Why do you bring "white skin" ? Saying they didn't look like you doesn't mean I believe they were white skinned.
Also they would not look like "black africans" because their skulls and DNA have been analyzed. Also by using simply common sense I don't see how they would have had tropically adapted bodies like modern black africans if they evolved in mediterranean africa.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: here we go again...
Why do you bring "white skin" ? Saying they didn't look like you doesn't mean I believe they were white skinned.
Also they would not look like "black africans" because their skulls and DNA have been analyzed. Also by using simply common sense I don't see how they would have had tropically adapted bodies like modern black africans if they evolved in mediterranean africa.
The point is that you are the one who needs to prove that black Africans were not present in North Africa 20,000 years ago. Your continuous trolling about the Iberomaurisan as if 1) they represent all North Africans 20,000 years ago 2) that all populations in North Africa 20,000 looked the same and not like "black Africans" and 3) that North Africans 20,000 years ago were mostly of Eurasian origin as the basis for not being black African. None of these things you have proven, you just keep trolling this forum with obsessing over Iberomaurisans as if that is "proof" of ancient North Africans from South Libya, to Southern Algeria, Northern Chad, Upper Egypt, Lower Sudan and so forth were all "not black Africans" 20,000 years ago. Your weasel words wont help you because just saying they werent "sub saharan" wont save you because there have always been black people IN the Sahara to this day in the regions of Southern Libya, Southern and Central Algeria and none of those populations are the same as Northern or Central Moroccans today let alone 20,000 years ago. Your arguments are gibberish and don't add up to anything and all you are doing is trolling this forum obsessing over this.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: here we go again...
Why do you bring "white skin" ? Saying they didn't look like you doesn't mean I believe they were white skinned.
Also they would not look like "black africans" because their skulls and DNA have been analyzed. Also by using simply common sense I don't see how they would have had tropically adapted bodies like modern black africans if they evolved in mediterranean africa.
The point is that you are the one who needs to prove that black Africans were not present in North Africa 20,000 years ago. Your continuous trolling about the Iberomaurisan as if 1) they represent all North Africans 20,000 years ago 2) that all populations in North Africa 20,000 looked the same and not like "black Africans" and 3) that North Africans 20,000 years ago were mostly of Eurasian origin as the basis for not being black African. None of these things you have proven, you just keep trolling this forum with obsessing over Iberomaurisans as if that is "proof" of ancient North Africans from South Libya, to Southern Algeria, Northern Chad, Upper Egypt, Lower Sudan and so forth were all "not black Africans" 20,000 years ago. Your weasel words wont help you because just saying they werent "sub saharan" wont save you because there have always been black people IN the Sahara to this day in the regions of Southern Libya, Southern and Central Algeria and none of those populations are the same as Northern or Central Moroccans today let alone 20,000 years ago. Your arguments are gibberish and don't add up to anything and all you are doing is trolling this forum obsessing over this.
This has already been proven so wtf are you talking about ?
a simple example :
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:Originally posted by Antalas: here we go again...
Why do you bring "white skin" ? Saying they didn't look like you doesn't mean I believe they were white skinned.
Also they would not look like "black africans" because their skulls and DNA have been analyzed. Also by using simply common sense I don't see how they would have had tropically adapted bodies like modern black africans if they evolved in mediterranean africa.
The point is that you are the one who needs to prove that black Africans were not present in North Africa 20,000 years ago. Your continuous trolling about the Iberomaurisan as if 1) they represent all North Africans 20,000 years ago 2) that all populations in North Africa 20,000 looked the same and not like "black Africans" and 3) that North Africans 20,000 years ago were mostly of Eurasian origin as the basis for not being black African. None of these things you have proven, you just keep trolling this forum with obsessing over Iberomaurisans as if that is "proof" of ancient North Africans from South Libya, to Southern Algeria, Northern Chad, Upper Egypt, Lower Sudan and so forth were all "not black Africans" 20,000 years ago. Your weasel words wont help you because just saying they werent "sub saharan" wont save you because there have always been black people IN the Sahara to this day in the regions of Southern Libya, Southern and Central Algeria and none of those populations are the same as Northern or Central Moroccans today let alone 20,000 years ago. Your arguments are gibberish and don't add up to anything and all you are doing is trolling this forum obsessing over this.
This has already been proven so wtf are you talking about ?
a simple example :
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. "
Why are you trolling this thread with your BS? We have a whole thread dedicated to this topic that has been addressed ad infinitum.... Jeez dude.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why are you trolling this thread with your BS? We have a whole thread dedicated to this topic that has been addressed ad infinitum.... Jeez dude. [/QB]
You've not adressed anything you keep avoiding those facts because they don't support your claims. Iberomaurusians didn't look like any modern sub-saharan population. They were a dark skinned cro-magnoid population similar to the european hunter-gatherers of that time and today north africans have the highest amount of IBM ancestry. Period.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why are you trolling this thread with your BS? We have a whole thread dedicated to this topic that has been addressed ad infinitum.... Jeez dude.
You've not adressed anything you keep avoiding those facts because they don't support your claims. Iberomaurusians didn't look like any modern sub-saharan population. They were a dark skinned cro-magnoid population similar to the european hunter-gatherers of that time and today north africans have the highest amount of IBM ancestry. Period. [/QB]
I am not avoiding anything, I am asking why you don't discuss this in a thread that is dedicated to the topic. you repeating yourself in constantly trolling is the problem.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why are you trolling this thread with your BS? We have a whole thread dedicated to this topic that has been addressed ad infinitum.... Jeez dude.
You've not adressed anything you keep avoiding those facts because they don't support your claims. Iberomaurusians didn't look like any modern sub-saharan population. They were a dark skinned cro-magnoid population similar to the european hunter-gatherers of that time and today north africans have the highest amount of IBM ancestry. Period.
I am not avoiding anything, I am asking why you don't discuss this in a thread that is dedicated to the topic. you repeating yourself in constantly trolling is the problem. [/QB]
I already did and you avoided all the quotes I posted and started to bring strawman. Crying about the sahara meanwhile Iberomaurusians didn't even live there, saying I was defending the idea they were no different than us, bringing light skin, etc ...your strawman won't work with me. I will continue to expose you to the facts.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: Dude, you were posting random shit. Exhibit A from one of your links: "Here, we report genome-wide data in the form of 1.24 million ancestry-informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for 136 southern Iberian individuals, covering a time span of 2000 years from the Late Neolithic (LN)/CA (3300 cal BCE) to the LBA (1200/1000 cal BCE"
Yes because unlike what you claimed there was no "deep-rooted" SSA presence in southern Europe.
Southern Europe has SSA-derived maternal haplogroups that are specific to that region and not even present in SSA itself. How is this not indicative of a deep-rooted SSA presence?
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
He doesn't know what deep rooted means. -m13 in the context of which he argued is deep rooted.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that Haplogroup A is indicative of ancient African population movements into Eurasia. Just like how certain Haplogroups in Africa are used as evidence to argue for ancient migrations from Eurasia into Africa. Doesn't matter how many African specific lineages exist. So the same thing goes here with Haplogroup A. That doesn't make that individual African.
Overall the obvious issue being touched on is the silly way ancient genes in Eurasia going back 40,000 years are "Eurasian" with no sign of any African origin. As if somehow Eurasians just sprang up independently of any African input, even as the same scientists say all humans originate in Africa. It is quite funny and hypocritical honestly.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Haplogroup A is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup, which includes all living human Y chromosomes. Bearers of extant sub-clades of haplogroup A are Almost exclusively found in Africa with some minor exceptions. "haplogroup A" has come to mean "the foundational haplogroup" (viz. of contemporary human population), haplogroup A is not defined by any mutation but refers to any haplogroup which is not descended from the haplogroup BT,
Geneticists sequenced genome-wide DNA data from four people buried at the site of Shum Laka in Cameroon between 8000–3000 years ago, who were most genetically similar to Mbuti pygmies. One individual carried the deeply divergent Y chromosome haplogroup A00.
The subclade A1b1b2b (M13; formerly A3b2) is primarily distributed among Nilotic populations in East Africa and northern Cameroon. It is different from the A subclades that are found in the Khoisan samples and only remotely related to them (it is actually only one of many subclades within haplogroup A). This finding suggests an ancient divergence.
In Sudan, haplogroup A-M13 has been found in
52.8% of Southern Sudanese,
46.4% of the Nuba of central Sudan,
27.8% of Western Sudanese,
12.5% of local Hausa people,
2.3% of Northern Sudanese.[42]
In Ethiopia, one study has reported finding haplogroup A-M13 in
14.6% (7/48) of a sample of Amhara
10.3% (8/78) of a sample of Oromo.
Another study has reported finding haplogroup A3b2b-M118 in 6.8% (6/88)
and haplogroup A3b2*-M13(xA3b2a-M171, A3b2b-M118) in 5.7% (5/88) of a mixed sample of Ethiopians, amounting to a total of 12.5% (11/88) A3b2-M13.[23]
Haplogroup A-M13 also has been observed occasionally outside of Central and Eastern Africa:
posted
Just going to put this here to clarify the information around A-M13.
quote: Haplogroup A3
In the tree by Karafet et al. [14], haplogroup A3 is defined by the M32 mutation and contains two African-specific clades, A3a and A3b. A3a is a rare branch that has been observed exclusively in eastern Africa [19]–[21]. The sister clade, A3b, is further subdivided into a southern African (A3b1 or A-M51) and a mainly eastern African (A3b2 or A-M13) haplogroup [19]–[21], [23], [27]–[30]. Since both A3b1 and A3b2 are quite common, but are yet poorly resolved haplogroups, we performed a MSY re-sequencing analysis of about 90 kb for each of two A3b chromosomes (one A-M51* and one A-M13*) to find additional informative markers. We detected a total of 9 new mutations (V262–V317 in Table 1). A total of 41 markers (9 new mutations, 7 mutations from our database, 15 mutations identified in a previous study [16], and 10 mutations defining A3 branches in Karafet et al. [14]) were analyzed in ten subjects (samples 10–19 in Table S1). Mutation V249 joined haplogroups A2 and A3 and should be considered to be phylogenetically equivalent to the PK1 marker, which was originally thought to be only associated with the A2 lineage, but which has recently been found to cluster haplogroups A2 and A3 [19]. The phylogenetic mapping of the other mutations led to the identification of five new haplogroups, doubling the number of both A3b1 and A3b2 terminal branches. Finally, the P289 marker [14] was positioned upstream of both A3a and A3b (Figure 1).
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: The Mediterranean also encompasses parts of Africa,how are you forgetting that?😵💫😵💫😵💫🙄🙄🤔🤔
His profile isn't north african and there are no black population native to the mediterranean part of Africa.
Americans...smh
Thereal, don't forget Antalas is a Euronut stooge who believes in the 'blacks in Sub-Sahara only' fallacy. It doesn't matter if there are historical texts from Greeks and Romans describing coastal Libyans and Egyptians as 'black' such as Didyme or the fact that there are clear Sub-Saharan lineages prominent in Mediterranean Europe like paternal E-M78 in Southeast Europe or E-M81 in Southwest Europe and even subclades of maternal L as even Eupedia admits.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ you are completely correct about antalas. I've even shown him sources that describe the population(s) you just mentioned as black, or as ethiopians. Other populations as well.
I only recently found out about this article -- if it were up to people like antalas, all of this info would be destroyed or hidden.
Posts: 2498 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: The Mediterranean also encompasses parts of Africa,how are you forgetting that?😵💫😵💫😵💫🙄🙄🤔🤔
His profile isn't north african and there are no black population native to the mediterranean part of Africa.
Americans...smh
Thereal, don't forget Antalas is a Euronut stooge who believes in the 'blacks in Sub-Sahara only' fallacy. It doesn't matter if there are historical texts from Greeks and Romans describing coastal Libyans and Egyptians as 'black' such as Didyme or the fact that there are clear Sub-Saharan lineages prominent in Mediterranean Europe like paternal E-M78 in Southeast Europe or E-M81 in Southwest Europe and even subclades of maternal L as even Eupedia admits.
Sub-saharan ?? The oldest E-m78 samples were found in North Africa and that HG peaks in modern day north africa. E-m81 peaks in modern day NW africans and it's ancestral clade has been found among IAM. L lineages ? Literally compose 20-40% of our mtDNAs XD
quote:Phylogeographic analysis of the E-M81 lineages in Mediterranean populations has shown these lineages to be remarkably frequent in Berbers (80% in Mozabites; 65–73% in Berbers from Morocco) (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004) although their frequency declines sharply towards the north east (Egypt ffi5%). E-M81 lineages are practically absent in Eastern Europe (Pericic´ et al. 2005) and uncommon in Italy, with the exception of Sicily (5.5%) (Semino et al. 2004) where there was an Islamic occupation that lasted for over two centuries (878–1091 AD)"
quote:This, together with the fact that the oldest indigenous inviduals have been dated 2210 ± 60 ya, supports a local origin of E-M183 in NW Africa. Within this scenario, it is also worth to mention that the paternal lineage of an early Neolithic Moroccan individual appeared to be distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup30, suggesting again a NW African origin of E-M183. A local origin of E-M183 in NW Africa > 2200 ya is supported by our TMRCA estimates, which can be taken as 2,000–3,000, depending on the data, methods, and mutation rates used.
quote:Regarding the sub-Saharan African component, Algeria (20%) is at the same level as Morocco (20.4%) and Egypt (22.9%) but significantly lower (p = 0.003) than Tunisia (30.1%) and marginally lower (p = 0.059) than Libya (27.1%). Aside from the widespread haplogroup L2a, the majority (14%) of Algerian L lineages (L1b, L2a1, L2b, L2c, L3b, L3d) are of West Africa origin. Those from Central Africa (L1c, L3e, L3f) account for an additional 5%, leaving around 1% for those of East African ancestry (L0, L3*, L4). It has been suggested that these lineages reached North Africa since Holocene times, when climatic amelioration permeated the Saharan desert. However the historical trans-Saharan slave trade promoted by the Arabs may have been mainly responsible for their present day incidence [9], [76]."
quote:On the other hand, the frequencies of haplogroups E-M78 and E-M123 are much higher in northeast Africa exhibiting a focal point of extreme frequencies in Egypt-Palestine (Figures 2b and c, respectively)
Coming to similar conclusions as the Cruciani and Trombetta team, Battaglia et al. (2008), writing prior to the discovery of E-V68, describe Egypt as "a hub for the distribution of the various geographically localized M78-related sub-clades" and, based on archaeological data, they propose that the point of origin of E-M78 (as opposed to later dispersals from Egypt) may have been in a refugium which "existed on the border of present-day Sudan and Egypt, near Lake Nubia, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC. The northward-moving rainfall belts during this period could have also spurred a rapid migration of Mesolithic foragers northwards in Africa, the Levant and ultimately onwards to Asia Minor and Europe, where they each eventually differentiated into their regionally distinctive branches
Unless you no longer concede that Nubians were black but non-black caucasoids.
But then both E-M78 and E-M81 are branches of E-M35 which did originate in Sub-Sahara!
Cruciani et al. (2007) also note this as evidence for "a corridor for bidirectional migrations" between Northeast Africa (Egypt and Libya in their data) on the one hand and East Africa on the other. Because Cruciani et al. (2007) also proposed that E-M35, the parent clade of E-M78, originated in East Africa during the paleolithic and subsequently spread to the region of Egypt. E-M78 in East Africa, is therefore the result of a back migration. The authors believe there were "at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago".
Thus both E-M78 and E-M81 are Sub-Saharan ancestry, and destroys your idiotic theory Sub-Saharans being segregated from North Africa...
And not just North Africa!..
Northwards from Egypt and Libya, E-M78 migrated into the Middle East, but additionally Trombetta et al. (2011) proposed that the earlier E-V68 carrying population may have migrated by sea ***directly from Africa to southwestern Europe***, because they observed cases of E-V68* (without the M78 mutation) only in Sardinia, and not in the Middle Eastern samples. Concerning E-M78, like other forms of E-V68 there is evidence of multiple routes of expansion out of an African homeland.
So as usual your claims are bankrupt and fly in the face of what experts have shown. But if you want to cling to your delusions be my guest, everyone else in this forum accepts reality. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Coming to similar conclusions as the Cruciani and Trombetta team, Battaglia et al. (2008), writing prior to the discovery of E-V68, describe Egypt as "a hub for the distribution of the various geographically localized M78-related sub-clades" and, based on archaeological data, they propose that the point of origin of E-M78 (as opposed to later dispersals from Egypt) may have been in a refugium which "existed on the border of present-day Sudan and Egypt, near Lake Nubia, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC. The northward-moving rainfall belts during this period could have also spurred a rapid migration of Mesolithic foragers northwards in Africa, the Levant and ultimately onwards to Asia Minor and Europe, where they each eventually differentiated into their regionally distinctive branches
Unless you no longer concede that Nubians were black but non-black caucasoids.
But then both E-M78 and E-M81 are branches of E-M35 which did originate in Sub-Sahara!
Cruciani et al. (2007) also note this as evidence for "a corridor for bidirectional migrations" between Northeast Africa (Egypt and Libya in their data) on the one hand and East Africa on the other. Because Cruciani et al. (2007) also proposed that E-M35, the parent clade of E-M78, originated in East Africa during the paleolithic and subsequently spread to the region of Egypt. E-M78 in East Africa, is therefore the result of a back migration. The authors believe there were "at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago".
Thus both E-M78 and E-M81 are Sub-Saharan ancestry, and destroys your idiotic theory Sub-Saharans being segregated from North Africa...
And not just North Africa!..
Northwards from Egypt and Libya, E-M78 migrated into the Middle East, but additionally Trombetta et al. (2011) proposed that the earlier E-V68 carrying population may have migrated by sea ***directly from Africa to southwestern Europe***, because they observed cases of E-V68* (without the M78 mutation) only in Sardinia, and not in the Middle Eastern samples. Concerning E-M78, like other forms of E-V68 there is evidence of multiple routes of expansion out of an African homeland.
So as usual your claims are bankrupt and fly in the face of what experts have shown. But if you want to cling to your delusions be my guest, everyone else in this forum accepts reality.
none of what you just posted contradict what I posted and further confirms that these lineages were brought by north africans in Europe not by some fancy black population.
E-m81 is specifically north african no matter if it descends from E-m35 therefore this Hg being found in europe necessarily implies a migration from North Africa not SSA. (Same could be said about E-m78, Iberomaurusians had it yet were not similar to nubians) and why can't I find the quote you posted in the paper ?
So again where are your evidence of a native black population in coastal north africa ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Do you think the spread of E-M35 descendants (i.e. E-M78 and E-M81) might reflect the dispersal of proto-Afroasiatic speakers from the eastern Sahara (or more generally northeastern Africa)? The path these lineages took map well onto Ehret's proposal on how these languages spread across North and East Africa and into southwestern Asia and beyond.
posted
^ That would be my guess. The time frames given for the spread of those subclades by Cruciani et al. does correlate with the spread of Proto-Afrisian.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: None of what you just posted contradict what I posted and further confirms that these lineages were brought by north africans in Europe not by some fancy black population.
LOL Who said anything about "fancy"? I merely said these North Africans were black! Your fallacy that black equates to Sub-Saharans only is senseless considering that blacks are indigenous to ALL of Africa including North and that the Sahara desert did not always exist anyway!
quote:E-m81 is specifically north african no matter if it descends from E-m35 therefore this Hg being found in europe necessarily implies a migration from North Africa not SSA. (Same could be said about E-m78, Iberomaurusians had it yet were not similar to nubians) and why can't I find the quote you posted in the paper?
Irrelevant. Both E-M78 and E-M81 descend from E-M35 which originated in Sub-Sahara thus these subclades were brought to North Africa by Sub-Saharans!
quote:So again where are your evidence of a native black population in coastal north Africa?
The Egyptians and Libyans! I already shown you historical evidence in other threads like here but apparently no matter how many times you see it you deny it anyway.
Here it is again:
Herodotus: "it is in fact manifest that the Colchians are Egyptian by race... several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and wooly hair.."
Aristotle: "Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two." and "Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because of that the body of itself creates, because of disturbance by heat, like loss of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations…"
Lycinus (describing a young Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin. . . his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not a freeman.'
Aeschylus in 'The Suppliants', Danaos, fleeing with his daughters, the Danaids, and pursued by his brother Aegyptos with his sons, the Aegyptiads, who seek to wed their cousins by force, climbs a hillock, looks out to sea and describes the Aegyptiads at the oars afar off in these terms: 'I can see the crew with their black limbs and white tunics' and 'In ships, stout-timbered and dark-prowed, they have sailed here, attended by a mighty black host, and in their wrath overtaken us'
Diodorus Siculus: "The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies,35 which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent."
Ammianus Marcellinus: "the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look."
The Egyptian race according to the Judeo-Christian authors of antiquity
Rabbi Yuda ben Simon in a Midrashic text: Abraham says to his wife Sarah, "Now we are about to enter a place (Egypt) of ugly and black people"
In a Midrash: "The black people will come out of Egypt, Kush will stretch its hands to God"
Church Father Theodore of Mopsuestia says about the Shulamite bride in the 'Song of Songs': "She was black like all the Egyptians and Ethiopians."
Church Father Origen Adamantius says of the Egyptians: "They are the discolored (black) posterity of Ham"
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to my point, this shows the fallacy of confining ancient lineages that predate the modern Sahara to sub-Sahara vs. North. E-M78 & E-M81 though arising in North Africa came from E-M35 carriers from Sub-Saharan East Africa. Similarly, there are subclades of maternal L2 and L3 in North Africa and beyond, namely L2b and L3K primarily in northeast African to Levant and Maghreb to Iberian Peninsula respectively.
So far, the two only complete published samples belonging to haplogroup L3k have a North African origin, one from Libya and one from Tunisia. This haplogroup has a coalescent age of around 29,251 ± 6,524 years old. As it is impossible to identify this haplogroup based only in control region information (only through HVRII polymorphism at position 235), it is impossible to add additional information about this haplogroup.
Funny how nobody calls L3 'North African' just because one its subclade L3K arose there.
Fernández Domínguez, E. et al. (2005)- The presence of almost 50% of sub-Saharan lineages L1b, L2 and L3 in Abauntz Chalcolithic deposits and Tres Montes, in Navarre, [Spain] suggests the existence of an important gene flow from Africa to this geographic region...
The low frequency of these lineages in the current Spanish population indicates that it has gene produced a replacement from the Chalcolithic period.
The entry of African lineages could occur during the Paleolithic, during the Neolithic period, or during both periods.
So much for Sub-Saharan segregation!
Funny how Antalas loves to bring up Eurasian geneflow into North Africa such as West Eurasian maternal clades J, U, W, and X into the Maghreb but never Sub-Saharan admixture into Eurasia.
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: The Euronuts must be sick. One of the few whole-genome samples from Ancient Rome turns out to be an SSA lineage.
"Individual A, albeit at low coverage (Table 1), was found to belong to the Y-chromosome lineage A-M13 (A1b1b2b), a rare lineage absent among ancient individuals from the Italian Peninsula, mainly found in Eastern Africa (~ 40%), but with known occurrences, at much lower frequencies, in the Near East (Turkey, Yemen, Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Oman and Saudi Arabia) and the Mediterranean islands of Sardinia, Cyprus and Lesbos37,38,39,40. Downstream of A-M13 and restricting the analysis to transversions polymorphisms, the individual can be placed at A-V5880, a sub-haplogroup that contains all A-M13 positive Sardinians from past studies and that has been dated to coalesce around 7.62 (± 0.92) thousands of years ago, using Bayesian analysis."
There's nothing surprising about it. Recall the story about the Englishman from Yorkshire who carried hg A1.
quote:Originally posted by Avee: This is the family. Notice how they tried to make it appear the guy's DNA is "North African" instead of Sub-Saharan. The family had Hg A1. For the guy to show his face they labelled the African Y-DNA North African.
Yorkshireman found to share DNA with African tribes Last updated at 22:52em on 27.01.07 Revis has always considered himself a true Yorkshireman who was proud of his ancestry. But he has been forced to confront an entirely different heritage - after scientists uncovered that he has exactly the same DNA imprint as a tribe of African warriors. Scientists last week announced the discovery of the first proof that slaves brought to Britain by the Romans left behind a distinct genetic heritage. This strand was revealed to exist among just seven men with a particular surname hailing from the North of England. However, the academics refused to disclose the identities of any of those men included in the study.
Now The Mail on Sunday has discovered that all of those with the African lineage have the surname Revis. Last night, John, 75, a retired surveyor living in Leicester, said: "I started looking into my family history and traced my ancestors back to the mid-1700s.
"One line went to the States and became very successful while my immediate line stayed in the North of England and were mostly bakers. There was nothing to suggest that I was African." John responded to a newspaper advert by Leicester University asking for people who have traced their ancestry to give DNA samples for a study on world populations.
He said: "The scientists took some of my DNA away for analysis and then one day they called me up and were very excited. They said I had a Y-chromosome that was extremely rare. I was flabbergasted. I had no idea that I was so culturally unique. But I am not going to start eating couscous and riding a camel." John is attempting to take the discovery in his stride. He added: "It was a shock to find out that, because I was so blond and blue-eyed when I was younger, people thought I was Nordic or German. "But the researchers said that if my DNA were examined then people would assume they were looking at a North African man. I suspect there must have been some big Berber tribesman who came to Britain with the Romans and spread his seed all over Yorkshire." John is married with three children and six grandchildren. The news shocked his friends at Brookfield Bowls Club in Leicester. He added: "It is a very white establishment which can be a little awkward in a multi-racial place such as Leicester. "At least now they can say they have got one more ethnic-minority member but I doubt anyone would be able to pick me out. His wife Marlene was also taken aback." She said: "I can hardly believe it. John has always seemed very English to me. He likes his roast beef and Yorkshire pudding on a Sunday. He has never asked me to cook anything unusual. My friends think our news is hilarious. "The closest John ever came to the traditional Berber life was when he went camping with the Scouts. I don't think we've been in a tent since we got married.' Scientists from Leicester University made the finding during research sponsored by The Wellcome Trust. They were examining the relationship between the male, or Y, chromosome and surnames. Like surnames, the Y-chromosome is passed from father to son, virtually unchanged through generations. Professor Mark Jobling said: "We found John was in the A1 group of Y-chromosomes, which is very rare and highly west African-specific. "This study has shown what it means to be British is complicated and always has been. Human migration history is very complex, particularly for an island nation such as ours. This study further debunks the idea that there are simple and distinct populations or races." Over time, the Y-chromosome accumulates small changes in DNA sequence, allowing scientists to study the relationships between different male lineages. The surname Revis is believed to derive from Rievaulx Abbey in Yorkshire. Berber comes from the Latin word for Barbarian. Fellow researcher Turi King said: "Our findings represent the first genetic evidence of Africans among 'indigenous' British people." She added that Africans were first recorded in northern England 1,800 years ago, brought by the Romans to help defend Hadrian's Wall. Ms King said: "The slave trade was responsible for the influx of Africans in the 16th and 17th Centuries. By the last third of the 18th Century there were 10,000 black people in Britain.
So you know the game, whenever an African lineage is found in Eurasia, especially Europe it is labeled as "North African" no matter where in the continent it actually arose. LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So again where are your evidence of a native black population in coastal north Africa?
The Egyptians and Libyans! I already shown you historical evidence in other threads like here but apparently no matter how many times you see it you deny it anyway.
Here it is again:
Herodotus: "it is in fact manifest that the Colchians are Egyptian by race... several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and wooly hair.."
Aristotle: "Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two." and "Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because of that the body of itself creates, because of disturbance by heat, like loss of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations…"
Lycinus (describing a young Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin. . . his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not a freeman.'
Aeschylus in 'The Suppliants', Danaos, fleeing with his daughters, the Danaids, and pursued by his brother Aegyptos with his sons, the Aegyptiads, who seek to wed their cousins by force, climbs a hillock, looks out to sea and describes the Aegyptiads at the oars afar off in these terms: 'I can see the crew with their black limbs and white tunics' and 'In ships, stout-timbered and dark-prowed, they have sailed here, attended by a mighty black host, and in their wrath overtaken us'
Diodorus Siculus: "The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies,35 which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent."
Ammianus Marcellinus: "the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look."
The Egyptian race according to the Judeo-Christian authors of antiquity
Rabbi Yuda ben Simon in a Midrashic text: Abraham says to his wife Sarah, "Now we are about to enter a place (Egypt) of ugly and black people"
In a Midrash: "The black people will come out of Egypt, Kush will stretch its hands to God"
Church Father Theodore of Mopsuestia says above the Shulamite bride in the 'Song of Songs': "She was black like all the Egyptians and Ethiopians."
Church Father Origen Adamantius says of the Egyptians: "They are the discolored (black) posterity of Ham"
Nice collection of quotes describing AE, but I think Antalas was talking more about coastal Maghrebis like the Numidians and Mauri. Those are the people he's most intent on protecting from the "Black" classification, seeing as he is of Moroccan heritage.
posted
^ You're forgetting Antalas claims those ancient Maghrebis to be similar if not identical in looks to Egypto-Libyans. And even if he didn't, the Greco-Roman accounts still described those Maghrebi groups as very dark (black) in appearance which I will show soon.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That nice collection already got debunked by me in the thread he referenced but he never answered me and fled as expected and as usual he pretends north africans can't bear any SSA lineages
unfortunately for him two chalcolithic north africans have been found in Spain and Sardinia and they were already similar to modern north africans :
quote:Our Copper Age dataset includes a newly reported male (I4246) from Camino de las Yeseras (14) in central Iberia, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 calibrated years BCE, who clusters with modern and ancient North Africans in the PCA (Fig. 1C and fig. S3) and, like ~3000 BCE Moroccans (8), can be well modeled as having ancestry from both Late Pleistocene North Africans (15) and Early Neolithic Europeans (tables S9 and S10). His genome-wide ancestry and uniparental markers (tables S1 and S4) are unique among Copper Age Iberians, including individuals from sites with many analyzed individuals such as Sima del Ángel, and point to a North African origin.
quote: "The most surprising is Sardinia_Chalcolithic15940 from the site of Anghelu Ruju, for whom we obtained a radiocarbon date of 2345– 2146 cal. bc from the same bone sample that we analysed for DNA. We modelled this individual as 22.7±2.4% Anatolia_Neolithic and 77.3±2.4% Morocco_EN (P=0.321). This individual is similar in ancestry composition to the approximately contemporary Iberian individual I4246 from the site of Camino de las Yeseras, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 cal. bc, who also had North-African related ancestry as well as the same mtDNA haplogroup M1a1b1 and Y-chromosome haplogroup E1b1b1, which are both typical of North Africans25 (Supplementary Table 14). The finding of African to-European gene flow in both individuals shows that such movement was widespread across the Mediterranean long before the classical period when such gene flow became intensive and the ancestries had a larger demographic impact."
another sample from the same time period also had north african ancestry :
quote: "Our genetic evidence of sporadic contacts with North Africa during the Copper Age fits with the presence of African ivory at Iberian sites (16) and is further supported by a Bronze Age individual (I7162) from Loma del Puerco in southern Iberia who had 25% ancestry related to individuals like I4246 (Fig. 1D and table S16). However, these early movements from North Africa had a limited impact on Copper and Bronze Age Iberians, as North African ancestry only became widespread in the past ~2000 years."
We got a hundreds of other samples from this period and the bronze age and not a single one shows SSA ancestry as Djehuti is trying to push with his 2005 quote. Try again Djehuti.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You're forgetting Antalas claims those ancient Maghrebis to be similar if not identical in looks to Egypto-Libyans. And even if he didn't, the Greco-Roman accounts still described those Maghrebi groups as very dark (black) in appearance which I will show soon.
As pointed out by scholars they didn't have the same notion of "black" as we do today and always distinguished the aethiopians from egyptians/libyans.
Unfortunately for you we recently got the dna results of a few iron age north africans and they are all similar to the modern ones so now better question what greco-romans actually meant by dark/black since the genetic side do not support your claims anymore and you'll have to explain why were berbers thought to be affiliated to phoenicians, greeks and philistines ...the latter being genetically south european or maybe you'll claim all those populations were black too ? XD
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No. Modern scholars create the distinction for modern political reasons. The ancient Classical authors however did not. They used terms like Greek melanoi, melanchroi, mauroi, and Latin nigri, atri, fusculi. 'Aethiopian' was an ethnic term NOT a racial one which was applied to specific peoples south of Egypt but both Greeks and Romans compared Egyptians and Libyans to Aethiopians than they did anyone else. Why was that? LOL
Anyway I already cited a source explaining how many of these ancient SSA lineages in Iberia were replaced by more recent ones. If you want to discuss the African (Sub-Saharan or otherwise) influence in Iberia, I suggest you do so in one of the multiple threads we have on that topic in the archives.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kind of new dishonest move is that ? trying to refute something that goes against your narrative as being politcally motivated lol
Do you at least know what aethiops even mean ? Ethnic term yet has been used to describe population in Asia too ; it was not applied to "specific peoples south of egypt" it was actually used to describe any black population in Africa and Asia that's why you hear about "western aethiopians" or aethiopians living next to the atlas mountain in Morocco and that's why you hear about mixed groups like leucoaethiopians :
quote:Herodotus lists two newcomer peoples - the Greeks and the Phoenicians - and two indigenous peoples - the Libyans to the north and the Aethiopes* to the south - inhabiting "Libya" (IV 197, 2). Toponym and ethnicity were thus separated in their geographical connotations: in Herodotus as in the following centuries, the term "Libyans" serves above all as a collective name for the indigenous population of North Africa, distinguished by their lighter skin and other characteristics from the negroid Ethiopians (for a detailed catalog of the "Libyan" tribes in this sense, attested throughout antiquity, cf. Desanges 1962).
quote: As one advanced further to the south of Gaetulian lands, into the Sahara and its northern peripheries, the ethnic labels became fuzzier, more general, and often, since land and space were so vast and indeterminate, they were based more on a phenotyping of personal appearance than of place. The peoples deep to the south in the Sahara were called Aethiopes or peoples whose skin had been burnt to a darker color. (Hölscher 1937; Thompson 1989; Desanges 1993). The simple existence of these peoples naturally suggested to the logical mind the necessary existence of intervening types, and so the category of Melanogaetuloi, black Gaetulians, was invented and bandied about by scientific geographers such as Ptolemy. Analogous terms such as Leukoaethiopes, “white black people,” or Libyaethiopes, “African black people,” were exploited by the same Ptolemy and by Pomponius Mela, all in the name of the geographer’s science."
Brent D. Shaw, Ethnicity in the ancient mediterranean, pp. 532
quote: In classical times the earliest detailed account of the partition of the Libyan tribes is found in Herodotus. According to the historian, Libya began west of the Nile, 7 and ran to the Atlantic/ being bordered on the south by the land of the Aethiopians, who were black and woolly-haired. 9"
O. Bates, The eastern libyans, pp. 51
quote:it seems that many Romans were distinctly prejudiced against black people in particular. Black Africans were seen as exotic, and perhaps threateningly alien , and they are seldom if ever mentioned in Roman literature without some negative connotation. Most disturbingly, the historian Appian claims that the military commander Brutus, before the battle of Philippi in 42BC, met an ‘Ethiopian’ outside the gates of his camp: his soldiers instantly hacked the man to pieces, taking his appearance for a bad omen – to the superstitious Roman, black was the colour of death.
It must surely be a coincidence that the "sun-burnt" people were located in SSA and the sahara meanwhile libyans in coastal north africa...
SSA lineages being replaced or not they could have been brought there by north africans themselves also quite surprisingly this influence seems to be only maternal it reminds me of something ...
anyway it seems you're still stuck in 2005 ; we do have hundreds of samples from bronze age iberia before the indo-european expansion in the region and when it comes to foreign influences they only show North African and east med ancestry that's it.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You can cite all the 20th century scholarly interpretations (spins) and opinions on the ancient Classical descriptions of Africans, but that won't change what the Classical authors said what they thought. They did not have modern racial notions of "negroid" or "caucasoid" or rather "Hamitic". They viewed the Mediterranean as the center and those south of it as southern peoples in a 'black' grouping and those north of the sea or northern peoples in a 'white' grouping as noted by Manilius. I've shown this to you before but of course you ignore reality.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You're forgetting Antalas claims those ancient Maghrebis to be similar if not identical in looks to Egypto-Libyans. And even if he didn't, the Greco-Roman accounts still described those Maghrebi groups as very dark (black) in appearance which I will show soon.
Please do share those quotes. I’ve seen a few already, but am always hungry for more!
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
"All black Africans were known as Ethiopians to the ancient Greeks, as the fifth-century B.C. historian Herodotus tells us, and their iconography was narrowly defined by Greek artists in the Archaic (ca. 700–480 B.C.) and Classical (ca. 480–323 B.C.) periods, black skin color being the primary identifying physical characteristic. It is recorded that Ethiopians were among King Xerxes’ troops when Persia invaded Greece in 480 B.C. Thus, the Greeks would have come into contact with large numbers of Africans at this time. Nonetheless, most ancient Greeks had only a vague understanding of African geography. They believed that the land of the Ethiopians was located south of Egypt."
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You can cite all the 20th century scholarly interpretations (spins) and opinions on the ancient Classical descriptions of Africans
Actually only one quote is from the 20th century lol and how is that even an argument ? Yourself use quotes from that time period.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: , but that won't change what the Classical authors said what they thought. They did not have modern racial notions of "negroid" or "caucasoid" or rather "Hamitic". They viewed the Mediterranean as the center and those south of it as southern peoples in a 'black' grouping and those north of the sea or northern peoples in a 'white' grouping as noted by Manilius. I've shown this to you before but of course you ignore reality.
So now you admit that these people didn't have the same modern racial notions as us ? Thanks therefore based on what we know anything darker than them was considered "dark/black" but they could clearly see the difference between the caucasoid lighter skinned straight/wavy haired north africans and their southern neighbours hence why they distinguished them from aethiopians or could in some cases highlight mixed types in the sahara as we can observe today.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Actually only one quote is from the 20th century lol and how is that even an argument? Yourself use quotes from that time period.
When I quote so-called Classical authors I don't need modern politically biased authors to misinterpret what the ancients said. Unlike YOU I don't try to attempt verbal gymnastics to go around what their direct descriptions of Egyptians and other North Africans as BLACK.
quote:So now you admit that these people didn't have the same modern racial notions as us? Thanks therefore based on what we know anything darker than them was considered "dark/black" but they could clearly see the difference between the caucasoid lighter skinned straight/wavy haired north africans and their southern neighbours hence why they distinguished them from aethiopians or could in some cases highlight mixed types in the sahara as we can observe today.
LOL Of course the Greco-Roman authors noted differences between various African groups but it was the same way they noticed differences between them and other Europeans! They made no "racial" distinction between Africans at least the way you are making and NOWHERE did the ancient authors say North Africans were "caucasoid" and they actually compared Egyptians to Ethiopians and claim they share common ancestry!! The Classical authors never divided Africans as North vs. Sub-Saharan but all were equally 'Libyan'.
What's more is that Classical authors even used the myth of Phaethon to explain why peoples to the south of the Sea (Mediterranean) were black i.e. the chariot of the sun almost crashing to earth in the south and burning all the southern inhabitants black from Libyans (Africans including Egyptians) to Arabians and Indians.
This was explicitly and concisely explained by the Roman author Manilius here, which Tukuler correctly shows the context of light/white peoples vs. dark/black peoples with Egyptians being in the latter.
The main distinction that Classical authors made was between Libyans (Africans) and Indians with Arabia being a wide boundary between them. In fact, interestingly the Classical authors did not view the Red Sea as a divider between Africa and western Arabia which is why the 'Arabian Desert' as called by the Greeks comprised both Western Arabia and the Eastern Sahara of Africa and its inhabitants on both sides of the Red Sea were seen as related, whereas the Persian Gulf area was viewed as contiguous to India.
This was also affirmed by early Hebraic Biblical literature:
“Whether original Arabian Kushite tribes migrated into eastern Africa and gave their name to the land, or African Kushites migrated into Arabia, in the biblical view the peoples on either side of the Red Sea were regarded as of the same Kushite stock.”--The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by David Goldenberg (2005)
The same book above cites dozens of references to rabbinic literature constantly referring to the Egyptians's dark skin and called 'kushim' the same as the Kushites/Ethiopians! I guess these rabbis were under the influence of Afrocentrics. LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
says he can't trust my sources because of "modern politically biased authors to misinterpret what the ancients said. " then he proceeds to use the modern interpretation of "David Goldenberg" ... he then wonders why I ignore his posts.
I literally have hundreds of quotes about the subject but since you can't accept them and will pretend they are all biased I won't even waste my time arguing with you. You're sick minded.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I cited Goldenberg who simply parrots what the ancient rabbis themselves say NOT modern scholars who put a racial spin! You lost! Give it up already.
Getting back to the topic...
quote:Originally posted by Avee: This is the family. Notice how they tried to make it appear the guy's DNA is "North African" instead of Sub-Saharan. The family had Hg A1. For the guy to show his face they labelled the African Y-DNA North African.
Yorkshireman found to share DNA with African tribes Last updated at 22:52em on 27.01.07 Revis has always considered himself a true Yorkshireman who was proud of his ancestry. But he has been forced to confront an entirely different heritage - after scientists uncovered that he has exactly the same DNA imprint as a tribe of African warriors. Scientists last week announced the discovery of the first proof that slaves brought to Britain by the Romans left behind a distinct genetic heritage. This strand was revealed to exist among just seven men with a particular surname hailing from the North of England. However, the academics refused to disclose the identities of any of those men included in the study.
Now The Mail on Sunday has discovered that all of those with the African lineage have the surname Revis. Last night, John, 75, a retired surveyor living in Leicester, said: "I started looking into my family history and traced my ancestors back to the mid-1700s.
"One line went to the States and became very successful while my immediate line stayed in the North of England and were mostly bakers. There was nothing to suggest that I was African." John responded to a newspaper advert by Leicester University asking for people who have traced their ancestry to give DNA samples for a study on world populations.
He said: "The scientists took some of my DNA away for analysis and then one day they called me up and were very excited. They said I had a Y-chromosome that was extremely rare. I was flabbergasted. I had no idea that I was so culturally unique. But I am not going to start eating couscous and riding a camel." John is attempting to take the discovery in his stride. He added: "It was a shock to find out that, because I was so blond and blue-eyed when I was younger, people thought I was Nordic or German. "But the researchers said that if my DNA were examined then people would assume they were looking at a North African man. I suspect there must have been some big Berber tribesman who came to Britain with the Romans and spread his seed all over Yorkshire." John is married with three children and six grandchildren. The news shocked his friends at Brookfield Bowls Club in Leicester. He added: "It is a very white establishment which can be a little awkward in a multi-racial place such as Leicester. "At least now they can say they have got one more ethnic-minority member but I doubt anyone would be able to pick me out. His wife Marlene was also taken aback." She said: "I can hardly believe it. John has always seemed very English to me. He likes his roast beef and Yorkshire pudding on a Sunday. He has never asked me to cook anything unusual. My friends think our news is hilarious. "The closest John ever came to the traditional Berber life was when he went camping with the Scouts. I don't think we've been in a tent since we got married.' Scientists from Leicester University made the finding during research sponsored by The Wellcome Trust. They were examining the relationship between the male, or Y, chromosome and surnames. Like surnames, the Y-chromosome is passed from father to son, virtually unchanged through generations. Professor Mark Jobling said: "We found John was in the A1 group of Y-chromosomes, which is very rare and highly west African-specific. "This study has shown what it means to be British is complicated and always has been. Human migration history is very complex, particularly for an island nation such as ours. This study further debunks the idea that there are simple and distinct populations or races." Over time, the Y-chromosome accumulates small changes in DNA sequence, allowing scientists to study the relationships between different male lineages. The surname Revis is believed to derive from Rievaulx Abbey in Yorkshire. Berber comes from the Latin word for Barbarian. Fellow researcher Turi King said: "Our findings represent the first genetic evidence of Africans among 'indigenous' British people." She added that Africans were first recorded in northern England 1,800 years ago, brought by the Romans to help defend Hadrian's Wall. Ms. King said: "The slave trade was responsible for the influx of Africans in the 16th and 17th Centuries. By the last third of the 18th Century there were 10,000 black people in Britain.
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: The Euronuts must be sick. One of the few whole-genome samples from Ancient Rome turns out to be an SSA lineage.
"Individual A, albeit at low coverage (Table 1), was found to belong to the Y-chromosome lineage A-M13 (A1b1b2b), a rare lineage absent among ancient individuals from the Italian Peninsula, mainly found in Eastern Africa (~ 40%), but with known occurrences, at much lower frequencies, in the Near East (Turkey, Yemen, Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Oman and Saudi Arabia) and the Mediterranean islands of Sardinia, Cyprus and Lesbos37,38,39,40. Downstream of A-M13 and restricting the analysis to transversions polymorphisms, the individual can be placed at A-V5880, a sub-haplogroup that contains all A-M13 positive Sardinians from past studies and that has been dated to coalesce around 7.62 (± 0.92) thousands of years ago, using Bayesian analysis."
Recall that when Y hg E was first discovered among Europeans, it was originally presumed to be of Eurasian origins until further research found out it was actually African. Then the experts began to play semantics when they say that the subclades of E found in Europe and the Near East were of 'North African' origin not 'Sub-Saharan' again playing upon old outdated racial divisions of the continent. Now we have subclades of very ancient hg A found in Europeans, I guess now they will posit a 'North African' origin for that as well. LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Recall that when Y hg E was first discovered among Europeans, it was originally presumed to be of Eurasian origins until further research found out it was actually African. Then the experts began to play semantics when they say that the subclades of E found in Europe and the Near East were of 'North African' origin not 'Sub-Saharan' again playing upon old outdated racial divisions of the continent. Now we have subclades of very ancient hg A found in Europeans, I guess now they will posit a 'North African' origin for that as well. LOL [/QB]
Of course since north african soldiers were garrisoned there :
quote:An altar inscription tells us that one of these Moorish units, the numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum, was in Britain from the third to the fourth century AD. They were based at the fort of Aballava (Burgh-by-Sands) at the western end of Hadrian's Wall, and were probably brought over by the Emperor Septimius Severus (reigned AD 193-211), himself a North African.
quote: Families who have lived in the English-Scottish Borders for generations could be descended from African soldiers who patrolled Hadrian's Wall nearly 2,000 years ago. Archaeologists say there is compelling evidence that a 500-strong unit of Moors manned a fort near Carlisle in the third century AD ...."
NW africans are dominated by clades of E and hg A can also be found among them :
quote:Although at very-low frequency (0.45%), it must be noted that haplogroupe A-M91, the oldest human haplogroup, is found in Sousse but nowhere else in North Africa. This haplogroup is mainly found in Eastern and Southern Africa. It is common among the Khoisan people, including the Bushmen, and it is considered an original ancestral haplogroup.
quote:Phylogeographic analysis of the E-M81 lineages in Mediterranean populations has shown these lineages to be remarkably frequent in Berbers (80% in Mozabites; 65–73% in Berbers from Morocco) (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004) although their frequency declines sharply towards the north east (Egypt ffi5%). E-M81 lineages are practically absent in Eastern Europe (Pericic´ et al. 2005) and uncommon in Italy, with the exception of Sicily (5.5%) (Semino et al. 2004) where there was an Islamic occupation that lasted for over two centuries (878–1091 AD)
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: What do you mean by native? There are Africans that you can describe as Black,yes? And North Africa is a region,right? That only makes who is native a time problem. You do acknowledge there are groups that live past Africa that are as dark as Africans? So what makes the northern part of Africa a barrier to dark skin?
Indigenous north africans who lived along the mediterranean shore in antiquity or the medieval era weren't black they were similar to modern day north africans.
Black populations were found further south.
This is just so dumb
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ If that's his fantasy he chooses to believe in so be it. Meanwhile the rest of us live in the real world.
The OP article shows that there was no true division between North and Sub-Sahara especially when the Sahara didn't exist in the early Holocene and blacks were indigenous to ALL of Africa. Whites like himself were descended from migrants from Iberia.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ If that's his fantasy he chooses to believe in so be it. Meanwhile the rest of us live in the real world.
The OP article shows that there was no true division between North and Sub-Sahara especially when the Sahara didn't exist in the early Holocene and blacks were indigenous to ALL of Africa. Whites like himself were descended from migrants from Iberia.
See you have no arguments. Implied the presence of north africans in the UK was a desesperate attempt to explain "SSA" lineages...then I proceed to post historical facts of well attested north african soldiers along the Hadrian's wall so who live in the real world now ?
The real world is about genetic results and forensic results and none of them support your afrocentrist theories.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: See you have no arguments. Implied the presence of north Africans in the UK was a desperate attempt to explain "SSA" lineages...then I proceed to post historical facts of well attested north African soldiers along the Hadrian's wall so who live in the real world now?
Hey nutcase, I personally never said anything about North African soldiers posted at Hadrian's Wall! That came from the article I cited. Of course the historians in that article are merely speculating since they have no actual clue as to who the Yorkshire man's ancestor was! My point is that there was no hard division or barrier between Sub-Sahara and North Africa especially during the time when the Sahara didn't exist. So obviously it is YOU who is not residing in the world of reality.
quote:The real world is about genetic results and forensic results and none of them support your Afrocentrist theories.
Wrong as always! The genetic finds and forensic finds all support my assertion which is not merely theory but FACT. I also find it funny how you label my claim as "Afrocentric". Does not the very meaning of that word mean 'African centered'?? Where else then is North Africa located other than the continent of Africa?! LOL
Forensic results:
Identification of Skeletal Remains (1958) RACE DETERMINATION One of the most interesting aspects of identification, to the anthropologist, is the determination of race. The features by which race is judged are almost all features of the skull, and particularly of the face; racial differences in the rest of the skeleton are few and uncertain. This means that racial features must be sought in the very area where individual variation is most rampant. Further, race mixture sometimes confuses the picture; and it is not all of recent origin, for it has been such a constant factor in the development of the human species that most anthropologists would hesitate to assert that pure races in the popular sense of the word have ever had a chance to develop. This means that few characteristics can be counted on to be entirely absent or universally present in any racial group, and only by the consideration of a number of indications can the race of the skull be judged. Occasionally, a physician without special training will endeavor to judge race of a skull by certain generalizations which were formerly (not often at the present time) given in small print in anatomy books. These generalizations, mostly expressed in terms of certain measurement and ratios, represent moderate differences in average values between different races, arrived at by study of the general trends of racial groups and of no value in assigning a single skull to a particular race. In general, measurements of the skull are of less value for judging race than are certain morphological (i.e. shape) differences which are not susceptible to exact measurement...
..The greatest difficulty in such diagnosis is the fact that the anthropologist's judgment of race may be adequate biologically but fail sociologically. We have all seen individuals with a very black skin, but with facial features showing few if any negroid contours. Conversely, blond individuals may sometimes reveal distinct Negro features to a careful examination; both individuals may have the same mixture of White and Negro, but one will be living as a Negro and the other as a white person. If the features of the skull indicate a mixture of White and Negro traits, we have to allow a wide leeway as regards the apparent race of the individual in life, since skin color and hair, which largely determine the lay diagnosis of race, are unknown.
Can you tell a person’s race from his or her skull? Racial classification is an inexact science, if that’s even the right word for it. Forensic anthropologists never make definitive ancestry pronouncements. They say a bone is “consistent with” European ancestry or “likely” of Asian ancestry. And practitioners say it takes years of experience to achieve mastery, since you have to see piles and piles of disembodied mandibles to be able to recognize the sometimes subtle differences among them. (Although one studyhas suggested that the grizzled veterans of forensic anthropology are no better at surmising race than their bright-eyed protégés.)
Email to Susan Anton on Tutankhamun Dr. Susan Anton's response: Thanks for your email. I actually didn't choose the term "North African Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that worked on separate reconstructions). The French team was responsible for the reconstruction that was on the cover of National Geographic Magazine and they also used that term.
Our team, myself and Michael Anderson of Yale, were the ones that did the plaster reconstruction without knowledge of whose skull we were working on. I did the biological profile (assessment of age at death, sex, and ancestry), Michael made the actual reconstruction. Based on the physical characters of the skull, I concluded that this was the skull of a male older than 15 but less than 21, and likely in the 18-20 year range and of African ancestry, possibly north African. The possibly North African came mostly from the shape of the face including the narrow nose opening, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African' designation. A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of variation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins - the nose was a bit unusual. Because their is latitudinal variation in several aspects of the skull (including nose size/shape), the narrowness of the nose suggested that he might be from a northerly group. This is also, I presume, what the French focused on. I have not been in direct contact with the French group, but my understanding is that by their definition of 'Caucasoid' they include Peoples from North Africa, peoples from Western Asia (and the Caucasus, from where the term derives), and European peoples. So I don't think that they were referring to a specific set of those peoples. I personally don't find that term all that useful and so I don't use it. That it was attributed to me by the media is an incorrect attribution on their part. I also never said he had a European nose, although I am sure I did say that the narrow nose was what led me to suggest North Africa as a possibility and that a narrow nose is more typically seen in Europe. Not a great sound bit that, so I guess it gets shortened to European nose.
It has been a well established FACT since Egyptian skulls were first examined by forensic anthropologists that Egyptians cranially were NOT fully "Caucasoid" but actually intermediate between "Caucasoid" and "Negroid". This is why when it came to the Naqada people to whom dynastic civilization is attributed early experts like Cicely D. Fawcett said this:
"By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the cephalic and facial indices, this race presents affinities with Negroes. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans".... Dr. Emile Massoulard, Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt p. 218
In fact, it's not only Egyptians. Anthropologist Giuseppe Sergi who first coined the term "Mediterranean race" hypothesized that this said race originated in Africa due to their "Negroid" features. His theory was that while "black-skinned Negroes" originated in Sub-Sahara, "brown-skinned Mediterraneans" originated in North Africa as another branch of African race. Even racist anthropologist Carleton Coon who views Mediterraneans as a branch of the Caucasian race, says they possessed "Negroid tendencies" and believed they developed in Africa after their separation from the other Caucasians of Eurasia. Genetics on the other hand seems to support Sergi's claims rather than that of Coon as is shown below. The point however was made clear by Keita in his 1990 work on North African Crania: The problems with the concept of “type” but more so ideal typological thinking have been reviewed by Bennett (1969). Ideal typology leads to viewing variation almost solely as the result of hybridization. Morphological observations can supplement information derived from metric studies. The full range of variation is of interest. Bertholon and Chantre (1913) noted non-Negroid and Negroid crania in Neolithic Maghreban and Carthaginian graves, with the former predominating. Daniels (1970) reported that pre- and post-Roman Garamantian remains from southern Libya were Mediterranean, Negroid, and hybrid. Hiernaux (1975) and Henneberg et al. (1980) note early Saharan remains to be broadly Negroid. Chamla’s (1976, 1980) conclusions after morphological analysis of mid-Holocene Maghreban crania are as follows: Gracile Mediterranean, 65%; Negroid, 12%; AtlantoMediterranean, 7%; Mechta-Afalou type, 7%; Brachycephalic element, 6%. The “Mechta-Afalou type” refers to the morphology of some late Epipaleolithic remains from the Maghreb. Desanges (1981) states that Neolithic Capsian crania were not devoid of Negroid characteristics.
Genetic Results:
HLA-DRB1
Benin HBS
Maternal clades:
L2
L3
M1 (figure A)
Paternal clades:
hg E1b1b
And now hg A!
Genetic Patterns of Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Variation, with Implications to the Peopling of the Sudan Thirty five out of 76 samples which have been collected from northern Sudan were positive for DNA extraction. Thirty three samples out of the 35 samples were positive for PCR when using sex Amelogonin marker, 14 samples of them were females and 19 were males. Three samples from Neolithic were positive for haplogroup A-M13, and 2 samples were positive for YAP insertion. For Meroitic and post-Meroitic samples, 5 of them were carrying YAP insertion, while a single post-Meroitic sample was positive for haplogroup A-M13.
So apparently so-called 'Sub-Saharan' features and genes are not confined to Sub-Sahara after all!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic