quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Wait a minute, our French buddy here insists Carthaginians were all "Caucasoid" like himself based on certain portraiture (all of which bears obvious Greek or Roman artistic influences). Yet, when presented with evidence that some Carthaginian skeletal remains physically resembled those of African-Americans, he claims that they had to have been the remains of "Caucasoid" North Africans like himself.
So, does that mean ancient and modern North Africans are "Caucasoids" who happen to have crania that could be confused with those of modern African-Americans? Are African-American people now "Caucasoid" too since they supposedly resemble modern North African "Caucasoids" at the skeletal level?
I'll grant that the Ibiza study's methodology is a bit imprecise and would benefit from comparisons to various North African populations across time, but c'mon, if ancient Carthaginians were so uniformly "Caucasoid", you'd think none of them would have crania that would be confused for those of a population that is 70-75% West or Central African on average.
P.S. The reconstruction from the Ibiza paper, the one our French friend claimed "looked North African instead of Black", was one of the ones their software identified as a "White male", not a "Black male". Read the caption. They don't appear to have a reconstruction of any of the "Black" specimens.
I already posted a study on punic remains which you strangely didn't comment. Moreover the paper never implied the skeletal remains were "black" or similar to afro-americans but appeared closer to it than to white americans and such affinities are based on a limited set of criterias which they admit was too small.
And yes you can be caucasoid looking and yet having ssa affinities under close scrutiny, a simple example :
quote:Second, the post-Pleistocene North Africans are similar to Europeans in that they possess numerous dental features involving morphological simplification. Any North African deviations away from this pattern are in the direction of mass-additive Sub-Saharan traits. This finding supports the results of prior genetic-based studies that link North Africans to Europeans and western Asians, yet record several Sub-Saharan tendencies. Together, the two findings suggest that a morphologically simple dental pattern is shared by the indigenous peoples of North Africa, as well as Europe and perhaps western Asia, and this pattern has existed for the past 4,000 to perhaps 8,500+/- years."
Irish J.D. 1998b. Diachronic and synchronic dental trait affinities of late and post-pleistocene peoples from North Africa. Homo. 49(2) 138-155
The study is obviously flawed in all of its aspects but since it's the only one which mentions "black" you couldn't resist sharing it like the snake you are but al hamdulillah I did my researches.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, for the record, I don't even think the skulls classified as "Black" in the Ibiza study were pure SSA. More likely, they had a lot of ANA or similar ancestry that is neither Eurasian nor sub-Saharan. But our Frenchman here is convinced that a North African population can have enough "sub-Saharan" traits for FORDISC to confuse them for people with predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry while still being "Caucasoid" overall. I mean, if these were really "Caucasoids" with only a little "sub-Saharan" influence (like the individuals he wants to pass off as the real North Africans), does he really think the software would prefer an African-American to a European-American classification for them? Does he really think the pendulum would swing in an African-American direction if the sub-Saharan traits are at such a minimum?
I mean, FORDISC, the very software used in the Ibiza study, is on record as misidentifying Kushite crania from Sudan as "White" or various other "non-Black" ethnicities, even though they likely had more sub-Saharan ancestry than modern coastal Maghrebis. It doesn't seem that the program is prone to classifying crania as "Black" due to the slightest expression of sub-Saharan-like traits.
quote:Of the remaining crania, 12 were identified as white, 11 as black, 3 as Japanese, 1 as Hispanic, and 1 as Native American.
By the way,
quote:I already posted a study on punic remains which you strangely didn't comment.
Are you referring to the Chamla studies from the 1970s? I don't see how they refute the Ibiza study from 2005. In the end, both studies are essentially sorting crania into one of a few "racial" groups. The big difference is that Chamla probably didn't have a computer to do the sorting for him.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: And, for the record, I don't even think the skulls classified as "Black" in the Ibiza study were pure SSA. More likely, they had a lot of ANA or similar ancestry that is neither Eurasian nor sub-Saharan. But our Frenchman here is convinced that a North African population can have enough "sub-Saharan" traits for FORDISC to confuse them for people with predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry while still being "Caucasoid" overall. I mean, if these were really "Caucasoids" with only a little "sub-Saharan" influence (like the individuals he wants to pass off as the real North Africans), does he really think the software would prefer an African-American to a European-American classification for them? Does he really think the pendulum would swing in an African-American direction if the sub-Saharan traits are at such a minimum?
I mean, FORDISC, the very software used in the Ibiza study, is on record as misidentifying Kushite crania from Sudan as "White" or various other "non-Black" ethnicities, even though they likely had more sub-Saharan ancestry than modern coastal Maghrebis. It doesn't seem that the program is prone to classifying crania as "Black" due to the slightest expression of sub-Saharan-like traits.
quote:Of the remaining crania, 12 were identified as white, 11 as black, 3 as Japanese, 1 as Hispanic, and 1 as Native American.
By the way,
quote:I already posted a study on punic remains which you strangely didn't comment.
Are you referring to the Chamla studies from the 1970s? I don't see how they refute the Ibiza study from 2005. In the end, both studies are essentially sorting crania into one of a few "racial" groups. The big difference is that Chamla probably didn't have a computer to do the sorting for him.
They did not "confuse them" with people who are predominantely sub-saharan african we're dealing with a spectrum of what they call "typicality" but anyway again pay attention to what they say :
quote:Caution applying FORDISC 2.0 to non-American ancient populations has been highlighted elsewhere (see Ubelaker et al., 2002).
HERE PAY ATTENTION :
quote:It is true that by providing only a choice between ‘White’ (European Caucasoid ancestry) and ‘Black’ (sub-Saharan ancestry), the computer programme might force skulls of North Africa or Eastern Mediterranean ancestry into the category ‘Black’.
quote:By selecting the FORDISC 2.0 options ‘White male’ and ‘Black male’, all the populations indicated ‘White male’.
Also are you now going to say phoenicians were black too ? :
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. P
So their only conclusion was that there is evidence of african individuals in the ibizan populations which is not surprising since like I've said many times all the datas point to punics/carthaginians being mostly punicized north africans and not pure phoenicians (btw the paper also highlights that the afro-american sample they used doesn't show the same results as other SSA samples they tested)
The study of Chamla completely contradicts what you posted since it shows that negroid traits were minimal and the samples show affinities with north africans and other west mediterranean populations. Now Go make your childish drawings where you fetishize black women.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:By selecting the FORDISC 2.0 options ‘White male’ and ‘Black male’, all the populations indicated ‘White male’.
I have no idea what you were trying to argue by quoting this out of context, but the populations they are referring to prehistoric to medieval Iberians.
quote:Published data was selected from locations that may have had a genetic influence on Ibiza such as the Iberian Peninsula, the Eastern Mediterranean, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Male population means were taken from Prehistoric to Mediaeval sites from the Iberian Peninsula (gathered from various authors by Lalueza et al., 1996). By selecting the FORDISC 2.0 options ‘White male’ and ‘Black male’, all the populations indicated ‘White male’.
Anyway, as Swenet mentioned earlier in this thread (and to address your claim that so-called "Caucasoid" North African skulls might be confused for "Black" ones by the software), the authors actually did use FORDISC on a number of circum-Mediterranean populations, including some North African ones, in addition to the Ibiza crania. And they still stand by their conclusions of distinctly African ancestry in the Ibiza material even after doing so.
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.
quote:Also are you now going to say phoenicians were black too ?
quote:It is true that by providing only a choice between ‘White’ (European Caucasoid ancestry) and ‘Black’ (sub-Saharan ancestry), the computer programme might force skulls of North Africa or Eastern Mediterranean ancestry into the category ‘Black’.
and since when are egyptians black ? Moreover we have two egyptian samples from Lebanon and they literally have the same results as the abusir samples. What a coincidence that among hundreds of phoenician skulls they fall on a kushite one ... Stop being desesperate and admit the study is flawed.
I posted the result of one punic from this puig de molin necropolis, he had north african and east med ancestry but no substantial "black" ancestry.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There are plenty of black Egyptians. I can't believe that you seriously think you are schooling people on the history of Africans in Africa.
The marsa alam folks are dressed like arabs not egyptians but of course you didn't know that Mr the "african"
Imazighen from Siwa aren't really similar to other berbers and their dna reflects the centuries of the trans-saharan slave trade, Siwa being one of the main market in the road to Egypt and the middle East (if needed I can post sources)
As for the Qara oasis that's far from the Nile Valley and well into the Sahara so these aren't really proper egyptians. Why don't you post how people along nile look like ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There are plenty of black Egyptians. I can't believe that you seriously think you are schooling people on the history of Africans in Africa.
The marsa alam folks are dressed like arabs not egyptians but of course you didn't know that Mr the "african"
Imazighen from Siwa aren't really similar to other berbers and their dna reflects the centuries of the trans-saharan slave trade, Siwa being one of the main market in the road to Egypt and the middle East (if needed I can post sources)
As for the Qara oasis that's far from the Nile Valley and well into the Sahara so these aren't really proper egyptians. Why don't you post how people along nile look like ?
So according to you the fact that the historical accounts of blacks in North Africa are false and blacks in North Africa are simply recent arrivals?
You and your gibberish is ridiculous. Black Africans have always been in North Africa and your absurd claims otherwise are simply false. Light skinned people are not the first people of North Africa and it is only within the last few thousand years that light skin became dominant along the coast. And even with that, those lighter skinned folks descend from black Africans. This absurdity of trying to claim otherwise is hilarious.
Come on man stop pretending that you are proving something here with your nonsense.
quote: The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated by sequencing a portion of the control region (including HVS-I and part of HVS-II) and surveying haplogroup-specific coding region markers. Our findings show that the Berber mitochondrial pool is characterized by an overall high frequency of Western Eurasian haplogroups, a somehow lower frequency of sub-Saharan L lineages, and a significant (but differential) presence of North African haplogroups U6 and M1, thus occupying an intermediate position between European and sub-Saharan populations in PCA analysis. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations.
Not to mention black people have always been along the Nile and still are on the Nile from Aswan to Luxor and further north. The idea that these blacks just got there recently is stupid.
Posts: 8909 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess you could argue they are not "proper" Egyptians, though in modern times they are culturally Egyptian and possibly the Oasis dwellers could be related/descended from the "Lybians" from A. Egypt?
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So according to you the fact that the historical accounts of blacks in North Africa are false and blacks in North Africa are simply recent arrivals?
Again strawman ? Not all but most are indeed recent arrivals ; You think you can erase millions of people just so it fits your narrative ?
Ah but I forget "They can't be imported because they are AFRICANS !!" ...5 mins later "AFRICANS are the most diverse people on earth !!"
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You and your gibberish is ridiculous. Black Africans have always been in North Africa and your absurd claims otherwise are simply false. Light skinned people are not the first people of North Africa and it is only within the last few thousand years that light skin became dominant along the coast. And even with that, those lighter skinned folks descend from black Africans. This absurdity of trying to claim otherwise is hilarious.
Define "black people". Btw History began in the last few thousand years so you can try to darkwash prehistorical north africans yet that wouldn't be enough to claim our history.
Are you implying that colors in Egyptian art have never been symbolic ? Or should I conclude some egyptians were blue skinned ? (yes I know those are deities but still)
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I dont see how they are not "proper" Egyptians, considering the Western desert played its role in Ancient Egyptian history...
Dakhla/Bahriya
Siwa
How is that supposed to be an argument ? Greeks also played their role in ancient egyptian history, same for persians, libyans or nubians...
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I guess you could argue they are not "proper" Egyptians, though in modern times they are culturally Egyptian and possibly the Oasis dwellers could be related/descended from the "Lybians" from A. Egypt?
I never denied that and yes they can at least partially descend from ancient libyans if we look at the history of these oasis
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So according to you the fact that the historical accounts of blacks in North Africa are false and blacks in North Africa are simply recent arrivals?
Again strawman ? Not all but most are indeed recent arrivals ; You think you can erase millions of people just so it fits your narrative ?
You are spouting gibberish again. Africans, black Africans are aboriginal to North Africa. This is the point you keep trying to deny. They were there before there were any "light skin" genes and they were there after light skinned populations evolved. Because of that their features are very diverse, including straight hair, curly hair, thin noses, wide noses and everything else. And just specifically referring to North Africa I am talking of all the black populations that have been in North Africa prior to, during and after the last wet phase 10,000 years ago in the Sahara. "Berbers" are not that ancient and are simply speakers of a language that is only about 6,000 years old. They are not a "race" and aren't all light skinned today and weren't all light skinned in history and the language did not originate with light skinned people. And North Africa is not just the parts of Africa along the coast of the Mediterranean. And as has been shown numerous times, the history of black Africans in and around the mediterranean is ancient.
You trying to deny facts of history is the problem nothing else.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Ah but I forget "They can't be imported because they are AFRICANS !!" ...5 mins later "AFRICANS are the most diverse people on earth !!"
Who the hell imported the black African ancestors of the Tuaregs to Africa? Who imported the black Africans in the last wet phase to the Sahara? Nobody did. You keep talking that stupid nonsense that light skin people are responsible for bringing black skin to Africa which is obviously stupid. It isn't historical and isn't based on any historical facts.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You and your gibberish is ridiculous. Black Africans have always been in North Africa and your absurd claims otherwise are simply false. Light skinned people are not the first people of North Africa and it is only within the last few thousand years that light skin became dominant along the coast. And even with that, those lighter skinned folks descend from black Africans. This absurdity of trying to claim otherwise is hilarious.
Define "black people". Btw History began in the last few thousand years so you can try to darkwash prehistorical north africans yet that wouldn't be enough to claim our history.
Black Africans have been in Africa for more than a few thousand years. You know this yet you keep trying to use this "few thousand" years of light skin people to erase black Africans in North Africa with stupid nonsense. Black Africans were not "imported" to North Africa by Europeans, Arabs, Levantines or anybody else and have been there for far more than 'a few thousand years'. This is the point you keep trying to avoid because you know that light skin isn't "ancient" like black skin which is the most ancient phenotype of humans all over the planet.
Are you implying that colors in Egyptian art have never been symbolic ? Or should I conclude some egyptians were blue skinned ? (yes I know those are deities but still)
Black Africans in AE art looking the same as black Africans in North Africa today and in history is not "symbolic". It is only symbolic of you trying to make up an ancient history of light skin people in Africa before black Africans which is absurd. Light skin is not the aboriginal phenotype of humans, black skin is.
That said, the crux of the issue with you is you deny that these populations in North Africa who are light skinned have recent mixture. Yes, some of those light skin genes evolved naturally in North Africa, but that isn't "white". But because of the location of North Africa in the Mediterranean, you have had mixture. You have had historical ancient migrations of black Africans into Europe, where they mixed with Europeans and you have had migrations of Europeans into parts of North Africa. You keep down playing or ignoring that, trying to claim that light skinned North Africans are "pure", pure what?
Carthage was a civilization that spanned the Mediterranean, they had outposts in Europe and armies made up of Africans and Europeans. There was mixture in Carthage. And in saying that they were mixed, that doesn't mean that all of these Punic North Africans looked the same. It means there was variation of features among them and among the populations that settled in Europe.
And because of that variation of features in Carthage among the populations in that part of North Africa, there is no reason that Hannibal could not have been black. Your whole argument against it is the nonsensical gibberish that there were no blacks in Carthage because the light skinned people were the only "indigenous" people in North Africa, which is absurd.
And to show how ancient black people are you got black people along the Red Sea in the Sinai and in the Levant......
And when I post this, it is to show that humans are diverse and that black skin has always been part of that diversity especially as you go back further in time. As opposed to the nonsense you keep spouting.
Posts: 8909 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are spouting gibberish again. Africans, black Africans are aboriginal to North Africa. This is the point you keep trying to deny. They were there before there were any "light skin" genes and they were there after light skinned populations evolved. Because of that their features are very diverse, including straight hair, curly hair, thin noses, wide noses and everything else. And just specifically referring to North Africa I am talking of all the black populations that have been in North Africa prior to, during and after the last wet phase 10,000 years ago in the Sahara. "Berbers" are not that ancient and are simply speakers of a language that is only about 6,000 years old. They are not a "race" and aren't all light skinned today and weren't all light skinned in history and the language did not originate with light skinned people. And North Africa is not just the parts of Africa along the coast of the Mediterranean. And as has been shown numerous times, the history of black Africans in and around the mediterranean is ancient.
So you imply that "black africans" are all the same ? There is no diversity ? For example, Are you at least aware that people like eritreans or ethiopians are genetically closer to white skinned middle eastern people than west africans like yourself ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Who the hell imported the black African ancestors of the Tuaregs to Africa? Who imported the black Africans in the last wet phase to the Sahara? Nobody did. You keep talking that stupid nonsense that light skin people are responsible for bringing black skin to Africa which is obviously stupid. It isn't historical and isn't based on any historical facts.
Are you implying Tuaregs did not practice slavery ? Also have I ever denied the presence of dark skinned folks in the Sahara ?
And yes "white skinned" caucasoid north africans did import massively west african slaves in their regions this is an established fact and today you can visit these communities who descent from slaves they sing about it, they have festivals to remember their roots some of them even remember their tribes, etc
Again :
quote:This essay examines Ahmad Baba’s efforts to persuade Maghribi scholars to accept the Islamic status of self-professed Muslims in West Africa and to reject racial slavery. Towards this end, Ahmad Baba wrote a legal treatise that suggested that Northwest Africans were illegally enslaving West Africans on the basis of race. This treatise, entitled Mi‘raj al-Su‘ud, drew upon a century of jurisprudence produced in Timbuktu and set Islamic standards for enslavement that defined as illicit a substantial portion of the slave trade as it then existed."
quote:"The term ‘imported Blacks’ referred to ‘Black’ West Africans who had been enslaved and traded across the Sahara into North Africa. This trans-Saharan trade in slaves began at least two thousand years ago, but was not well documented until the spread of Islam across North Africa in the late seventh century. By the time Ahmad Baba was born, it was a flourishing trade that still dwarfed the incipient Atlantic trade in slaves (Austen 1979). Ahmad Baba’s Mi‘raj provides us with evidence about the ideological underpinnings of this trade in the early seventeenth century, especially with regard to notions of ethnicity and race, as well as Islamic law. But his text went far beyond a mere interpretation of law and practice, and made a specific attempt to change the behaviour of North Africans, whom he accused of sometimes purchasing West African slaves on the basis of race, rather than according to the regulations of Islam. In particular, he feared that free Muslims were being captured and traded across the Sahara, where they were enslaved by fellow Muslims, contravening the dictates of their religion."
quote:The black populations of West Africa, Islamisized or not, became the targeted slave pool for North Africans. Arab-Berber white Muslims in the Maghreb have utilised a number of arguments – racist and religious at the same time – to justify the enslavement of Blacks, even converted Blacks. They forged a racial slavery from the centuries of writings of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence that reigns in North Africa (Ould Ciré 2014). They exploited the Hamatic myth to justify the eternal slavery of black people (Hunwick 1999).
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans have been in Africa for more than a few thousand years. You know this yet you keep trying to use this "few thousand" years of light skin people to erase black Africans in North Africa with stupid nonsense. Black Africans were not "imported" to North Africa by Europeans, Arabs, Levantines or anybody else and have been there for far more than 'a few thousand years'. This is the point you keep trying to avoid because you know that light skin isn't "ancient" like black skin which is the most ancient phenotype of humans all over the planet.
Pigmentation isn't enough to define the ethnicity of someone ; many people on this planet have similar skin tone as me yet we're genetically very different and don't feel any kind of kinship. Maybe you act like that because you grew up in the West where every "black" is the same.
And yes black africans were imported massively :
quote:In his monumental Tableau géographique de l’Ouest Africain au moyen age, Raymond Mauny estimated that in its first 900 years (seventh–fifteenth centuries), the Islamic Saharan trade delivered nearly 6 million live black slaves to the far side of the desert. According to his calculations, the trade started at a modest average rate of 1,000 slaves/year in the seventh century, doubled in the next century and again in the ninth, reached 5,000 slaves/year in thirteenth century, doubled to 10,000/year in the fourteenth century, and doubled again to 20,000/year in the fifteenth. The trade continued at that average yearly rate, Mauny believed, until the twentieth century; however he later revised his figures upwards125 (see Table 3.1)."
John Wright, the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade, pp. 38
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans in AE art looking the same as black Africans in North Africa today and in history is not "symbolic". It is only symbolic of you trying to make up an ancient history of light skin people in Africa before black Africans which is absurd. Light skin is not the aboriginal phenotype of humans, black skin is.
Yes black africans in AE art looked the same as black africans in sub-saharan africa and yes in many cases colors are symbolic :
quote:In ancient Egyptian paintings, the color of everything is a clue and a sign of its true existence. Except for some practical uses, colors in the art of ancient Egyptian painting have symbolic connotations. According to Schenkel (2007) and Baines (1985) there are six colors green, red, yellow, blue, white and black in the paintings of Egyptian artists. Except for blue and yellow colors, there are words for the rest of the colors in the Ancient Egyptian language. The symbolic meaning of each color in ancient Egyptian art and its origin are presented in the following paragraphs and analyzed
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That said, the crux of the issue with you is you deny that these populations in North Africa who are light skinned have recent mixture. Yes, some of those light skin genes evolved naturally in North Africa, but that isn't "white". But because of the location of North Africa in the Mediterranean, you have had mixture. You have had historical ancient migrations of black Africans into Europe, where they mixed with Europeans and you have had migrations of Europeans into parts of North Africa. You keep down playing or ignoring that, trying to claim that light skinned North Africans are "pure", pure what?
Carthage was a civilization that spanned the Mediterranean, they had outposts in Europe and armies made up of Africans and Europeans. There was mixture in Carthage. And in saying that they were mixed, that doesn't mean that all of these Punic North Africans looked the same. It means there was variation of features among them and among the populations that settled in Europe.
And because of that variation of features in Carthage among the populations in that part of North Africa, there is no reason that Hannibal could not have been black. Your whole argument against it is the nonsensical gibberish that there were no blacks in Carthage because the light skinned people were the only "indigenous" people in North Africa, which is absurd.
And to show how ancient black people are you got black people along the Red Sea in the Sinai and in the Levant......
And when I post this, it is to show that humans are diverse and that black skin has always been part of that diversity especially as you go back further in time. As opposed to the nonsense you keep spouting. [/QB]
"recent mixture" yes sub-saharan african ancestry from the slave trade for the rest that was already there at least 5k years ago : Iberomaurusians were already predominantly eurasian genetically, late neolithic moroccans were roughly 60% EEF, copper age north africans already had a profile similar to modern day north africans, etc etc
I already posted datas on carthaginians hereand here
as for the rest of your speculations that's gibberish coming from someone that clearly (And I'm sure of it) hasn't read any historical book about this time period.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
eritreans or ethiopians are genetically closer to white skinned middle eastern people than west africans like yourself ?
If I'm not mistaken,Doug M isn't African and your prejudice nature can't allow you to see pass certain Africans. And most of those light skin Mid Easterners are mixed with Ethiopian like people and the various Turkic tribes,with the Ethiopian like people being original.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: eritreans or ethiopians are genetically closer to white skinned middle eastern people than west africans like yourself ?
If I'm not mistaken,Doug M isn't African and your prejudice nature can't allow you to see pass certain Africans. And most of those light skin Mid Easterners are mixed with Ethiopian like people and the various Turkic tribes,with the Ethiopian like people being original.
DougM is Afro-american which means of west african descent. As for genetics, horners have middle eastern admixture (natufian) in high proportion (40-50%) which is why they are craniometrically caucasoid and genetically closer to middle easterners.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are spouting gibberish again. Africans, black Africans are aboriginal to North Africa. This is the point you keep trying to deny. They were there before there were any "light skin" genes and they were there after light skinned populations evolved. Because of that their features are very diverse, including straight hair, curly hair, thin noses, wide noses and everything else. And just specifically referring to North Africa I am talking of all the black populations that have been in North Africa prior to, during and after the last wet phase 10,000 years ago in the Sahara. "Berbers" are not that ancient and are simply speakers of a language that is only about 6,000 years old. They are not a "race" and aren't all light skinned today and weren't all light skinned in history and the language did not originate with light skinned people. And North Africa is not just the parts of Africa along the coast of the Mediterranean. And as has been shown numerous times, the history of black Africans in and around the mediterranean is ancient.
So you imply that "black africans" are all the same ? There is no diversity ? For example, Are you at least aware that people like eritreans or ethiopians are genetically closer to white skinned middle eastern people than west africans like yourself ?
Black Ethiopians are not "close" to Europeans. They do not get their feature diversity as Africans from Europeans or Eurasians. Of course some Ethiopians have mixture but according to somebody like you, African diversity and history only comes from contact and mixture with Europeans. When the opposite is true, Ethiopians and blacks from North East Africa were the first settlers of Eurasia and there have been blacks in Arabia and the Levant since that time. Trying to turn this fact of history around is the problem. Africans came first and then all these other people. Not the other way around. Africans are aboriginal to the entire planet and black skin is aboriginal to all humanity. The nonsense you are talking about is irrelevant.
Genotype is not phenotype. Phenotype is not defined by what genetic lineage you carry. Ethiopians are black because they are indigenous to Africa and Africans evolved dark skin because Africa straddles the equator. Europe has absolutely nothing to do with that and the presence of so-called Eurasian genes does not change black Africans into Europeans. Europeans carrying E lineages from Africa are not black Africans. You are simply confused.
Again, aboriginal Europeans were also black. So obviously they got their features from Africans and this is the thing they are so busy trying to deny. Even though their own papers and studies are admitting this. Meaning the evolution of straight hair and thin lips, and thin noses happened first among black skinned people before they even got to Europe. "Racial" thinking tries to impose this idea that certain features only belong to certain groups which is false. And this is what you keep spouting.
You think you can come here and spout that gibberish about Ethiopians being not black Africans because of some genes when you don't accept that North Africans are Africans because they carry African genes. So you are spouting complete and utter gibberish.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Who the hell imported the black African ancestors of the Tuaregs to Africa? Who imported the black Africans in the last wet phase to the Sahara? Nobody did. You keep talking that stupid nonsense that light skin people are responsible for bringing black skin to Africa which is obviously stupid. It isn't historical and isn't based on any historical facts.
Are you implying Tuaregs did not practice slavery ? Also have I ever denied the presence of dark skinned folks in the Sahara ?
And yes "white skinned" caucasoid north africans did import massively west african slaves in their regions this is an established fact and today you can visit these communities who descent from slaves they sing about it, they have festivals to remember their roots some of them even remember their tribes, etc
The ancestors of the Tuaregs were Saharan populations present since 10,000 years ago. They are not West Africans. Obviously you have a problem with geography. West Africa is thousands of miles away from the coast of North Africa. You do not have to go to West Africa to find blacks in North Africa. That is you making up nonsense. Again, the abundant rock art of the Sahara shows black Africans in the Sahara 10,000 years ago. Tassili N'ajjer is not West Africa. You are basically trying to argue that no blacks EVER existed in the Sahara and that the only blacks came all the way thousands of miles away in West Africa which is stupid and false. You are making up fairy tales and expecting people to believe that BS knowing it is false.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Again :
quote:This essay examines Ahmad Baba’s efforts to persuade Maghribi scholars to accept the Islamic status of self-professed Muslims in West Africa and to reject racial slavery. Towards this end, Ahmad Baba wrote a legal treatise that suggested that Northwest Africans were illegally enslaving West Africans on the basis of race. This treatise, entitled Mi‘raj al-Su‘ud, drew upon a century of jurisprudence produced in Timbuktu and set Islamic standards for enslavement that defined as illicit a substantial portion of the slave trade as it then existed."
quote:"The term ‘imported Blacks’ referred to ‘Black’ West Africans who had been enslaved and traded across the Sahara into North Africa. This trans-Saharan trade in slaves began at least two thousand years ago, but was not well documented until the spread of Islam across North Africa in the late seventh century. By the time Ahmad Baba was born, it was a flourishing trade that still dwarfed the incipient Atlantic trade in slaves (Austen 1979). Ahmad Baba’s Mi‘raj provides us with evidence about the ideological underpinnings of this trade in the early seventeenth century, especially with regard to notions of ethnicity and race, as well as Islamic law. But his text went far beyond a mere interpretation of law and practice, and made a specific attempt to change the behaviour of North Africans, whom he accused of sometimes purchasing West African slaves on the basis of race, rather than according to the regulations of Islam. In particular, he feared that free Muslims were being captured and traded across the Sahara, where they were enslaved by fellow Muslims, contravening the dictates of their religion."
African history did not start in the 1700s. Arabs are not responsible for the black Africans being in the Sahara since before 10,0000 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:The black populations of West Africa, Islamisized or not, became the targeted slave pool for North Africans. Arab-Berber white Muslims in the Maghreb have utilised a number of arguments – racist and religious at the same time – to justify the enslavement of Blacks, even converted Blacks. They forged a racial slavery from the centuries of writings of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence that reigns in North Africa (Ould Ciré 2014). They exploited the Hamatic myth to justify the eternal slavery of black people (Hunwick 1999).
We aren't talking about West Africans and the Spread of Islam as black Africans in North Africa predate Islam, predate Greece, predate Rome, predate Carthage and predate modern Europe. All you can do is focus on the last 1,000 years as somehow representative of ALL of African history which is gibberish. The Wet Sahara was full of black Africans and this is where the ancestors of ancient black coastal North Africans originated. They were not West Africans. Your attempts to jump around history and pretend that black African history starts with Islam or Turks or Romans is stupid. Because in reality you know that coastal North Africa is mixed because of all these invaders, from Romans, to Greeks, to Islam and the Colonial European powers. And therefore that is the only 'history' you can speak of which is the history of mixing. Then you want to claim this mixed population is ancient and older than black Africans. You aren't fooling anybody with your gibberish.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans have been in Africa for more than a few thousand years. You know this yet you keep trying to use this "few thousand" years of light skin people to erase black Africans in North Africa with stupid nonsense. Black Africans were not "imported" to North Africa by Europeans, Arabs, Levantines or anybody else and have been there for far more than 'a few thousand years'. This is the point you keep trying to avoid because you know that light skin isn't "ancient" like black skin which is the most ancient phenotype of humans all over the planet.
Pigmentation isn't enough to define the ethnicity of someone ; many people on this planet have similar skin tone as me yet we're genetically very different and don't feel any kind of kinship. Maybe you act like that because you grew up in the West where every "black" is the same.
Black skin is a well defined characteristic of phenotype. Your attempts to duck and dodge are the issue because you are trying to deny that black skin has been present in humans longer than light skin. And yes, light skin is present in many parts of North Africa but that does not mean that black skin was never present or isn't present in North Africa. All your standard stupid gibberish is not educating anybody here on anything other than your insane attempts to redefine black skin in order to deny that it has always been there in North Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: And yes black africans were imported massively :
quote:In his monumental Tableau géographique de l’Ouest Africain au moyen age, Raymond Mauny estimated that in its first 900 years (seventh–fifteenth centuries), the Islamic Saharan trade delivered nearly 6 million live black slaves to the far side of the desert. According to his calculations, the trade started at a modest average rate of 1,000 slaves/year in the seventh century, doubled in the next century and again in the ninth, reached 5,000 slaves/year in thirteenth century, doubled to 10,000/year in the fourteenth century, and doubled again to 20,000/year in the fifteenth. The trade continued at that average yearly rate, Mauny believed, until the twentieth century; however he later revised his figures upwards125 (see Table 3.1)."
John Wright, the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade, pp. 38
quote: In Greek mythology, Memnon (/ˈmɛmnən/; Ancient Greek: Μέμνων means 'resolute'[1]) was a king of Aethiopia and son of Tithonus and Eos. As a warrior he was considered to be almost Achilles' equal in skill. During the Trojan War, he brought an army to Troy's defense and killed Antilochus, Nestor's son, during a fierce battle. Nestor challenged Memnon to a fight, but Memnon refused being there was little honor in killing the aged man. Nestor then pleaded with Achilles to avenge his son's death. Despite warnings that soon after Memnon falls so too would Achilles, the two men fought. Memnon drew blood from Achilles but Achilles drove his spear through Memnons chest, sending the Aethiopian army running. The death of Memnon echoes that of Hector, another defender of Troy whom Achilles also killed out of revenge for a fallen comrade, Patroclus.
After Memnon's death, Zeus was moved by Eos' tears and granted him immortality. Memnon's death is related at length in the lost epic Aethiopis, composed after The Iliad, circa the 7th century BCE. Quintus of Smyrna records Memnon's death in Posthomerica. His death is also described in Philostratus' Imagines.
Not to mention the word "slave" comes from "slav" as in Slavic people who were enslaved for thousands of years in Europe to the point that they became the basis of the word. Your non historical quotes are irrelevant to the presence of blacks in Carthage, 1500 years before any of those books you keep citing.
Not to mention "Berbers" were enslaved in North Africa by Arabs as part of the expansion of Islam into North Africa in the 8th century. Ibn Butlan famously said that the best slave woman was a Berber woman. This idea that "Berbers" were somehow a separate "race" immune from slavery and subjugation ignores all the facts of history. They were subjugated by the Romans. They were subjugated by the Byzantines, they were subjugated by the Arabs, which is why arab names, language and culture dominate the region. They were dominated by the Turks. They were dominated by the European colonists in the 19th century. Yet we are to believe all these groups who openly practiced slavery didn't enslave any Berbers nor import European/Circassian slaves into North African harems........ Please. GTFOH with that nonsense.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans in AE art looking the same as black Africans in North Africa today and in history is not "symbolic". It is only symbolic of you trying to make up an ancient history of light skin people in Africa before black Africans which is absurd. Light skin is not the aboriginal phenotype of humans, black skin is.
Yes black africans in AE art looked the same as black africans in sub-saharan africa and yes in many cases colors are symbolic :
quote:In ancient Egyptian paintings, the color of everything is a clue and a sign of its true existence. Except for some practical uses, colors in the art of ancient Egyptian painting have symbolic connotations. According to Schenkel (2007) and Baines (1985) there are six colors green, red, yellow, blue, white and black in the paintings of Egyptian artists. Except for blue and yellow colors, there are words for the rest of the colors in the Ancient Egyptian language. The symbolic meaning of each color in ancient Egyptian art and its origin are presented in the following paragraphs and analyzed
So why would proud ancient "light skinned" North Africans paint thenselves as black Africans? If they were like you and so determined to prove their light skin and heritage why would they do that symbolically or otherwise? And what makes you think brown skin is somehow not indigenous to ancient North Africa? Your absurd gibberish is ridiculous.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That said, the crux of the issue with you is you deny that these populations in North Africa who are light skinned have recent mixture. Yes, some of those light skin genes evolved naturally in North Africa, but that isn't "white". But because of the location of North Africa in the Mediterranean, you have had mixture. You have had historical ancient migrations of black Africans into Europe, where they mixed with Europeans and you have had migrations of Europeans into parts of North Africa. You keep down playing or ignoring that, trying to claim that light skinned North Africans are "pure", pure what?
Carthage was a civilization that spanned the Mediterranean, they had outposts in Europe and armies made up of Africans and Europeans. There was mixture in Carthage. And in saying that they were mixed, that doesn't mean that all of these Punic North Africans looked the same. It means there was variation of features among them and among the populations that settled in Europe.
And because of that variation of features in Carthage among the populations in that part of North Africa, there is no reason that Hannibal could not have been black. Your whole argument against it is the nonsensical gibberish that there were no blacks in Carthage because the light skinned people were the only "indigenous" people in North Africa, which is absurd.
And to show how ancient black people are you got black people along the Red Sea in the Sinai and in the Levant......
And when I post this, it is to show that humans are diverse and that black skin has always been part of that diversity especially as you go back further in time. As opposed to the nonsense you keep spouting.
"recent mixture" yes sub-saharan african ancestry from the slave trade for the rest that was already there at least 5k years ago : Iberomaurusians were already predominantly eurasian genetically, late neolithic moroccans were roughly 60% EEF, copper age north africans already had a profile similar to modern day north africans, etc etc
I already posted datas on carthaginians hereand here
as for the rest of your speculations that's gibberish coming from someone that clearly (And I'm sure of it) hasn't read any historical book about this time period.
Again, your attempts to duck and dodge historical facts with genetic misinformation is irrelevant. Ancient Iberomaurisans were not "light skinned" like modern North Africans, they were descended from black Africans in the Sahara.
Posts: 8909 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright I see you haven't improved much nor can understand what I post ...at this point it must be a problem of IQ
Geez ...the guy literally think basal eurasians were similar to modern day horners, that west africans couldn't have been imported because there were already "black africans" in the sahara 10k years ago then for no reason bring europeans and start exposing his insecurities "everyone was black so caucasoid features come from us".
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Alright I see you haven't improved much nor can understand what I post ...at this point it must be a problem of IQ
Geez ...the guy literally think basal eurasians were similar to modern day horners, that west africans couldn't have been imported because there were already "black africans" in the sahara 10k years ago then for no reason bring europeans and start exposing his insecurities "everyone was black so caucasoid features come from us".
Literally this reply shows you have a lack of integrity and honesty because we aren't talking about "basal eurasians", which is a meaningless concept when it comes to African history. Ancient Africans in North Africa were not "basal Eurasians". Black Africans being present in North africa and the Mediterranean since ancient times is not contested. It is you who is desperate to change the point from the fact of the presence of black Africans for thousands and thousands of years in North Africa in order to pretend that there were none in Carthage.
Posts: 8909 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: according to somebody like you, African diversity and history only comes from contact and mixture with Europeans.
quote:Ethiopians and blacks from North East Africa were the first settlers of Eurasia
quote:Europe has absolutely nothing to do with that and the presence of so-called Eurasian genes does not change black Africans into Europeans.
quote:aboriginal Europeans were also black. So obviously they got their features from Africans and this is the thing they are so busy trying to deny.
quote:you don't accept that North Africans are Africans because they carry African genes.
quote:You are basically trying to argue that no blacks EVER existed in the Sahara
This is exactly what I said in one of the post above : " Also have I ever denied the presence of dark skinned folks in the Sahara ? "
quote:The Wet Sahara was full of black Africans and this is where the ancestors of ancient black coastal North Africans originated.
Reality :
quote:In the course of these pages, North Africa has thus appeared to us as an African land resolutely turned towards Mediterranean Europe and the Near East. The first Homo sapiens who inhabited it, the Iberomaurusians and the Capsians, can in no way be compared to the races of Black Africa. [...] The present population continues and reflects to a large extent that of the past. The Mediterraneans form the majority and descendants of the Cro-Magnons of Mechta-Afalou can be found there.
D. Ferembach, Histoire raciale de l'Afrique du Nord, p. 136
quote:Your attempts to jump around history and pretend that black African history starts with Islam or Turks or Romans is stupid.
quote:Because in reality you know that coastal North Africa is mixed because of all these invaders, from Romans, to Greeks, to Islam and the Colonial European powers. And therefore that is the only 'history' you can speak of which is the history of mixing.
Romans :
quote: It has thus been argued that soldiers were likely to have found partners among local,non-Roman women; their children, then, would be good candidates for a pool of people among whom a hybrid ethnic identity might emerge. Examples might include Carteia in Spain and Lugdunum Convenarum in France, both said to be populated by children of Roman soldiers and local women (Woolf 2011: 18). However, in the case of North Africa, such evidence as we have for such relationships—typically commemorative epitaphs—shows virtually no such mixing; in fact, the chief pool of women to whom soldiers had recourse were the daughters of their comrades or predecessors (Cherry 1998: 101–40).
Jeremy Mcinerney, Ethnicity in the ancient mediterranean, pp. 120
quote:In fact, if we seek to determine the numerical importance of the contingent of Roman or Italian immigrants in Africa, we have every reason to admit that it was small: and it does not grow much even if we add the non-Italian immigrants. These immigrants include senior civil servants, but the junior staff of the offices are recruited locally; a few large landowners, but most often they reside in Rome and are represented in Africa by stewards and farmers, many of local origin; a few Italian, Oriental or Spanish merchants in the cities of the coast and in a few large localities in the interior such as Cirta. These are contributions that do not change the Berber character [...]"
according to somebody like you, African diversity and history only comes from contact and mixture with Europeans.
quote:Ethiopians and blacks from North East Africa were the first settlers of Eurasia
quote:Europe has absolutely nothing to do with that and the presence of so-called Eurasian genes does not change black Africans into Europeans.
quote:aboriginal Europeans were also black. So obviously they got their features from Africans and this is the thing they are so busy trying to deny.
quote:you don't accept that North Africans are Africans because they carry African genes.
quote:You are basically trying to argue that no blacks EVER existed in the Sahara
This is exactly what I said in one of the post above : " Also have I ever denied the presence of dark skinned folks in the Sahara ? "
quote:The Wet Sahara was full of black Africans and this is where the ancestors of ancient black coastal North Africans originated.
So since you keep posting images of confusion because you are indeed confused.
First, the post below shows everything that I said above that you quoted is correct.
And this is to the crux of your whole reason for being on this forum. First, you absolutely believe that over 10,000 years ago a group of light skinned Eurasians appeared in North Africa as a "package". And this "package" or "cultural complex" was basically derived from Eurasia, including language and culture. As such these populations were not AFRICANS and distinguished themselves from Africans. And this cultural complex is what is being identified as "Berber" in the sense of being a "race" defined by phenotype, language and culture as ultimately Eurasian in origin. And this is what you just quoted below after arguing up and down on other threads otherwise.
Therefore, in order for that to be true, there could not have been any migration of Saharans into Coastal North Africa during or after the last wet phase. And in addition, that also means that the Berber language could not have arisen among populations migrating out of the Sahara as well from regions South and East. All of that is exactly what your position here and what you swear us "Afrocentrics" need to be educated on.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
Reality :
quote:In the course of these pages, North Africa has thus appeared to us as an African land resolutely turned towards Mediterranean Europe and the Near East. The first Homo sapiens who inhabited it, the Iberomaurusians and the Capsians, can in no way be compared to the races of Black Africa. [...] The present population continues and reflects to a large extent that of the past. The Mediterraneans form the majority and descendants of the Cro-Magnons of Mechta-Afalou can be found there.
D. Ferembach, Histoire raciale de l'Afrique du Nord, p. 136
Which confirms everything about you and what you believe.
Unfortunately again, the Taforalt paper DOES NOT support any of that and is basically somthing that promotes an ideology that is the core of this Berber nationalism created by the French. And yes, Denise Frerembach was a French anthropologist along with Gabriel Camps.
We discussed this before and you keep repeating false information.
In all of these threads you jumped and contradicted yourself saying that Berbers weren't Europeans while quoting authors saying they exactly were. You are all over the place including arguing that North Africans shouldn't be just called 'Africans' as if Africa implies Central and South Africa, even after starting a thread showing clearly that the fist use of the word Africa was in coastal North Africa. I don't even know why you keep kidding yourself believing you are proving something to somebody with your nonsense.
Not only that, you keep quoting from the French Berber Encyclopedia while claiming that you are proud of your history, but all of that is being written and defined by the French. The former colonizers of North Africa. But according to you the French colonists didn't have an impact and aren't mixing with you even though millions of Berbers live in France and you even posted pictures of Berbers married to French people. Nothing you say has any value as all you do is whine and moan about the fact that blacks have always been in Africa trying to maintain this mythology of an exclusively white ancient North Africa as if all of North Africa is along the coast. Dude. You are obsessed with this foolishness to the point you don't even see when people agree with you on some points. But whatever.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Your attempts to jump around history and pretend that black African history starts with Islam or Turks or Romans is stupid.
quote:Because in reality you know that coastal North Africa is mixed because of all these invaders, from Romans, to Greeks, to Islam and the Colonial European powers. And therefore that is the only 'history' you can speak of which is the history of mixing.
Romans :
quote: It has thus been argued that soldiers were likely to have found partners among local,non-Roman women; their children, then, would be good candidates for a pool of people among whom a hybrid ethnic identity might emerge. Examples might include Carteia in Spain and Lugdunum Convenarum in France, both said to be populated by children of Roman soldiers and local women (Woolf 2011: 18). However, in the case of North Africa, such evidence as we have for such relationships—typically commemorative epitaphs—shows virtually no such mixing; in fact, the chief pool of women to whom soldiers had recourse were the daughters of their comrades or predecessors (Cherry 1998: 101–40).
Jeremy Mcinerney, Ethnicity in the ancient mediterranean, pp. 120
quote:In fact, if we seek to determine the numerical importance of the contingent of Roman or Italian immigrants in Africa, we have every reason to admit that it was small: and it does not grow much even if we add the non-Italian immigrants. These immigrants include senior civil servants, but the junior staff of the offices are recruited locally; a few large landowners, but most often they reside in Rome and are represented in Africa by stewards and farmers, many of local origin; a few Italian, Oriental or Spanish merchants in the cities of the coast and in a few large localities in the interior such as Cirta. These are contributions that do not change the Berber character [...]"
I am talking about the fact that so many "berbers" live in France and obviously many of them are marrying French people. And the same goes or those Africans from other parts of Africa who migrate to France. And France is closer to North Africa than is to West Africa.
Posts: 8909 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In Greek mythology, Memnon (/ˈmɛmnən/; Ancient Greek: Μέμνων means 'resolute'[1]) was a king of Aethiopia
Again " Memnon was a king of Aethiopia[/B] "
aethiopia :
The Odyssey was written almost 500 years before Herodatus wrote his geographies. As I stated, the Odyssey was inspired partly by the evens and history as seen in the frescoes from Pylos. In this context, Aethiopian simply means "burnt face" people, in other words black people. And these "Aethiopians" are included in the Odyssey due to the presence of so many obvious black skinned people in the time of Nestor as seen in the paintings from his palace. There is no documentation on where exactly these "blacks" came from in the palace of Nestor. And, many of the local populations are also depicted as very dark, while the "Aethiopians" are depicted as literally jet black. That was the point. The frescoes from the palace of Nestor show clearly the black presence in the ancient Mediterranean and is NOT mythology.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:This idea that "Berbers" were somehow a separate "race" immune from slavery and subjugation ignores all the facts of history.
quote:So why would proud ancient "light skinned" North Africans paint thenselves as black Africans?
quote:And what makes you think brown skin is somehow not indigenous to ancient North Africa?
And this is to the crux of your whole reason for being on this forum. First, you absolutely believe that over 10,000 years ago a group of light skinned Eurasians appeared in North Africa as a "package".
More like 25k-23k years ago a group of eurasian settled in north africa and mixed with the local aterians which gave birth to iberomaurusians who had their own industry completely different from the previous one. That's literally what all the papers show but you keep denying them.
AND AGAIN STOP WITH YOUR STRAWMAN I NEVER SAID THESE EURASIANS WERE LIGHT SKINNED I LITERALLY POSTED MANY TIMES QUOTES WHICH HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THEY LACKED SUCH ALLELES.
but like I said being dark skin doesn't mean they looked black nor that they were genetically affiliated to people like you.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And this "package" or "cultural complex" was basically derived from Eurasia, including language and culture.
For language we don't have any data so I couldn't have made an opinion on it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As such these populations were not AFRICANS and distinguished themselves from Africans.
They were partially ANA therefore part african and lived in this area for at least 15 to 20k years therefore making them indigenous.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And this cultural complex is what is being identified as "Berber" in the sense of being a "race" defined by phenotype, language and culture as ultimately Eurasian in origin. And this is what you just quoted below after arguing up and down on other threads otherwise.
Wtf ?? Since when are iberomaurusians supposed to be berber ? Proto-berbers are most likely those capsians who migrated from the Nile Delta and were genetically different from modern north africans but based on their remains they weren't much different craniometrically from modern NAs and might have been some kind of Natufian/KEN_N population. Later we see the expansion of farming and coastal north africans got it from southern europeans who were similar to neolithic anatolians and these populations form the bulk of ancestry of north africans and most NAs have roughly the same proportions for each component therefore yes there is a "berber" profile ; a profile that defines most people who live in NW Africa.
Yes you can find some blacks in NA, yes you can find some europeans, yes you can find some arabs but these people do not form a substantial part of our population. So yes we do have our own phenotypes, culture and genetic profile. Stop trying to make it seems like NW africa is america.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Therefore, in order for that to be true, there could not have been any migration of Saharans into Coastal North Africa during or after the last wet phase. And in addition, that also means that the Berber language could not have arisen among populations migrating out of the Sahara as well from regions South and East. All of that is exactly what your position here and what you swear us "Afrocentrics" need to be educated on.
There could have been migrations from the Sahara but we do not detect any major impact whether culturally or genetically ; moreover eurasians could have also settled in the Sahara. If you disagree then feel free to post your evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately again, the Taforalt paper DOES NOT support any of that and is basically somthing that promotes an ideology that is the core of this Berber nationalism created by the French. And yes, Denise Frerembach was a French anthropologist along with Gabriel Camps.
It actually does support what ferembach said since genetics show that Taforalt were predominantly eurasian and keep your conspiracy theories to yourself these are well respected scholars who worked with maghrebi scholars throughout all their careers.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In all of these threads you jumped and contradicted yourself saying that Berbers weren't Europeans while quoting authors saying they exactly were. You are all over the place including arguing that North Africans shouldn't be just called 'Africans' as if Africa implies Central and South Africa, even after starting a thread showing clearly that the fist use of the word Africa was in coastal North Africa. I don't even know why you keep kidding yourself believing you are proving something to somebody with your nonsense.
So now berbers are europeans ? hahahah alright post those authors who said we're europeans...North africans are literally the eurasians who plot the farthest away from europeans.
I said North Africans shouldn't be called "africans" because that's meaningless , the same way calling japanese and indians "asians" is totally meaningless since both of these people don't share anything in common except a continent.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: you even posted pictures of Berbers married to French people.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
I am talking about the fact that so many "berbers" live in France and obviously many of them are marrying French people. And the same goes or those Africans from other parts of Africa who migrate to France. And France is closer to North Africa than is to West Africa. [/QB]
mixed unions are rare and who told you I consider these mixed people to be north african ? You literally have nothing to backed up your claim about north africans being mixed with romans, greeks, "islam", etc lol and you know it.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Odyssey was written almost 500 years before Herodatus wrote his geographies. As I stated, the Odyssey was inspired partly by the evens and history as seen in the frescoes from Pylos.
More like 200-300 years before Herodotus and why are you straight up lying with pylos ?? POST ANY SOURCE SAYING ODYSSEY IS INSPIRED BY MINOAN FRESCOES FROM PYLOS.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In this context, Aethiopian simply means "burnt face" people, in other words black people. And these "Aethiopians" are included in the Odyssey due to the presence of so many obvious black skinned people in the time of Nestor as seen in the paintings from his palace.
Indeed :
basically nubian mercenaries and not your fancy and far-fetched theory of dinka-like people living along the shores of the med sea XD
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There are plenty of black Egyptians. I can't believe that you seriously think you are schooling people on the history of Africans in Africa.
The marsa alam folks are dressed like arabs not egyptians but of course you didn't know that Mr the "african"
Imazighen from Siwa aren't really similar to other berbers and their dna reflects the centuries of the trans-saharan slave trade, Siwa being one of the main market in the road to Egypt and the middle East (if needed I can post sources)
As for the Qara oasis that's far from the Nile Valley and well into the Sahara so these aren't really proper egyptians. Why don't you post how people along nile look like ?
Please post papers that look at the autosomal DNA of Siwan Berbers, I can't seem to find any.
Posts: 163 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
@SlimJim the datas I found are mostly about uniparentals but also level of heterozygoty, allele O, etc
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
And this is to the crux of your whole reason for being on this forum. First, you absolutely believe that over 10,000 years ago a group of light skinned Eurasians appeared in North Africa as a "package".
More like 25k-23k years ago a group of eurasian settled in north africa
The DNA study of Iberomaurisans shows that African populations migrating OUT of Africa were present in the ancient Levant as represented by Natufians. It does not say that the Ibereromaurisan tool industry originated in Eurasia. This is false. You keep saying it and it is still false. African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: and mixed with the local aterians which gave birth to iberomaurusians who had their own industry completely different from the previous one. That's literally what all the papers show but you keep denying them.
African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
These papers you are citing are outdated and do not represent anything but the conjecture of European scholars trying to make ancient Africans into Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: AND AGAIN STOP WITH YOUR STRAWMAN I NEVER SAID THESE EURASIANS WERE LIGHT SKINNED I LITERALLY POSTED MANY TIMES QUOTES WHICH HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THEY LACKED SUCH ALLELES.
but like I said being dark skin doesn't mean they looked black nor that they were genetically affiliated to people like you.
Again, these ancient populations in the Sahara were not "Eurasians". North Africa is not limited to Morocco and all of North Africa covers an area covering thousands of miles. You keep using Tarforalt as if it is all of North Africa when it is not and it is not true that ancient coastal Africans and Saharans were of Eurasian origin 25,000 years ago. That is the nonsense you keep spewing on this forum based on old racist European literature.
The Taforalt DNA paper says that the relationship is based on the populations of Tarforalt having a shared common ancestor with ancient Levantines. It does not say that the Taforalt populations descend from ancient Levantine migrants. And actually they have worded it in such a way to imply this but that is not ACTUALLY is saying.
And what I am saying is that Europeans are the ones behind this nonsense:
quote: Under typical conditions (i.e., aside from intermittent greening periods), the Sahara desert poses an ecogeographic barrier for human migration between North and sub-Saharan Africa (1). Sub-Saharan Africa is home to the most deeply divergent genetic lineages among present-day humans (2), and the general view is that all Eurasians mostly descend from a single group of humans that dispersed outside of sub-Saharan Africa around 50,000 to 100,000 years before the present (yr B.P.) (3). This group likely represented only a small fraction of the genetic diversity within Africa, most closely related to a Holocene East African group (4). Present-day North Africans share a majority of their ancestry with present-day Near Easterners but not with sub-Saharan Africans (5). Thus, from a genetic perspective, present-day North Africa is largely a part of Eurasia. However, the temporal depth of this genetic connection between the Near East and North Africa is poorly understood and has been estimated only indirectly from present-day mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation (6, 7).
....
Here we present genome-wide data from seven individuals, directly dated between 15,100 and 13,900 calibrated years before present (cal. yr B.P.) (table S1), from Grotte des Pigeons near Taforalt in eastern Morocco (10). These genomic data provide a critical reference point to help explain the deep genetic history of North Africa and the broader Middle East (Fig. 1). The Taforalt individuals are associated with the Later Stone Age Iberomaurusian culture, whose origin is debated. These individuals may have descended either directly from the manufacturers of the preceding Middle Stone Age technologies (Aterian or local West African bladelet technologies) or from an exogenous population with ties to the Upper Pa- leolithic technocomplexes of the Near East or Southern Europe (10, 11).
We analyzed the genetic affinities of the Taforalt individuals by performing principal components analysis and model-based clustering of worldwide data (Fig. 2). When projected onto the top principal components of African and west Eurasian populations, the Taforalt individuals form a dis- tinct cluster in an intermediate position between present-day North Africans [e.g., Amazighes (Berbers), Mozabites, and Saharawis] and East Africans (e.g., Afars, Oromos, and Somalis) (Fig. 2A). Consistently, we find that all males with sufficient nuclear DNA preservation carry Y haplogroup E1b1b1a1 (M-78; table S16). This haplogroup occurs most frequently in present-day North and East African populations (18). The closely related E1b1b1b (M-123) haplogroup has been reported for Epipaleolithic Natufians and Pre-Pottery Ne- olithic Levantines (Levant_N) (16).
The connection between Natufians and Iberomaurisans is from DNA haplogroup E1b1b, which is of African origin. That means that both Natufians and Iberomaurisans are of African origin. They twist the words in these summary articles to make it seem like the DNA is a result of Levantine migrations which is NOT what they actually found.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And this "package" or "cultural complex" was basically derived from Eurasia, including language and culture.
For language we don't have any data so I couldn't have made an opinion on it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As such these populations were not AFRICANS and distinguished themselves from Africans.
They were partially ANA therefore part african and lived in this area for at least 15 to 20k years therefore making them indigenous.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And this cultural complex is what is being identified as "Berber" in the sense of being a "race" defined by phenotype, language and culture as ultimately Eurasian in origin. And this is what you just quoted below after arguing up and down on other threads otherwise.
Wtf ?? Since when are iberomaurusians supposed to be berber ? Proto-berbers are most likely those capsians who migrated from the Nile Delta and were genetically different from modern north africans but based on their remains they weren't much different craniometrically from modern NAs and might have been some kind of Natufian/KEN_N population. Later we see the expansion of farming and coastal north africans got it from southern europeans who were similar to neolithic anatolians and these populations form the bulk of ancestry of north africans and most NAs have roughly the same proportions for each component therefore yes there is a "berber" profile ; a profile that defines most people who live in NW Africa.
Yes you can find some blacks in NA, yes you can find some europeans, yes you can find some arabs but these people do not form a substantial part of our population. So yes we do have our own phenotypes, culture and genetic profile. Stop trying to make it seems like NW africa is america.
Again, see above, the Europeans are saying that modern "North Africans" are Eurasians. I am saying that this is false because "North Africa" is not simply the coastal areas. And yes, those coastal areas substantial mixture with various populations of Eurasians. YOU are the one who is trying to deny this and that is not what these European papers are actually saying so they do not AGREE with you.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Therefore, in order for that to be true, there could not have been any migration of Saharans into Coastal North Africa during or after the last wet phase. And in addition, that also means that the Berber language could not have arisen among populations migrating out of the Sahara as well from regions South and East. All of that is exactly what your position here and what you swear us "Afrocentrics" need to be educated on.
There could have been migrations from the Sahara but we do not detect any major impact whether culturally or genetically ; moreover eurasians could have also settled in the Sahara. If you disagree then feel free to post your evidence.
Please dude. You have been shown to be wrong over and over again. E1b1b is not "Eurasian" and Saharans have always been black Africans. Why don't you prove otherwise. I can't believe you actually think you know what you are talking about.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately again, the Taforalt paper DOES NOT support any of that and is basically somthing that promotes an ideology that is the core of this Berber nationalism created by the French. And yes, Denise Frerembach was a French anthropologist along with Gabriel Camps.
It actually does support what ferembach said since genetics show that Taforalt were predominantly eurasian and keep your conspiracy theories to yourself these are well respected scholars who worked with maghrebi scholars throughout all their careers.
Again, you are wrong. See above. E1b1b1b is not Eurasian so Ferembach cannot be correct.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In all of these threads you jumped and contradicted yourself saying that Berbers weren't Europeans while quoting authors saying they exactly were. You are all over the place including arguing that North Africans shouldn't be just called 'Africans' as if Africa implies Central and South Africa, even after starting a thread showing clearly that the fist use of the word Africa was in coastal North Africa. I don't even know why you keep kidding yourself believing you are proving something to somebody with your nonsense.
So now berbers are europeans ? hahahah alright post those authors who said we're europeans...North africans are literally the eurasians who plot the farthest away from europeans.
I said North Africans shouldn't be called "africans" because that's meaningless , the same way calling japanese and indians "asians" is totally meaningless since both of these people don't share anything in common except a continent.
The point is that it is the Romans who first used the term Africa as you yourself showed in te following thread. And they specifically used it to refer to areas in and around what was ancient Carthage which is now Tunisia. So obviously you disagree with them. And at the same time you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians do not look the same, have the same traditions or speak the same language. So as usual you are spouting gibberish.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: you even posted pictures of Berbers married to French people.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
I am talking about the fact that so many "berbers" live in France and obviously many of them are marrying French people. And the same goes or those Africans from other parts of Africa who migrate to France. And France is closer to North Africa than is to West Africa.
mixed unions are rare and who told you I consider these mixed people to be north african ? You literally have nothing to backed up your claim about north africans being mixed with romans, greeks, "islam", etc lol and you know it. [/QB]
When I say "mixture" I do not mean that every single person in any group is "mixed". What I am saying is that Romans went into North Africans and produced offspring with North Africans and North Africans went into Rome and produced off-spring with Rome. That doesn't mean everybody did this or that the majority but that there was a component of the population at that time that did result from such mixture. And obviously many Berbers moving to France are going to wind up getting married to French and having mixed offspring. Over time this is how "mixture" shows up in populations and this is the part you keep denying as an overall process that has happened over the last 5,000 years. This is how you get the variation in features present in coastal North Africa today. And that mixture includes lighter skinned Africans who are not 'Eurasians' even if they are lighter skinned. "North Africans" did not show up as "mixed" Eurasians 25,000 years ago with the same features you see in present day coastal North Africa and there is no proof of this other than you repeating the outdated papers from European scholars.
Posts: 8909 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazigh nationalists on social media.. stop black washing North Africans
Me sitting down to watch an Egyptian movie on YT
The two gentlemen that played Hannibal and his General are obviously mixed with Caucasian.. so black is a relative term filled with semantic meaning... as are the two Egyptians who if they came to the states would be considered "black" but probably not in Egypt proper..
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2731 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Amazigh nationalists on social media.. stop black washing North Africans
Me sitting down to watch an Egyptian movie on YT
The two gentlemen that played Hannibal and his General are obviously mixed with Caucasian.. so black is a relative term filled with semantic meaning... as are the two Egyptians who if they came to the states would be considered "black" but probably not in Egypt proper..
But this has nothing to do with Egypt or lighter skinned Egyptians. This really has more to do with erasing Saharan black Africans from North African history, regardless of what Hannibal actually looked like. So they just use Hannibal and what he looked like as a proxy for their belief that "North Africans" never had any black ancestry, as if the Sahara doesn't exist.
Posts: 8909 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Was Hannibal Barca Black? 28,578 views Dec 15, 2020 In this video Dr. Rebecca Futo Kennedy answers our question as to whether or not Hannibal Barca the great Carthaginian General that made Rome tremble was black?
We discuss arguments that rage online involving the Punic Peoples, Phoenicians, Berbers and etc, when it comes to race and ethnicity in the ancient world.
We also discuss the confusion and complexity of identity in ancient North Africa since a variety of peoples and cultures have mixed through years of population movements in Antiquity.
Finally when we leave off we come to the conclusion that (1) he skin color doesn't matter, (2) we will realistically never know and (3) in the end he is a great military leader who will always be known in the history of Africa.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2731 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The DNA study of Iberomaurisans shows that African populations migrating OUT of Africa were present in the ancient Levant as represented by Natufians. It does not say that the Ibereromaurisan tool industry originated in Eurasia. This is false. You keep saying it and it is still false. African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
Wait you're saying that the first africans who left africa were natufians ? XD Are you aware They left africa tens of thousands of years before Iberomaurusians or natufians ?
Movement of population can go both ways not only from Africa to Eurasia. You seriously think that since the OOA (60k years ago) no migration of eurasians ever occured ? :
quote:Our genome-wide dense genotyping data from seven North African populations allow us to address outstanding questions regarding the origin and migration history of North Africa. We propose that present-day ancestry in North Africa is the result of at least three distinct episodes: ancient “back-to-Africa” gene flow prior to the Holocene, more recent gene flow from the Near East resulting in a longitudinal gradient, and limited but very recent migrations from sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
How do you know it's not from eurasia ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: These papers you are citing are outdated and do not represent anything but the conjecture of European scholars trying to make ancient Africans into Eurasians.
Sure that's quite easy for someone that try to discredit every info that does not support his narrative...very objective.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, these ancient populations in the Sahara were not "Eurasians". North Africa is not limited to Morocco and all of North Africa covers an area covering thousands of miles. You keep using Tarforalt as if it is all of North Africa when it is not and it is not true that ancient coastal Africans and Saharans were of Eurasian origin 25,000 years ago. That is the nonsense you keep spewing on this forum based on old racist European literature.
source ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Taforalt DNA paper says that the relationship is based on the populations of Tarforalt having a shared common ancestor with ancient Levantines. It does not say that the Taforalt populations descend from ancient Levantine migrants. And actually they have worded it in such a way to imply this but that is not ACTUALLY is saying.
They didn't have any levantine samples from 25k years ago so they could only compared them to the much later natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The connection between Natufians and Iberomaurisans is from DNA haplogroup E1b1b, which is of African origin. That means that both Natufians and Iberomaurisans are of African origin. They twist the words in these summary articles to make it seem like the DNA is a result of Levantine migrations which is NOT what they actually found.
Iberomaurusians predate natufians by at least 10k years and what does one paternal Hg have to do with autosomal ancestry ?
And no they don't twist anything that was already proposed by Lazaridis :
quote:Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed11, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians).The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt17 is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features22 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers6, a common link between the Levant and Africa.
Again this has nothing to do with the eurasian migration from 25k years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, see above, the Europeans are saying that modern "North Africans" are Eurasians. I am saying that this is false because "North Africa" is not simply the coastal areas. And yes, those coastal areas substantial mixture with various populations of Eurasians. YOU are the one who is trying to deny this and that is not what these European papers are actually saying so they do not AGREE with you.
And they're right since most of our ancestry derives from Eurasian populations let alone when it comes to culture/history but how is that surprising ? North Africa is connected by land with the middle east and located only a few km away from Europe. North Africa is not simply coastal areas but that's where most north africans live or lived.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please dude. You have been shown to be wrong over and over again. E1b1b is not "Eurasian" and Saharans have always been black Africans. Why don't you prove otherwise. I can't believe you actually think you know what you are talking about.
what does this have to do with what I wrote ? And no saharans have not always been "black africans", we do have evidence of eurasian populations migrating there many times.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you are wrong. See above. E1b1b1b is not Eurasian so Ferembach cannot be correct.
So that's all you got ? XD Again what does a paternal Hg have to do with autosomal ancestry ? Also is U6 african ? What about H1, H2, R0a, U4, T2b, JT, J1c3, etc these were all found among iberomaurusian remains.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that it is the Romans who first used the term Africa as you yourself showed in te following thread. And they specifically used it to refer to areas in and around what was ancient Carthage which is now Tunisia. So obviously you disagree with them. And at the same time you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians do not look the same, have the same traditions or speak the same language. So as usual you are spouting gibberish.
No I don't disagree with them...Wtf are you talking about ? Africa back then didn't mean the same thing as today. I'm using eurasians simply to point out that such influences/migrations came from outside Africa that's it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
When I say "mixture" I do not mean that every single person in any group is "mixed". What I am saying is that Romans went into North Africans and produced offspring with North Africans and North Africans went into Rome and produced off-spring with Rome. That doesn't mean everybody did this or that the majority but that there was a component of the population at that time that did result from such mixture. And obviously many Berbers moving to France are going to wind up getting married to French and having mixed offspring. Over time this is how "mixture" shows up in populations and this is the part you keep denying as an overall process that has happened over the last 5,000 years. This is how you get the variation in features present in coastal North Africa today. And that mixture includes lighter skinned Africans who are not 'Eurasians' even if they are lighter skinned. "North Africans" did not show up as "mixed" Eurasians 25,000 years ago with the same features you see in present day coastal North Africa and there is no proof of this other than you repeating the outdated papers from European scholars. [/QB]
yes so what ? The impact wasn't substantial so much so that it's not even detectable so a few foreign offsprings certainly won't change the genepool of millions of berbers. Same for the north africans who settled in Europe.
The eurasians from 25k years ago had features closer to mine than yours that's for sure and btw mechtoid/iberomaurusian features are still found among modern NAs and nowhere else.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Amazigh nationalists on social media.. stop black washing North Africans
Me sitting down to watch an Egyptian movie on YT
The two gentlemen that played Hannibal and his General are obviously mixed with Caucasian.. so black is a relative term filled with semantic meaning... as are the two Egyptians who if they came to the states would be considered "black" but probably not in Egypt proper..
lmao so now you admit that afro-americans can have "caucasian" ancestry ? I thought you were all about "we come in all shades and color" ...smh
anyway these egyptians look black to you and similar to the two afro-americans above ? Really americans have a very very broad definition of "black".
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
lmao so now you admit that afro-americans can have "caucasian" ancestry ? I thought you were all about "we come in all shades and color" ...smh
Caucasian is a phenotype and not a description of pigmentation and the color variation depending on how light is due to minor variation in melanin related that with or without mixture. 😁😁😁😁😁😁
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The DNA study of Iberomaurisans shows that African populations migrating OUT of Africa were present in the ancient Levant as represented by Natufians. It does not say that the Ibereromaurisan tool industry originated in Eurasia. This is false. You keep saying it and it is still false. African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
Wait you're saying that the first africans who left africa were natufians ? XD Are you aware They left africa tens of thousands of years before Iberomaurusians or natufians ?
Wait is that what I said? Why don't you check and show me.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Movement of population can go both ways not only from Africa to Eurasia. You seriously think that since the OOA (60k years ago) no migration of eurasians ever occured ? :
The point was that these papers are not saying that the ancient Iberomaurisans wee Eurasians. So your point is irrelevant to what is being discussed, which is about migrations of Africans in and across the Sahara as the basis for Taforalt.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Our genome-wide dense genotyping data from seven North African populations allow us to address outstanding questions regarding the origin and migration history of North Africa. We propose that present-day ancestry in North Africa is the result of at least three distinct episodes: ancient “back-to-Africa” gene flow prior to the Holocene, more recent gene flow from the Near East resulting in a longitudinal gradient, and limited but very recent migrations from sub-Saharan Africa.
That factoid you posted does not disprove what we are discussing. Ancient Taforalt was not a Eurasian population. That is not what these papers are saying, you keep wasting your time here trying to blow smoke up everybody's behind with this nonsense when nothing you post agrees with you.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
How do you know it's not from eurasia ?
Because the studies you keep citing say these populations were Africans.
quote: However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.
So the point here is you keep claiming "science" for this stuff you keep repeating and you keep being shown to be wrong and you keep misrepresenting facts. Taforalt and ancient North Africans 20,000 years ago were NOT Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: These papers you are citing are outdated and do not represent anything but the conjecture of European scholars trying to make ancient Africans into Eurasians.
Sure that's quite easy for someone that try to discredit every info that does not support his narrative...very objective.
It is easy as the dates on these papers are simple enough to read and you just keep randomly posting data as if that proves you right when most of it is contradicted by the papers themselves or other more recent information.
You keep trying to propose this idea that ancient North Africans were Eurasians and not Africans and that there was no Eurasian mixture recently within the last few thousand years and you keep being shown to be wrong. These papers are absolutely not saying that.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, these ancient populations in the Sahara were not "Eurasians". North Africa is not limited to Morocco and all of North Africa covers an area covering thousands of miles. You keep using Tarforalt as if it is all of North Africa when it is not and it is not true that ancient coastal Africans and Saharans were of Eurasian origin 25,000 years ago. That is the nonsense you keep spewing on this forum based on old racist European literature.
source ?
Same one I posted in my last response to you about the DNA from Taforalt which oddly enough you keep ignoring because you know it doesn't agree with the nonsense you keep posting.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Taforalt DNA paper says that the relationship is based on the populations of Tarforalt having a shared common ancestor with ancient Levantines. It does not say that the Taforalt populations descend from ancient Levantine migrants. And actually they have worded it in such a way to imply this but that is not ACTUALLY is saying.
They didn't have any levantine samples from 25k years ago so they could only compared them to the much later natufians.
The point was that Natufians had African ancestry and that ancestry shared a common ancestor with Taforalt. Meaning they both descended from an ancient African population. So again, your argument that Taforalt represents ancient 20,000 year old Eurasian ancestry is still false.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The connection between Natufians and Iberomaurisans is from DNA haplogroup E1b1b, which is of African origin. That means that both Natufians and Iberomaurisans are of African origin. They twist the words in these summary articles to make it seem like the DNA is a result of Levantine migrations which is NOT what they actually found.
Iberomaurusians predate natufians by at least 10k years and what does one paternal Hg have to do with autosomal ancestry ?
It has to do with the fact that these two populations, Natufians and Taforalt were connected by African ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: And no they don't twist anything that was already proposed by Lazaridis :
quote:Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed11, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians).The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt17 is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features22 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers6, a common link between the Levant and Africa.
Again this has nothing to do with the eurasian migration from 25k years ago.
So it says in black and white that Taforalt and Natufians shared a common ancestor in Africa predating both Natufians and Taforalt. And that Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E. Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? Come on dude quit when you are ahead.
The papers say that the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else, then they also say they shared a common African ancestor with Natufians, but you still claim that this represents Eurasian gene flow. Again, if that was "Eurasian" ancestry, they would have called it that, but they cant so you are still wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, see above, the Europeans are saying that modern "North Africans" are Eurasians. I am saying that this is false because "North Africa" is not simply the coastal areas. And yes, those coastal areas substantial mixture with various populations of Eurasians. YOU are the one who is trying to deny this and that is not what these European papers are actually saying so they do not AGREE with you.
And they're right since most of our ancestry derives from Eurasian populations let alone when it comes to culture/history but how is that surprising ? North Africa is connected by land with the middle east and located only a few km away from Europe. North Africa is not simply coastal areas but that's where most north africans live or lived.
So they are right in that modern north Africans have more Eurasian ancestry as the result of recent mixture than Taforalt? Because that is what they are saying. Finally you get it.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please dude. You have been shown to be wrong over and over again. E1b1b is not "Eurasian" and Saharans have always been black Africans. Why don't you prove otherwise. I can't believe you actually think you know what you are talking about.
what does this have to do with what I wrote ? And no saharans have not always been "black africans", we do have evidence of eurasian populations migrating there many times.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you are wrong. See above. E1b1b1b is not Eurasian so Ferembach cannot be correct.
So that's all you got ? XD Again what does a paternal Hg have to do with autosomal ancestry ? Also is U6 african ? What about H1, H2, R0a, U4, T2b, JT, J1c3, etc these were all found among iberomaurusian remains.
OK Fine those other lineages do not change the fact that these populations had substantial African ancestry. And that those combination of lineages do not reflect the modern make up of North Africans as more "Eurasian". Again, the idea that 25,000 years ago there was a migration from Eurasia to Africa bringing language and culture as the basis for "Berbers" is false, yet you keep swearing that this is being supported by these papers when it is not.
Again, these papers don't agree with you
quote: Mitochondrial consensus sequences of the Taforalt individuals belong to the U6a (six in- dividuals) and M1b (one individual) haplogroups (15), which are mostly confined to present-day populations in North and East Africa (7). U6 and M1 have been proposed as markers for autoch- thonous Maghreb ancestry, which might have been originally introduced into this region by a back-to-Africa migration from West Asia (6, 7). The occurrence of both haplogroups in the Taforalt individuals proves their pre-Holocene presence in the Maghreb.[/QB]
The key word is "might" but you keep referring to U6, even though it is mostly found in Africa as the "smoking gun" that makes these people "EUrasians" which is highly dubious.
So again, you are wrong and just promoting false and misleading data that really isn't supported.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that it is the Romans who first used the term Africa as you yourself showed in te following thread. And they specifically used it to refer to areas in and around what was ancient Carthage which is now Tunisia. So obviously you disagree with them. And at the same time you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians do not look the same, have the same traditions or speak the same language. So as usual you are spouting gibberish.
No I don't disagree with them...Wtf are you talking about ? Africa back then didn't mean the same thing as today. I'm using eurasians simply to point out that such influences/migrations came from outside Africa that's it.
The point was the Romans referred to coastal North Africa as "Africa". Period. Again, you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians don't have the same language and culture, yet complain about the word Africa as if that is a problem. And the term African is appropriate for coastal North Africans as they were the first to be labeled with it by the Romans. As most of the terms we use in Africa today are derived from foreigners: berber from Barbarian, Africa from Romans, Libya from Greece, etc.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
When I say "mixture" I do not mean that every single person in any group is "mixed". What I am saying is that Romans went into North Africans and produced offspring with North Africans and North Africans went into Rome and produced off-spring with Rome. That doesn't mean everybody did this or that the majority but that there was a component of the population at that time that did result from such mixture. And obviously many Berbers moving to France are going to wind up getting married to French and having mixed offspring. Over time this is how "mixture" shows up in populations and this is the part you keep denying as an overall process that has happened over the last 5,000 years. This is how you get the variation in features present in coastal North Africa today. And that mixture includes lighter skinned Africans who are not 'Eurasians' even if they are lighter skinned. "North Africans" did not show up as "mixed" Eurasians 25,000 years ago with the same features you see in present day coastal North Africa and there is no proof of this other than you repeating the outdated papers from European scholars. [/QB]
yes so what ? The impact wasn't substantial so much so that it's not even detectable so a few foreign offsprings certainly won't change the genepool of millions of berbers. Same for the north africans who settled in Europe.
The eurasians from 25k years ago had features closer to mine than yours that's for sure and btw mechtoid/iberomaurusian features are still found among modern NAs and nowhere else. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 8909 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Because the studies you keep citing say these populations were Africans.
They don't. They simply say that they also had "African" ancestry which is what I told you with aterians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.
yes so what ? Doesn't mean they didn't have eurasian ancestry and that paper is outdated lazaridis corrected it and here are his results :
quote: We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region6 were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’3,9,10 admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African 11,12 admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe, thereby becoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day West Eurasians.
so yes Taforalt had "african" ancestry but still was predominantly eurasian.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is easy as the dates on these papers are simple enough to read and you just keep randomly posting data as if that proves you right when most of it is contradicted by the papers themselves or other more recent information.
You never succeed at contradicting the papers I posted you just said "gibberish" or implied that european scholars were behind some conspiracy against blacks...
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point was that Natufians had African ancestry and that ancestry shared a common ancestor with Taforalt. Meaning they both descended from an ancient African population. So again, your argument that Taforalt represents ancient 20,000 year old Eurasian ancestry is still false.
Natufians simply had a low quantity of Iberomaurusian ancestry that's it. I don't see how that prevent Iberomaurusians from having eurasian ancestry but ok...
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It has to do with the fact that these two populations, Natufians and Taforalt were connected by African ancestry.
??? All modern north africans including the nordic looking ones have black/deep ancestry so what's your point ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So it says in black and white that Taforalt and Natufians shared a common ancestor in Africa predating both Natufians and Taforalt. And that Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E. Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? Come on dude quit when you are ahead.
The papers say that the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else, then they also say they shared a common African ancestor with Natufians, but you still claim that this represents Eurasian gene flow. Again, if that was "Eurasian" ancestry, they would have called it that, but they cant so you are still wrong.
You're either doing this on purpose or you're mentally retarded. The quote literally says that Natufians have IBM ancestry instead of the reverse and this guy interpret this as " the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else" and ask me without any reason "Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? " holy sh*t XD
I will not even try to correct you hahahah
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So they are right in that modern north Africans have more Eurasian ancestry as the result of recent mixture than Taforalt? Because that is what they are saying. Finally you get it.
So you admit that taforalt had eurasian ancestry but simply less ? I wonder how they got such type of ancestry and when ...
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK Fine those other lineages do not change the fact that these populations had substantial African ancestry. And that those combination of lineages do not reflect the modern make up of North Africans as more "Eurasian". Again, the idea that 25,000 years ago there was a migration from Eurasia to Africa bringing language and culture as the basis for "Berbers" is false, yet you keep swearing that this is being supported by these papers when it is not.
Who denied they had substantial african ancestry ? Who said modern north Africans are 100% taforalt-like ? Who said these 25k years eurasians brought proto-berber in the region ? Again strawman.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The key word is "might" but you keep referring to U6, even though it is mostly found in Africa as the "smoking gun" that makes these people "EUrasians" which is highly dubious.
So again, you are wrong and just promoting false and misleading data that really isn't supported.
Oldest U6 is found in Europe and I supposed all the other haplogroups I mentionned are also african ? If not how did they end up there ?
Stop being in denial :
Iberomaurusians appeared roughly 25k years ago so how did they end up with typical eurasian lineages at that time ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point was the Romans referred to coastal North Africa as "Africa". Period.
They never saw blacks as africans nor called the whole continent "africa" that was simply the name of a province. Period.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians don't have the same language and culture, yet complain about the word Africa as if that is a problem. And the term African is appropriate for coastal North Africans as they were the first to be labeled with it by the Romans. As most of the terms we use in Africa today are derived from foreigners: berber from Barbarian, Africa from Romans, Libya from Greece, etc.
"Africa" and "libya" both derives from berber words but of course you didn't know that XD
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Because the studies you keep citing say these populations were Africans.
They don't. They simply say that they also had "African" ancestry which is what I told you with aterians.
This is literally what it says:
quote: However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.
This is a consistent pattern with you of misrepresenting what these papers say. They are not saying these populations were "Eurasians". How can a population be close to SOUTH AFRICANs who are many thousands of miles away from Morocco and still be called "Eurasian". Which again shows you just keep spouting gibberish that doesn't make any sense and does not reflect any facts.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.
yes so what ? Doesn't mean they didn't have eurasian ancestry and that paper is outdated lazaridis corrected it and here are his results :
quote: We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region6 were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’3,9,10 admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African 11,12 admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe, thereby becoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day West Eurasians.
so yes Taforalt had "african" ancestry but still was predominantly eurasian.
You are still wrong. This is literally what he says in that paper, which isn't much different than what I posted. Nowhere does it say that Taforalt was "Eurasian". Nowhere does it say that Haplogroup E or U6 are "Eurasian". That is you making this inference based on a possible origin of U6 in Eurasia when U6 is mostly found today in Africa. So again, you are spouting gibberish trying to turn ancient African populations into Eurasians......
quote: Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed11, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt17 is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features22 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers6, a common link between the Levant and Africa
There he is saying that the Taforalt population descends from an African common ancestor that was the basis of African ancestry in Natufians. Which is what I said a few posts ago and you haven't shown otherwise. I don't get why you keep swearing up and down that these papers are saying otherwise when they aren't. According to you, African migrations into the Levant represent Eurasian admixture in ancient Africa. That is absurd gobbledygook based on an extreme desire to erase black Africans from North African history.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is easy as the dates on these papers are simple enough to read and you just keep randomly posting data as if that proves you right when most of it is contradicted by the papers themselves or other more recent information.
You never succeed at contradicting the papers I posted you just said "gibberish" or implied that european scholars were behind some conspiracy against blacks...
I said that Europeans have historically tried to make ancient North Africans into Eurasians which is a fact based on the numerous historical works that anybody can find online and elsewhere stating this outright. And yes, that includes many of the French scholars that created the modern field of Berber studies. You can see that yourself in Encyclopedia Bebere.
However, despite that history these recent papers are showing just the opposite of this and you trying to claim otherwise is what I am calling out.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point was that Natufians had African ancestry and that ancestry shared a common ancestor with Taforalt. Meaning they both descended from an ancient African population. So again, your argument that Taforalt represents ancient 20,000 year old Eurasian ancestry is still false.
Natufians simply had a low quantity of Iberomaurusian ancestry that's it. I don't see how that prevent Iberomaurusians from having eurasian ancestry but ok...
The paper YOU posted above says the Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E1b1b. That is not "Eurasian". You are still promoting your silly gibberish.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It has to do with the fact that these two populations, Natufians and Taforalt were connected by African ancestry.
??? All modern north africans including the nordic looking ones have black/deep ancestry so what's your point ?
Taforalt is distantly related to modern North Africans. They didn't look the same so the comparison is stupid. Ancient North Africans in Taforalt did not look like Nordics. There were no populations in Africa 25,000 years ago looking like that which is what you are seemingly implying
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So it says in black and white that Taforalt and Natufians shared a common ancestor in Africa predating both Natufians and Taforalt. And that Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E. Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? Come on dude quit when you are ahead.
The papers say that the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else, then they also say they shared a common African ancestor with Natufians, but you still claim that this represents Eurasian gene flow. Again, if that was "Eurasian" ancestry, they would have called it that, but they cant so you are still wrong.
You're either doing this on purpose or you're mentally retarded. The quote literally says that Natufians have IBM ancestry instead of the reverse and this guy interpret this as " the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else" and ask me without any reason "Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? " holy sh*t XD
I will not even try to correct you hahahah
quote:If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features22 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers6, a common link between the Levant and Africa
It literally says these people had African ancestry and they do not consider Taforalt or haplogroup E1b1b "Eurasian" ancestry. Again, you are spouting gibberish. You keep arguing that ancient populations of Taforalt were Eurasians when none of these papers are saying that.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So they are right in that modern north Africans have more Eurasian ancestry as the result of recent mixture than Taforalt? Because that is what they are saying. Finally you get it.
So you admit that taforalt had eurasian ancestry but simply less ? I wonder how they got such type of ancestry and when ...
It means that thy don't classify Taforalt as Eurasian, where as they do classify modern North Africans as Eurasians. YOUR argument is that Taforalt was a Eurasian population, not just that they had Eurasian mixture. You now have to backtrack and claim that there was "some" Eurasian ancestry, which is not the same thing at all. So now you are left trying to nit pick your way around the overwhelming African ancestry in Taforalt to argue that they were still Eurasians. And most of this so-called Eurasian ancestry is based on speculation of the origin of lineages such as U6 which could be African in origin. So again, the point is the same, these populations were Africans of primarily African origin and not the same as modern North Africans who have had substantial Eurasian mixture since then.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK Fine those other lineages do not change the fact that these populations had substantial African ancestry. And that those combination of lineages do not reflect the modern make up of North Africans as more "Eurasian". Again, the idea that 25,000 years ago there was a migration from Eurasia to Africa bringing language and culture as the basis for "Berbers" is false, yet you keep swearing that this is being supported by these papers when it is not.
Who denied they had substantial african ancestry ? Who said modern north Africans are 100% taforalt-like ? Who said these 25k years eurasians brought proto-berber in the region ? Again strawman.
Now you are outright lying if you are going to sit here and claim you are not sayig that "Berbers" go back to Taforalt and that most of their "Eurasian" ancestry comes from Taforalt. Which means that your argument has always been that this Eurasian component is the basis of Berber identity and that this is why ancient North Africans shouldn't be called black. That is literally what you have been doing on this forum since you got here. Now you are claiming that is NOT what you meant? Please. You have been going back and forth with me about the fact that Taforalt was not "Eurasian" because of that and now you had to admit otherwise you want to claim that wasn't your argument?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The key word is "might" but you keep referring to U6, even though it is mostly found in Africa as the "smoking gun" that makes these people "EUrasians" which is highly dubious.
So again, you are wrong and just promoting false and misleading data that really isn't supported.
Oldest U6 is found in Europe and I supposed all the other haplogroups I mentionned are also african ? If not how did they end up there ?
Stop being in denial :
Iberomaurusians appeared roughly 25k years ago so how did they end up with typical eurasian lineages at that time ?
The oldest U6 being found in Europe does not mean it originated in Europe. Again, your whole theory of Taforalt being "Eurasian" is based on this idea that U6 is Eurasian. Even though that Eurasian U6 is over 40,000 years old and remains have NO resemblance to modern Eurasians. So the problem here is you claiming genotype equals phenotype. U6 does not define phenotype, there are plenty of black Africans carrying U6 so it is irrelevant to phenotype. Again, your whole argument boils down to U6 is Eurasian and other lineages in Taforalt are Eurasian so they must have been light skinned and closer to Eurasians in phenotype than black Africans. That is false but that is what you keep claiming.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point was the Romans referred to coastal North Africa as "Africa". Period.
They never saw blacks as africans nor called the whole continent "africa" that was simply the name of a province. Period.
How can you say they never saw blacks as Africans? What evidence do you have for that from Roman times? Sounds like to me you are making stuff up. And even more importantly the point is you don't see a distinction in appearance between North Africans and Romans.... According to you they were both white Mediterraneans. Which is funny, but is the basis for your argument that ancient Taforalt as Eurasian and the origin of this phenotype in North Africa. And according to you there wasn't much mixture between Romans and these "Africans" even though most of the images from this period look Roman. Which gets to the point that you don't see ancient North Africans as African at all. Which is the problem and this whole game of trying to associate Taforalt with Eurasia is part of separating ancient North Africa from Africa and claiming it as Eurasian.
My point here is you keep focusing on these coastal areas like Taforalt as the basis and origin of everything in North Africa, ignoring the fact that most of the artifacts associated with the Neolithic transition in North Africa originate in the Sahara and places like Tassili Najer, the Fezzan, the Central Sahara and so forth. Then you claim that "Taforalt" is representative of all these populations as "North Africans" as ancient Eurasians. To the point you will deny the obvious influence and impact of mixture during later times along the coast after Taforalt. You haven't denied it and you keep showing that this is absolutely what you believe.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians don't have the same language and culture, yet complain about the word Africa as if that is a problem. And the term African is appropriate for coastal North Africans as they were the first to be labeled with it by the Romans. As most of the terms we use in Africa today are derived from foreigners: berber from Barbarian, Africa from Romans, Libya from Greece, etc.
"Africa" and "libya" both derives from berber words but of course you didn't know that XD
No the Roman word "Africa" is Roman not Berber.
quote: However, it is possible that ancient biographers' reports that Terence was born in Africa are an inference from his name and not independent biographical information.[8][9] This inference is based on the fact that the term was used in two different ways during the republican era. During Terence's lifetime, it was used to refer to non-Carthaginian Berbers, with the term Punicus reserved for the Carthaginians. Subsequently, after the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC, it was used to refer to anyone from the land of the Afri (that is, the ancient Roman province of Africa, mostly corresponding to today's Tunisia and its surroundings). The cognomen Afer "[North] African" may indicate that Terence hailed from ancient Libya, and was therefore of Berber descent. However, such names did not necessarily denote origin, and there were Romans who had this cognomen who were not Africans, such as Domitius Afer. Consequently, it is not known with certainty whether Terence was given the cognomen Afer as denoting his origin, or if it was solely based on later bibliographers' reports based on the terminology of their day.
According to his traditional biography, he was sold to P. Terentius Lucanus,[13] a Roman senator, who educated him and later on, impressed by Terence's abilities, freed him. Terence then took the nomen "Terentius," which is the origin of the present form.
Based on the writings of the Roman historian Suetonius, Terence was described to be of "moderate height, slender, and of dark complexion," additionally leaving a daughter who subsequently went on to marry a Roman knight.[14] Additionally, Terence was a member of the so-called Scipionic Circle.
However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/AAAS/Loosdrecht_Pleistocene_Science_2018_2583534.pdf
This is a consistent pattern with you of misrepresenting what these papers say. They are not saying these populations were "Eurasians". How can a population be close to SOUTH AFRICANs who are many thousands of miles away from Morocco and still be called "Eurasian". Which again shows you just keep spouting gibberish that doesn't make any sense and does not reflect any facts.
What don't you understand in " These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). "
That's because the deep ancestry of taforalt wasn't similar to any modern SSA type of ancestry but these affinities with all these SSA groups means the "african" ancestors of taforalt most likely participated in the ethnogenesis of most Sub-saharan groups. And like I told these "africans" were aterians :
quote: Importantly, our Taforalt individuals predate the most recent greening of the Sahara by several millennia (84). Thus, we may speculate that the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt derived from the gene pool of pre-LGM North Africans, who belong to the Middle Stone Age (MSA) cultures (10).
So like I said Aterians + eurasian settlers (Dzudzuana-like) = Iberomaurusians and these IBMs participated in the ethnogenesis of Natufians.
Also you clearly don't understand much from these papers, Iberomaurusians are nowhere near south africans/mbuti ; they are just telling you that the previous natufian/yoruba model wasn't good at all for modelling IBMs :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are still wrong. This is literally what he says in that paper, which isn't much different than what I posted. Nowhere does it say that Taforalt was "Eurasian". Nowhere does it say that Haplogroup E or U6 are "Eurasian". That is you making this inference based on a possible origin of U6 in Eurasia when U6 is mostly found today in Africa. So again, you are spouting gibberish trying to turn ancient African populations into Eurasians......
Yes they say Taforalt are part eurasian that's literally in the quote I posted and which you avoided ; I post it again :
quote: We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region6 were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’3,9,10 admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African 11,12 admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe, thereby becoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day West Eurasians.
Now let's post more datas about the eurasian origin of Iberomaurusians :
quote:The recently revised archaeological dates for the Aterian industry of North Africa emphasize that the makers of this industry do not appear to have left any imprint in the maternal lineages of present-day North Africans. The oldest arrivals amongst extant mtDNAs appear to be the U6 and M1 lineages, which date to 36.6 (24.9; 48.8) and 25.4 (17.9; 33.1) ka respectively [31]. As with U5 in Europe [11], the arrival time could be older in each case, since the haplogroups appear likely to have arisen within the southern Mediterranean region from haplogroup U and M ancestors, making dating the arrival time very imprecise. Nevertheless, the estimates seem to match best the appearance of the Upper Palaeolithic Dabban industry in Cyrenaïca, as suggested before [15, 23]. [...] For U6, by contrast, the corresponding increases in effective sizes were less marked (~3-fold and ~1.5-fold, respectively), and the signal indicates that the expansion began earlier, ~22 ka. This coincides closely with the beginning of the Iberomaurusian industry in the Maghreb. These results therefore suggest that the Iberomaurusian was initiated by an expansion of modern humans of ultimately Near Eastern, carrying mtDNA haplogroup U6, who had spread into Cyrenaïca ~35-45 ka and produced the Dabban industry. The link back to the Near East and the European Early Upper Palaeolithic (which likely has the same source) may explain the suggested skeletal similarities between the robust Iberomaurusian "Mechta-Afalou" burials and European Cro-Magnon remains, as well as the case for continuity of the bearers of the Iberomaurusian industry from Morocco with later northwest African populations suggested by the dental evidence [57].
quote:Our results showed that the mtDNA sequences of the seven specimens from AFA are classified exclusively into Eurasiatic haplogroups: H or U (three individuals), T2 (two individuals), JT (one individual), and J (one individual).Our findings are in agreement with our previous study performed on TAF population which reported a genetic structure composed mainly of Eurasiatic haplogroups (Kefi et al. 2005). Indeed, 19 among 21 individuals of TAF, are classified as Eurasiatic haplogroups (H, U, JT, V). The two remaining individuals belong to the North African haplogroup U6. The absence of haplotype belonging to Sub-Saharan haplogroups (L0–L7) would suggest that our sample of Iberomaurusians is not originating from Sub-Saharan region.
quote:A Levantine core seems to be in perpetual contact with the Nile basin, where new anthropological and technical trends are formed. They will eventually migrate westward and give rise to the Iberomaurusian and then the regional Capsian. These ethnic entities appear to be the sources of the sub-actual Amazigh populations29 , which will soon switch to breeding and agriculture along the southern Mediterranean axis.
Marcel Otte, Destinée atérienne, p. 73 (https://insap.ac.ma/?p=30386)
quote: Ancient DNA has recently been obtained from the Later Stone Age site of Taforalt in Morocco, dated ~15,000 years ago43. Interestingly, both haplogroups U6 and M1 have been observed in Taforalt. The presence in IAM of two prominent North African autochthonous lineages such as U6 and M1 supports maternal continuity in the area since Later Stone Age times and implies a Eurasian origin for Taforalt and IAM people.
quote: Finally, we analyzed two SNP variants that have been studied in relation to susceptibility for mycobacterial infections (80). A derived allele of rs4833103 in the TLR1-6-10 gene, which encodes an active functional component in the innate immune response, is associated with a possibly increased resistance to leprosy, tuberculosis and other mycobacteria (104, 105). All Taforalt individuals show the derived homozygote CC genotype. In present-day populations the derived allele state has a high frequency in Eurasians but a low frequency, or absence, in sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:This suggests that most of IAM ancestry originates from an out-of-Africa source, as IAM shares more alleles with Levantines than with any sub-Saharan Africans, including the 4,500-y-old genome from Ethiopia (14). To further test the hypothesis that IAM is more closely related to out-of-Africa populations, we determined whether we could detect Neanderthal ancestry in IAM, which is typical of non-African populations. A signal of Neanderthal ancestry has been detected in modern North African populations (26). A lack of Neanderthal ancestry in IAM would imply that the signal observed today is a product of more recent migration into North Africa from the Middle East and Europe in historical times. Compared with the Neanderthal high coverage genome sequence from Altai (27) and the low-coverage sequence from Vindija Cave (28), and using the S statistic (24), we detected a Neanderthal introgression signal into IAM, suggesting derivation from the same event shared by non-African populations (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 10).
quote:"When projected on a PCA space built using modern samples from Europe, the Middle East and North and Sub-Saharan Africa, all IAM, KEB and TOR samples cluster close to North African, Middle Eastern and European populations, respectively (Figure S6.3).
quote: To demonstrate that IAM has a Levantine origin, rather than a local origin in Africa, we tested f4(IAM, Chimp; Levantine population, African population), with the Levantine population being BedouinB, Levant_N or Natufian, and the African population being Jo’hoan North, Mbuti, Mota or Yoruba. All comparisons are positive, with high significant Z scores, indicating IAM is more related to Levantine than to African populations (Table S10.1)."
quote:The body shape of the terminal Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba population is tropical-adapted, with elongated limbs, especially in the distal segments, and is most similar to living sub-Saharan Africans and less similar to late Pleistocene and Holocene North Africans (including Egyptians and Nubians). The sample’s body shape likely reflects elevated gene flow up the Nile Valley from areas further south, but may also be due in part to the tropical hot conditions present at the site, even during glacial periods. The Jebel Sahaba sample are distinct in body shape from penecontemporary humans from Afalou-BouRhummel (Algeria) and El Wad Natufians from the southern Levant—a result consistent with the results of both Irish (2000, 2005) using dental data and Franciscus (1995, 2003) using nasal data."
quote:The Late Pleistocene material from Afalou and Taforalt in North Africa, on the other hand, had no similarity with sub-Saharan Africa. Instead, the groups from which it cannot be distinguished range from the Neolithic of Algeria and Egypt, modern Nubia, and especially modern Europe. The pattern of affiliations of the Algerian Neolithic is remarkably similar to that of the Algerian Late Pleistocene at Afalou and Taforalt and suggests long-term in situ population continuity.
Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I said that Europeans have historically tried to make ancient North Africans into Eurasians which is a fact based on the numerous historical works that anybody can find online and elsewhere stating this outright. And yes, that includes many of the French scholars that created the modern field of Berber studies. You can see that yourself in Encyclopedia Bebere.
North Africans are eurasians that's factual whether genetically, culturally, historically, anthropologically, etc And you have read ZERO stuff from these french scholars so keep your ad hominem for yourself you simply can't contradict what I post.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The paper YOU posted above says the Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E1b1b. That is not "Eurasian". You are still promoting your silly gibberish.
No the paper says Natufians most likely have Iberomaurusian ancestry (in small quantity) and hence why we find clades of E among them.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Taforalt is distantly related to modern North Africans. They didn't look the same so the comparison is stupid. Ancient North Africans in Taforalt did not look like Nordics. There were no populations in Africa 25,000 years ago looking like that which is what you are seemingly implying
The taforalt component peaks in Modern North Africans and Taforalt are genetically closer to modern north africans than afro-americans like yourself. They didn't look the same as modern north africans and any sub-saharan population but still were physically closer to eurasians than blacks like you.
The closest population to them when it comes to craniometry are the magdalenian remains of Oberkassel in Germany :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It means that thy don't classify Taforalt as Eurasian, where as they do classify modern North Africans as Eurasians. YOUR argument is that Taforalt was a Eurasian population, not just that they had Eurasian mixture. You now have to backtrack and claim that there was "some" Eurasian ancestry, which is not the same thing at all. So now you are left trying to nit pick your way around the overwhelming African ancestry in Taforalt to argue that they were still Eurasians. And most of this so-called Eurasian ancestry is based on speculation of the origin of lineages such as U6 which could be African in origin. So again, the point is the same, these populations were Africans of primarily African origin and not the same as modern North Africans who have had substantial Eurasian mixture since then.
wtf?? yes they will still be eurasians the same way modern north africans are eurasians despite having between 20-25% of SSA ancestry in average. Also stop obsessing over U6 ...there is a whole set of eurasian mtDNAs among IBMs which you constantly avoid.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now you are outright lying if you are going to sit here and claim you are not sayig that "Berbers" go back to Taforalt and that most of their "Eurasian" ancestry comes from Taforalt. Which means that your argument has always been that this Eurasian component is the basis of Berber identity and that this is why ancient North Africans shouldn't be called black. That is literally what you have been doing on this forum since you got here. Now you are claiming that is NOT what you meant? Please. You have been going back and forth with me about the fact that Taforalt was not "Eurasian" because of that and now you had to admit otherwise you want to claim that wasn't your argument?
I'm lying ? Alright feel free to post any of my answer where I say that Iberomaurusians were berbers or that berbers are 100% iberomaurusian. I said the Taforalt component peaks among berbers that's it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, your whole argument boils down to U6 is Eurasian and other lineages in Taforalt are Eurasian so they must have been light skinned and closer to Eurasians in phenotype than black Africans. That is false but that is what you keep claiming.
Light skinned ? Meanwhile in another thread I literally posted this :
quote:IAM people did not possess any of the European SNPs associated with light pigmentation, and most likely had dark skin and eyes. IAM samples contain ancestral alleles for pigmentation-associated variants present in SLC24A5 (rs1426654), SLC45A2 (rs16891982), and OCA2 (rs1800401 and 12913832) genes. On the other hand, KEB individuals exhibit some European-derived alleles that predispose individuals to lighter skin and eye color, including those on genes SLC24A5 (rs1426654) and OCA2 (rs1800401) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 11).
and again that doesn't mean they looked like you or were closer to you and yes they were closer to eurasians than black Africans that's literally proven by every forensic studies made on them :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: How can you say they never saw blacks as Africans? What evidence do you have for that from Roman times? Sounds like to me you are making stuff up. And even more importantly the point is you don't see a distinction in appearance between North Africans and Romans.... According to you they were both white Mediterraneans. Which is funny, but is the basis for your argument that ancient Taforalt as Eurasian and the origin of this phenotype in North Africa. And according to you there wasn't much mixture between Romans and these "Africans" even though most of the images from this period look Roman. Which gets to the point that you don't see ancient North Africans as African at all. Which is the problem and this whole game of trying to associate Taforalt with Eurasia is part of separating ancient North Africa from Africa and claiming it as Eurasian.
Thanks again for showing your ignorance.
quote:The ethnic marker Afer (‘African’), for example, which appears on tombstones, refers strictly to people from the region around Carthage, in modern Tunisia. The Roman term for someone of sub-Saharan origin was Aethiops – ‘Ethiopian’.
The term "Africa" has never been attributed to the whole continent by romans. And I already said many times that north africans are clearly darker than italians whether today or in ancient times. Also there is easily 5k years between IAM/IBM and romans in North africa so again stop trying to darkwash taforalt in order to claim the whole region's history as if in 5k years no movement of populations occured. Moreover I already posted datas (which you again avoided) about how romans barely mix with north africans and formed a tiny minority in North Africa so these are not my opinions.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: My point here is you keep focusing on these coastal areas like Taforalt as the basis and origin of everything in North Africa, ignoring the fact that most of the artifacts associated with the Neolithic transition in North Africa originate in the Sahara and places like Tassili Najer, the Fezzan, the Central Sahara and so forth. Then you claim that "Taforalt" is representative of all these populations as "North Africans" as ancient Eurasians. To the point you will deny the obvious influence and impact of mixture during later times along the coast after Taforalt. You haven't denied it and you keep showing that this is absolutely what you believe.
Nope neolithic tradition in Coastal NW Africa is of european origin and capsians most likely were near eastern folks which is confirmed by the origin of goats in NA and lactase persistence allele :
quote:The data presented here are consistent with a scenario in which proto-Berber-speaking ovicaprid pastoralists introduced the -13910T allele, and thereby lactose tolerance, into North Africa. This scenario implies a genetic input from migrating pastoralists from the Middle East and suggests that contemporary Berber populations share a Middle Eastern dairying origin with other Eurasian populations."
quote: The only exception to this exogenous domestication could be the cattle that appear in the Egyptian desert ten millennia ago. It is obviously difficult to determine the language spoken by the pastoralists of these herds of oxen, which were soon present throughout the eastern and central Sahara (Garcea 2004), where they may also have been the origin of a much later cereal cultivation of millet and sorghum. According to C. Ehret (1999 and 2011), they could be either speakers of a language of the Nilo-Saharan family or Chamito-Semitic populations. But in the latter case they would have only a rather distant relationship with the first Berber speakers whose first cattle would be, like their goats, sheep and pigs, originating in the Near East."
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No the Roman word "Africa" is Roman not Berber.
It derives from the ethnonym "Afri" which concern a specific libyan tribe who lived near Carthage and ultimately this word derives from the berber word "Ifri" which has the meaning of "cave"
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations Rym Kefi, 2018
The oldest U6 being found in Europe does not mean it originated in Europe. Again, your whole theory of Taforalt being "Eurasian" is based on this idea that U6 is Eurasian. Even though that Eurasian U6 is over 40,000 years old and remains have NO resemblance to modern Eurasians.
You are ignoring the fact and that the above chart also shows hap, H, R0 and other clades of U, and that the ancestor of U is R, and >
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence T. W. HOLLIDAY* 2013
the term Mechtoid to refer to robustly built skeletons from the Maghreb, most notably from the site of Mechta-el-Arbi (from whence the name comes), and also from other Iberomaurusian sites in the region such as Afalou (Afalou-Bou-Rhummel)
none of the Afalou specimens, nor of the El Wad Natufian specimens, falls within the African scatter, and all lie toward the more cold-adapted end of the scatter. As was the case with the bivariate analyses, among the prehistoric skeletons, Afalou 28 looks the most extreme in its cold-adapted morphology
Posts: 43078 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/AAAS/Loosdrecht_Pleistocene_Science_2018_2583534.pdf
This is a consistent pattern with you of misrepresenting what these papers say. They are not saying these populations were "Eurasians". How can a population be close to SOUTH AFRICANs who are many thousands of miles away from Morocco and still be called "Eurasian". Which again shows you just keep spouting gibberish that doesn't make any sense and does not reflect any facts.
What don't you understand in " These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). "
That's because the deep ancestry of taforalt wasn't similar to any modern SSA type of ancestry but these affinities with all these SSA groups means the "african" ancestors of taforalt most likely participated in the ethnogenesis of most Sub-saharan groups. And like I told these "africans" were aterians :
quote: Importantly, our Taforalt individuals predate the most recent greening of the Sahara by several millennia (84). Thus, we may speculate that the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt derived from the gene pool of pre-LGM North Africans, who belong to the Middle Stone Age (MSA) cultures (10).
Which means they were Africans. Somehow you believe that the 20,000 year old populations of African origin are ancient Eurasians. This is the point, you are digging and searching to somehow find any scrap of something to call these ancient populations Eurasian when nothing you are posting is saying they were Eurasian. The presence of some genes that could be of "Eurasian" origin does not turn these populations into Eurasians. This is my point here. Europeans have plenty of mixture throughout history with Africans because they ultimately originated in Africa. That does not make modern Europeans into Africans. Yet here you are trying to force Africans into being Eurasians because of a few lineages that may be of Eurasian origin. It is simply misrepresenting the actual data to promote an ideology. Africans are the prototype of Eurasians and not the other way around. They are not calling these populations Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: So like I said Aterians + eurasian settlers (Dzudzuana-like) = Iberomaurusians and these IBMs participated in the ethnogenesis of Natufians.
Also you clearly don't understand much from these papers, Iberomaurusians are nowhere near south africans/mbuti ; they are just telling you that the previous natufian/yoruba model wasn't good at all for modelling IBMs :
The papers are saying that they had primarily African ancestry, you don't get African ancestry from Eurasians. How daft do you have to be to make up some theory of African ancestry in Africa originating from Eurasia. That is simply a pathetic example of the gobbledygook gibberish you keep spouting which makes absolutely no sense. That is you injecting your own nonsense based on misrepresenting what the papers are actually saying. That is what makes your arguments so annoying because they are outright wrong yet you keep saying it like you are producing scientific support for this nonsense when you aren't. Ancient North Africans descend from Africans. Period. Some Eurasian genetics from over 25,000 years ago does not change them from being Africans. If that is the case then all Eurasians are Africans because 50,000 years ago all their genes came from Africa. This absurd double standard is what these nonsensical labels are promoting which leads to people like you spouting illogical statements like 'African' ancestry in Taforalt can be modeled as Eurasian ancestors migrating into Africa. How the hell is that?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are still wrong. This is literally what he says in that paper, which isn't much different than what I posted. Nowhere does it say that Taforalt was "Eurasian". Nowhere does it say that Haplogroup E or U6 are "Eurasian". That is you making this inference based on a possible origin of U6 in Eurasia when U6 is mostly found today in Africa. So again, you are spouting gibberish trying to turn ancient African populations into Eurasians......
Yes they say Taforalt are part eurasian that's literally in the quote I posted and which you avoided ; I post it again :
quote: We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region6 were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’3,9,10 admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African 11,12 admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe, thereby becoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day West Eurasians.
Which is absolutely not saying what you claim it is saying. The paper is talking about the DNA history of Eurasia not Africa for the first part and they are saying that Dzudzuana contributed to Natufian ancestry which is AFTER Taforalt. So that does NOT mean that Dzudzuana is ancestral to Taforalt, you are simply misrepresenting what the actual paper is saying. It is not saying that Dzuduana is responsible for the African ancestry in Natufians. You are so determined to turn Taforalt into Eurasians you will come up with the most convoluted nonsense to justify it and twist the papers and what they are saying to try and justify it. But a big part of the problem is that Eurasians are trying to model human DNA history by using mostly Eurasian ancient DNA which skews all data towards Europe, as if ancient Africans originated in Europe and this is the problem here. What they are saying is that Dzudzuana like ancestry is a big part of the make up of MODERN North Africans as a result of gene flow AFTER Taforalt. Nowhere in that paper are they saying that Dzudzuana is ancestral to Taforalt or Iberomaurisans in general.
This is what they actually say:
quote: The ancestry of present-day Europeans has been traced to the proximate sources of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Early European/Anatolian farmers, and steppe pastoralists16, but the ancestry of Near Eastern and North African populations has not been investigated due to lack of appropriate ancient sources. We present a unified analysis of diverse European, Near Eastern, North African populations in terms of the deepest known sources of ancestry (Fig. 3), which suggests that Dzudzuana-related ancestry makes up ∼46-88% of the ancestry of all these populations, with Dzudzuana-related ancestry more strongly found in southern populations across West Eurasia.
They are talking about MODERN North Africans not Taforalt. So this paper is NOT saying that Dzudzuana is ancestral to Taforalt, in fact it is saying just the opposite:
quote: Differential relationship of Basal ancestry to Africa.
Basal ancestry (conservative estimate) is negatively correlated with the statistic f4(X, Kostenki14, Ust’Ishim, Yoruba) which quantifies allele sharing between X and Ust’Ishim, consistent with this type of ancestry diluting the affinity of populations to this 45kya Siberian (earliest known modern human for which there are genomic data). For Taforalt and some populations from the Near East and North Africa this statistic is more negative, suggesting that they have North or Sub-Saharan-related ancestry that cannot be accounted for by any combination of the ancient West Eurasian sources whose convex hull is shown.
Basically Dzudzuana ancestry is Caucasus/Southern Russian ancestry present in modern North African populations. That ancestry is not ancestral to ancient populations in Taforalt. And what I am saying, which is supported by these papers, is this mixture happened sometime after Taforalt and ancient Taforalt does not represent Dzudzuana ancestry.
Posts: 8909 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Now let's post more datas about the eurasian origin of Iberomaurusians :
quote:The recently revised archaeological dates for the Aterian industry of North Africa emphasize that the makers of this industry do not appear to have left any imprint in the maternal lineages of present-day North Africans. The oldest arrivals amongst extant mtDNAs appear to be the U6 and M1 lineages, which date to 36.6 (24.9; 48.8) and 25.4 (17.9; 33.1) ka respectively [31]. As with U5 in Europe [11], the arrival time could be older in each case, since the haplogroups appear likely to have arisen within the southern Mediterranean region from haplogroup U and M ancestors, making dating the arrival time very imprecise. Nevertheless, the estimates seem to match best the appearance of the Upper Palaeolithic Dabban industry in Cyrenaïca, as suggested before [15, 23]. [...] For U6, by contrast, the corresponding increases in effective sizes were less marked (~3-fold and ~1.5-fold, respectively), and the signal indicates that the expansion began earlier, ~22 ka. This coincides closely with the beginning of the Iberomaurusian industry in the Maghreb. These results therefore suggest that the Iberomaurusian was initiated by an expansion of modern humans of ultimately Near Eastern, carrying mtDNA haplogroup U6, who had spread into Cyrenaïca ~35-45 ka and produced the Dabban industry. The link back to the Near East and the European Early Upper Palaeolithic (which likely has the same source) may explain the suggested skeletal similarities between the robust Iberomaurusian "Mechta-Afalou" burials and European Cro-Magnon remains, as well as the case for continuity of the bearers of the Iberomaurusian industry from Morocco with later northwest African populations suggested by the dental evidence [57].
They don't know where those lineages originated and they could have originated in Africa. Again, like I said before, much of your argument rests on these two lineages being "Eurasian" from over 25,000 years ago which is not guaranteed to be true. Either way, now you are arguing that 35,000 year old Eurasians looked like modern light skinned or white Mediterraneans. Dude. 35,000 years ago all these populations looked like Africans and when you say "Basal" Eurasian going back over 30,000 years you are talking African ancestry in Europe. This is why these papers are stupid to begin with coming up with all kinds of schemes to avoid calling ancient African ancestry in Europe something other than African. And this paper does not overturn the results of the other paper that point blank states much of the Iberomaurisan DNA having African origin. So you are grasping at straws trying to turn ancient Africans into Eurasians. Forgetting the fact that over 30,000 years ago, you would have been talking about most populations being aboriginal black Africans in phenotype to begin with. So again your point is absurd and silly.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Our results showed that the mtDNA sequences of the seven specimens from AFA are classified exclusively into Eurasiatic haplogroups: H or U (three individuals), T2 (two individuals), JT (one individual), and J (one individual).Our findings are in agreement with our previous study performed on TAF population which reported a genetic structure composed mainly of Eurasiatic haplogroups (Kefi et al. 2005). Indeed, 19 among 21 individuals of TAF, are classified as Eurasiatic haplogroups (H, U, JT, V). The two remaining individuals belong to the North African haplogroup U6. The absence of haplotype belonging to Sub-Saharan haplogroups (L0–L7) would suggest that our sample of Iberomaurusians is not originating from Sub-Saharan region.
quote:A Levantine core seems to be in perpetual contact with the Nile basin, where new anthropological and technical trends are formed. They will eventually migrate westward and give rise to the Iberomaurusian and then the regional Capsian. These ethnic entities appear to be the sources of the sub-actual Amazigh populations29 , which will soon switch to breeding and agriculture along the southern Mediterranean axis.
Marcel Otte, Destinée atérienne, p. 73 (https://insap.ac.ma/?p=30386)
quote: Ancient DNA has recently been obtained from the Later Stone Age site of Taforalt in Morocco, dated ~15,000 years ago43. Interestingly, both haplogroups U6 and M1 have been observed in Taforalt. The presence in IAM of two prominent North African autochthonous lineages such as U6 and M1 supports maternal continuity in the area since Later Stone Age times and implies a Eurasian origin for Taforalt and IAM people.
quote: Finally, we analyzed two SNP variants that have been studied in relation to susceptibility for mycobacterial infections (80). A derived allele of rs4833103 in the TLR1-6-10 gene, which encodes an active functional component in the innate immune response, is associated with a possibly increased resistance to leprosy, tuberculosis and other mycobacteria (104, 105). All Taforalt individuals show the derived homozygote CC genotype. In present-day populations the derived allele state has a high frequency in Eurasians but a low frequency, or absence, in sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:This suggests that most of IAM ancestry originates from an out-of-Africa source, as IAM shares more alleles with Levantines than with any sub-Saharan Africans, including the 4,500-y-old genome from Ethiopia (14). To further test the hypothesis that IAM is more closely related to out-of-Africa populations, we determined whether we could detect Neanderthal ancestry in IAM, which is typical of non-African populations. A signal of Neanderthal ancestry has been detected in modern North African populations (26). A lack of Neanderthal ancestry in IAM would imply that the signal observed today is a product of more recent migration into North Africa from the Middle East and Europe in historical times. Compared with the Neanderthal high coverage genome sequence from Altai (27) and the low-coverage sequence from Vindija Cave (28), and using the S statistic (24), we detected a Neanderthal introgression signal into IAM, suggesting derivation from the same event shared by non-African populations (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 10).
quote:"When projected on a PCA space built using modern samples from Europe, the Middle East and North and Sub-Saharan Africa, all IAM, KEB and TOR samples cluster close to North African, Middle Eastern and European populations, respectively (Figure S6.3).
quote: To demonstrate that IAM has a Levantine origin, rather than a local origin in Africa, we tested f4(IAM, Chimp; Levantine population, African population), with the Levantine population being BedouinB, Levant_N or Natufian, and the African population being Jo’hoan North, Mbuti, Mota or Yoruba. All comparisons are positive, with high significant Z scores, indicating IAM is more related to Levantine than to African populations (Table S10.1)."
quote:The body shape of the terminal Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba population is tropical-adapted, with elongated limbs, especially in the distal segments, and is most similar to living sub-Saharan Africans and less similar to late Pleistocene and Holocene North Africans (including Egyptians and Nubians). The sample’s body shape likely reflects elevated gene flow up the Nile Valley from areas further south, but may also be due in part to the tropical hot conditions present at the site, even during glacial periods. The Jebel Sahaba sample are distinct in body shape from penecontemporary humans from Afalou-BouRhummel (Algeria) and El Wad Natufians from the southern Levant—a result consistent with the results of both Irish (2000, 2005) using dental data and Franciscus (1995, 2003) using nasal data."
quote:The Late Pleistocene material from Afalou and Taforalt in North Africa, on the other hand, had no similarity with sub-Saharan Africa. Instead, the groups from which it cannot be distinguished range from the Neolithic of Algeria and Egypt, modern Nubia, and especially modern Europe. The pattern of affiliations of the Algerian Neolithic is remarkably similar to that of the Algerian Late Pleistocene at Afalou and Taforalt and suggests long-term in situ population continuity.
Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I said that Europeans have historically tried to make ancient North Africans into Eurasians which is a fact based on the numerous historical works that anybody can find online and elsewhere stating this outright. And yes, that includes many of the French scholars that created the modern field of Berber studies. You can see that yourself in Encyclopedia Bebere.
North Africans are eurasians that's factual whether genetically, culturally, historically, anthropologically, etc And you have read ZERO stuff from these french scholars so keep your ad hominem for yourself you simply can't contradict what I post.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The paper YOU posted above says the Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E1b1b. That is not "Eurasian". You are still promoting your silly gibberish.
No the paper says Natufians most likely have Iberomaurusian ancestry (in small quantity) and hence why we find clades of E among them.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Taforalt is distantly related to modern North Africans. They didn't look the same so the comparison is stupid. Ancient North Africans in Taforalt did not look like Nordics. There were no populations in Africa 25,000 years ago looking like that which is what you are seemingly implying
The taforalt component peaks in Modern North Africans and Taforalt are genetically closer to modern north africans than afro-americans like yourself. They didn't look the same as modern north africans and any sub-saharan population but still were physically closer to eurasians than blacks like you.
The closest population to them when it comes to craniometry are the magdalenian remains of Oberkassel in Germany :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It means that thy don't classify Taforalt as Eurasian, where as they do classify modern North Africans as Eurasians. YOUR argument is that Taforalt was a Eurasian population, not just that they had Eurasian mixture. You now have to backtrack and claim that there was "some" Eurasian ancestry, which is not the same thing at all. So now you are left trying to nit pick your way around the overwhelming African ancestry in Taforalt to argue that they were still Eurasians. And most of this so-called Eurasian ancestry is based on speculation of the origin of lineages such as U6 which could be African in origin. So again, the point is the same, these populations were Africans of primarily African origin and not the same as modern North Africans who have had substantial Eurasian mixture since then.
wtf?? yes they will still be eurasians the same way modern north africans are eurasians despite having between 20-25% of SSA ancestry in average. Also stop obsessing over U6 ...there is a whole set of eurasian mtDNAs among IBMs which you constantly avoid.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now you are outright lying if you are going to sit here and claim you are not sayig that "Berbers" go back to Taforalt and that most of their "Eurasian" ancestry comes from Taforalt. Which means that your argument has always been that this Eurasian component is the basis of Berber identity and that this is why ancient North Africans shouldn't be called black. That is literally what you have been doing on this forum since you got here. Now you are claiming that is NOT what you meant? Please. You have been going back and forth with me about the fact that Taforalt was not "Eurasian" because of that and now you had to admit otherwise you want to claim that wasn't your argument?
I'm lying ? Alright feel free to post any of my answer where I say that Iberomaurusians were berbers or that berbers are 100% iberomaurusian. I said the Taforalt component peaks among berbers that's it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, your whole argument boils down to U6 is Eurasian and other lineages in Taforalt are Eurasian so they must have been light skinned and closer to Eurasians in phenotype than black Africans. That is false but that is what you keep claiming.
Light skinned ? Meanwhile in another thread I literally posted this :
quote:IAM people did not possess any of the European SNPs associated with light pigmentation, and most likely had dark skin and eyes. IAM samples contain ancestral alleles for pigmentation-associated variants present in SLC24A5 (rs1426654), SLC45A2 (rs16891982), and OCA2 (rs1800401 and 12913832) genes. On the other hand, KEB individuals exhibit some European-derived alleles that predispose individuals to lighter skin and eye color, including those on genes SLC24A5 (rs1426654) and OCA2 (rs1800401) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 11).
and again that doesn't mean they looked like you or were closer to you and yes they were closer to eurasians than black Africans that's literally proven by every forensic studies made on them :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: How can you say they never saw blacks as Africans? What evidence do you have for that from Roman times? Sounds like to me you are making stuff up. And even more importantly the point is you don't see a distinction in appearance between North Africans and Romans.... According to you they were both white Mediterraneans. Which is funny, but is the basis for your argument that ancient Taforalt as Eurasian and the origin of this phenotype in North Africa. And according to you there wasn't much mixture between Romans and these "Africans" even though most of the images from this period look Roman. Which gets to the point that you don't see ancient North Africans as African at all. Which is the problem and this whole game of trying to associate Taforalt with Eurasia is part of separating ancient North Africa from Africa and claiming it as Eurasian.
Thanks again for showing your ignorance.
quote:The ethnic marker Afer (‘African’), for example, which appears on tombstones, refers strictly to people from the region around Carthage, in modern Tunisia. The Roman term for someone of sub-Saharan origin was Aethiops – ‘Ethiopian’.
The term "Africa" has never been attributed to the whole continent by romans. And I already said many times that north africans are clearly darker than italians whether today or in ancient times. Also there is easily 5k years between IAM/IBM and romans in North africa so again stop trying to darkwash taforalt in order to claim the whole region's history as if in 5k years no movement of populations occured. Moreover I already posted datas (which you again avoided) about how romans barely mix with north africans and formed a tiny minority in North Africa so these are not my opinions.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: My point here is you keep focusing on these coastal areas like Taforalt as the basis and origin of everything in North Africa, ignoring the fact that most of the artifacts associated with the Neolithic transition in North Africa originate in the Sahara and places like Tassili Najer, the Fezzan, the Central Sahara and so forth. Then you claim that "Taforalt" is representative of all these populations as "North Africans" as ancient Eurasians. To the point you will deny the obvious influence and impact of mixture during later times along the coast after Taforalt. You haven't denied it and you keep showing that this is absolutely what you believe.
Nope neolithic tradition in Coastal NW Africa is of european origin and capsians most likely were near eastern folks which is confirmed by the origin of goats in NA and lactase persistence allele :
quote:The data presented here are consistent with a scenario in which proto-Berber-speaking ovicaprid pastoralists introduced the -13910T allele, and thereby lactose tolerance, into North Africa. This scenario implies a genetic input from migrating pastoralists from the Middle East and suggests that contemporary Berber populations share a Middle Eastern dairying origin with other Eurasian populations."
quote: The only exception to this exogenous domestication could be the cattle that appear in the Egyptian desert ten millennia ago. It is obviously difficult to determine the language spoken by the pastoralists of these herds of oxen, which were soon present throughout the eastern and central Sahara (Garcea 2004), where they may also have been the origin of a much later cereal cultivation of millet and sorghum. According to C. Ehret (1999 and 2011), they could be either speakers of a language of the Nilo-Saharan family or Chamito-Semitic populations. But in the latter case they would have only a rather distant relationship with the first Berber speakers whose first cattle would be, like their goats, sheep and pigs, originating in the Near East."
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No the Roman word "Africa" is Roman not Berber.
It derives from the ethnonym "Afri" which concern a specific libyan tribe who lived near Carthage and ultimately this word derives from the berber word "Ifri" which has the meaning of "cave"
So all the rest of this is trying to contradict the fact that the main most recent Taforalt DNA study says point blank these populations were primarily of African origin. This stuff is basically "suggesting" links to the Near East but explicitly excluding the Sahara from any of their comparisons. Again, you are trying your best to piece together whatever you can to support your argument that the ancient North Africans were Eurasians and most of that depends on U6 and M1 being of Eurasian origin going back upwards of 25,000 - 30,000 years ago. Then you try and claim that populations 25 - 30 KYA in coastal North Africa look exactly the same as modern North Africans as equally Eurasian, when all of these papers are saying something totally different. Then on top of that, all these papers are ignoring all the evidence of populations away from the coasts of North Africa which again shows you cannot use coastal populations as representative of ALL of North Africa or the Sahara. At best the only thing you are talking about is areas along the extreme coasts and even then these ancient coastal populations have strong African ancestry.
Again, you have still proven that your whole point is that ancient North Africans were not Africans and not black because they were of Eurasian origin going back 25,000 years. And more importantly according to you these populations are not due to recent mixture even though these papers are not saying that because they all admit that most modern North Africans have substantial mixture since Taforalt and the Neolithic including the paper on Dzudzuana. So what you are saying is STILL false.
Posts: 8909 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright thank you for showing you don't have any consistent argument to back up your statements. The guy persists with his strawman...Like I said before I've done my work now I'll avoid reacting to your post I'm just turning in circle with you.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. For folks who like to pretend to know how to read as I have said numerous times these papers are not saying what some folks keep implying. Specifically they are NOT saying that Taforalt individuals or Iberomaurisans and other NorthWest coastal Africans over 20,000 years ago represent Eursian migrant populations in North Africa who are the same as modern light skinned or white North Africans......
quote: The acquisition of agricultural techniques during the so-called Neolithic revolution has been one of the major steps forward in human history. Using next-generation sequencing and ancient-DNA techniques, we directly test whether Neolithization in North Africa occurred through the transmission of ideas or by demic diffusion. We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans are composed of an endemic Maghrebi element still retained in present-day North African populations, resembling the genetic component observed in Later Stone Age communities from Morocco. However, Late Neolithic individuals from North Africa are admixed, with a North African and a European component. Our results support the idea that the Neolithization of North Africa involved both the development of Epipaleolithic communities and the migration of people from Europe.
Abstract
The extent to which prehistoric migrations of farmers influenced the genetic pool of western North Africans remains unclear. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Neolithization process may have happened through the adoption of innovations by local Epipaleolithic communities or by demic diffusion from the Eastern Mediterranean shores or Iberia. Here, we present an analysis of individuals’ genome sequences from Early and Late Neolithic sites in Morocco and from Early Neolithic individuals from southern Iberia. We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans (∼5,000 BCE) are similar to Later Stone Age individuals from the same region and possess an endemic element retained in present-day Maghrebi populations, confirming a long-term genetic continuity in the region. This scenario is consistent with Early Neolithic traditions in North Africa deriving from Epipaleolithic communities that adopted certain agricultural techniques from neighboring populations. Among Eurasian ancient populations, Early Neolithic Moroccans are distantly related to Levantine Natufian hunter-gatherers (∼9,000 BCE) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers (∼6,500 BCE). Late Neolithic (∼3,000 BCE) Moroccans, in contrast, share an Iberian component, supporting theories of trans-Gibraltar gene flow and indicating that Neolithization of North Africa involved both the movement of ideas and people. Lastly, the southern Iberian Early Neolithic samples share the same genetic composition as the Cardial Mediterranean Neolithic culture that reached Iberia ∼5,500 BCE. The cultural and genetic similarities between Iberian and North African Neolithic traditions further reinforce the model of an Iberian migration into the Maghreb.
.....
Genetic data from present-day populations (11–13) suggests that North African ancestry has contributions from four main sources: (i) an autochthonous Maghrebi component related to a back migration to Africa ∼12,000 y ago from Eurasia; (ii) a Middle Eastern component probably associated with the Arab conquest; (iii) a sub-Saharan component derived from trans-Saharan migrations; and (iv) a European component that has been linked to recent historic movements. Paleogenomic studies have begun to provide insights into North African prehistory (14–16), including the analysis of Later Stone Age samples from Morocco (17); however, no research to date has tested whether the Neolithic transition in the Maghreb was driven by local populations who adopted cultural and technological innovations or by the migration of people. Here, we perform genome-wide analysis of remains from the Early Neolithic site of Ifri n’Amr or Moussa (IAM) (∼5,000 BCE; n = 7) and the Late Neolithic site of Kelif el Boroud (KEB) (∼3,000 BCE; n = 8) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 1). To test possible migrations through the Strait of Gibraltar, we also analyzed human remains from the southern Iberian Early Neolithic site of El Toro (TOR) (∼5,000 BCE; n = 12) (Fig. 1). This Iberian Early Neolithic culture resembles certain early Maghrebi traditions (e.g., similar pottery decoration and similar bone and lithic tool productions), suggesting a North African influence (18) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 1). Including these southern Iberian samples in our analysis enabled a direct test of this hypothesis.
.....
Conclusion
Genetic analyses have revealed that the population history of modern North Africans is quite complex (11). Based on our aDNA analysis, we identify an Early Neolithic Moroccan component that is (i) restricted to North Africa in present-day populations (11); (ii) the sole ancestry in IAM samples; and (iii) similar to the one observed in Later Stone Age samples from Morocco (17). We conclude that this component, distantly related to that of Epipaleolithic communities from the Levant, represents the autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry associated with Berber populations. Our data suggests that human populations were isolated in the Maghreb since Upper Paleolithic times. Our hypothesis is in agreement with archaeological research pointing to the first stage of the Neolithic expansion in Morocco as the result of a local population that adopted some technological innovations, such as pottery production or farming, from neighboring areas.
By 3,000 BCE, a continuity in the Neolithic spread brought Mediterranean-like ancestry to the Maghreb, most likely from Iberia. Other archaeological remains, such as African elephant ivory and ostrich eggs found in Iberian sites, confirm the existence of contacts and exchange networks through both sides of the Gibraltar strait at this time. Our analyses strongly support that at least some of the European ancestry observed today in North Africa is related to prehistoric migrations, and local Berber populations were already admixed with Europeans before the Roman conquest. Furthermore, additional European/Iberian ancestry could have reached the Maghreb after KEB people; this scenario is supported by the presence of Iberian-like Bell-Beaker pottery in more recent stratigraphic layers of IAM and KEB caves. Future paleogenomic efforts in North Africa will further disentangle the complex history of migrations that forged the ancestry of the admixed populations we observe today.
The point here is they are using double talk and weasel words to suggest something that is not being said directly, namely that the magrebi component that is related to Natufians is due to 'Eurasian' ancestry from the Levant, when it isn't saying that. And most importantly, they are totally excluding any and all DNA and sites of the neolithic transition and tool industries of the Sahara and Sahel which are older (for Neolithic transition) than coastal North African neolithic sites of 5,000 BC. But they use weasel words to say the neolithic transition and adoption of pottery could have come from "neighboring" populations. Which obviously would have to be Saharans which again they explicitly omit from this DNA history and neolithic history of "North Africa". By doing this they imply that the isolation of Maghrebis makes them separate from other North Africans, without actually doing the DNA analysis on ancient Saharan wet phase remains. So all of their conclusions are based on having a sample set limited to the extreme coasts of North Africa. Not to mention the idea that the test for "pure" African ancestry starts South of the Sahara is obviously false and simply being used to further distance coastal North African DNA from other parts of North Africa, even if many of those Saharan Wet Phase populations carry similar DNA or other novel DNA strains not previously found in Africa.
quote: Until now, the origin of African haplogroup L3, from which N originated, has been dated around 60–70 ka and its expansion in Eastern Africa linked with the exit of AMH from the continent. The M and N haplogroups, which lie at the base of Eurasian mtDNA diversity, are today globally distributed outside Africa and are dated to around 50–65 ka, very close to the ancestral L3 clade. Their divergence from it is commonly considered to have occurred outside Africa or during the expansion. The Arabian Peninsula represents a possible area where this occurred and a cradle from which the new branches spread toward Eurasia and back to Africa, including N1a and R0a, both of which are found in East Africa.
The uneven geographical distribution of existing data could bias the representation of real past genetic variability: sampling gaps characterize the African continent, and several studies focus only on particular haplogroups. Moreover, the past genetic scenario is still poorly known for this large and crucial area, and the ancient mitochondrial sequences available refers only to few sites distributed in Ethiopia, Egypt, Morocco, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and South Africa and do not extend back in time more than ~15000 years.
Our research reveals that the Neolithic Saharan individuals from Takarkori present a haplotype not previously identified in Africa, that belongs to a basal branch of haplogroup N. This discovery needs to be addressed cautiously, given its potential geographical, chronological and archaeological implications (Fig. 4). As recently suggested23, the presence of an unexpected branch where other clades prevail in the population may provide an indication of ancestry, but more data are necessary. The Saharan region was interested by strong climatic oscillations. Repeated peaks of humidity and the presence of several intermittent pulses of lake activity occurred between 125 and 11 ka. Warmer and wetter environmental conditions characterized the Late Glacial Bølling/Allerød Interstadial allowing population growth and spread. The return of cooler, drier conditions during the Younger Dryas may have prompted human groups to exploit glacial refugia across this region. Interestingly the molecular date of the Takarkori sequence (12,325 BP) falls into the context of the Interstadial expansion. The analysed samples, dated to ~7000 BP, could represent a signal of a mitochondrial lineage that later disappeared because of genetic drift due to population contraction and isolation with the beginning of desertification. A possible scenario envisages an introgression from Eurasia in ancient times that carried haplotypes that have since disappeared from Africa. The timing of this migration remains difficult to define. Late Pleistocene dispersal from Western Asia into Africa around 39–52 ka is suggested by the expansion of the U6 haplogroup with a potentially corresponding archaeological signature in the MSA Dabban industry of Cyrenaica, Libya, ca. 45–40 ka. Individuals carrying a N haplogroup basal lineage could have followed the same dispersion pattern as U6: their legacy could have been survived up to ∼7000 years ago in the central Sahara thanks to the climatic conditions previously described, but replaced and disappeared in other parts of North Africa. Genomic data for seven 15,000-year-old individuals attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture in Taforalt (Morocco) suggest a connection with Epipaleolithic Natufians from Near East, while seem to exclude a possible gene flow from Upper Paleolithic Europe. Our samples postdate the Taforalt individuals by up to 8,000 years and belong to Neolithic pastoral cultures of the Middle Holocene. It is known that livestock was introduced from Southwest Asia and early pastoralist connections between Northeast Africa and Arabia are indicated by a few sites along the Red Sea with sheep/goat dated to ~8.1–7.5 ka. Thus, the spread of pastoralism from the Levant to Northeast Africa could probably represent the context for the introgression of the N haplogroup into the central Sahara, even if it is commonly associated with derivative lineages (N1)1,37. It is worth noting, however, that when geometric morphometric analysis of the skull of TK RS H1 is compared with a large published dataset it shows closer affinities with sub-Saharan contests38, such as Gobero in Niger whose occupation is dated from ~9.6–4.8 ka. Unfortunately, no genetic data are available for this region that could help understanding the possible origin of the haplotype found at Takarkori.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: as I have said numerous times these papers are not saying what some folks keep implying. Specifically they are NOT saying that Taforalt individuals or Iberomaurisans and other NorthWest coastal Africans over 20,000 years ago represent Eursian migrant populations in North Africa
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point here is they are using double talk and weasel words to suggest something that is not being said directly, namely that the magrebi component that is related to Natufians is due to 'Eurasian' ancestry from the Levant
Not exactly consistent remarks and it seems Doug can't accept the possibility that a population could be mixed Their Y DNA is considered African, E1b1b1 ________________________
On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations Rym Kefi et al., 2016
Our phylogenetic analysis showed that Iberomaurusian individuals from TAF and AFA (coastal archaeological sites in Northern Morocco and in Northern Algeria respectively) are genetically close to Berbers from the North of Morocco, Berbers from the Jerba Island in Tunisia and close to some South Western European populations: Valencia and the Balearic Islands from Spain and Sardinia from Italy (Figure 3).
Previous studies performed on current populations showed that the majority of the Eurasian haplogroups such as T, H, J are originated in Near East during the Palaeolithic. JT arose 58,000 years ago. J and T diverged 40,000 years and 30,000 years ago, respectively and started to spread from the Near East to Europe immediately after the peak of the last glaciations, 19,000 years ago (Richards et al. 2000a; Pala et al. 2012). H Sub-haplogroups (H1, H3, H5), V and U5b are the signatures of postglacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula into the European continent and North Africa (Ottoni et al. 2010). According to our results, the presence of Eurasian haplogroups (JT, J, T, H, R0a1, U) in AFA and in TAF individuals suggests that these lineages were present in North Africa at least 21,000 YBP confirming the estimated coalescence time for these haplogroups (Brandst€atter et al. 2008; Ennafaa et al 2009; Ottoni et al., 2010; Pala et al. 2012; Zheng et al. 2012) among the current North African populations studied to date, the genetic structure of the Berber population of Northern Morocco presents similarities with the population of TAF: These Berbers have the lowest rate of sub-Saharan haplogroups (3.2%) as TAF population.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: they imply that the isolation of Maghrebis makes them separate from other North Africans, without actually doing the DNA analysis on ancient Saharan wet phase remains.
Regardless of what DNA you prefer to call African and what you prefer to call Eurasian berbers in the Maghreb today resemble Iberomaurisans genetically
What Saharan wet phase remains? From what site? Regardless of such remains berbers in the Maghreb today resemble Iberomaurisans genetically
Posts: 43078 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, the whole point here for people who may or may not understand it, is to "racialize" the history of North Africa as being exclusively tied to white Eurasians going back 20,000 years.
There is absolutely no evidence that "North Africans" covering the entire region of North Africa over thousands of square miles were white Eurasians 25,000 years ago. The Sahara is the largest geographical part of North Africa, but in order for this racial agenda to work they have to exclude the Sahara from these discussions. So you see this in papers on ancient DNA and so forth discussing "North Africa". Historically Europeans tried to model the history of "North Africa" as primarily being based around migrations of Eurasians along the coasts of North Africa either from a European source such as Iberia, across the Mediterranean or from the Levant. As such this is why they named the ancient tool industry in what is now Morocco "Iberomaurisan", because they assumed it was the result of migratoins of Iberians into North Africa. The Taforalt paper completely contradicts this and shows clearly that this wasn't the case but that still doesn't stop these people.
In their minds "North Africa" was always culturally, racially and ethnically a monolithic population of primarily white Eurasian populations going back 25,000 years or more. And according to them they always segregated themselves from the black Africans. This theory is a racial theory modeled on the old Hamitic theory of days gone by. The only difference is that instead of using skeletons they are using DNA. And because of this theory, they will argue that Hannibal could not be black because Berbers or North Africans in general were never black.
The problem with this is that the data they use to support this is misleading at best and biased at worst. Using selective DNA lineages from over 25,000 years ago, does not prove that there were no black Africans in North Africa. And that is because without the DNA of contemporary North Africans from the same time period in the Sahara, you are only using a limited data set. Morocco is far from the Levant and if there wasn't gene flow from Europe into the Iberomaurisans, then the most logical place of origin for a large part of their DNA would be the Sahara. The fact that other lineages involved that have been identified in ancient Eurasian DNA, does not prove that these people were white Eurasians. It could be the fact that ancient populations of North Africa which are close to the Levant and Eurasia have always had these lineages as part of the history of OOA. And the only way to disentangle that history is by getting ancient DNA from across ancient sites in the Sahara and Nile Valley over 10,000 years old. But they don't really want to do that because they know that a lot of the lineages they will find among unambiguusly black ancient populations may not conform to their theories of ancient white Eurasians being the primarily settlers of North Africa over 20,000 years ago.
And obviously it goes without saying that Morocco 20,000 years ago was not the source of "berber" identity and actually contradict their argument. Because if these white Eurasians brought this language and culture with them, then there would be indisputable evidence of a Levantine/ Eurasian origin for these lineages but also the language and culture when there isn't. Which is why they have to pretend the Sahara doesn't exist as the likely place of origin not only for Berber language and culture which isn't over 8,000 years old, but also white Eurasians in "North Africa".
Posts: 8909 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, the whole point here for people who may or may not understand it, is to "racialize" the history of North Africa as being exclusively tied to white Eurasians going back 20,000 years.
so is it possible black Eurasians migrated to the Maghreb 20,000 years ago?
yes or no?
Doug, I'm sure you will avoid this question and go in circles endlessly with Antalas Because this question separates two points of view which you may have but are not clarifying because you keep attaching skin color to migration. One point of view which you may have is
A) that it doesn't matter if the people were black or white, there was no prehistoric back migration of people in Eurasia to the Maghreb.
OR
B) A prehistoric back migration of people in Eurasia to the Maghreb is possible if the people were black.
I dont think you will answer this because not answering it leaves you with more wiggle room, so proceed going in endless circles with Antalas. Antalas could be wrong but first you would have to clarify your own view to even properly argue this because you seem to hold one of these views A or B
Regardless, berbers in the Maghreb today resemble Iberomaurisans genetically
Posts: 43078 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic