quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: "Contrary to a widely held assumption, black slavery in Morocco is a modern phenomenon (or ancien regime), not a Medieval one. Blacks from the Western Sudan were first imported in great numbers during the Saadian dynasty (16th century) to be employed in the sugar industry. This industry collapsed when cheaper sugar from Brazil flooded the European market. The heyday of slavery in Morocco came later, in the 17th-18th century."
That is also something some of us like to ignore as well. Most of the blacks brought to North Africa slaves came after the 15th century. The black people in North Africa were not slaves but Berbers of the 5 great tribes and the Arabians of Sulaym-Hilal or Mudar (of northern Arabian) stock.
Here I post a link of a Dutch TV show called "Atlas". It's a competition of famous Dutch personalities who battle each other, the whole rivalry takes place in Morocco, Atlas.
I don't know if you will be able to see any of this, due to regional blocking. But if you do see something, let me know. It's in Dutch of course, but images tell a lot.
They are at a casbah. You will see what local people look like. No gimmicks and no frills.
Also do you agree that the Maghreb/Northwest Africa was sparsely populated prior to the 16th century? Which is why the non African population EASILY displaces the African one.
Glade you could see it.
I would not say 16th century necessarily. But yes, on the sparsely.
Most of the Magreb you speak of is Rif, mountain region.
More towards the South it becomes dessert. With Oasis.
Ancient Greek settlements at North Africa were very local and small.
Most of the foreign populations remained at the coast, since it's hard to enter beyond the Rif and dessert. Which only indigenous Nomadic pastoral populations are familiar with, such as the Tuareg and Fula.
" During historic times, Berbers experienced a long and complicated history with many invasions, conquests, and migrations by Phoenicians, Romans, Vandals, Byzantines, Arabs, Bedouins, Spanish, Turks, Andalusians, sub-Saharans (communities settled in Jerba and Gabes in the 16th–19th centuries), and French (Brett and Fentress 1996). During these invasions, Berbers were forced back to the mountains and to certain villages in southern Tunisia (Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2004)."
Good post. So what you're basically saying is that the mountains acted as a barrier to outsiders, which is why the population of the Maghreb were so small. Which again agrees with my theory.
Its funny and ironic, because Eurocentrics always LOVE to say the Sahara acted as a barrier(when there wasn't always a desert), but also we have this....
Using the Holocene biogeography and palaeohydrology of the Sahara as an analogue for the MIS5 humid period, it is likely that an interconnected waterway would have been available for faunal and human dispersal. This humid period corresponds very closely with the age of the first modern human occupation of the North African coast (45) and the Levant (46) by sub-Saharan populations, who may have been crossing the Sahara at this time (9)."
"Reanalysis of the Saharan zoogeography (SI Appendix, Section 1 and Table S1) suggests that many animals, including water-dependant creatures such as fish and amphibians, dispersed across the Sahara recently. For example, 25 North African animal species have a spatial distribution with population centers both north and south of the Sahara and small relict populations in central regions. This distribution suggests a trans-Saharan dispersal in the past, with subsequent local isolation of central Saharan populations during the more recent arid phase. If a diverse range of species (including fish) can cross the Sahara, it is impossible to envisage the Sahara functioning as barrier to hominin dispersal." Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/458.full.pdf
How come Eurocentrics never talk about the mountains acting as a barrier???
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Okay we all know that Northwest Africans are an extremely diverse group of people. We know that their Y-DNA is predominantly African while their MtDNA is diverse/mixed. Geneticist often say Northwest Africans are a result of Eurasian females and African males. Correct me if I am wrong, but I usually hear that. We obviously know North Africa was populated by Africans since the OOA(though some Eurocentrics would beg to differ). We know the during the 15th century, that's the time when we mostly see Eurasian admixture(mostly from Europe).
But since Northwest Africans are so genetically diverse. What is the average type phenotype found among Northwest Africans?
From my real life personal experience I have to go with A. From what I've seen most Northwest Africans seem to have this mulatto type look going on. I haven't seen a lot of NW Africans but the ones I've seen look like mulattos. Second would be D which would be the middle eastern type look. IMO I think the European and stereotypical African look are the minority phenotype among Northwest Africans.
As for origins. Dana who is a specialist on this topic said there were no European/white Berbers until the 15th century. I actually agree with her. Its been stated that the vast majority of slaves around the Mediterranean, from antiquity to roughly the 1700s, were of European origin. Jawhar al-Siqill, the founder of Cairo, was a Sicilian-born slave. It is also likely that European slaves were even present in the kingdoms of the Sahel and savannahs. Like I said in my thread about my novel to Sundiate, the demand for Turkish slaves in Timbuktu was fairly high.
My theory of the origins of modern Northwest Africans is that when the Moors conquered Iberia and other parts of Southern Europe, the local European population under their rule converted to Islam then started to be called Moors while the Moorish armies remained made up of Blacks/Africans. When the Christians took over Spain and expelled the Muslims, who at this point were almost all European with slight admixture of African fled to North Africa. These are the modern populations of North Africa and are mostly African/African mixed and European, because from what I heard, north Africa was sparsely populated to begin with. They then displaced the local African/blacks into a more southward direction.
Conclusion: IMO I think the bulk of modern Northwest Africans are the result of Expelled Muslims from Europe and Enslaved Europeans.
Stereotypical these are the most common types in the North of Northwest Africa.
In the post above you'll see the stereotypical types from Central and South Northwest Africa.
After the drying of the Sahara the prime place to live in the Maghreb was along the coast where there was a fish food supply. When foreign settlers cames in berbers were forced out of these areas and moved into rockier more mountainous areas. Further South was pure desert, a barrier between the Maghreb and the Sahel. The mountain were not a barrier. You could go around them and go further south into the desert if you wanted to.
posted
Using the Holocene biogeography and palaeohydrology of the Sahara as an analogue for the MIS5 humid period, it is likely that an interconnected waterway would have been available for faunal and human dispersal. This humid period corresponds very closely with the age of the first modern human occupation of the North African coast (45) and the Levant (46) by sub-Saharan populations, who may have been crossing the Sahara at this time (9)."
"Reanalysis of the Saharan zoogeography (SI Appendix, Section 1 and Table S1) suggests that many animals, including water-dependant creatures such as fish and amphibians, dispersed across the Sahara recently. For example, 25 North African animal species have a spatial distribution with population centers both north and south of the Sahara and small relict populations in central regions. This distribution suggests a trans-Saharan dispersal in the past, with subsequent local isolation of central Saharan populations during the more recent arid phase. If a diverse range of species (including fish) can cross the Sahara, it is impossible to envisage the Sahara functioning as barrier to hominin dispersal."
--Drake et al 2010. Ancient watercourses and biogeography of the Sahara explain the peopling of the desert. PNAS 2011, vol. 108, no 2. 458–462
^^Good reference, undermining certain claims re the "barrier" of the Sahara, as if it were some sort of neat "apartheid" line in Africa.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obvioulsy the Sahara is a barrier. You have to go back the holocene period for it not to be a barrier. Egypt is a different case because it runas along a river
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Obvioulsy the Sahara is a barrier. You have to go back the holocene period for it not to be a barrier. Egypt is a different case because it runas along a river
Using the Holocene biogeography and palaeohydrology of the Sahara as an analogue for the MIS5 humid period, it is likely that an interconnected waterway would have been available for faunal and human dispersal. This humid period corresponds very closely with the age of the first modern human occupation of the North African coast (45) and the Levant (46) by sub-Saharan populations, who may have been crossing the Sahara at this time (9)."
"Reanalysis of the Saharan zoogeography (SI Appendix, Section 1 and Table S1) suggests that many animals, including water-dependant creatures such as fish and amphibians, dispersed across the Sahara recently. For example, 25 North African animal species have a spatial distribution with population centers both north and south of the Sahara and small relict populations in central regions. This distribution suggests a trans-Saharan dispersal in the past, with subsequent local isolation of central Saharan populations during the more recent arid phase. If a diverse range of species (including fish) can cross the Sahara, it is impossible to envisage the Sahara functioning as barrier to hominin dispersal." Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/458.full.pdfPosts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
wet period, dry period, do you realize ther was climate change in the Sahara? and an over 2000 year gap of evidence for huiman settlement during the transition.
Look at the Sahara today. It's a barrier and has been for several thousand years
Now go back in time to when it wasn't a barrier.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Which 2000 years in particular?
It's preposterous that littoral Northwest Africa was ever not inhabited by human beings. It's climate has been clement enough during the entire Holocene.
Again which 2000 years in particular?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
After the drying of the Sahara the prime place to live in the Maghreb was along the coast where there was a fish food supply. When foreign settlers cames in berbers were forced out of these areas and moved into rockier more mountainous areas. Further South was pure desert, a barrier between the Maghreb and the Sahel. The mountain were not a barrier. You could go around them and go further south into the desert if you wanted to.
It's not a barrier to the local population as I mentioned before. It's a barrier to foreigners, such as yourself.
Anyway,
The Rif,
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Obvioulsy the Sahara is a barrier. You have to go back the holocene period for it not to be a barrier. Egypt is a different case because it runas along a river
Using the Holocene biogeography and palaeohydrology of the Sahara as an analogue for the MIS5 humid period, it is likely that an interconnected waterway would have been available for faunal and human dispersal. This humid period corresponds very closely with the age of the first modern human occupation of the North African coast (45) and the Levant (46) by sub-Saharan populations, who may have been crossing the Sahara at this time (9)."
"Reanalysis of the Saharan zoogeography (SI Appendix, Section 1 and Table S1) suggests that many animals, including water-dependant creatures such as fish and amphibians, dispersed across the Sahara recently. For example, 25 North African animal species have a spatial distribution with population centers both north and south of the Sahara and small relict populations in central regions. This distribution suggests a trans-Saharan dispersal in the past, with subsequent local isolation of central Saharan populations during the more recent arid phase. If a diverse range of species (including fish) can cross the Sahara, it is impossible to envisage the Sahara functioning as barrier to hominin dispersal." Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/458.full.pdf
Morocco is divided into 4 different feature of the natural landscape.
quote:
Rif Region The beautiful Rif is a mountain range that extends from Tangier in the west to the Moulouya River in the east and the Mediterranean sea in the north to the river of Ouargha in the south. The mountain region derives its name from the Berber word, arif. They belong to the Alboran Sea region but are not a part of the Atlas Mountains. The region is well known for its geographic diversity, as it is home to mountains, the sea, rivers, and hills. Major cities in the region are Nador, Al Hoceima, Ajdir and Taza, among others.
The Rif was initially inhabited by the Berbers and was later invaded by the Phoenicians in the 3rd century BC, followed by the Romans and the Byzantines. The high plateau of Eastern Morocco: In the rain shadow region of the Atlas chain lies the broad valley of Moulouya. It stretches for about 530 kms rights from the Middle Atlas and goes right up to the Mediterranean Sea. Set to the southeast of the Atlas Mountains, this is a plateau formation at an altitude of 1300m (3900 feet). It stretches in the eastern direction to the Moroccan-Algerian border. It abruptly drops to the southwest and make a smoother transition toward the coastline. There are different small towns like Asni, Tin Mal that you can check out. The artificial lake Lalla Takerkoust created due the hydroelectric dam serves as a good source for the villages around it.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Obvioulsy the Sahara is a barrier. You have to go back the holocene period for it not to be a barrier. Egypt is a different case because it runas along a river
It's not a barrier to the local population as I mentioned before. It's a barrier to foreigners, such as yourself.
And Egypt is constructed in a similar way. This is why foreigners had a hard time entering the South (Upper) Egypt.
Do not speak of things you are clueless about. As you already are a clown.
Sand dunes and hills, the way they are shaped etc... are the true markers to Tuareg, Fula etc...
Older source,
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 124–142 (1998) Article no. AA980320
Early African Pastoralism: View from Dakhleh Oasis (South Central Egypt)
Mary M. A. McDonald
The late prehistoric archaeological sequence from Dakhleh Oasis, South Central Egypt, is examined for evidence on the origins and development of pastoralism in northeastern Africa, under the dry but fluctuating environmental conditions of the early to mid-Holocene. Around 8800 B.P., relatively sedentary groups of the Masara cultural unit have a broad-based
subsistence
system but no sign of food production. Herding appears ca. 7000 B.P., at a time of increased and possibly less seasonal rainfall, on large late Bashendi A sites with stone-built structures and a still-diversified food economy. With the drying trend after 6500 B.P., mobile Bashendi B cattle and goat herders continue to aggregate in the oasis for a millennium, still utilizing a variety of resources. More settled Sheikh Muftah groups occupy the oasis lowlands until Old Kingdom times. Throughout the sequence, the early pastoralism of Dakhleh seems more African than West Asian in character.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Which 2000 years in particular?
It's preposterous that littoral Northwest Africa was ever not inhabited by human beings. It's climate has been clement enough during the entire Holocene.
Again which 2000 years in particular?
evidence beyond perhaps two or three skeletons of human settlement in the Maghreb after the Capsian and before the Phoenicians Also 1000 years after the Ubaid in Arabia
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: wet period, dry period, do you realize ther was climate change in the Sahara? and an over 2000 year gap of evidence for huiman settlement during the transition.
Look at the Sahara today. It's a barrier and has been for several thousand years
Now go back in time to when it wasn't a barrier.
Even if the Sahara was a barrier(which it was NOT), my source clearly states the first people to occupied the coast of Northern Africa were Africans themselves. You act as if Africans were not living in coastal area before the Neolithic.
But more importantly. Lets get down to business...
Until very recently, most researchers studying the origins of Homo sapiens focused on the fossils of East Africa and the sophisticated tools and ornaments of famed South African sites such as Blombos Cave. Few scientists thought that much of evolutionary significance had gone on in North Africa, or that the region's big-toothed, somewhat archaic-looking hominins might be closely related to the ancestors of many living people. Now, thanks to new excavations and more accurate dating, North Africa boasts unequivocal signs of modern human behavior as early as anywhere else in the world, including South Africa. Climate reconstructions and fossil studies now suggest that the region was more hospitable during key periods than once thought. The data suggest that the Sahara Desert was a land of lakes and rivers about 130,000 years ago, when moderns first left Africa for sites in what is today Israel. And new studies of hominin fossils suggest some strong resemblances—and possible evolutionary connections—between North African specimens and fossils representing migrations out of Africa between 130,000 and 40,000 years ago. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6013/20
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Delusional one, the density is low because the region isn't as fertile.
However, the population of the region always has resided there. Go figure.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've said many times before the first inhabitnats of North Africa were indigenous hunter forager Africans of the earlier green period when the land could sustain a lot more vegetation.
The Sahara is not an absolute barrier to trade. After the camel was intoduced it was possble to transport across the desert. The Sahara is a barrier to large numbers of people settling in it due to drying that occured several thousand years ago.
There is no eveidence that significant numbers of people remained living in the Maghreb after the Capsians and before the Phoenicians, that's a couple thousands years.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I've said many times before the first inhabitnats of North Africa were indigenous hunter forager Africans of the earlier green period when the land could sustain a lot more vegetation.
The Sahara is not an absolute barrier to trade. After the camel was intoduced it was possble to transport across the desert. The Sahara is a barrier to large numbers of people settling in it due to drying that occured several thousand years ago.
There is no eveidence that significant numbers of people remained living in Africa after the Capsians and before the Phoenicians, that's a couple thousands years.
posted
^^^^ Awesome post. Yeah there was always trade going in and out of the Sahara. It was basically an highway at that time. It was certainly not a barrier. But I believe Lioness said she does not disagree that the Sahara was a barrier to trade.
Also...Please correct me if I am wrong. But you're basically proving like you stated that the mountains were a barrier to outsiders but not the locals? With that post.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I've said many times before the first inhabitnats of North Africa were indigenous hunter forager Africans of the earlier green period when the land could sustain a lot more vegetation.
The Sahara is not an absolute barrier to trade. After the camel was intoduced it was possble to transport across the desert. The Sahara is a barrier to large numbers of people settling in it due to drying that occured several thousand years ago.
There is no eveidence that significant numbers of people remained living in the Maghreb after the Capsians and before the Phoenicians, that's a couple thousands years.
Dumbo, people (communities) actually live in the Sahara, spanning from east to west. These communities always have lived in the region when it was and wasn't a desert. What the hell do you know? With your so called expertise.
You are too dumb to understand anything. It's that simple. Sitting there on your dumb behind typing nonsense about people you don't know nothing about.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
People really need to be specific about WHICH PART of the Sahara desert they're even talking about. All of Northern Sudan and Niger are in the Sahara. YET people in both the countries in LARGE populations. Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: ^^^^ Awesome post. Yeah there was always trade going in and out of the Sahara. It was basically an highway at that time. It was certainly not a barrier. But I believe Lioness said she does not disagree that the Sahara was a barrier to trade.
Also...Please correct me if I am wrong. But you're basically proving like you stated that the mountains were a barrier to outsiders but not the locals? With that post.
Logic tells that if they trade(d) with each other, it means they had no (is) barrier.
Yes, the Rif mountains were and are a barrier to outsiders and not to the locals.
I have posted images.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: People really need to be specific about WHICH PART of the Sahara desert they're even talking about. All of Northern Sudan and Niger are in the Sahara. YET people in both the countries in LARGE populations.
Countries aren't important here, those borders were created by colonialists. During classic times indigenous people had their own territories and respected borders.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^I know that. My point is those countries are mostly in the Sahara, yet those countries have a significant large population of people. It defeats the claim of the Sahara being completely uninhabitable.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: ^^^I know that. My point is those countries are mostly in the Sahara, yet those countries have a significant large population of people. It defeats the claim of the Sahara being completely uninhabitable.
Yes, they do now as it was during ancient times and the relative recent pre-colonial as well as post colonial.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: ^^^Agreed...
See, when delusional eurocentrics write that the Sahara is and was a barrier, they are actually right. Because it was and still is a barrier to them.
They are self-absorbed so when they speak or write its always from a point of selfishness, egocentrism and self interest. It's a barrier to use, so therefor we declare it's a barrier. Typical a colonial mindset.
Fortunately not all white/ european people are that stupid,
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Obvioulsy the Sahara is a barrier. You have to go back the holocene period for it not to be a barrier. Egypt is a different case because it runas along a river
"Obviously" what" This is obviously bogus you mean. It was never a barrier to tropical Africans moving back and forth as the archaeological record shows. And the "holocene" era goes back to 12,000 BC- since when was the Sahara a "barrier" at that time? To the contrary people were moving within and out of the Saharan zone even during the later Regionalization phase which featured continuing rains and temporary lakes. And while movement decreased as aridity increased in later phases, the Sahara was never a "barrier" to tropical Africans. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
And Egypt is not just a river- part of Egypt too is incorporated by the belt of the Sahara.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate strawe man threads like this., Somebody says Eureocentrics say this and that but they have no quotes. Then everybody comes in cheerleading, "yeah those Eurocentrics sure are are stupid"
The **** is boring and predictable.
If you want to do something worthwhile first find a Eureocentic quote to take apart, otherwise it's just people patting each other on the back, "we killed the straw man we just made"
I challenge somebody to find an actual recent piece of writing that says something wrong about the Sahara
but yall want to ego trip on "barrier" for 5 hours
If the Sahara has never been a barrier then what is your point coming out of that? what is the relevance?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Strawman thread??? What??? You did not have to come and comment in this thread in the first place.
It is a known fact that some Eurocentrics claim the Sahara desert was always a barrier. Why? Because they obviously want to separate North Africa from Sub Sahara Africa. Stop acting in denial just because people do not agree with your opinion.
And no we are not talking about actual studies that state the Sahara was always a barrier(if any exist). We're talking about regular Eurocentrics on the internet, who make such claims. This thread wasn't even about the Sahara desert. YOU'RE the one who brought it up in this first place.
Does the title of this thread say Sahara desert? No.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
now explain what the importance is of establishing that the Sahara is not a barrier Everybody knows there were caravans.
These were based on using oxen and camels.
The mountains of the Magheb weere a barrier for the Europeans. They couldn't figure out how to climb them or go around them so they couldln't go and plunder the sand on the other side
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra:
We're talking about regular Eurocentrics on the internet, who make such claims. This thread wasn't even about the Sahara desert. YOU'RE the one who brought it up in this first place.
then quote it, instead of making up what specific nobodies on the internet said,
then you hear somebody saying "Afrocentics say....."
and then somebody steps in "what Afrocentric said that?"
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Why? Because they obviously want to separate North Africa from Sub Sahara Africa.
don't waste time with word semantics look at the haplogroups in the two regions
But what about the supercool Tuaregs with blue turbans, weren't they always in the desert? Yeah the same ones who have haratin slaves to this day and burnt up the manuscipts at Timbuktu
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I hate strawe man threads like this., Somebody says Eureocentrics say this and that but they have no quotes. Then everybody comes in cheerleading, "yeah those Eurocentrics sure are are stupid"
The **** is boring and predictable.
If you want to do something worthwhile first find a Eureocentic quote to take apart, otherwise it's just people patting each other on the back, "we killed the straw man we just made"
I challenge somebody to find an actual recent piece of writing that says something wrong about the Sahara
but yall want to ego trip on "barrier" for 5 hours
If the Sahara has never been a barrier then what is your point coming out of that? what is the relevance?
You are a delusional Eurocentric with euro babble.
Your braincells are a barrier to critical thinking.
You have never set foot in any of the places, you dunce. So STFU!
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: now explain what the importance is of establishing that the Sahara is not a barrier Everybody knows there were caravans.
These were based on using oxen and camels.
The mountains of the Magheb weere a barrier for the Europeans. They couldn't figure out how to climb them or go around them so they couldln't go and plunder the sand on the other side
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra:
We're talking about regular Eurocentrics on the internet, who make such claims. This thread wasn't even about the Sahara desert. YOU'RE the one who brought it up in this first place.
then quote it, instead of making up what specific nobodies on the internet said,
then you hear somebody saying "Afrocentics say....."
and then somebody steps in "what Afrocentric said that?"
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Why? Because they obviously want to separate North Africa from Sub Sahara Africa.
don't waste time with word semantics look at the haplogroups in the two regions
But what about the supercool Tuaregs with blue turbans, weren't they always in the desert? Yeah the same ones who have haratin slaves to this day and burnt up the manuscipts at Timbuktu
Delusional one, long before camels were introduced to the region people of the region roamed the region. Whether desert or not.
You have no argument so you how to resort to slaves possession with no prove and clueless rubbish like that.
The Haplotypes deal with ethnographics. Delusional one. Population genetics doesn't speak of an overall hall. It merely speaks of a "populations" a select group of people. Delusional one.
"ABC NEWS: AL QAEDA DESTROYS TIMBUKTU SHRINES – MOROCCO, US URGE INTERNATIONAL ACTION"
Since you are so absorbed with slaves, look at European sex slaves, mainly from Central Europe.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Obvioulsy the Sahara is a barrier. You have to go back the holocene period for it not to be a barrier. Egypt is a different case because it runas along a river
"Obviously" what" This is obviously bogus you mean. It was never a barrier to tropical Africans moving back and forth as the archaeological record shows. And the "holocene" era goes back to 12,000 BC- since when was the Sahara a "barrier" at that time? To the contrary people were moving within and out of the Saharan zone even during the later Regionalization phase which featured continuing rains and temporary lakes. And while movement decreased as aridity increased in later phases, the Sahara was never a "barrier" to tropical Africans. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
And Egypt is not just a river- part of Egypt too is incorporated by the belt of the Sahara.
Consign,
"From about 65,000 years ago until about 12,000 years ago the Western Desert was hyper-arid, at least as dry as today and perhaps even drier. Changes began when the summer rains of tropical Africa began to move northward, bringing sufficient moisture for variety of sahelian grasses, tress, and bushes to grow and for a few small animals to exit, mostly hares and small gazelle, but also small carnivores. Even with the summer rains, it was still very dry with an annual rainfall no more than 10-15 cm. There were times of serious droughts, some of which resulted in the abandonment of the desert for extended periods.
The earliest (11,000-9300) settlements composed of seasonal camps of cattle-herding and ceramic-using people. These cattle must have been domestic, as they could not have existed in the arid landscape without human assistance. In a manner similar to that of central Africa today, cattle may have functioned as walking larders, which provided milk and blood. Meat may have been reserved for ceremonial occasions. Cattle also provided prestige and may have been major agents in the stratification of nomad society, as they are today in Central Africa. These early people probably came into the desert after the summer rains from farther south or from the Nile Valley in search of pasture; in the fall when the surface water in the playa dried up they had to return to the Nile or to better watered area in the south."
I have no idea why that lying Eurocentric asshole keeps irritating the same delusional claims. When it's obviously not true.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm good reference- there is also the nomadic angle. And it was those Nabata Playa folk that contributed numerous core elements making up Egyptian civ.
QUOTE(s): "a critical factor in the rise of social complexity and the subsequent emergence of the Egyptian state in Upper Egypt (Hoffman 1979; Hassan 1988). If so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they may have provided Egypt with many of those features that still distinguish it from its neighbors to the east." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 97-123 (1998), "Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory," Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
then quote it, instead of making up what specific nobodies on the internet said,
then you hear somebody saying "Afrocentics say....."
and then somebody steps in "what Afrocentric said that?"
I don't have to because this thread was not originally about this. Again YOU were the one who brought up the Sahara not me.
don't waste time with word semantics No one is playing semantics
look at the haplogroups in the two regions
Yeah I did look. And what I see is E-M81 being dominate clade in Northwest African males. And guess what? That clade is of African origins. The only thing thats significantly Eurasian is their mtDNA, yet their mtDNA is highly diverse.
We do know that Haplogroup A1 is the oldest haplogroup found in Northwest Africa. Find me a haplogroup older than that. Just proves the Sahara desert was never a barrier.
But what about the supercool Tuaregs with blue turbans, weren't they always in the desert? Yeah the same ones who have haratin slaves to this day and burnt up the manuscipts at Timbuktu
1. The Tuaregs did not burn the manuscripts. They were actually against that. Those were Al Qaeda rebels(who were not even from Mali) who were doing that stuff. They even betrayed the Tuareg rebels. Heck most Tuaregs never even wanted to split from Mali, but just wanted fairness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQBuY5g9twE
2. BS, yes Tuaregs still have slaves. But they weren't the only group who had slaves. Mandinkas and Fulanis also had slaves.
What are you trying to prove with the Tauregs.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Yeah I did look. And what I see is E-M81 being dominate clade in Northwest African males. And guess what? That clade is of African origins. The only thing thats significantly Eurasian is their mtDNA, yet their mtDNA is highly diverse.
the fact that M81 is at high frequencies in North Africa but not in Sub Saharan Africa shows a divide between the regions aka African diversity If you look at the terrain there is a large desert between these two regions which is very sparsely populated. The Tuaregs for instance, live under some the most difficult environmental conditions in the world
The people who destroyed the manuscipts along with many other monuments were the Tuareg group Ansar Dine led by Iyad Ag Ghaly, one of the most prominent leaders of the Tuareg rebellion in the 1990s. Ironically of the Tuaregs rebel groups the most militant Islamic ones don't want a separate state. They just want Sharia law in their territory.
The Tuaregs separtists, the MNLA, who actually want a separate state are Muslim but not the radical Islam muslims. Things are not as simple as they seem
And the the Al-Qaeda group in the region is AQIM (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) is led by Algerian Arabs but also includes Tuaregs and Moroccans. and they were not the group destoying the manuscipts, they are more interested in bombing embassies and profiteering from kidnapping tourists for ransom
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Yeah I did look. And what I see is E-M81 being dominate clade in Northwest African males. And guess what? That clade is of African origins. The only thing thats significantly Eurasian is their mtDNA, yet their mtDNA is highly diverse.
the fact that M81 is at high frequencies in North Africa but not in Sub Saharan Africa shows a divide between the regions aka African diversity If you look at the terrain there is a large desert between these two regions which is very sparsely populated. The Tuaregs for instance, live under some the most difficult environmental conditions in the world
The people who destroyed the manuscipts along with many other monuments were the Tuareg group Ansar Dine led by Iyad Ag Ghaly, one of the most prominent leaders of the Tuareg rebellion in the 1990s. Ironically of the Tuaregs rebel groups the most militant Islamic ones don't want a separate state. They just want Sharia law in their territory.
The Tuaregs separtists, the MNLA, who actually want a separate state are Muslim but not the radical Islam muslims. Things are not as simple as they seem
And the the Al-Qaeda group in the region is AQIM (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) is led by Algerian Arabs but also includes Tuaregs and Moroccans. and they were not the group destoying the manuscipts, they are more interested in bombing embassies and profiteering from kidnapping tourists for ransom
You are delusional, the Tuareg span from the Sahel/ Southern Sahara to the Northern part of the Sahara. And certainly also at the so called sub Sahara. A term created by delusional Europeans/ eurocentrics.
The reason why, genography ethnographics (tribalization) are relative selective measures. E-M81 is regional to Northwest Africa. Not to Northeast Africa, so by your logic there was and is a barrier along the North African Mediterranean coast.
You keep typing nonsense about people you don't know nothing about. Typical Eurocentrism. Your pathetic attempts are hilarious. You're a fake African American black women impostor.
quote: The Tuareg presently live in the Sahara and the Sahel. Their ancestors are commonly believed to be the Garamantes of the Libyan Fezzan, ever since it was suggested by authors of antiquity. Biological evidence, based on classical genetic markers, however, indicates kinship with the Beja of Eastern Sudan
--Viktor Černý
quote: The remarkable archaeological site, dating back 10,000 years and called Gobero after the Tuareg name for the area, was brimming with skeletons of humans and animals — including large fish and crocodiles. Gobero is hidden away within Niger’s forbidding Ténéré Desert, known to Tuareg nomads as a “desert within a desert.”
The Kiffian & Tenerean Occupation Of Gobero, Niger: Perhaps The Largest Collection Of Early-Mid Holocene People In Africa
quote:This site has been called Gobero, after the local Tuareg name for the area. About 10,000 years ago (7700–6200 B.C.E.), Gobero was a much less arid environment than it is now. In fact, it was actually a rather humid lake side hometown of sorts for a group of hunter-fisher-gatherers who not only lived their but also buried their dead there. How do we know they were fishing? Well, remains of large nile perch and harpoons were found dating to this time period.
Yeah I did look. And what I see is E-M81 being dominate clade in Northwest African males. And guess what? That clade is of African origins. The only thing thats significantly Eurasian is their mtDNA, yet their mtDNA is highly diverse.
the fact that M81 is at high frequencies in North Africa but not in Sub Saharan Africa shows a divide between the regions aka African diversity If you look at the terrain there is a large desert between these two regions which is very sparsely populated. The Tuaregs for instance, live under some the most difficult environmental conditions in the world
The people who destroyed the manuscipts along with many other monuments were the Tuareg group Ansar Dine led by Iyad Ag Ghaly, one of the most prominent leaders of the Tuareg rebellion in the 1990s. Ironically of the Tuaregs rebel groups the most militant Islamic ones don't want a separate state. They just want Sharia law in their territory.
The Tuaregs separtists, the MNLA, who actually want a separate state are Muslim but not the radical Islam muslims. Things are not as simple as they seem
And the the Al-Qaeda group in the region is AQIM (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) is led by Algerian Arabs but also includes Tuaregs and Moroccans. and they were not the group destoying the manuscipts, they are more interested in bombing embassies and profiteering from kidnapping tourists for ransom
The Al-Qaeda embeds all kinds of ethnicities. Even white Americans. Don't be surprised, dullard. Look at Syria today, loads of youngsters from Holland and Belgium (including Native white Dutch and Belgium's) moved over there to fight for "a cause". Whatever that may be?
And it seems there are quite a few barriers in Europe. According to your "logic"
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Hmm good reference- there is also the nomadic angle. And it was those Nabata Playa folk that contributed numerous core elements making up Egyptian civ.
QUOTE(s): "a critical factor in the rise of social complexity and the subsequent emergence of the Egyptian state in Upper Egypt (Hoffman 1979; Hassan 1988). If so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they may have provided Egypt with many of those features that still distinguish it from its neighbors to the east." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 97-123 (1998), "Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory," Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild.
And then there was this:
The ruins were discovered deep in the desert of Western Sahara
The remains of a prehistoric town dating back 15,000 years have been discovered in the Moroccan-administered territory of Western Sahara.
The Moroccan state media on Thursday said a team of scientists stumbled across the sand-covered ruins of the town Arghilas, deep in the desert of Western Sahara.
The remains of a place of worship, houses and a necropolis, as well as columns and rock engravings depicting animals, were found at the site near the northeastern town of Aousserd.
Significant find
The isolated area is known to be rich in prehistoric rock engravings, but experts said the discovery could be significant if proven that the ruins were of Berber origin as this civilisation is believed to date back only about 9000 years.
"It appears that scientists have come up with the 15,000-year estimate judging by the style of engravings and the theme of the drawings," Mustafa Ouachi, a Rabat-based Berber historian said.
Berbers are the original inhabitants of North Africa before Arabs came to spread Islam in the seventh century.
The population of Western Sahara, seized by Morocco in 1975 when former colonial power Spain pulled out, is mostly of Berber and Arab descent.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Yes, OK I see the thread, thanks. Looks like Jehosaphats is mentioning some of the same info on that thread. I'm glad he has the staying power he has had there as they sure need some black folk on there.
"Neither was the Zanj revolt a slave revolt. One observant modern commentator puts it this way: 'All the talk about slaves rising against the wretched conditions of work in the salt marshes of Basra is a figment of the imagination and has no support in the sources. [...] The vast majority of the rebels were Arabs of the Persian Gulf supported by free East Africans who had made their homes in the region [...] If more proof is needed that it was not a slave revolt, it is to be found in the fact that it had a highly organized army and navy which vigorously resisted the whole weight of the central government for almost fifteen years.' (M. A. Shaban, 'Regional Economic Conflicts': 101)"
Take a look into this one:
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What comes out of most studies about Tuareg (and Berber) is:
1) Heterogeneity. Not all Tuareg have the same population genetic structure
2) Mostly African hg on the male side, and a large non-African hg proportion on the female side (from different geographic origin populations).
3) Genetic drift effect drastically changing the ancient population structure among those populations.
For example, Tuareg in Mali (Tgos) are 100% African on the male side (ABE hg) but only 28.5% African (L hg) thus 71.4% non-African (HUVM) on the female side. MtDNA haplogroups like H and L didn't originate in the same region, among the same population.
Taking from: Linking the sub-Saharan and West Eurasian gene pools (2010)
In the same study, Tuareg in Niger are determined to be 66.7% African on the Male side (ABE hg) and on the female side 80.6% African (L hg), that is of course 19.4% non-African on the female side (HUVM).
Although even real geneticists sometimes consider M1 to be African, sometimes not, but their proportion is smaller.
Maybe the Tuareg in Niger, having more African hg, are, while admixed, closer to the original "unadmixed" Tuareg or maybe on the contrary their African Hg are more recent.
In 2 other studies ( First Genetic Insight into Libyan Tuaregs: A Maternal Perspective and Deep into the roots of the Libyan Tuareg: a genetic survey of their paternal heritage ), we got:
And Y-DNA of Libyan Tuareg, African E=91.4% Non-African R+other=8.5%
Although Libyan Tuareg show a low level of haplotype and nucleotide diversity (one of the lowest in Africa according to study). Similar situation with Berber population and their high proportion of E-M81. Showing us the effect of genetic drift. Thus meaning that the modern representative of the Berber and Tuareg don't have the same genetic population structure, the same haplogroup proportion than in the past. Some haplogroups have drifted away while other haplogroups are now over-represented.
High level of genetic drift shows us that the ancient Tuareg and Berber population didn't have the same genetic structure and haplogroup distribution that the modern population. There was a drift.
It's also interesting to note that almost none of the non-African Tuareg and Berber specific hg like H in Tuareg or M81 show up in Beyoku's study preview (beside one M1 in OK and MK). The closer a Tuareg or Berber is to African populations and haplogroups, the closer he is to the Ancient Egyptian population.
Which is true of course for any populations since Ancient Egyptians are closely related to African people genetically. The closer a population is to Africans, the closer you are to Ancient Egyptians:
Nor did DNA tribes study which included Berber and North African populations find any close matches with the North African region. A region which faced many foreign invasions since ancient times: Phoenicians, Romans, Vandals, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, French, etc. Which changed its genetic structure (the haplogroup proportion) along the years.
Tuareg and Berber, from an African point of view, are a population which started in East Africa, like most modern Africans, and migrated eventually to Northwest Africa to finally interbred with people from the Iberian peninsula and back migration from the Middle East in Ancient and more modern times. Eventually came about the effect of genetic drift (which can be seen by the high proportion of M81 or HUV hg). Moors means black even if now many Berbers have white skin, showing us that in ancient times almost all the original Berbers were black.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
John E. Yellen National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230
Abstract Examination of African barbed bone points recovered from Holocene sites provides a context to interpret three Late Pleistocene occurrences from Katanda and Ishango, Zaire, and White Paintings Shelter, Botswana. In sites dated to ca. 10,000 BP and younger, such artifacts are found widely distributed across the Sahara Desert, the Sahel, the Nile, and the East African Lakes. They are present in both ceramic and aceramic contexts, sometimes associated with domesticates. The almost-universal presence of fish remains indicates a subsistence adaptation which incorporates a riverine/lacustrine component. Typologically these points exhibit sufficient similarity in form and method of manufacture to be subsumed within a single African “tradition.”They are absent at Fayum, where a distinct Natufian form occurs. Specimens dating to ca. 20,000 BP at Ishango, possibly a similar age at White Paintings Shelter, and up to 90,000 BP at Katanda clearly fall within this same African tradition and thus indicate a very long-term continuity which crosses traditionally conceived sub-Saharan cultural boundaries.
And more recent sources:
Volume 300, 25 June 2013, Pages 153–170
The Middle Palaeolithic in the Desert
The Middle Stone Age of the Central Sahara: Biogeographical opportunities and technological strategies in later human evolution
Although the attempt of Zobel de Zangroniz to disprove the African origin of the regal coins of Numidia has failed (see Babelon, loc. cit.), much uncertainty still attaches to their distribution among the various kings :—Masinissa (B.C. 202-148); his sons Micipsa (148-118), Gulussa (148-140?), and Mastanabal (148-140?); his grandsons Adherbal (118-112). Hiempsal I (118-116), and Jugurtha (118-106); and his great-grandson Hiempsal II (106-60).
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic