f) Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Northern Niger, Northern Sudan, Northern Mali, Northern Chad
^^ why bother with this and argue endlessly about which description is best You can post maps all day and that way each map might have similar variance as above. We also have to take into account the definitions of "North Africans" often does not correspond to a strict geographical definition. And even with a geographic definition the exact border could be disputed and anthropologists typically don't go by a geographic definition of it __________________________
SOLUTION
Instead if you use use the below terms as a set instead of "North Africa" it has a lot less problems and ambiguities in discussions
MAGHREB
NILE VALLEY
SAHEL
____________________________
this might not be perfect but much less problems
Instead of endless sport over opinion on what should be included in "North Africa" ,
. . just stop using the term "north Africa" when describing human population groups, it is too lacking in precision and agreement
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Both the Nile Valley and Sahel contain so called Magical Barrier SSAs...you can't gaslight if you use the Sahel or Nile Valley as a part of North Africa.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Both the Nile Valley and Sahel contain so called Magical Barrier SSAs...you can't gaslight if you use the Sahel or Nile Valley as a part of North Africa.
Then there is endless debate over if in anthropological usage (not synonymous to geographic) over whether or not to include the Sahel in North Africa
where people live is very different from geographic indications. So here we see a density of people on the Norther tip and a large sparsely populated region people we even get to the Sahel. I don't think we need to cling to , in the anthropological context to the word "North" etc the 4 very broad directions words. At the same time Egypt and Sudan (the entirety of Sudan and some of Uganda) these have a common river population region running through them (although with some cataract obstacles as per boats but not walking along side)
posted
So then by the standards of that map the only place that can be logically called NA is the Mehgreb...The Very Coastal Fringe of NA...but thats not what they mean is it...because the rest of NA that isn't the Coastal fringe is inhabited by darker skinned folks "Sharans" who learned how to transition the magical barrier of SSA, plus Oasis Dwellers and other folks like the Gnawa who even Berber Supremists claim a portion were native to N.A...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Both the Nile Valley and Sahel contain so called Magical Barrier SSAs...you can't gaslight if you use the Sahel or Nile Valley as a part of North Africa.
Then there is endless debate over if in anthropological usage (not synonymous to geographic) over whether or not to include the Sahel in North Africa
where people live is very different from geographic indications. So here we see a density of people on the Norther tip and a large sparsely populated region people we even get to the Sahel. I don't think we need to cling to , in the anthropological context to the word "North" etc the 4 very broad directions words. At the same time Egypt and Sudan (the entirety of Sudan and some of Uganda) these have a common river population region running through them (although with some cataract obstacles as per boats but not walking along side)
solution: stop using the term "North Africa"
Instead, these three:
MAGHREB
NILE VALLEY
SAHEL
> only
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So then by the standards of that map the only place that can be logically called NA is the Mehgreb...The Very Coastal Fringe of NA...but thats not what they mean is it...because the rest of NA that isn't the Coastal fringe is inhabited by darker skinned folks "Sharans" who learned how to transition the magical barrier of SSA, plus Oasis Dwellers and other folks like the Gnawa who even Berber Supremists claim a portion were native to N.A...
Again the solution is NOT to use the term "North Africa" at all
but instead only use:
MAGHREB
NILE VALLEY
SAHEL
___________________________
It's a waste of time to indulge in this endless sport of "what is North Africa"
If you stop using the term altogether then much of this semantic distraction dance is over.
Test it out, If someone says something about "North Africa" that you think is wrong, in your answer switch to one of these other terms. This will often improve the clarity of the conversation.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: inhabited by darker skinned folks "Sharans" who learned how to transition the magical barrier of SSA, plus Oasis Dwellers and other folks like the Gnawa who even Berber Supremists claim a portion were native to N.A...
You confuse "Gnawa" with "haratin/hartani". The former being of recent west african descent (even though some of them are obviously mixed and have recent NA ancestry) and the latter (at least theorically the "purest" of them, the ones who did not incorporate slaves) being dark-skinned folks indigenous to the northern fringes of the Sahara even though they can be found further south too.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, I always get the Gnawa and Haritin mixed up.
Would'nt the Mehgreb count as a Northern Fringe?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: inhabited by darker skinned folks "Sharans" who learned how to transition the magical barrier of SSA, plus Oasis Dwellers and other folks like the Gnawa who even Berber Supremists claim a portion were native to N.A...
You confuse "Gnawa" with "haratin/hartani". The former being of recent west african descent (even though some of them are obviously mixed and have recent NA ancestry) and the latter (at least theorically the "purest" of them, the ones who did not incorporate slaves) being dark-skinned folks indigenous to the northern fringes of the Sahara even though they can be found further south too.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
North of the Atlas mountain range, the climate and the population have consistently exhibited distinct characteristics, which is the reason it's not considered a part of the Sahara region.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Do you think that only the Mehgreb qualifies as North Africa?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Do you think that only the Mehgreb qualifies as North Africa?
No but from an anthropological or genetic pov it should be restricted to it. The Maghreb is too different to be associated with the Saharan world even the berbers who live there are quite different.
The same way I don't see why Turkey is described as part of the "Middle East" while it's clearly distinct. Or Georgia if not sometimes Armenia as part of Europe...
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
When people say NA, they're 99% of the time thinking of the Mehgreb, yet many instances people use NA is reference to Saharans/Sahara, which confuses people and muddles the waters in online debates/discussions...at least IMO.
...
Turkey has too many ties with the Middle East in its Late Medieval to Early Modern period to be considered part of Europe, Modern Europe grew out of the Latin/Classical sphere of influence and out of trying to find a way around the Ottoman monopoly on the Eastern Trade routes that excluded Europe. Its too different now culturally, no different than N/A not being a part of "Europe" or "Western" despite its long history and association with Classical civilization.
Ive never seen Armenia being associated with Europe, at least not in the U.S its not, Georgia is seen more as part of "Russia" or Eastern European sphere of influence.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You confuse "Gnawa" with "haratin/hartani". The former being of recent west african descent (even though some of them are obviously mixed and have recent NA ancestry) and the latter (at least theorically the "purest" of them, the ones who did not incorporate slaves) being dark-skinned folks indigenous to the northern fringes of the Sahara even though they can be found further south too.
They're sure "dark-skinned" alright.
Also there are those old studies showing Egyptian mummies to have the same blood type B antigens as the Haratin.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Lioness's OP query, the term 'North Africa' was first used in an anthropological sense in the 19th Century in conjunction with the new racial theory of the time that the Egyptians and other North Africans were of the Caucasoid/Caucasian race and thus separate from the 'Negro' race of Sub-Sahara. The idea was simply the Sahara desert served as a racial barrier that racially segregated blacks who were "true negroes" away from the blacks of North Africa who were fellow Caucasians whose high civilization and even genetic heritage is shared with the other Caucasians of West Eurasia. This became the paradigm of African anthropology which still persists to this day even though such racial dichotomy and the very notion of biological race has been debunked.
Yet we still read scientific papers still using the phrase not to mention Eurasio-nuts like Antalas still clinging on to it.
I personally find it hypocritical, since even though there is indeed biological differentiation between typical North Africans and typical Sub-Saharans, one can make the same argument about Asians with North Asians showing some biological distinction from East Asians yet anthropology has never stressed or emphasized any racial difference between North Asians and other Asians the way they did North Africa to the point that it seems they've divorced North Africa from the rest of the continent. Interestingly there some anthropologists who were consistent and even successfully divided Europe along racial lines such as the racialist Madison Grant who popularized the 3 racial types of Europe-- Mediterranean, Alpine, and Nordic. These divisions are also geographically based as well, but these divisions were not as precise or as solid as that between North African and Sub-Saharan.
What's even more ironic is the fact that in the last 10,000 years very Saharan desert that is used for this racial separation didn't even exist prior to founding of Egyptian civilization.
Eurasionuts like Antalas like to point out the differences between North Africans and Sub-Saharans as proof of racial difference like for example cranial morphology.
Again such differences exist.
The problem for them is that there are also similarities which they totally ignore which is why both metrically and nonmetrically North African crania are positioned as intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians overall.
Genetics has also debunked their claims showing that genetic relations as expected follows degrees and that even amongst populations in the Sub-Saharan region there is diversity.
By their same argument West Africans are racially closer to not only North Africans but West Eurasians while the racial divide between the former and South Africans is much greater. So why is not South Africa separated from greater Sub-Sahara??
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: When people say NA, they're 99% of the time thinking of the Mehgreb, yet many instances people use NA is reference to Saharans/Sahara, which confuses people and muddles the waters in online debates/discussions...at least IMO.Turkey has too many ties with the Middle East in its Late Medieval to Early Modern period to be considered part of Europe, Modern Europe grew out of the Latin/Classical sphere of influence and out of trying to find a way around the Ottoman monopoly on the Eastern Trade routes that excluded Europe. Its too different now culturally, no different than N/A not being a part of "Europe" or "Western" despite its long history and association with Classical civilization.
Ive never seen Armenia being associated with Europe, at least not in the U.S its not, Georgia is seen more as part of "Russia" or Eastern European sphere of influence.
I did not imply that Turkey should be associated with Europe. It's simply distinct and I know what I'm talking about since I grew up with them. North-West Africa's cultural ties are more closely linked to the Middle East than to Europe, but the region is also distinct in its own right. Even back in Ancient times, Phoenician influence played a significant role in shaping the culture of certain areas in the Maghreb. The impact was so profound that even in the late Roman era, some people still spoke a neo-Punic dialect and identified as "chanani." In Greco-Roman literature, North-West Africans were in general believed to have a connection to the easterners, particularly the phoenicians/canaanites (check my twitter for more infos on this).
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I get your point. My point is the same in that it the term is based on generalities this is why for example folks like Antalas are quick to equate Nile Valley North Africans with Maghrebis even though the two populations have entirely different histories. Even our old moderator Ausar has been pointing that out for decades. My point as well is the hypocrisy. Europeans were originally divided into Mediterranean, Alpine, and Nordic but these don't get used in anthropology. Understandably because Europeans are far more homogeneous than Africans but there are differences non the less.
The issue is about specifics. 'Sub-Sahara' is used as a catch term for all those below the Sahara but as we can see there are obvious differences between the populations of that region as well.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I get the strong impression that many geneticists classify a male "Sub-Saharan" person as a biological type that includes E1b1a, A and B
>> but not E1b1b
This does not conform to an exact below-the-Sahara geographic definition
Instead it follows this genetic map, the predominant places where E1b1b and E1b1a people live.
In other words when some people use the term "Sub-Saharan" to describe people genderists have sort have steered that category away from a strict definition to this genetic one separated between E1b1b and E1b1a and before the recent age of genetic testing "Sub-Saharan " implied "Negroid" and anything not "Sub-Saharan" called "North African" with an implication of "not-Negroid"
This term "Negroid" is considered possibly offensive so it's used much less now. The proxy is "Sub Saharan" and then geneticists try to fit this old paradigm geographic word into the genetics paradigm and if you look at how they have attempted to make it work is by making a distinction between E1b1b and E1b1a Keep that in mind when you read any recent science articles using the term "SSA" to describe people, genetically they translate that to E1b1a and MtDNA L and not E1bib
"Sub-Saharan" Likewise with the term "North African" are geographic terms which geneticist try to preserve and translate into DNA but as we can see the two things do not match that well.
E1b1b
and
E1b1a
are not that far apart however
What is further apart in Africa genetically is the Maternal ancestry, Haplogroup L being regarded as "Sub Saharan" and anything not L considered not Sub-Saharan. There is more variation in the maternal DNA The term "Sub Saharan" causes confusion when applied to genetics
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And yet E1b1ba (V100) and E1b1b (M215) are genetic siblings arising from a common ancestor that makes them unrelated to the Eurasian clades in your map or even the older African clades (A & B) in other parts of Africa. It is the E clade that unites 'North' and 'Sub-Saharans' at least by Y-chromosome and note that even M215 isn't even confined to 'North Africa' but reaches all the way into Sub-Saharan East Africa. But of course NRY haplogroups are just one element of genetics.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It is the E clade that unites 'North' and 'Sub-Saharans' at least by Y-chromosome and note that even M215 isn't even confined to 'North Africa' but reaches all the way into Sub-Saharan East Africa. But of course NRY haplogroups are just one element of genetics.
That's true but what I have noticed in these genetics articles, when Lazaridis says something like "No affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in the genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians."
and then if you look at their haplogroups you see (of this very small number of Natufians tested, 5) none of them are E1b1a So this and other articles have led me to believe that you can predict what these articles will say in regard to "SSA" Dna that it will correspond to E1b1a clade and maternal L lineage
So you can look at all these nuances of K and PCA admixture charts but if you simply look at the corresponding haplogroups you can predict what the researchers is likely to says is SSA Dna and what is not
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That's why population genetics needs to use *all* genetic components to give the full picture. The Natufians carry E lineages yet they don't share autosomes typical of today's 'Sub-Saharans', and yet they too show signs of sickle cell disease which is traditionally a 'Sub-Saharan' disease. This shows that Natufians share ties to ancient Sub-Saharans different from that of today.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ That's why population genetics needs to use *all* genetic components to give the full picture. The Natufians carry E lineages yet they don't share autosomes typical of today's 'Sub-Saharans', and yet they too show signs of sickle cell disease which is traditionally a 'Sub-Saharan' disease. This shows that Natufians share ties to ancient Sub-Saharans different from that of today.
I just explained this in
Topic: The Way Many Geneticists define a male "Sub-Saharan" person
One way geneticists classify Natufians are not "Sub-Saharan" is because of the specific clade of E they categorize as "Sub-Saharan" is E1b1a not E1b1b
Similarly they classify J2 and N1, the mitochondrial lineages of the 2 Natufians that have been reported thus far as non-African. So it's not just the autosomes it's the particular clade of E1b1 > E1b1b which they consider not SSA (who they associate with E1b1a)
I'm not saying this is right or wrong and I have suggested not using term "Sub-Saharan" in genetics articles which I elaborate on there but you can see this pattern in these articles
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic