FORDISC 2.0 (Ousley and Jantz, 1996) was created for forensic applications in the USA. The programme has two reference databases: the Forensic Data Bank (present day crania, forensic and modern cases) and the Howells database (Howells 1973, 1989). The Forensic Data Bank groups individuals into ‘American Blacks’, ‘American Whites’, ‘American Indians’, ‘Japanese’, ‘Chinese’, ‘Vietnamese’ and ‘Hispanic’. The Howells database, groups individuals into geographical regions but was not applied to the Ibizan individuals. A priori, the latter reference database did not have sufficient samples that were appropriate for Ibiza. Preliminary analyses also resulted in Punic skulls having affinities with a variety of world populations. It was the Forensic Data Bank reference sample that was employed for the present study. Only two of its categories were used, determined by the nature of the research and the geographical and chronological background of Ibiza: ‘American Blacks’ with a reference sample of 150 males and 125 females, and ‘American Whites’ with 271 males and 195 females (Ousley and Jantz, 1996). Therefore, the study assumed that each skull belonged to either group.
-- The presence of african individuals in punic populations from the Island of Ibiza (Spain): contributions from physical anthropology Nicholas Márquez-Grant
You're bringing up North Africa. They didn't test for North Africa or Ibiza
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea what you're talking about or what's supposed to be the strawman attack on my part.
And your objections don't make sense. You can tell by the patterns of affinity of samples what their affinities are. You don't need "the right samples". Stop polluting this thread with your whiny and crappy objections.
Recent samples around the Mediterranean with European-like ancestry will NEVER prefer African Americans over European Americans, unless they have admixture from Africans or something about the analysis is very wrong. Do you have any idea how stupid your objections sound?
So, no, "better samples" has nothing to do with it. Certain Carthaginian samples classifying with "US blacks" over "US whites" is final. There is no "plot twist" down the road that can somehow turn these results around in a way that doesn't involve substantial African ancestry for these individuals.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The idea that Hannibal was black comes from J.A. Rogers who said the Phoenicians were Negroid, the same amateur historian who wrote a book on there being five Negro U.S. presidents.
So the standard by which these five U.S, presidents were black can also be applied to the Phoenicians
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Thx Nehesy thx
Page 200 plate 21
somebody please scan and post these extremely (excuse me) When to use black and when not to negro racial sense otherwise nigger
Canaanite ancient Syrian ancient Lebanese ratchet Retjenu sand crawler niggas please please please please -- I got no access to a scanner at the moment, thanks
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Phoenician colonization4 The Phoenician colonization can be considered as the roots of the Carthaginian culture (Tarradell, 1955: 66). The Phoenicians were people from the Eastern Mediterranean, and more specifically, the area of present day Lebanon.
So? LOL
quote: By the collapse of the Late Bronze Age societies (approximately 3200 YBP), the Mediterranean Basin underwent different waves of invasion, particularly by the Greeks of the Aegean Sea and, to a lower extent, by Levantine (Phoenicians) groups [50]. Both of them established a set of different colonies along the Mediterranean coasts of Southern Europe and North Africa.
Previous Y-chromosome genetic studies on the Phoenician colonization demonstrated that haplogroup J2 in general, and six haplotypes in particular (PCS1+ through PCS6+), may potentially have represented lineages linked with the spread of the Phoenicians (“Phoenician Colonization Signal”) into the Mediterranean [51]. At this respect, it is worth noting the presence of 4 PCS+ haplotypes (namely PCS1+, PCS2+, PCS4+, PCS5+; [51]) in 9 samples of our Sicilian and Southern Italian dataset, particularly belonging to haplogroups J1-M267 (n = 2), J2-M410* (n = 1), J2-M67 (n = 5), and J2-M12 (n = 2). However, sub-lineages of haplogroup J2 have been also associated with the Neolithic colonization of mainland Greece, Crete and Southern Italy [52], and our TMRCA estimates for J2-subhaplogroups (ranging from 3271±1157 YBP to 3767±1332 YBP) cannot exclude an earlier arrival of at least some of the J2 chromosomes in Sicily and Southern-Italy during Neolithic times.
--Stefania Sarno et al.
PLoS One. 2014; 9(4): e96074. Published online 2014 Apr 30. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096074 PMCID: PMC4005757 An Ancient Mediterranean Melting Pot: Investigating the Uniparental Genetic Structure and Population History of Sicily and Southern Italy
quote:Today, it is very frequent in the Levant, Anatolia and Iran41,42 and its recent spread in the Mediterranean is believed to have been facilitated by the maritime trading culture of the Phoenicians (1550–300 BC). According to Zalloua and collaborators43 evidence of Phoenician influence in Tunisian is apparent by the presence of the J-M172 Y-chromosome haplogroup in coastal regions considered as areas of Phoenician contact (versus inland). In Sousse, the J-M172 lineage is exclusively represented by its J-M410 clade, of which the J-L24 mutation is the most prevalent (12 individuals). The remaining seven individuals belong to the following subclades: J-M410 (three individuals), J-Page55 (two individuals) and J-DYS445 ⩽ 7 (one individual).
--Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al.
Sousse: extreme genetic heterogeneity in North Africa
Journal of Human Genetics 60, 41-49 (January 2015) | doi:10.1038/jhg.2014.99
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The article
quote: THE PRESENCE OF AFRICAN INDIVIDUALS IN PUNIC POPULATIONS FROM THE ISLAND OF IBIZA (SPAIN): CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Nicholas Márquez-Grant*
Three of these skulls were classified as ‘Black’, likely proving the presence of individuals in the Ibizan populations with sub-Saharan ancestry.
Said that 3 out of 24 people (12.5%) in this Phoenician samples were black.
Assuming skeletons can be measured for blackness and that these three individuals were black. Who were these blacks?
so were the Carthaginians black?
was Hannibal black?
Is America black?
we have the FORDISC, let's answer these basic questions
____________________________________
Some people in Phoenician Ibiza were black. I find it unremarkable
quote: Only in the case of skull VR47/U30 was one of these measurements included (maximum frontal breadth). This allowed the inclusion of this skull as the urban context is poorly represented in the samples. The required measurements were also taken from the published data.
Measurements were then introduced into the forensic discriminant programme FORDISC 2.0 (Ousley and Jantz, 1996). This programme was selected as it contains data from samples with a European Caucasoid background as well as data from individuals with a sub-Saharan ancestry. It also does not require the complete set of measurements, which is appropriate for the incompletely preserved Ibizan skulls
--Nicholas Márquez-Grant
The presence of african individuals in punic populations from the Island of Ibiza (Spain): contributions from physical anthropology
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [D]ata on Carthaginian skeletal remains so, hopefully, there won't be another attempt down the road to downplay the presence of Sub-Saharan Africans there:
Quote: Punic Carthage, North Africa (Sarcophagus 5). FORDISC classification: BM (black male, US)
Punic Carthage, North Africa (Sarcophagus 7). FORDISC classification: BM (black male, US)
Punic Carthage, North Africa (Sarcophagus 14). FORDISC classification: BM (black male, US)
As a sidenote, in Keita 1990 at least 12% of the Maghreb sample (which, as I said earlier, is comprised of Carthaginians and Copper Age Algerians) groups with equatorial Africans (Gabon and Teita) in addition to the 15% that groups with predynastic Egyptians. The percentages that group with Europeans range from 13% to 17%, depending on the analysis. The rest group with the dynastic Egyptians and Nubians.
Anyone who thinks this pattern of relationships is consistent with an unadmixed population or that there is room for "improvement" towards a non-African affinity pending "better non-European samples from the Middle East" is not fit to comment on this subject matter.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^ Ish Gebor picture spamming on people whose looks he's comfortable with
Aw, got your feelings hurt? lol GOOD!
Ps, you are too dumb to analyze the data.
"as it contains data from samples with a European Caucasoid background" BAHAHHAAHA.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Several lines of evidence suggest that E-M78 sub-haplogroups E-V12, E-V22 and E-V65 have been involved in trans-Mediterranean migrations directly from Africa. These haplogroups are common in northern Africa, where they likely originated, ...
-- Cruciani et al 2007
Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those of you who play Total War: Rome II on Steam...
I have a new mod up which makes the Carthaginian units biologically African (or "black") in appearance. It's actually a redoing of a mod I made a few years back, but the game has updated several times since the first one and has probably made it obsolete.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: For those of you who play Total War: Rome II on Steam...
I have a new mod up which makes the Carthaginian units biologically African (or "black") in appearance. It's actually a redoing of a mod I made a few years back, but the game has updated several times since the first one and has probably made it obsolete.
posted
Lioness, you just posted this elsewhere. In light of your strange objections in regards to Márquez-Grant over the last couple of days, you seem surprisingly eager to post proof that African American classifications in FORDISC don't bode well for your theory that strong African ancestry is not implied for the Carthaginian individuals with similar results.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] Source article on Bangle Lady
Again, I'm left wondering if you even read the paper/have the basic comprehension to know when you're debunking yourself.
The African American FORDISC classification of this woman could be independently verified with what the authors called "black ancestral traits". But lioness thinks we can make the Carthaginian FORDISC assignment of substantial African ancestry go away "if only we had the right Middle Easterners".
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lioness, you just posted this elsewhere. In light of your strange objections in regards to Márquez-Grant over the last couple of days, you seem surprisingly eager to post proof that African American classifications in FORDISC don't bode well for your theory that strong African ancestry is not implied for the Carthaginian individuals with similar results.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] Source article on Bangle Lady
Again, I'm left wondering if you even read the paper/have the basic comprehension to know when you're debunking yourself.
The African American FORDISC classification of this woman could be independently verified with what the authors called "black ancestral traits". But lioness thinks we can make the Carthaginian FORDISC assignment of substantial African ancestry go away "if only we had the right Middle Easterners".
A Lady of York: migration, ethnicity and identity in Roman Britain S. Leach,1 H. Eckardt1, C. Chenery1,2, G. Mu ̈ldner1 & M. Lewis1 March 2010,
The remains of the ‘ivory bangle lady’ were analysed using standard methods for the assessment of ancestry in forensic anthropology (see Bass 1995; Byers 2005). During the osteological analysis it was noted that the facial characteristics of this female exhibited a mix of ‘black’ and ‘white’ ancestral traits (Figure 3). The skull exhibited a low, wide and broad nasal ridge and wide inter-orbital breadth suggestive of ‘black’ ancestry, while the nasal spine and nasal border demonstrated ‘white’ characteristics. The shape of the nasal aperture was inconclusive.
The craniomorphometric analysis suggests that she may have been of ‘mixed race’ ancestry.
The case of the ‘ivory bangle lady’ contradicts assumptions that may derive from more recent historical experience, namely that immigrants are low status and male, and that African individuals are likely to have been slaves. Instead, it is clear that both women and children moved across the Empire, often associated with the military (James 2001: 80).
Artefactual evidence also suggests that ‘the Roman north was a cosmopolitan place with a great mixing of people from all over the empire’ (Cool 2002: 42). For example, Swan (1992) argued for the presence of North Africans in York on the basis of braziers and other vessels typical of North African food-ways but made in local fabrics.
Roman North Africa is well known for its mixed populations (e.g. Mattingly & Hitchner 1995: 171-4) reflecting Phoenician, Berber and generally Mediterranean influences, and individuals from Roman North Africa are therefore more likely to display mixed rather than strongly Sub-Saharan features.
[/QUOTE]
If she was a Roman citizen she was Roman in that sense.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet's basic premise is that human skulls have two poles of extremity. One is black and the other is white and this can be determined by measurements. That is belief in race
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet's basic premise is that human skulls have two poles of extremity. One is black and the other is white and this can be determined by measurements. That is belief in race
Populations can be analyzed in terms of how they fit in between two morphological extremes. In capable hands, there is population affinity information that can be gained from that. That's one of the basic premises of all physical anthropology. Very sad that you still seem to be confused about that after six years.
It's very simple.
--living Middle Easterners are in a genetic cluster with Europeans, owing to several recent and impactful admixture events on top of the affinity that was already there due to OOA --because of this, they're expected to have a similar morphological distance to Africans --almost all deviations from this expectation on the part of living European or Middle Eastern groups is due to admixture from some outside source
You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. That's why you think Carthaginian affinities are still up in the air pending the inclusion of a "great white hope" that can make the absolute horror of non-white Carthaginians go away. But, like I said, the African American classifications are final (in the sense of showing strong African presence there) and there is nothing you can do about that other than pout like a baby.
And I never said Carthaginians with closer affinity to FORDISC's African American samples would necessarily mean said Carthaginians would cluster with equatorial inner Africans. So, attempts to contrast my post with quotes saying the Romano-British woman had so called 'white' traits to a similar degree as African Americans are hopelessly clueless. As are your constant complaints that "America is mixed".
Notice the habitual lack of sources in your posts. Sources you do post every once in a blue moon are quote-mined (see your sad botching of Márquez-Grant who supposedly observed Afram classifictions "for only three Punic Ibizans"). How can you stoop so low? How can you walk away with the illusion that only three individuals classified as African American in a paper filled with statements it was much more than three?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carthage was in Africa therefore if many of the people living there came to have the mixed look of berbers it would be unsurprising ]. I don't see what the news flash is.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Carthage was in Africa therefore if many of the people living there came to have the mixed look of berbers it would be unsurprising .
Post evidence showing that Carthaginians had a mixed look of Berbers (and nothing more), RIGHT NOW or you're lying and deliberately misrepresenting Márquez-Grant who said the Punic remains included BOTH North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
You said you read the study several times so if said evidence is not forthcoming we know you're deliberately lying and can't be trusted to accurately portray anything involving ancient Africans.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Carthage was in Africa therefore if many of the people living there came to have the mixed look of berbers it would be unsurprising .
Post evidence showing that Carthaginians had a mixed look of Berbers (and nothing more), RIGHT NOW or you're lying and deliberately misrepresenting Márquez-Grant.
I didn't say Márquez-Grant.My remarks are based on reading this article, also reading > sIdentifying Genetic Traces of Historical Expansions: Phoenician Footprints in the Mediterranean by Pierre A. Zalloua Plus looking at the art and at other sources over the years
However according to the Márquez-Grant. article no persons met the criteria for "black" skulls Before I proceed that is a very deep problem of course using a color to describe a skull morphology. Anyway they indicate it means African American (supposedly on average 24% European) . So none of the skulls fit the criteria for being African American except three almost do. There is one they classify as "white American" That leaves 19 unknowns people who might, if they had a better database be affiliated with Southern European, Maghrebian E-M81 carriers, Near Easterners, Sub Saharan Africans, the usual suspect mix for berbers. Unlike you Márquez-Grant admits to FORDISC's limitations.
Suppose there were three individuals in Phoenician Ibiza whose skulls resembled African Americans.Tell us Swenet can you draw a conclusion on the whole civilization based on that?
There is no way of knowing at what percentage such people were in the society. The Phoenicians come from Lebanon. So would these African American looking skulls be similar to them or would these be soldiers, slaves or naturalized citizens of some sort who were only Phoenician in nationality? The answer is unknown.
That is a study of 24 individuals and it's foolish to attempt to do demographics of the whole civilization based on that. This the authors have said, so no need to keep stretching.
The Island Ibiza has it's own particularities
In 654 BC, Phoenician settlers founded a port in the Balearic Islands, Ibiza was a major trading post along the Mediterranean routes. Ibiza began establishing its own trading stations along the nearby Balearic island of Majorca, such as Na Guardis, where numerous Balearic mercenaries hired on, no doubt as slingers to fight for Carthage.
quote: At this time the Carthaginians, being elated over their successes in Sicily and eager to become lords of the whole island, voted to prepare great armaments; and electing as general Hannibal, who had razed to the ground both the city of the Selinuntians and that of the Himeraeans, they committed to him full authority over the conduct of the war. When he begged to be excused because of his age, they appointed besides him another general, Himilcon, the son of Hanno and of the same family.42 2 These two, after full consultation, dispatched certain citizens who were held in high esteem among the Carthaginians with large sums of money, some to Iberia and others to the Baliarides Islands, with orders to recruit as many mercenaries as possible. 3 And they themselves canvassed Libya, enrolling as soldiers Libyans and Phoenicians and the stoutest from among their own citizens. Moreover they summoned soldiers also from the nations and kings who were their allies, Maurusians and Nomads and certain peoples who dwell in the regions toward Cyrenê. 4 Also from Italy they hired Campanians and brought them over to Libya; for they knew that their aid would be of great assistance to them and that the Campanians who had p349been left behind in Sicily, because they had fallen out with the Carthaginians,43 would fight on the side of the Sicilian Greeks. 5 And when the armaments were finally assembled at Carthage, the sum total of the troops collected together with the cavalry was a little over one hundred and twenty thousand, according to Timaeus, but three hundred thousand, according to Ephorus.
posted
^ hmm so... who's skull is "blacker" is it Nipsey hussles or Jordan Peele? ...better yet, lets rephrase the question, who's skull would serve as a better determinant for the AfrAm phenotype? which is more African?
Lioness' would make an exceptional Limbo player(s) ..Figuratively that is.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So none of the skulls fit the criteria for being African American except three almost do.
Your posts in regards to this topic are a complete and utter fail. You're a mess and all over the place.
The Phoenician haplogroup study is completely irrelevant spam because you've already been told that the closest sample to Carthaginians so far are the pre-Carthaginian Algerians, not Phoenicians or other populations in the Mediterranean Basin. Do I need to remind you that Keita's sample from Israel (Lachish) preferred late dynastic northern Egyptians over the pooled Algerian + Carthaginian sample?
Your claim that the African American classifications were necessarily overturned in the case of the individuals who failed to meet the stringent criteria is a lie as you know (from reading the paper several times) that neither the West Africans nor the "African/Portugese Mulatto" controls met these criteria of similarity to this African American sample. They ALL 'failed' these stringent criteria, while still reporting the same moderate' African American classifications as most individuals within the Carthaginian sample. So you're debunked on that one as well.
Your claim that the remaining individuals with weaker African American classifications are "unknowns" with better results around the Mediterranean is complete fail because Márquez-Grant clearly states that Spanish (prehistoric all the way to medieval), Bedouin and North African samples don't report the affinities these Punic individuals have with African Americans. The Spanish, North African and Bedouin samples are all more homogeneous and have poorer affinities with African Americans.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The Spanish, North African and Bedouin samples are all more homogeneous and have poorer affinities with African Americans. [/QB]
Again it goes back to how "Phoenician" is defined as an ethnic group or as a nationality
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet's basic premise is that human skulls have two poles of extremity. One is black and the other is white and this can be determined by measurements. That is belief in race
Lioness that premise has been debunked. Your excuse was, "it's picture spam". lol
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, you're talking about Phoenicians when I'm talking about Carthaginians. In the quote you're responding I say that Carthaginians have a degree of affinity to African Americans that Spanish, North Africans and Bedouin samples don't have. Not sure why you bring the Phoenicians back up again.
Just admit that you botched Márquez-Grant. The man never said that only three individuals classify as African Americans. In fact, he gives higher priority to a reading of African ancestry for the other ones. And this is not based on speculation but on his own tests aimed at clarifying the affinities of the remaining samples with a weaker African American classification:
quote: In the light of these results, and considering the FORDISC 2.0 results from populations in Iberia, North Africa and sub-Saharan African which have not been presented here due to space limitations, it can be suggested that those Ibizan skulls classified as ‘Black’ with reasonable to high probabilities and low typicalities clearly have an African, and perhaps an Eastern Mediterranean, ancestry.
Again:
"considering the FORDISC 2.0 results from populations in Iberia, North Africa and sub-Saharan African which have not been presented here due to space limitations"
The Carthaginian sample has more of a tendency towards Africans than all these circum-Mediterranean samples. This is final. They had a Sub-Saharan component independent of the Berber component, whether you like it or not.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The Carthaginian sample has more of a tendency towards Africans than all these circum-Mediterranean samples. This is final. They had a Sub-Saharan component independent of the Berber component, whether you like it or not.
Carthage was in Tunisia along the coast of North Africa. What would the explanation of a Sub-Saharan component being there be ?
No sarcasm please, what are some possible explanations?
I assume they were not related to the Capsians 10,000 to 6,000 BC
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Carthaginian sample has more of a tendency towards Africans than all these circum-Mediterranean samples. This is final. They had a Sub-Saharan component independent of the Berber component, whether you like it or not.
Carthage was in Tunisia along the coast of North Africa. What would the explanation of a Sub-Saharan component being there be ?
Hypotheses non fingo.
You'd just blindly antagonize what I'd say, anyway. You'll have to do with what you've already been told about coastal Algerians and Tunisians 1000BCE:
quote:The analyses demonstrate the metric het- erogeneity of pre-Roman mid-Holocene Maghreban crania. The range of variation in the restricted area described extends from a tropical African metric pattern to a Euro- pean one and supports the phenotypic vari- ability observed in and near Carthage by ancient writers and in morphological stud- ies. Thus the population emerges as a com- posite entity, no doubt also containing hy- brid individuals. However, the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indi- cates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans. Fur- thermore, the series from the coastal Magh- reb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses.
—Keita 1990
Sites of Keita's 1000BCE Maghrebi sample, showing that these Maghrebi samples are not inland and that you need to come to grips with the SSA presence along coastal sites:
The Carthaginian sample has more of a tendency towards Africans than all these circum-Mediterranean samples. This is final. They had a Sub-Saharan component independent of the Berber component, whether you like it or not.
Carthage was in Tunisia along the coast of North Africa. What would the explanation of a Sub-Saharan component being there be ?
No sarcasm please, what are some possible explanations?
I assume they were not related to the Capsians 10,000 to 6,000 BC
Hypotheses non fingo. You'd just blindly antagonize what I'd say, anyway.
Don't be afraid to give a hypothesis just because of what I may or may not say
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indi- cates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans. Fur- thermore, the series from the coastal Magh- reb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses.
—Keita 1990
Why would one mention far off northwest Europeans in looking at the Maghreb?
Anyway what groups cluster crainiometrically with northern dynastic Egyptians?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Why would one mention far off northwest Europeans in looking at the Maghreb?
Because taking a southern European sample defeats the purpose. How many times do we have to go over the fact that if you want to see where a test population (in this case, coastal Maghreb) sits in between two extremes, you're supposed to take, well.... TWO EXTREMES. Not more hybrid samples. If you want to know whether Obama resembles people who come from his Luo ethnic background, would you use Colin Powell as an example of Europeans and Tiger Woods as a proxy of Luos? Or maybe you would do something obtuse like that. After all, you did propose the joke that we need to take hybrid Middle Eastern samples and contrast them with Carthaginians so that we can obfuscate the latter sample's affinity with African Americans.
Why are you even taking positions as adamantly as you do? You obviously can't handle yourself on even the basics. Just take a backseat and stick to posting and commenting on pictures.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Why would one mention far off northwest Europeans in looking at the Maghreb?
Because taking a southern European sample defeats the purpose. How many times do we have to go over the fact that if you want to see where a test population (in this case, coastal Maghreb) sits in between two extremes, you're supposed to take, well.... TWO EXTREMES. Not more hybrid samples. If you want to know whether Obama resembles people who come from his Luo ethnic background, would you use Colin Powell as an example of Europeans and Tiger Woods as a proxy of Luos? Or maybe you would do something obtuse like that. After all, you did propose the joke that we need to take hybrid Middle Eastern samples and contrast them with Carthaginians so that we can obfuscate the latter sample's affinity with African Americans.
Why are you even taking positions as adamantly as you do? You obviously can't handle yourself on even the basics. Just take a backseat and stick to posting and commenting on pictures.
Don't be insulting about pictures I do more research than many people here. I go to the source material and read them and post more hard to find text than anybody.
One could argue that the furthest extreme of a Sub Saharan African on a genetic and morphological level would be an Inuit or Siberian. And next to that we might deal with a Northern Russian of Scandinavian rather than a "white American" who is at a more Central Euroepan position. On the other end we would have an African rather than an African American who is 24% European ! As noted by the authors they did not have African samples.
I'm noticing you have a mindset that I often see on Egyptsearch in people that know less than you do. That is no recognition of an intermediate position between tropically adapted and cold adapted people. You only speak of "hybrid" and that shows your bias. The reason that there are "cold adapted" (relatively more) people is that they were former tropically adapted people who moved into new environments gradually and this represents more people than admixed people but you keep saying hybrid, bringing up Tiger Woods etc as if that is the only explanation. You need to stop doing that. Admixture is only part of the story and it is the lesser part. Intermediate populations are much larger than admixtures.
The skull is not one measurement it is many measurements. Each variance of a particular measurement does not necessarily vary in proportion to the other measurements hence a significant element of uncertainty in crainiometry and including diet, bottlenecking and other factors in addition to temperature adaptation.
So we look at the fordisc data available at that time and decide to use black Americans and white americans as "opposites" for comparison to our sample. BAs are "1" and WAs are "20"
Our sample is say, 7 and that is closer to black American than to white American.
But it is closer to an intermediate position.
You argue that in this study Carthaginian skulls Phoenicians were more similar to African American skulls than they were to white American skulls.
>> OK I have no argument against that
We look at a given ancient skull from anywhere in the world. What are we trying determine? I would say what living population is it closest to. You say it's more important to compare it to black Americans and white Americans and see which it is closest.
My question to you is what modern population anywhere in the world is closest crainimetrically to the Cartheginians?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: One could argue that the furthest extreme of a Sub Saharan African on a genetic and morphological level would be an Inuit or Siberian.
Okay genius. how would it further our understanding of Obama's morphological population affinity if we would use Siberians as a proxy for Obama's European ancestry? Try to answer that question without scratching your head re: the pointlessness of your silly suggestions.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You need to stop doing that. Admixture is only part of the story and it is the lesser part. Intermediate populations are much larger than admixtures.
Give examples of such naturally intermediate populations and prove that I've ever forced them in between two extremes. Either that, or you're fabricating bs now.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So we look at the fordisc data available at that time and decide to use black Americans and white americans as "opposites" for comparison to our sample. BAs are "1" and WAs are "20"
Our sample is say, 7 and that is closer to black American than to white American.
SMH. I think she's starting to see the light. Not quite there yet, but she's finally picking up some crumbs allowing her to somewhat accurately portray what's happening with some of the Carthaginian individuals.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You argue that in this study Carthaginian skulls Phoenicians were more similar to African American skulls than they were to white American skulls.
Not only that, I also argue that in some cases, African Americans were intermediate between Carthaginian and Phoenician individuals on the one hand and Europeans on the other hand. We've already discussed the fact that Carthaginians included a Sub-Saharan component in addition to a Berber component. Keita said in that post you cut short (deliberately[?]) that not all Carthaginians with African features were hybrids. (Hopefully it won't take another 15 back and forth exchanges to get that simple fact to sink in).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: OK I have no argument against that
Really? Glad to have your approval. I feel so relieved.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: We look at a given ancient skull from anywhere in the world. What are we trying determine? I would say what living population is it closest to. You say it's more important to compare it to black Americans and white Americans and see which it is closest.
I did? Where did I say it was appropriate to randomly treat populations as an admixture between a European source and a African American source?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, troll. I've already answered that several times. Either you're baiting or for some reason it's not sinking in like some of the other things I've had to say repeatedly.
quote:However, the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indi- cates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans. Fur- thermore, the series from the coastal Magh- reb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses.
—Keita 1990
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Significance? Aside from the fact that some crania in the Lachish sample reproduce Márquez-Grant's "African American" FORDISC classification of the Phoenician (showing the Phoenician with high prob & low typ "US Black" classification is not an anomaly), the Maghrebi sample used here is a pooled Chalcolithic Algerian and Carthaginian sample. Both constituent samples are morphometrically close before showing ties with other samples in the Mediterranean Basin (Keita 1990) which calls into question lioness' attempt to paint Carthaginians as transplants from the Levant.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: And of all the quoted you left out the most important one
quote: what modern population anywhere in the world is closest crainimetrically to the Cartheginians?
.
Again, dynastic Egyptians are not modern, so let us know when you have an answer and stop name calling which is trolling behavior an attempt to instigate an emotional reaction from me
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Answered as well. You should have also come across the answer to your question during the supposedly several times you read Márquez-Grant.
quote:The most complete skull from a Phoenician sample from Israel (Smith et al., 1990) provided a ‘Black male’ result with high probability but low typicality. Probabilities ranging between 0.600 and 1.000 in the category ‘Black’, with typicalities mainly under 0.400 were present in Punic skulls from Carthage (Bertholon and Chantre, 1913), Neolithic and proto-historic skulls from Sahara and sub-Saharan Africa (data collected by Chamla, 1968), and in modern African skulls measured by Barras de Aragón (1911).
The answer from looking at all the evidence is African Americans or some other population that includes equatorial African + European-like + hybrid/intermediate phenotypes. And it should be noted that European-like does not necessarily mean European because this is what some of the so-called 'white' Carthaginians would have looked like:
quote:Facial reconstruction of a Punic skull from Puig des Molins (PM01/UE52). Drawing by Simon Lygo and anthropological study by N. Márquez-Grant. This skull has been studied elsewhere (Márquez-Grant, in press) and resulted in a ‘White Male’ with a posterior probability of .841 and a typicality OF .669.
posted
Stop asking for handouts. Read the reading materials and give back to the community after all you've learned during your information leeching routines (i.e. getting information out of people while antagonizing and feigning competence).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Stop asking for handouts. Read the reading materials and give back to the community after all you've learned during your information leeching routines (i.e. getting information out of people while antagonizing and feigning competence).
Guess what? We come to the difficult questions. Let them not be a stumbling block
I'm not the only one reading this.
For the benefit of the readership >>
Carthage was started my Phoenician traders form Lebanon. Then what happened?
What African population is the main component of the African component in Carthaginians?
I might agree with you. I'm bogged down now been doing the moor art research in AE
- perhaps some overlap there? Maure etc?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Hopelessly obtuse and opaque when tendered independent analysis built on absorbing and synthesizing data to confirm/disconfirm personal hypotheses.
Woefully transparent trying to bog down topics, asking the just answered (which was also answered innumerable times in past, yearly, monthly, weekly, even hourly judging from the above).
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Guess what? We come to the difficult questions. Let them not be a stumbling block
I'm not the only one reading this.
For the benefit of the readership >>
Carthage was started my Phoenician traders form Lebanon. Then what happened?
What African population is the main component of the African component in Carthaginians?
I might agree with you. I'm bogged down now been doing the moor art research in AE
- perhaps some overlap there? Maure etc?
The irony ...The fact that you've dragged and warped a simple concept for a series of posts now makes the above statement seem disingenuous.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
The Carthaginian sample has more of a tendency towards Africans than all these circum-Mediterranean samples. This is final. They had a Sub-Saharan component independent of the Berber component, whether you like it or not.
Carthage was in Tunisia along the coast of North Africa. What would the explanation of a Sub-Saharan component being there be ?
No sarcasm please, what are some possible explanations?
I assume they were not related to the Capsians 10,000 to 6,000 BC
quote: Evidence from throughout the Sahara indicates that the region experienced a cool, dry and windy climate during the last glacial period, followed by a wetter climate with the onset of the current interglacial, with humid conditions being fully established by around 10,000 years BP, when we see the first evidence of a reoccupation of parts of the central Sahara by hunter gathers, most likely originating from sub-Saharan Africa (Cremaschi and Di Lernia, 1998; Goudie, 1992; Phillipson, 1993; Ritchie, 1994; Roberts, 1998).
[...]
Conical tumuli, platform burials and a V-type monument represent structures similar to those found in other Saharan regions and associated with human burials, appearing in sixth millennium BP onwards in northeast Niger and southwest Libya (Sivilli, 2002). In the latter area a shift in emphasis from faunal to human burials, complete by the early fifth millennium BP, has been interpreted by Di Lernia and Manzi (2002) as being associated with a changes in social organisation that occurred at a time of increasing aridity. While further research is required in order to place the funerary monuments of Western Sahara in their chronological context, we can postulate a similar process as a hypothesis to be tested, based on the high density of burial sites recorded in the 2002 survey. Fig. 2: Megaliths associated with tumulus burial (to right of frame), north of Tifariti (Fig. 1). A monument consisting of sixty five stelae was also of great interest; precise alignments north and east, a division of the area covered into separate units, and a deliberate scattering of quartzite inside the structure, are suggestive of an astronomical function associated with funerary rituals. Stelae are also associated with a number of burial sites, again suggesting dual funerary and astronomical functions (Figure 2). Further similarities with other Saharan regions are evident in the rock art recorded in the study area, although local stylistic developments are also apparent. Carvings of wild fauna at the site of Sluguilla resemble the Tazina style found in Algeria, Libya and Morocco (Pichler and Rodrigue, 2003), although examples of elephant and rhinoceros in a naturalistic style reminiscent of engravings from the central Sahara believed to date from the early Holocene are also present.
--Nick Brooks et al. (2004)
The prehistory of Western Sahara in a regional context: the archaeology of the "free zone"
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Saharan Studies Programme and School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Coauthors: Di Lernia, Savino ((Department of Scienze Storiche, Archeologiche, e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Via Palestro 63, 00185 – Rome, Italy) and Drake, Nick (Department of Geography, King’s College, Strand, London WC2R 2LS).
quote: The presence of sub-Saharan L-type mtDNA sequences in North Africa has traditionally been explained by the recent slave trade. However, gene flow between sub-Saharan and northern African populations would also have been made possible earlier through the greening of the Sahara resulting from Early Holocene climatic improvement. In this article, we examine human dispersals across the Sahara through the analysis of the sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroup L3e5, which is not only commonly found in the Lake Chad Basin (∼17%), but which also attains nonnegligible frequencies (∼10%) in some Northwestern African populations. Age estimates point to its origin ∼10 ka, probably directly in the Lake Chad Basin, where the clade occurs across linguistic boundaries. The virtual absence of this specific haplogroup in Daza from Northern Chad and all West African populations suggests that its migration took place elsewhere, perhaps through Northern Niger. Interestingly, independent confirmation of Early Holocene contacts between North Africa and the Lake Chad Basin have been provided by craniofacial data from Central Niger, supporting our suggestion that the Early Holocene offered a suitable climatic window for genetic exchanges between North and sub-Saharan Africa. In view of its younger founder age in North Africa, the discontinuous distribution of L3e5 was probably caused by the Middle Holocene re-expansion of the Sahara desert, disrupting the clade's original continuous spread.
--Eliška Podgorná et al.
Annals of Human Genetics Volume 77, Issue 6, pages 513–523, November 2013
The Genetic Impact of the Lake Chad Basin Population in North Africa as Documented by Mitochondrial Diversity and Internal Variation of the L3e5 Haplogroup
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Museum of Antiquities piece busts history wide open
Bronze sculpture of Hannibal may have belonged to Napoleon
Napoleon-Bust--Jeff-Glasel
This bronze bust of Hannibal is on display in the U of S Museum of Antinquities.
Curators at the University of Saskatchewan’s Museum of Antiquities have made the surprising discovery that the bust of Hannibal may have once sat on the mantlepiece of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Modelled on famed Roman General Hannibal Barca, the bust was recently announced to have possibly been owned by the legendary French Emperor after new evidence came into light in support of the theory. Though the museum had been interested in pursuing the idea for some time, it wasn’t until assistant curator Helanna Miazga made it her pet project that any concrete headway was made.
“This past summer in August I kind of took the project for my own… and I found in one of his secretary’s memoirs a description of Saint-Cloud Château, which was one of his main seats of power, and on the mantelpiece in his workroom there was a bronze bust of Hannibal and Scipio — who’s the roman general who defeated Hannibal and they’re both military icons of Napoleon,” Miazga said. “That was the first major clue.
“We have the only bronze bust of Hannibal that we know of. There might be one in a private collection somewhere but we have no way of knowing that.”
The bust in question has been among other pieces in the Museum of Antiquities since 1989, when it was received as a donation. While there is still further investigating to be done into the item — which is believed to have been created by either French sculptor François Girardon or his protegé Sébastian Slodtz — this new information could help to fill in holes in its history that had once proved elusive.
Miazga cited one possible avenue of research as looking “into the Scipio bust that was with Hannibal, to try to locate that one. It would be interesting to know where that one was as well, just to try and figure out who had it in the first place. The Saint-Cloud Château was sacked twice — once in 1814, right after Napoleon was done being the French emperor, and again in 1870.
I did read someone’s account of the sacking in 1814 that said that the Prussian looted the place, so it could have ended up in Prussia or anywhere with a Germanic background.”
While the current appraisal of the artifact could not be revealed due to insurance purposes, Miazga said that the bust once sold at auction for a mere $60.
Made in the 17th century, the bust veers toward the end of the timeline covered by the museum. Miazga referred to the item as among the collection’s “prized jewels” and listed other such items as including a collection of original coins and a selection of ancient glass dated to the 13th century Before Common Era — over 2,000 years old.
Miazga is particularly excited by the enthusiastic response to the revelation, and believes that associating the bust with a name as commonly known as Napoleon has helped to generate a buzz among the community.
“It’s great for the museum, the attention he’s been getting,” Miazga said. “Lots of people have been calling it the Napoleon bust, but it’s a bust of Hannibal. It’s just showing how people are connecting with Napoleon Bonaparte and the French Revolution and more modern history than anything that’s ancient.”
While Miazga is proud of the work that’s been done on the Hannibal bust, she hopes that the spotlight it’s put on the Museum of Antiquities will inspire academics and members of the greater community to seek it out as a partner in their research.
“We’re here. Come and do research. We have all the information that you need,” Miazga said. “We can help you do research. Even academics — professors that are interested in French art — just come over.”
Visitors can see the Hannibal bust for themselves during the Museum of Antiquities regular operating hours: 9 a.m. – 4 p.m. Monday to Friday and 12 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Saturdays.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic