenous African migrants to be able to communicate with another, essentially giving rise to a new common language.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Berber do not appear to have *anything* to do with Arabia genetically.
Which is interesting in that, notwithstanding the correspondence with which they posit E3b and J lineages in North Africa, after which E-M81 in North Africa is supposed to have arose in situ, Arredi et al. themselves note, in that same study in question:
The M35 lineage (see the phylogeny in fig. 1A for marker locations) is thought to have arisen in East Africa, on the basis of its high frequency and diversity there (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004), and to have given rise to M81 in North Africa. The TMRCA....E3b2 (2.8-8.2 KY) should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa.....Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, no populations within the North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution.....In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is rare in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.
- Arredi et al., A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa
Furthermore, they were aware of E-M81 chromosomes south of Egypt, as attested to this acknowledgement:
Second, just two haplogroups predominate within North Africa, together making up almost two-thirds of the male lineages: E3b2 and J* (42% and 20%, respectively). E3b2 is rare outside North Africa (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004 and references therein), and is otherwise known only from Mali, Niger, and Sudan to the immediate south, and the Near East and Southern Europe at very low frequencies....
...and of course, ages of the E-M81 chromosomes in Sudan would be instructive.
Not sure what specific location is in question here, by the mention of "Near East" above, or what it is supposedly based on, but I've yet to come duplication in any other study of the location of E-M81 chromosomes therein, and this even as Arredi et al. had just then noted its rarity outside of North Africa. Its small presence in Southern Europe is already understood from Tamazight/Berber migrations therein over the course of history. [
E-
M81 is not a language.
Lineage is not a language.
Language is not a lineage.
Berber is a language.
E-M81 is not a lineage.
The two are NOT the same.
E-M81 was spread by AFRICAN PEOPLE carrying a GENE not a LANGUAGE. The fact of E-M81 in certain areas outside of Africa is a reflection of POPULATION movements, not necessarily LANGUAGE movements.
Non-sequitur. Who said they are the same thing? You are reading imaginery things.
On the other hand, rather than disputing what hasn't been said, how about showing otherwise to what you are specifically citing.
It seems you were saying that "Berbers" were responsible for bringing E-M81 to Europe, which is quite INCORRECT. E-M81 was carried to Europe by people and whe DONT know what language they spoke. All E-M81 carriers did not speak Berber as far as we know.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic