posted
Yeah. I know. 180deg within year by DNATribes. At least they seem honest by correcting their mistake of Feb2012. Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Tbl3 and concl stuff is absurd keeping in mind this company's FAQ:
quote:
Each of these regions retains unique characteristics that cannot be described by a basic division of the world into 3-5 regions. For instance, North African Berbers are not a mixture of Europeans and West Africans, but are unique peoples with distinctive genetic characteristics.
So which is it unique peoples or A little bit of Monica in my life A little bit of Erica by my side A little bit of Rita is all I need A little bit of Tina is what I see A little bit of Sandra in the sun A little bit of Mary all night long A little bit of Jessica here I am
What they say about Maurusian is silly but it goes to show the importance of a name. As long as IberoMaurusian remains in use continued bs nonsense about Maurusian ties to Iberia will circulate despite all the opposing facts.
@XYYman This is quasi-science. Expect another orientation next year. Quasimodo manipulative guesswork.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Tbl3 and concl stuff is absurd keeping in mind this company's FAQ:
quote:
Each of these regions retains unique characteristics that cannot be described by a basic division of the world into 3-5 regions. For instance, North African Berbers are not a mixture of Europeans and West Africans, but are unique peoples with distinctive genetic characteristics.
So which is it unique peoples or A little bit of Monica in my life A little bit of Erica by my side A little bit of Rita is all I need A little bit of Tina is what I see A little bit of Sandra in the sun A little bit of Mary all night long A little bit of Jessica here I am
What they say about Maurusian is silly but it goes to show the importance of a name. As long as IberoMaurusian remains in use continued bs nonsense about Maurusian ties to Iberia will circulate despite all the opposing facts.
@XYYman This is quasi-science. Expect another orientation next year.
Quasimodo manipulative guesswork.
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn
Abstract
North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes; however, the time and the extent of genetic divergence between populations north and south of the Sahara remain poorly understood. Here, we interrogate the multilayered history of North Africa by characterizing the effect of hypothesized migrations from the Near East, Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa on current genetic diversity. We present dense, genome-wide SNP genotyping array data [730,000 sites] from seven North African populations, spanning from Egypt to Morocco, and one Spanish population. We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa; this ancestry is likely derived from “back-to-Africa” gene flow more than 12,000 years ago [ya], prior to the Holocene. The indigenous North African ancestry is more frequent in populations with historical Berber ethnicity. In most North African populations we also see substantial shared ancestry with the Near East, and to a lesser extent sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. To estimate the time of migration from sub-Saharan populations into North Africa, we implement a maximum likelihood dating method based on the distribution of migrant tracts. In order to first identify migrant tracts, we assign local ancestry to haplotypes using a novel, principal component-based analysis of three ancestral populations. We estimate that a migration of western African origin into Morocco began about 40 generations ago [approximately 1,200 ya]; a migration of individuals with Nilotic ancestry into Egypt occurred about 25 generations ago [approximately 750 ya]. Our genomic data reveal an extraordinarily complex history of migrations, involving at least five ancestral populations, into North Africa.
Conclusion
Our genome-wide dense genotyping data from seven North African populations allow us to address outstanding questions regarding the origin and migration history of North Africa. We propose that present-day ancestry in North Africa is the result of at least three distinct episodes: ancient “back-to-Africa” gene flow prior to the Holocene, more recent gene flow from the Near East resulting in a longitudinal gradient, and limited but very recent migrations from sub-Saharan Africa. Population structure in North Africa is particularly complex, and future disease or phenotypic studies should carefully account for local demographic history. However, the rich history of gene flow can also help empower genome-wide association mapping via admixture mapping techniques . For example, the variable but relatively long haplotypes of sub-Saharan ancestry are amenable to admixture mapping approaches developed for African-American samples. In conclusion, North African populations retain a unique signature of early “Maghrebi” ancestry, but North African populations are not a homogenous group and most display varying combinations of five distinct ancestries
posted
the lioness you should be ashamed of posting those old results again in this thread and in other similar threads this week. They have already been debunked in the other threads you posted those a year or so ago.
I won't explain it all over again but people must remember that those results only show *EXTERNAL* contribution to the genome under study (of North African in this case) and exclude local contribution to the genome.
For example, **external** contribution of 50% from Levantine could represent only 5% of the SNPs of North Africa if the ***local** contribution is, lets say, 90%.
It would mean that 50% of the 10% comes from the Levantine group.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn
Abstract
North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes; however, the time and the extent of genetic divergence between populations north and south of the Sahara remain poorly understood. Here, we interrogate the multilayered history of North Africa by characterizing the effect of hypothesized migrations from the Near East, Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa on current genetic diversity. We present dense, genome-wide SNP genotyping array data [730,000 sites] from seven North African populations, spanning from Egypt to Morocco, and one Spanish population. We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa; this ancestry is likely derived from “back-to-Africa” gene flow more than 12,000 years ago [ya], prior to the Holocene. The indigenous North African ancestry is more frequent in populations with historical Berber ethnicity. In most North African populations we also see substantial shared ancestry with the Near East, and to a lesser extent sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. To estimate the time of migration from sub-Saharan populations into North Africa, we implement a maximum likelihood dating method based on the distribution of migrant tracts. In order to first identify migrant tracts, we assign local ancestry to haplotypes using a novel, principal component-based analysis of three ancestral populations. We estimate that a migration of western African origin into Morocco began about 40 generations ago [approximately 1,200 ya]; a migration of individuals with Nilotic ancestry into Egypt occurred about 25 generations ago [approximately 750 ya]. Our genomic data reveal an extraordinarily complex history of migrations, involving at least five ancestral populations, into North Africa.
Conclusion
Our genome-wide dense genotyping data from seven North African populations allow us to address outstanding questions regarding the origin and migration history of North Africa. We propose that present-day ancestry in North Africa is the result of at least three distinct episodes: ancient “back-to-Africa” gene flow prior to the Holocene, more recent gene flow from the Near East resulting in a longitudinal gradient, and limited but very recent migrations from sub-Saharan Africa. Population structure in North Africa is particularly complex, and future disease or phenotypic studies should carefully account for local demographic history. However, the rich history of gene flow can also help empower genome-wide association mapping via admixture mapping techniques . For example, the variable but relatively long haplotypes of sub-Saharan ancestry are amenable to admixture mapping approaches developed for African-American samples. In conclusion, North African populations retain a unique signature of early “Maghrebi” ancestry, but North African populations are not a homogenous group and most display varying combinations of five distinct ancestries
North Africans are a unique mix, that is the answer
Indeed. This uniqueness comes from the accumulation of new mutations (which is how researchers come to the conclusion that large portions of their genome bespeaks prehistoric admixture events). This, however, does not mean that those new mutations cannot be assigned affinity to pre-existing DNA from surrounding parent populations.
In fact, that's what subclades within parahaplogroups are all about: they're all mutations within a single haplogroup, who, despite their uniqueness, belong to their parent haplogroup.
Recalling:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Although care should be taken in interpreting these values, they indicate that the ancestral segments of Mozabite are significantly diverged from extant Bantu-African and European related populations. ... the Mozabite are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry.
--Price et al 2009
^Essentially the same as Henn et al 2012's solid reasoning for why the predominant Maghrebi component detected in Berber populations doesn't postdate the Holocene (they have alleles that are unique to them and bespeak divergence times from Eurasians that are >10kya):
A scenario where North African Maghrebi ancestry is the result of in situ population absorbing Near Eastern migrants would likely need the following premises to explain the results here and elsewhere: a) an Out-of-Africa migration [concurrent with bottleneck] occurs 50–60 Kya, geographically dividing North African and Near Eastern populations; b) North Africans experience a separate bottleneck; c) gene flow maintains similarity between the two geographically distinct populations; d) the gene flow then ceases or slows roughly between 12–40 Kya in order to allow sufficiently distinct allele frequency distributions to form. --Henn et al 2012
^Berber populations have Eurasian ancestry that is clearly unaccounted for by the confused ''historic female slave trade'' fairytale pushers, who are motivated only by their hidden agenda to not have to admit that the Eurasian genetic component in Berbers--which is embodied by what's left over when historic Arab and historic European and slightly older West African ancestry is subtracted--can be traced back to Ibero-maurusians.
The afronut bogus ''female Eurasian slaves'' excuse, when applied to what's CLEARLY prehistoric, non-recent ancestry in Berbers, needs to be called out for the crackpot emotion-driven quackery that it is. As pointed out by Price et al 2009, Henn et al 2012, Achilli et al 2005, Kefi et al 2005, Frigi et al 2011, and many others, Berbers are NOT a blend of a Sub-Saharan component and a recent (common era), Eurasian component.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: the lioness you should be ashamed of posting those old results again in this thread and in other similar threads this week. They have already been debunked in the other threads you posted those a year or so ago.
I won't explain it all over again but people must remember that those results only show *EXTERNAL* contribution to the genome under study (of North African in this case) and exclude local contribution to the genome.
For example, **external** contribution of 50% from Levantine could represent only 5% of the SNPs of North Africa if the ***local** contribution is, lets say, 90%.
It would mean that 50% of the 10% comes from the Levantine group.
What you are saying could be used to invalidate any of the DNA Tribes reports such as the Sahelian and Iberain I just put up and what you are saying doesn't make sense. What you are saying is that when they were looking at North Africans they didn't take into account how North African they were. And what you think is local is largely Arabian anyway. There is also some significant SSA ancestry especially in Southern Moroccans. But even the common layman knows North Africa is largely Arab at present. Only xyyman is tripping. When he passes the doobie don't inhale, it's laced. And you the big fan of the Amarna report. What's local? North Africa you say? Look at how they classify North Africa, they exclude Egypt from that region. Now where's your local critique?
I couldn't find an old thread by myself on DNATribes NA only one by Atemu. And I noticed that thread had only one chart from the report. Now I have included most of the whole digest article and also the history part which people love to ignore.
Why do people trip on this. Most of these digest reports are of modern populations. After we look at the Amarna and Rameses people startt looking at the NA charts as if they were from 2000 years ago
lioness prodcuctions, like cod liver oil to the ailing
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: the lioness you should be ashamed of posting those old results again in this thread and in other similar threads this week. They have already been debunked in the other threads you posted those a year or so ago.
I won't explain it all over again but people must remember that those results only show *EXTERNAL* contribution to the genome under study (of North African in this case) and exclude local contribution to the genome.
For example, **external** contribution of 50% from Levantine could represent only 5% of the SNPs of North Africa if the ***local** contribution is, lets say, 90%.
It would mean that 50% of the 10% comes from the Levantine group.
What you are saying could be used to invalidate any of the DNA Tribes reports such as the Sahelian and Iberain
You're mistaken. There's plenty of DNA Tribes report that does include the local contribution along with foreign contribution. BOTH!!! This usually what we expect to get from an admixture analysis not only the foreign contribution which can be very small compared to the whole whole genome under study (SNPs).
Clearly you didn't understood the explanation the last time.
For example, in this latest 2013 report (there's plenty of old report too for this).
Local contribution called North African= 57.2% External contribution of Arabia= 11.3% External contribution of Horn of Africa=4.1% Other External contribution...
That is Algeria is part of the North African group but also possess many SNPs from other groups.
Same thing with Tunisia also part of the North African group:
Tunisia:
Local contribution called North African= 89.5% External contribution of Arabia= 1.9% External contribution of Horn of Africa=0.9% Other External contribution...
So here we know Tunisia and Algeria are both from the North African group and we see both the local contribution and the external contribution.
I hope it clears things up for you.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Algerians Libyan Mozabite North Morocco South Morocco Sahrawi Tunsia
^^^^ take any one of these groups
and please give me an example of a specific North African lineage, name an ethnic group of North Africans -that contribute a significant amount of DNA to that group something not covered by that pie chart
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Algerians Libyan Mozabite North Morocco South Morocco Sahrawi Tunsia
^^^^ take any one of these groups
and please give me an example of a specific North African lineage, name an ethnic group of North Africans -that contribute a significant amount of DNA to that group something not covered by that pie chart
I don't know what your arguing about. Having only external contributions doesn't give a clear idea of the admixture **proportion** not their identity. The external contribution can be extremely small (or not) depending on the size of the local contribution.
For example Tunisia:
Local contribution called North African= 89.5% (thus the foreign contribution is "only" 100-89.5=10.5%) External contribution of Arabia= 1.9% External contribution of Horn of Africa=0.9% Other External contribution...
In a table without local contribution Arabia would be presented at about 19% (1.9% of 10.5%) while in reality it is only 1.9%.
I don't know about you but a foreign admixture of 1.9% not the same thing as 19%. Sure they are both from the same location but it's not the same proportion.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Coalescence man....still holding on to his belief, even DNATribes have come around.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Local contribution called North African= 89.5% (thus the foreign contribution is "only" 100-89.5=10.5%) External contribution of Arabia= 1.9% External contribution of Horn of Africa=0.9% Other External contribution...
this is a circular semantic argument but you don't know it.
"local contribution called North African" is meaningless unless you can associate that with ethnic groups that have names, otherwise it's just an abstraction, purely rhetorical.
Let's see you break down 89.5% to ethnic groups that have names
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
We know that many of these people are "mixed" but when did that mixture take place? As has been pointed out many times before most of that Mixture is historic (last 1500 years). So while it is true that there are populations in North Africa that are mixed it is not true that these are also the ORIGINAL populations of North Africa from before 3,000 years ago. Not by a long shot.
And all populations in North Africa are not mixed and as you all noticed the DNA tribes definition of "NOrth Africa" is flawed to begin with. North Africa also includes Mali, Niger, Mauritania, Sudan and Chad along with Egypt. But of course these clowns always try and limit North Africa to those regions North of the Sahara, which not coincidentally is the area of the MOST admixture and then try and extrapolate that to all the rest of the region they did not include as North Africa.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
2nd- you are really confused. You started the Henn thread. Henn clearly stated that North Africans are NOT modern day Arabs. The illiterate ie those who can't comprehend what Henn and many researchers are saying will continue to believe North Africans are modern day Arab. I WAS one of those people.
Most modern geneticist now agree that the so-called Arab invasion(7th century) was cultural.
But that happens when you rely on eyeballing anthropolgy.
But again you really missing the foundamental revelation from this new DNATribes study. The seperation of West Asian(Turks) and Arabs. I not sure many here get it. But the study essentially supports Mike's and Dana point of view. "Arabs Tribes men" are essentially African. Turks arrival was during the Ottoman Empire.
The admixture level of Turks in Berbers is virtually absent. Essential Turks/Syrians/Iraqi etc are a different ethnic group cf to NAians even if they may look similar.
Quote by Lioness: But even the common layman knows North Africa is largely Arab at present. Only xyyman is tripping. When he passes the doobie don't inhale, it's laced.Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: We know that many of these people are "mixed" but when did that mixture take place?
As has been pointed out many times before most of that Mixture is historic (last 1500 years). So while it is true that there are populations in North Africa that are mixed it is not true that these are also the ORIGINAL populations of North Africa from before 3,000 years ago. Not by a long shot.
the analysis applies to modern NA
as per historically the green period began to end about 4,000 years ago many people probably left the region. Survival in many desert region is limited. It is helped by the camel introduced to NA 1st c AD
How many of the earlier green Sahara population remained? It is unknown - and how would such DNA be identified?-big question
After the desertification The Persians and Greeks entered into Egypt 4th c BC Phoenician traders arrived on the North African coast around 800-900 BC. That's when it began 2800 years ago not 1500 years ago
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
And all populations in North Africa are not mixed and as you all noticed the DNA tribes definition of "NOrth Africa" is flawed to begin with. North Africa also includes Mali, Niger, Mauritania, Sudan and Chad along with Egypt. But of course these clowns always try and limit North Africa to those regions North of the Sahara, which not coincidentally is the area of the MOST admixture and then try and extrapolate that to all the rest of the region they did not include as North Africa. [/QB]
It's not flawed.
You are just talking semantics. Those other regions are defined as Sahelian.
Anytime a region is defined soembody can take issue with it and say the ensuing analysis is flawed. The same question could be asked, why are West Africans separted from Horners. Why are Great Lakes Africans separated from Horners? Why make any category?
The reason why is that the North Africans of today are primarily comprised of people with ancestry from outside of Africa. -That cannot be said of the Sahelains:
^^^^ Unlike the modern primarily populations of the Mahgreb the Sahelians are primarily Tropical West African. In fact the North African contribution is lower than that of South African, Great Lakes, possibly even Indians
This is why Mali, Niger, Mauritania, Sudan and Chad are not grouped with largely admixted populations of the North. This is reflected strongly in the genetics.
It makes sense.
The problem is not the regions. The problem is in the naming.
In my opinion as far as genetic analysis "North Africa" should not even be used. It leads to too much confusion. The Sahel overlaps genetically more with West Africa than it does the Maghreb. The thing that distracts from this biology is the cultural religious continuity by Islam between the Sahel and the Maghreb.
Instead "The Maghreb Region" solves the problem.
If you take the Sahel, primarily indigenous Africans and lump them with Maghrebians and call it "North Africa" is that necessarily "pro-Africa" politcially ? I would not be so sure of that, think about it.
The problem is where Egypt fits in (or doesn't fit in)
And Egypt should be a category unto itself and distinguished by to categories "Ancient Egypt" and "Modern Egypt"
I believe as far as genetic regions go there should be no "North Africa" That is too broad and people can't agree to it's dimensions
Maybe a better way to organize the macro genetic regions of Africa:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: 2nd- you are really confused. You started the Henn thread. Henn clearly stated that North Africans are NOT modern day Arabs. The illiterate ie those who can't comprehend what Henn and many researchers are saying will continue to believe North Africans are modern day Arab. I WAS one of those people.
The henn study is very flawed as explained in the thread about it, but my understanding of it is that (according to the study) coastal North Africans people are the product of successive wave of Near Eastern/Arabic origin. Including a very ancient one and some more recent ones. I say this without asserting any validity to the study.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] First up, I gave up doobie before college.
2nd- you are really confused. You started the Henn thread. Henn clearly stated that North Africans are NOT modern day Arabs. The illiterate ie those who can't comprehend what Henn and many researchers are saying will continue to believe North Africans are modern day Arab. I WAS one of those people.
Most modern geneticist now agree that the so-called Arab invasion(7th century) was cultural.
But that happens when you rely on eyeballing anthropolgy.
But again you really missing the foundamental revelation from this new DNATribes study. The seperation of West Asian(Turks) and Arabs. I not sure many here get it. But the study essentially supports Mike's and Dana point of view. "Arabs Tribes men" are essentially African. Turks arrival was during the Ottoman Empire.
The admixture level of Turks in Berbers is virtually absent. Essential Turks/Syrians/Iraqi etc are a different ethnic group cf to NAians even if they may look similar.
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn equal contributor
We propose that present-day ancestry in North Africa is the result of at least three distinct episodes: ancient “back-to-Africa” gene flow prior to the Holocene, more recent gene flow from the Near East resulting in a longitudinal gradient, and limited but very recent migrations from sub-Saharan Africa.
Under a pulse model of migration, a significant increase in gene flow likely occurred ~700 ya, after the Arabic expansion into North Africa 1,400 ya. Our migration results are in agreement with previous studies based on mtDNA analysis where gene flow into eastern and western North Africa appeared to have different sub-Saharan population sources
_____________________________________________
history of dry period to present, Maghreb:
Phoenicians/ Greeks 800-900 BC (Carthage) (Greek colonies)
Numidians
Romans
Visigoth
Arab
^^^ take the above mix with SSA = "Berber"
________________________________
xyyman this is what you missed form the Henn:
The west-to-east decline in Maghrebi assignment is only interrupted by the Tunisian Berbers, who are assigned nearly 100% Maghrebi ancestry. The Tunisian Berbers further separate as a distinct population cluster
Our sample of Tunisian Berbers retains the highest amount of Maghrebi ancestry, without substantial evidence of admixture with sub-Saharan, European or Near Eastern populations. However, their bimodal mean IBD distribution indicates a high proportion of 1st–2nd cousin equivalents and suggest that our sample of Tunisian Berbers comes from an isolated, endogamous population with diversity that is likely reduced relative to other Maghrebi populations.
By sampling multiple populations along an approximate transect across North Africa, we were able to identify gradients in ancestry along an east-west axis [Figure 1 and Figure 2]. Notably, even northwestern populations with very high proportions of Maghrebi ancestry, such as the Tunisians and Saharawi, still cluster with Out-of-Africa populations in the population structure analyses
____________________________________________
^^^ your thesis is primarily based on Tunisians. You use them to represent the whole region
Tunisian are either a population that "still clusters with OAA populations" (Henn) or they have nothing in common wih OOA or Africans other than living on the continent of Africa. So nobody gets to claim their ass. Why? Drift and Isolation
Tunisia is in Africa.
Are these Africans> the Tunisians, more similar genetically to Sahelians, Near Easterners or South Europeans?
^^^^ see if you can answer this.
I don't think scientists have a firm answer to this yet, maybe never
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
We dissected that Henn study already. I am not going to repeat it. If some of us don't understand it then .....
But to summarize.
The Henn study concluded the Arabic invasion(7th) was primarily cultural.
The only significant foriegn admixture was with the Ottoman Turks from West Asia NOT Arabia.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of what the intro “DNA tribes” says seems reasonable, except for relatively weak occasion, like say, the still highly assumptive “linking” of the so-called “IberoMaurusian” cultures with the Iberian peninsula.
The STR and SNP reports convey an interesting pattern. Usually the focus is on comparing Maghrebi populations with some “western” (read “sub-Saharan”) African series and several European series, often neglecting Levantine or Arabian and eastern African specimens. Here the latter have been given relatively more emphasis, and as a result, a visibly different impression emerges
The seemingly “lion’s share” of sharing or similarity between Maghrebi samples and those from the so-called “Middle East” may be the result of much more complex underlying forces than meets the eye. It could well be the interplay of a variety of underlying drivers: Take for instance, the influence of the basic substrata that shapes these genomes; the so-called “Middle East” in many cases, for example, feature genomes that are the products of integration between recent African ancestry with OOA elements, much of which is often implicated in ultimate eastern African sourcing. This phenomenon could be factoring into the STR and SNP profiles, along with gene flow between the Levant/Arabian peninsula and coastal northern Africa. Others may be the residuals of polymorphic happenstance on the aforementioned more or less similar basic genomic substrata, not to leave out the handy work of genetic drift. To iron out precisely which levels each of these underlying forces may be at work, examination of specific allele sequences and pattern of heterozygosity is needed.
In STR profile (intro posting--table 1), the Sahelian--which is very likely that of “western” Sahel--“contribution” may be speaking to elements of polymorphic genome that were acquired in said region independent of surrounding populations from northward and southward [assuming these are Tamazight-speaking Sahelian groups], and/or residual effect of DNA integration between groups in the Sahel and the more southerly western African communities, or yet, reflection of either inclusion or primary examination of non-Tamazight speaking Sahelian groups. Otherwise, the genomic profile of the *most basic substrata* should be more or less similar between the Tamazight-speaking groups of the Sahel and coastal north Maghreb, given a common ancestral source from eastern Africa or eastern Sahel.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quoting swenet: “This uniqueness comes from the accumulation of new mutations (which is how researchers come to the conclusion that large portions of their genome bespeaks prehistoric admixture events). This, however, does not mean that those new mutations cannot be assigned affinity to pre-existing DNA from surrounding parent populations.”
The “accumulation of new mutations” is not sufficient to tell a person whether a haplotype is “prehistoric admixture” or not.
Quoting lioness: “Anytime a region is defined soembody can take issue with it and say the ensuing analysis is flawed. The same question could be asked, why are West Africans separted from Horners. Why are Great Lakes Africans separated from Horners? Why make any category?”
There is a difference between the act of defining with consistency, and defining out of arbitrary convenience. For instance, the usual habit of “westerners” to say that Sudan or Ethiopia are “North Africa”, but that western African territories on similar latitudes are deemed not, does not invoke objectivity or consistency.
Western Africans are geographically “separated” from “Horners”, because well, the former are located on the western areas of the continent, and the “Horners” on the eastern area; who would have thought that this overly-obvious situation would be a stumper.
Quoting lioness: “The reason why is that the North Africans of today are primarily comprised of people with ancestry from outside of Africa.”
Is that the reason the lopsidedly-dominant male ancestry of “North Africans” is African?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: “This uniqueness comes from the accumulation of new mutations (which is how researchers come to the conclusion that large portions of their genome bespeaks prehistoric admixture events). This, however, does not mean that those new mutations cannot be assigned affinity to pre-existing DNA from surrounding parent populations.”
The “accumulation of new mutations” is not sufficient to tell a person whether a haplotype is “prehistoric admixture” or not.
But you know the other requirements (that you speak of) are there as well, so why comment on what you presume I know, rather than acknowledging that the requirements are there, and commenting on how you're going to reconcile the fact that there is an inconsistency between what they indicate, and your beliefs regarding the ages of the admixture dates under discussion..?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone who claims the Sahel is distinct from North Africa cant be taken seriously. North Africa includes the Sahel which is another way of saying the Sahara. North Africa is not simply the coastal portions of the African continent. They should call it Coastal North Africa if they want to subdivide it up like that, because that is NOT all of North Africa.
That is why I reject most of these European attempts to equate North Africa as non African. North Africa is African, with more admixture as you get closer to the coasts because of the fact that the Mediterranean has been a conduit for Non Africans to mix with populations closer to the coast. Not only that, but the Sahara desert causes most of North Africa to have very low population density, which means it is relatively easy for Non Africans to have a bigger genetic and physical impact than other places in the world.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Anyone who claims the Sahel is distinct from North Africa cant be taken seriously. North Africa includes the Sahel which is another way of saying the Sahara. North Africa is not simply the coastal portions of the African continent. They should call it Coastal North Africa if they want to subdivide it up like that, because that is NOT all of North Africa.
That is why I reject most of these European attempts to equate North Africa as non African. North Africa is African, with more admixture as you get closer to the coasts because of the fact that the Mediterranean has been a conduit for Non Africans to mix with populations closer to the coast. Not only that, but the Sahara desert causes most of North Africa to have very low population density, which means it is relatively easy for Non Africans to have a bigger genetic and physical impact than other places in the world.
__________________________________
Sahel:
Northern Senegal, southern Mauritania, central Mali, southern Algeria and Niger, central Chad, southern Sudan, northern South Sudan and Eritrea.
______________________________________
The question is
1) should the Sahel have it's own gentetic regional category?
2) If the Sahel should not have it's own genetic regional category should the the Sahel be considered part of North Africa or part of Sub Saharan Africa?
The Sahel is 85% sub Saharan African, therefore IF it should not have it's own genetic regional category then it should be part of Sub Saharan Africa and already overlaps
The Mahgreb is less than 20% Sub Saharan African
Therfore as per genetics if "North African" includes the Sahel then it is too broad and "North African" should not be used at all in genetic discussions of Africa. Instead:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Anyone who claims the Sahel is distinct from North Africa cant be taken seriously. North Africa includes the Sahel which is another way of saying the Sahara. North Africa is not simply the coastal portions of the African continent. They should call it Coastal North Africa if they want to subdivide it up like that, because that is NOT all of North Africa.
That is why I reject most of these European attempts to equate North Africa as non African. North Africa is African, with more admixture as you get closer to the coasts because of the fact that the Mediterranean has been a conduit for Non Africans to mix with populations closer to the coast. Not only that, but the Sahara desert causes most of North Africa to have very low population density, which means it is relatively easy for Non Africans to have a bigger genetic and physical impact than other places in the world.
__________________________________
Sahel:
Northern Senegal, southern Mauritania, central Mali, southern Algeria and Niger, central Chad, southern Sudan, northern South Sudan and Eritrea.
______________________________________
The question is
1) should the Sahel have it's own gentetic regional category?
2) If the Sahel should not have it's own genetic regional category should the the Sahel be considered part of North Africa or part of Sub Saharan Africa?
The Sahel is 85% sub Saharan African, therefore IF it should not have it's own genetic regional category then it should be part of Sub Saharan Africa and already overlaps
The Mahgreb is less than 20% Sub Saharan African
Therfore as per genetics if "North African" includes the Sahel then it is too broad and "North African" should not be used at all in genetic discussions of Africa. Instead:
Maghreb
Sahel
should be used, problem solved.
___________________________________
You're completely beside the most important point. African people living in the North African countries (usually in the south) are not included in the DNA Tribes database and other DNA research/study databases for that matter. Their samples were just not taken. They were ignored. For example, the Nubian people living in Egypt, the Tibu and Dawada people living in Libya and the Gnawa people living in Morocco and Algeria (among other ethnic groups). Those people possibly lived *relatively* isolated from other African groups since at least the mid-late Holocene, so they may present some distinctive SNP values different from other black African groups (while sharing distinctive SNP with other African people of course).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Anyone who claims the Sahel is distinct from North Africa cant be taken seriously. North Africa includes the Sahel which is another way of saying the Sahara. North Africa is not simply the coastal portions of the African continent. They should call it Coastal North Africa if they want to subdivide it up like that, because that is NOT all of North Africa.
That is why I reject most of these European attempts to equate North Africa as non African. North Africa is African, with more admixture as you get closer to the coasts because of the fact that the Mediterranean has been a conduit for Non Africans to mix with populations closer to the coast. Not only that, but the Sahara desert causes most of North Africa to have very low population density, which means it is relatively easy for Non Africans to have a bigger genetic and physical impact than other places in the world.
__________________________________
Sahel:
Northern Senegal, southern Mauritania, central Mali, southern Algeria and Niger, central Chad, southern Sudan, northern South Sudan and Eritrea.
______________________________________
The question is
1) should the Sahel have it's own gentetic regional category?
2) If the Sahel should not have it's own genetic regional category should the the Sahel be considered part of North Africa or part of Sub Saharan Africa?
The Sahel is 85% sub Saharan African, therefore IF it should not have it's own genetic regional category then it should be part of Sub Saharan Africa and already overlaps
The Mahgreb is less than 20% Sub Saharan African
Therfore as per genetics if "North African" includes the Sahel then it is too broad and "North African" should not be used at all in genetic discussions of Africa. Instead:
Maghreb
Sahel
should be used, problem solved.
___________________________________
You're completely beside the most important point. African people living in the North African countries (usually in the south) are not included in the DNA Tribes database and most DNA research/study database for that matter. Their samples were just not taken. They were ignored. For example, the Nubian people living in Egypt, the Tibu and Dawada people living in Libya and the Gnawa people living in Morocco and Algeria (among other ethnic groups). Those people possibly lived *relatively* isolated from other African groups since at least the mid-late Holocene, so they may present some distinctive SNP values different from other black African groups (while sharing distinctive SNP with other African people of course).
Precisely. These people play games by trying to omit as many black African populations within the Sahara, even though they are scattered and relatively sparsely populated throughout the region because they want to create a fake dichotomy of North African "others" versus so-called Sub-Saharans, which has been called out many times before. The Sahara is a desert. That means that people arent settled there like they would be if it was a forestland and build cities. They settle around oases on a temporary basis and are nomadic. But that has only been true for about the last 6,000 years. Prior to that, during the last wet phase, the Sahara was much more populated. But of course these clowns will try and pretend that these people were always mixed and simply non African settlers, which is pure nonsense.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Anyone who claims the Sahel is distinct from North Africa cant be taken seriously. North Africa includes the Sahel which is another way of saying the Sahara. North Africa is not simply the coastal portions of the African continent. They should call it Coastal North Africa if they want to subdivide it up like that, because that is NOT all of North Africa.
That is why I reject most of these European attempts to equate North Africa as non African. North Africa is African, with more admixture as you get closer to the coasts because of the fact that the Mediterranean has been a conduit for Non Africans to mix with populations closer to the coast. Not only that, but the Sahara desert causes most of North Africa to have very low population density, which means it is relatively easy for Non Africans to have a bigger genetic and physical impact than other places in the world.
__________________________________
Sahel:
Northern Senegal, southern Mauritania, central Mali, southern Algeria and Niger, central Chad, southern Sudan, northern South Sudan and Eritrea.
______________________________________
The question is
1) should the Sahel have it's own gentetic regional category?
2) If the Sahel should not have it's own genetic regional category should the the Sahel be considered part of North Africa or part of Sub Saharan Africa?
The Sahel is 85% sub Saharan African, therefore IF it should not have it's own genetic regional category then it should be part of Sub Saharan Africa and already overlaps
The Mahgreb is less than 20% Sub Saharan African
Therfore as per genetics if "North African" includes the Sahel then it is too broad and "North African" should not be used at all in genetic discussions of Africa. Instead:
Maghreb
Sahel
should be used, problem solved.
___________________________________
You're completely beside the most important point. African people living in the North African countries (usually in the south) are not included in the DNA Tribes database and other DNA research/study databases for that matter. Their samples were just not taken. They were ignored. For example, the Nubian people living in Egypt, the Tibu and Dawada people living in Libya and the Gnawa people living in Morocco and Algeria (among other ethnic groups). Those people possibly lived *relatively* isolated from other African groups since at least the mid-late Holocene, so they may present some distinctive SNP values different from other black African groups (while sharing distinctive SNP with other African people of course).
Look at some of the catagories in the DNATribes Amarna digest
For example "Tropical West African" or "African Great Lakes"
you can come up with hundreds of tribes/ethnic groups within those catagories and because some group which is under 1% of the population of those regions was not specifically tested you can say the result is "flawed".
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M you are 100% right when you declared North Africa include Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Chad, Sudan etc.Its a European racist fraud to say North Africa only include the coastal region.Most black people and black scholar fell for that fraud.
A clever Neterian/Yoga/Afrocentrist scholar name Muata Ashby wasnt fool by that Euro geographic fraud. In his book he divided the African continent in two North Africa and South Africa.North Africa frontier end in Cameroun, Central African Republic, Uganda and Kenya.Those countries in the rest of the continent are part of South Africa.This is geographicaly and sociologicaly correct since African people come from the great lake region, the green Sahara and the Nile Valley.
The American continent is not divided in West America, East America,.The American continent is divided into North America, Central America and South America.Africa should be divided the same way,Doug M you are correct.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
African people living in the North African countries (usually in the south) are not included in the DNA Tribes database and other DNA research/study databases for that matter. Their samples were just not taken. They were ignored. For example, the Nubian people living in Egypt, the Tibu and Dawada people living in Libya and the Gnawa people living in Morocco and Algeria (among other ethnic groups). Those people possibly lived *relatively* isolated from other African groups since at least the mid-late Holocene, so they may present some distinctive SNP values different from other black African groups (while sharing distinctive SNP with other African people of course).
Above. Is Gnawa a typo for Haratin here ?
Just a note that Maghrebi Gnawa are descendants of West Africans who came from south of the Sahel and north of the heavily forrested areas since the last few hundred years. Gnawa denotes a non-Berber speaking West African like the Bambara for instance.
Excellent point that Saharan blacks' genomes, though sharing many similarities with other Africans, should be distinctive.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
African people living in the North African countries (usually in the south) are not included in the DNA Tribes database and other DNA research/study databases for that matter. Their samples were just not taken. They were ignored. For example, the Nubian people living in Egypt, the Tibu and Dawada people living in Libya and the Gnawa people living in Morocco and Algeria (among other ethnic groups). Those people possibly lived *relatively* isolated from other African groups since at least the mid-late Holocene, so they may present some distinctive SNP values different from other black African groups (while sharing distinctive SNP with other African people of course).
Above. Is Gnawa a typo for Haratin here ?
Just a note that Maghrebi Gnawa are descendants of West Africans who came from south of the Sahel and north of the heavily forrested areas since the last few hundred years. Gnawa denotes a non-Berber speaking West African like the Bambara for instance.
Gnawa is not a typo and they are indigenous to the region. Probably migrate there before any back migration from Western Asia. DNA analysis (and anthropological studies) could help further this more.
Haratins are another African ethnic groups indigenous to the Morocco region.
It must be noted that both Gnawa and Haratine are names given to them by foreign people.
Don't be fooled by people who label any black African presence in North Africa as "sub-Saharan" or even West Africans or Sudanic when in fact it is indigenous to the region. Those are cheap muslim and eurocentric propaganda. Their links with other "sub-saharan Africans" (a misnomer obviously as Africans still live in and above the Sahara). Let me try it again. Their links with other black Africans (including the Haratins) probably date back from *at least* the late Pleistocene and early Holocene when Africans start occupying (again) the Sahara and North Africa during the green Sahara period. Some ancient African DNA presence (labeled 'sub-saharan' DNA presence) has been noted in Spain in addition with more modern "sub-saharan" African DNA.
As stated in the other thread, black Africans used to occupy Morocco (and Algeria obviously) a long time ago and left hundreds of rock art discovered by Susan Searight. That is much before Muhammad (the creator of the Muslim religion) was even born.
From the Atlas Mountain (Morocco):
Don't let the lack of information or information by muslim and 18th century eurocentrist sources fools you. Disinformation which trickle down to modern history books without anybody re-questioning it even in light of new archaeological and genetic evidences like the African rock art of the Moroccan Atlas Mountain.
Here's an interesting study:
quote: Ancient local evolution of African mtDNA haplogroups in Tunisian Berber populations
Abstract
Our objective is to highlight the age of sub-Saharan gene flows in North Africa and particularly in Tunisia. Therefore we analyzed in a broad phylogeographic context sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups of Tunisian Berber populations considered representative of ancient settlement. More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed. The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago . Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa. The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.
This study points to an ancient African genes flow into Tunisia (a very coastal North African country) dating back from 20,000 BP. So we're talking about an African presence which can still be detected (before any back migration from West Asia) dating back from 20,000 BP.
That's the reason it's very important to take samples from African (and Berber) people in any genetic studies when we want to know about ancient populations. Even if they form a minority now due to foreign invasion. If that study didn't took samples from those Berber groups in Tunisia, we wouldn't know that new corroborating information about the African presence in North Africa dating back to 20,000 BP and it's linkage to the eastern Sahara/Sudanic/East Africa region.
If we ignore ancient ethnic minority like the lioness propose above (or as done in the Henn study), Native Americans would be left out of history!!!
Same as some people want to left out black Africans from the North African history!!
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people will get their Hebrew panties in a bunch about the use of term "Falasha" but see no problem with "Gnawa".
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
African people living in the North African countries (usually in the south) are not included in the DNA Tribes database and other DNA research/study databases for that matter. Their samples were just not taken. They were ignored. For example, the Nubian people living in Egypt, the Tibu and Dawada people living in Libya and the Gnawa people living in Morocco and Algeria (among other ethnic groups). Those people possibly lived *relatively* isolated from other African groups since at least the mid-late Holocene, so they may present some distinctive SNP values different from other black African groups (while sharing distinctive SNP with other African people of course).
Above. Is Gnawa a typo for Haratin here ?
Just a note that Maghrebi Gnawa are descendants of West Africans who came from south of the Sahel and north of the heavily forrested areas since the last few hundred years. Gnawa denotes a non-Berber speaking West African like the Bambara for instance.
Gnawa is not a typo and they are indigenous to the region. Probably migrate there before any back migration from Western Asia. DNA analysis (and anthropological studies) could help further this more.
Haratins are another African ethnic groups indigenous to the Morocco region.
It must be noted that both Gnawa and Haratine are names given to them by foreign people.
Don't be fooled by people who label any black African presence in North Africa as "sub-Saharan" or even West Africans or Sudanic when in fact it is indigenous to the region.
I didn't start studying this stuff yesterday to be fooled by Eurocentrics nor Afrocentrics and I keep racially biased polemics out of assessment. They cheapen the worth of writings which use them and are only good for those who preach to the choir unable to stand on academics alone thus less effective on a world audience whom our paradigms must also reach.
Haratin aren't limited to Moroccan. Haratin are at base indigenous Saharans once reduced to sharecroppers by incoming Maghrebi Africans.
Gnawa is a Berber word denoting "mute" and its connotation is a foreign non-Berber speaker. Gnawa have songs extolling their forced migration into servitude northward across the Sahara desert. Some songs even have words in the languages of the kingdoms they originally came from though Maghrebi Gnawa speak Berber and Arabic.
Gnawa and Haratin are non-interchangeable terms. While the one is "foreign" the other is native.
I know the differences and have written about the indigenous coastal, pre-Sahara, and Saharan blacks (link) who were definitely not Gnawa but contributers to modern Berber speakers (Haratin and non-Haratin), Songhai speaking, and Soninke speaking populations of the Sahara and northward today.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Falasha is foreign and offensive and should never be used but Gnawa is... "foreign". lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
African people living in the North African countries (usually in the south) are not included in the DNA Tribes database and other DNA research/study databases for that matter. Their samples were just not taken. They were ignored. For example, the Nubian people living in Egypt, the Tibu and Dawada people living in Libya and the Gnawa people living in Morocco and Algeria (among other ethnic groups). Those people possibly lived *relatively* isolated from other African groups since at least the mid-late Holocene, so they may present some distinctive SNP values different from other black African groups (while sharing distinctive SNP with other African people of course).
Above. Is Gnawa a typo for Haratin here ?
Just a note that Maghrebi Gnawa are descendants of West Africans who came from south of the Sahel and north of the heavily forrested areas since the last few hundred years. Gnawa denotes a non-Berber speaking West African like the Bambara for instance.
Gnawa is not a typo and they are indigenous to the region. Probably migrate there before any back migration from Western Asia. DNA analysis (and anthropological studies) could help further this more.
Haratins are another African ethnic groups indigenous to the Morocco region.
It must be noted that both Gnawa and Haratine are names given to them by foreign people.
Don't be fooled by people who label any black African presence in North Africa as "sub-Saharan" or even West Africans or Sudanic when in fact it is indigenous to the region.
I didn't start studying this stuff yesterday to be fooled by Eurocentrics nor Afrocentrics and I keep racially biased polemics out of assessment. They cheapen the worth of writers who use them and are only good for those who preach to the choir, unable to stand academic stringency.
Haratin aren't limited to Moroccan. Haratin are at base indigenous Saharans once reduced to sharecroppers by incoming Maghrebi Africans.
Gnawa is a Berber word denoting "mute" and its connotation is a foreign non-Berber speaker. Gnawa have songs extolling their forced migration into servitude northward across the Sahara desert.
Gnawa and Haratin are non-interchangeable terms. While the one is "foreign" the other is native.
I know the differences and have written about the indigenous coastal, pre-Sahara, and Saharan blacks (link) who were definitely not Gnawa but contributers to modern Berber speakers (Haratin and non-Haratin), Songhai speaking, and Soninke speaking populations of the Sahara and northward today.
Fair assessment but I disagree with you. You can't rely on converted people anecdotal oral history. If you listen to the oral history on some African muslim convert you would believe they all spawn directly from Arabia, home of the prophet Muhammad. I think it would be important to have some genetic studies (at least one!!) and some more anthropological studies to clarify the ancient Gnawa origin and identity. Nevertheless, we both agree about the ancient black African presence in North Africa and Morocco. Which was my main point. Whether the Gnawa people are more recent, or not, doesn't matter to make my point. They just prove the need to analyze their DNA and expand the anthropological studies about them, which was another one of my point.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Falasha is foreign and offensive and should never be used but Gnawa is... "foreign". lol
We heard you the first time. If you would know the story of Africa (and the rest of the world). You would know that many African ethnic group names are actually names given to them by foreigners (often other African ethnic groups). Even Berber can be viewed as pejorative. A name given to them by Romans, I think, meaning Barbarians. Some ethnic group names start as pejorative but lose their pejorative connotation with time. It's a bit surprising but many African ethnic groups didn't actually have names to define themselves. They defined themselves (not tribally but as human beings) with names meaning something like "humans", "people", in their language.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
"But you know the other requirements (that you speak of) are there as well, so why comment on what you presume I know, rather than acknowledging that the requirements are there, and commenting on how you're going to reconcile the fact that there is an inconsistency between what they indicate, and your beliefs regarding the ages of the admixture dates under discussion..?"
Don't have the foggiest idea of what this remark is trying to convey, save for the vague idea that I "presumed" something here. Reality quite simply, however, is that I merely set the record straight around your rather simple-minded and uninformed comment. Discussion of anything further, is simply more pointless nagging on your part.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If setting the record straight means amnesia induced corrections that serve to self-comfort the narcissistic, then yeah, you've set the record straight al right.
In the real world, though, its squarely the result of your own failing mental faculties that you can't remember previous conversations a month ago, where my knowledge of these requirements have already been established.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
cumbucket head, the difference between you and me is as clear as day and night: I corrected something that you actually posted, here and now, in this very thread. You come back at me with emotional outburst of some crackpot neuro-diagnosis laced with silly unsophisticated insults.
If you wish to now address me on some past discussion I suggest you post your reaction in said topic, and if I happen to notice it, I'll chime in as I see fit. Understand?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people in Morocco who some call gnawa aka Haratin refers to people with Sahelian ancestry.
What DNATribes defines as "North Africa" is more properly defined as the Maghreb.
The people in Morocco who some call gnawa aka Haratin are descendants of the Songhai Empire which was conquered by Moorish berber, Moroccan sultan Ahmed el-Mansour in 1591
Why are most Magrebians lighter skinned than most Sahelians?
there are two explantions it could be either or both
1) with a few small exceptions people who live further from the equator are darker skinned than people who live closer to the equator, hense as an example Khoisans are lighter than most Zairians.
2) Morocco like other countries of the Maghreb is located at the Norther border of Africa and has had a history of foreign occupations
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The people in Morocco who some call gnawa aka Haratin refers to people with Sahelian ancestry.
Gnawa are not Haratine even I agree with Tukuler on that point. They both part of different black Africans ethnic groups indigenous to North Africa and Morocco. Tukuler sees the Gnawa as more recent. The precise relationship between all those people can be further clarified with proper DNA study and further anthropological research.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
TO get past this issue Berbers must understand and accept their mixed African status. Genetics is pretty damn clear on where "Berber" people ultimately "Come From". From what I have seen they are unwilling to accept this. Capsian in Kenya is older than that in North Africa.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
I wonder if it's possible to understand anything about Capsian cultural origins without placing it in some kind of referential context.
You have placed it in North Africa and after the misnomered "Ibero-Maurusian" culture and so far so good about that.
But do readers know the traits that define this culture, or its geographic boundaries, how long it endured from its rough beginning to ending dates, what cultures were in its proximity and what if any interaction happened between them?
Then, in consideration of the above, was there a "Capsian people" sharing a general phenotype differentiating them from surrounding peoples?
For me it's impossible to speak of Capsian origins whether or not they are North African without really knowing the above and also what is considered North Africa (i.e., the whole S. Med coast, the Maghreb only, the littoral to the pre-Sahara or on into the Sahara, everywher north of say the equator, etc.).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The people in Morocco who some call gnawa aka Haratin refers to people with Sahelian ancestry.
Gnawa are not Haratine even I agree with Tukuler on that point. They both part of different black Africans ethnic groups indigenous to North Africa and Morocco. Tukuler sees the Gnawa as more recent. The precise relationship between all those people can be further clarified with proper DNA study and further anthropological research.
either way they both originate from the Sahel rather than the Maghreb
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The people in Morocco who some call gnawa aka Haratin refers to people with Sahelian ancestry.
Gnawa are not Haratine even I agree with Tukuler on that point. They both part of different black Africans ethnic groups indigenous to North Africa and Morocco. Tukuler sees the Gnawa as more recent. The precise relationship between all those people can be further clarified with proper DNA study and further anthropological research.
either way they both originate from the Sahel rather than the Maghreb
According to you maybe. IMO, those people are indigenous to North Africa and Morocco the same way Europeans are indigenous to Europe and Natives Americans are indigenous to America. They were part of the first people along with other black African ethnic groups to inhabit North Africa and Morocco.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The people in Morocco who some call gnawa aka Haratin refers to people with Sahelian ancestry.
Gnawa are not Haratine even I agree with Tukuler on that point. They both part of different black Africans ethnic groups indigenous to North Africa and Morocco. Tukuler sees the Gnawa as more recent. The precise relationship between all those people can be further clarified with proper DNA study and further anthropological research.
either way they both originate from the Sahel rather than the Maghreb
According to you maybe. IMO, those people are indigenous to North Africa and Morocco the same way Europeans are indigenous to Europe and Natives Americans are indigenous to America. They were part of the first people along with other black African ethnic groups to inhabit North Africa and Morocco.
after the defeat of the Songhai empire by the Moroccans from the Maghreb some people of the Songhai empire of the Sahel came to Morocco.
The Native Americans are technically migrants from Asia before the Americas were populated.
Likewise Europe became largely depopulated by the ice age tempature 15Kya ago, then repopulated
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Native Americans are technically migrants from Asia before the Americas were populated.
Technically the whole world (beside where modern human originate) including the Sahel receive migrants from elsewhere. What you're saying doesn't mean anything. Usually we attribute the label of natives and indigenous to the first people who populated a region.
The Songhai empire is relatively very recent and don't have anything to do with any of it.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Xyman puts too much faith in DNATribes for them to say they are "coming around". Such organizations are still plagued with the usual bias.
As for the Sahel, it's funny how even among the most "negroid" populations of the Sahel region don't usually get lumped in with North Africans or Eurasians even though DNA studies show they do. I am automatically reminded of Tishkoff study of the Dogon.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Native Americans are technically migrants from Asia before the Americas were populated.
Technically the whole world (beside where modern human originate) including the Sahel receive migrants from elsewhere. What you're saying doesn't mean anything. Usually we attribute the label of natives and indigenous to the first people who populated a region.
The Songhai empire is relatively very recent and don't have anything to do with any of it.
anything to do with what? The DNATribes report on "North Africa" they are using a Maghreb definition
the point: The DNATribes report on "North Africa" applies to the Maghreb it is now today, in most recent times
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the obvious reason that people are what you might call "naive realists". They go mainly on what they see. I was recently at the airport at Casa Blanca, Morocco spending a good 10 hours there. I was able to observe the Moroccan population thusly--including cleaners working at the airport. For those who live in the Americas, Moroccans are like the people of Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic. They are easily distinguishable from European tourists and generally from the darker African populations from further South--even though they might share DNA haplogroup affinities.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Lioness doesn't think your analogy with North American Indians is applicable because to him there's no such thing as ancient black Africans in North Africa, the place was a melting pot from the start. He thinks this of AE too.
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Lioness doesn't think your analogy with North American Indians is applicable because to him there's no such thing as ancient black Africans in North Africa, the place was a melting pot from the start. He thinks this of AE too.
such people would have to be named by ethnic group and distinguisehd from Sahelians who entered Morroco after the defeat of the Songhai empire.
But more importantly the question is what percentage of prehistoric Maghrebian is present in modern day Maghrebian? It is very difficult to answer and DNA seems to indicate it is a very low percentage.
The Sahelains on the other hand are over 50% Tropical West African and that ancestry probably goes back tens of thousands of years.
quote:Originally posted by
For the obvious reason that people are what you might call "naive realists". They go mainly on what they see. I was recently at the airport at Casa Blanca, Morocco spending a good 10 hours there. I was able to observe the Moroccan population thusly--including cleaners working at the airport. For those who live in the Americas, Moroccans are like the people of Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic. They are easily distinguishable from European tourists and generally from the darker African populations from further South--even though they might share DNA haplogroup affinities.
^^^ this seems resonable to me
basic difference between the Maghreb and the Sahel. The Mahgreb has significant Arabian contribution The Sahel does not have significant Arabian contribution. The Sahelians are primarily SSA, West African. Th Maghrebians are not primarily SSA, Southern Moroccans being somewhat more SSA than other Mahgrebians.
^^^^ see all this? From this you can combine the Maghreb and the Sahel and call it "North Africa" then you have a less precise discussion that leads to the same problems over and over again. The reason is is that significant numbers of non-African migrants settled in the Maghreb but not the Sahel. Not only Arab but Phoenicians and others I think people like to use the term "North Africa" because they can then argue with any study that comes out suggesting results are flawed when in is mainly a dispute over what should be called "North Africa" I say don't even use the term, it's too broad and there's even a whole other problem with it aside from whther or not to include the Sahel in it and that is whether or not to include Egypt and Sudan in it. Forget all that. Don't even bother defining "North Africa" The definition of the Maghreb is much clearer, countries to the West of Egypt, bordering the coast. This is who the DNATribes report is talking about and in my opinion they should have called it an analysis of the Maghreb because that is the region they have outlined for sampling. So think of the results that way and proceed
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic