posted
In genetic literature, True Negroid has now morphed into "Sub-Saharan African,Niger-Kordofanian, and Niger-Congo speakers, and the Natufians have become the Hamites of today or anything they title as Eurasian depending on the region being analyzed. Why does this still persist today in modified form?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Interesting, why there's that geographic gap between Iberomausrian and Natufian yet both E1b1b and considered related (less so maternally)
modern simplified. For instance hap E is on the Arabian peninsula, Levant also not just J J also in parts of E. Africa and North The map shows the broader patterns of the modern
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: In genetic literature, True Negroid has now morphed into "Sub-Saharan African, Niger-Kordofanian, and Niger-Congo speakers, and the Natufians have become the Hamites of today or anything they title as Eurasian depending on the region being analyzed. Why does this still persist today in modified form?
I thought it was explained to you before that since Africans possess the greatest genetic diversity, it is easy for geneticists to divide certain populations from one another. You realize that South African Capoids/Khoisan are the most distinct of all and that even Sub-Saharans are closer to Eurasians than them.
As to why it persists, it's simply due to bias in academia that has always existed. Why are you asking us and complaining to us about it??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I've noticed is that melanophobic pseudo-anthropologists actually vary with regards to how much "true Negroes" actually represent what they think fully indigenous African people would look like. There does exist the widespread assumption that Northeast Africans represent hybrids between indigenous "Negroids" and "Caucasoid" back-migrants, but you also have a narrative that "true Negroes" are actually a recent development in West Africa that only became widespread after the Bantu expansion (often accompanied by the claim that the Bantu migrants committed murderous genocide against other African groups they encountered). Often, the latter narrative is meant to deny that early AMH would have looked like the dreaded "Black people".
In the end, these melanophobes just want to push Black people to the margins of history however they can.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: modern simplified. For instance hap E is on the Arabian peninsula, Levant also not just J J also in parts of E. Africa and North The map shows the broader patterns of the modern
And what are we to make of Africans with Type B morphology who carry hg A from Neolithic Nubians and Egyptians to modern Tigre Ethiopians, as explained here??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: What I've noticed is that melanophobic pseudo-anthropologists actually vary with regards to how much "true Negroes" actually represent what they think fully indigenous African people would look like. There does exist the widespread assumption that Northeast Africans represent hybrids between indigenous "Negroids" and "Caucasoid" back-migrants, but you also have a narrative that "true Negroes" are actually a recent development in West Africa that only became widespread after the Bantu expansion (often accompanied by the claim that the Bantu migrants committed murderous genocide against other African groups they encountered). Often, the latter narrative is meant to deny that early AMH would have looked like the dreaded "Black people".
In the end, these melanophobes just want to push Black people to the margins of history however they can.
You're absolutely right. Remember how the troll Faheemdunkers would contradict himself by saying Mesolithic Nubians are "negroid" in one thread but in another thread claim that "true negroids" developed recently only in the Bronze Age. LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Good point. The Greek suffix 'oid' means like wherein negroid means negro-like. Therefore, the title of the thread should be True Negroism.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Good point. The Greek suffix 'oid' means like wherein negroid means negro-like. Therefore, the title of the thread should be True Negroism.
Honestly, -oid terms by themselves wouldn't be so problematic if it weren't for the racialist baggage attached to them. As you said, -oid basically means "looks like".
However, I still wouldn't recommend the traditional ones like "Negroid" or "Caucasoid". The former is basically attaching the suffix to the Spanish word for "black", and the latter of course could be taken as implying an origin of "Caucasoid" morphology either in the Caucasus or West Eurasia more generally. And then of course "Mongoloid" has been used for people with certain disabilities as well as those of East Asian, Native American, or Polynesian descent.
posted
^ Yeah, I'm well aware that Trisomy 21 a.k.a. down syndrome was once called 'Mongoloid syndrome' due to features like epicanthic eyes.
But even the racial term "mongoloid" is erroneous for the following reasons by C.L. Brace.
Ironically Mongols are the least typical examples of East Asians. 'Mongoloid' then is not a good way to characterize the cluster of East Asian peoples.--Brace 1993
A Euclidean Distance dendrogram or cluster diagram demonstrating the atypical status of Mongols when compared with representative samples of the other inhabitants of East Asia. The values for the measurements were converted into C scores and compared by Unweighted Matched Pair Group Analysis (IJMPGA). The procedure was pioneered by Howells (1986) and is described in greater detail in Brace and Hunt (1990).
Metrically, Mongols and other North Asians are as divergent from other East Asians as Wadi Halfans are to other Sub-Saharans.
Meanwhile you have Negrito groups who tie closer to East Asians.
A Preliminary Classification of Asiatic Races Based on Cranial Measurements by T. L. Woo & G. M. Morant ..The connection between the Dayaks and one series from Java, which is itself closely connected with another series from Java and the Burmese A, might have been anticipated; but the fact-previously noted by Dr. von Bonin-that the Aetas (a so-called negrito people from the Philippine Islands) are also intimately connected with the Javanese and Burmese is one of peculiar importance.
But it is the small size of the Andamanese skull which is its most distinguishing characteristic. The shape is very similar to those of the neighbouring Burmese and Javanese. The close resemblance between the shapes in these cases cannot be supposed fortuitous and it seems to point clearly to the fact that the Andamanese came originally from Java, or from the neighbouring mainland, and that they have degenerated since. This theory cannot be reconciled with the negrito hypothesis however...
..The Andamanese conform to a type which is peculiar on account of its small size. But its shape is very similar to those of the Burmese and Javanese and it is reasonable to suppose that this indicates a true relationship, and that the stock degenerated after reaching the islands and there becoming isolated.
The arrangement we have been led to by using purely quantitative methods has some unexpected features and the most striking of these is the close association of the Aetas, who are generally classed as a negrito people having an entirely different origin from the non-negrito peoples of the Orient, with the Burmese and Javanese. We have also supposed that the Andamanese, who are also styled negrito, are closely allied to these two. If our deductions are correct then, as Dr. von Bonin has suggested, the negrito hypothesis must be considered an entirely fallacious one in so far as it has been applied to Asiatic races.
Mind you this was almost a century before DNA confirmed it.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: In genetic literature, True Negroid has now morphed into "Sub-Saharan African,Niger-Kordofanian, and Niger-Congo speakers, and the Natufians have become the Hamites of today or anything they title as Eurasian depending on the region being analyzed. Why does this still persist today in modified form?
Yes Negroid & Hamite have been codified into current DNA studies.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Except with genetics it has become more apparent that "Hamites" are as African as "Negroes" and NOT Eurasian descended.
Genetics has vindicated Giuseppe Sergi's Mediterranean or 'brown' race of Africa.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ According to Sergi, the Mediterranean type is a branch of the larger Eurafrican group that diverged from a common Paleolithic African ancestral group from which also comes the Negro race. The point is that he did not believe in a Eurasian "back-migration" but an African expansion into Eurasia.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The man pictured on 250 (two posts back) It says "Shoan" , I dont know what that is. there is a Shona group in Zimbabwe. They are Bantu but he seems not to resemble them. He has a shield (or is it a hat?)
Update: He's of Shoa and that is a shield
Shewa (Oromo: Shawaa; Arabic: شيوا), formerly romanized as Shua, Shoa, Showa, Shuwa (Scioà in Italian[1]), is a historical region of Ethiopia which was formerly an autonomous kingdom within the Ethiopian Empire. The modern Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa is located at its center
Shewa first appears in the historical record as a Muslim state, which G. W. B. Huntingford believed was founded in 896, and had its capital at Walalah.[4] In a recent discovery, a team of French archaeologists uncovered three urban centers believed to have been remnants of the former Sultanate of Ifat, with the Nora site in eastern Shewa being the most notable among them.[5][6]
Yekuno Amlak based his uprising against the Zagwe dynasty from an enclave in Shewa. He claimed Solomonic forebears, direct descendants of the pre-Zagwe Axumite emperors, who had used Shewa as their safe haven when their survival was threatened by Gudit and other enemies. This is the reason why the region got the name "Shewa" which means 'rescue' or 'save'. This claim is supported by the Kebra Nagast, a book written under one of the descendants of Yekuno Amlak, which mentions Shewa as part of the realm of Menelik I. Aksum and its predecessor Dʿmt were mostly limited to Northern Ethiopia and Eritrea during the 1st millennium BCE. However, Shewa eventually became a part of Abyssinia upon the rise of the Amhara Solomonic dynasty.[7] Dawit I and his successors stayed in Fatagar (part of Shewa) for a long time in Tobya (Yifat, Fatagar). The province served as the birthplace of the future emperors Zara Yaqob and Dawit II. Zara Yaqob and Na'od would then make Debre Berhan and Zway their capitals respectively. In 1528 Shewa was overrun by Muslim invaders from the Sultanate of Adal to the east, and its ancient cities were destroyed.[8][9][10][11]
Most of Shewa was overran by the Oromos during the late 16th century.
Sahle Selassie, King of Shewa from 1813–1847 and grandfather of Emperor Menelik.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Look, I'm not supporting all of his racial theories Sergi's initial contribution was to oppose the use of the cephalic index to model population ancestry, arguing that over all cranial morphology was more useful.[4] However, Sergi's major theoretical achievement was his model of human ancestry, fully articulated in his books Human Variation (Varietà umane. Principio e metodo di classificazione) and The Mediterranean Race (1901), in which he argued that the earliest European peoples arose from original populations in the Horn of Africa, and were related to Hamitic peoples. This primal "Eurafrican race" split into three main groups, the Hamites, the Mediterranean race and the north European Nordic race. Semitic people were closely related to Mediterraneans but constituted a distinct "Afroasian" group.[4] The four great branches of the Mediterranean stock were the Libyans or Berbers, the Ligurians, the Pelasgians and the Iberians. Ancient Egyptians were considered by Sergi as a branch of the Hamitic race.
According to Sergi the Mediterranean race, the "greatest race in the world", was responsible for the great civilisations of ancient times, including those of Egypt, Carthage, Greece and Rome. These Mediterranean peoples were quite distinct from the peoples of northern Europe.[4]
Sergi argued that the Mediterraneans were more creative and imaginative than other peoples, which explained their ancient cultural and intellectual achievements, but that they were by nature volatile and unstable. In his book The Decline of the Latin Nations he argued that Northern Europeans had developed stoicism, tenacity and self-discipline due to the cold climate, and so were better adapted to succeed in modern civic cultures and economies.
Again, the only thing he got right was that so-called Hamites and to some extent Mediterraneans are indigenous to Africa.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being Italian he might have sought to dismantle Nordic supremacy
He also used a later secular interpretation of "Hamitic".
quote: The term Hamitic originally referred to the peoples said to be descended from Ham, one of the Sons of Noah according to the Bible. According to the Book of Genesis, after Noah became drunk and Ham dishonored his father, upon awakening Noah pronounced a curse on Ham's youngest son, Canaan, stating that his offspring would be the "servants of servants". Of Ham's four sons, Canaan fathered the Canaanites, while Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cush the Cushites, and Phut the Libyans.[10]
During the Middle Ages, Jews and Christians considered Ham to be the ancestor of all Africans.....
Following the Age of Enlightenment, many Western scholars were no longer satisfied with the biblical account of the early history of mankind, but started to develop faith-independent theories. These theories were developed in a historical situation where most Western nations were still profiting from the enslavement of Africans.[8]: 524 In this context, many of the works published on Egypt after Napoleon's expedition "seemed to have had as their main purpose an attempt to prove in some way that the Egyptians were not Negroes",[8]: 525 thus separating the high civilization of Ancient Egypt from what they wanted to see as an inferior race. Authors such as W. G. Browne, whose Travels in Africa, Egypt and Syria was published in 1799, laid the "seeds for the new Hamitic myth that was to emerge in the very near future", insisting that the Egyptians were white.[8]: 526
**** In the mid-19th century, the term Hamitic acquired a new anthropological meaning, as scholars asserted that they could discern a "Hamitic race" that was distinct from the "Negroid" populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. Richard Lepsius would coin the appellation Hamitic to denote the languages which are now seen as belonging to the Berber, Cushitic and Egyptian branches of the Afroasiatic family.
posted
^ Yes, I know all about the origins of the Hamitic hypothesis and that it was rooted in the legend of Noah's Flood and racially modified via Blumenbach.
The point is that Sergi and other anthropologists have long noted evidence of OOA expansion post-dating the initial OOA from Mesolithic to Neolithic times.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the thread title is " How True Negroidism and Hamitic Hypothesis still exist" as usual Tishbite starts with two sentences, no quotes or data and then you don't see him again.
But anyway Forget "true Negroid" If we look at the paradigm "Negroid" (forget the 'true' part which is redundant) and include Mongoloid Caucasoid and possibly Australoid or one or two more.
Not dealing with each particular group name, these quesions: 1) Is it valid to have say 3-5 or so categories like this for human skulls? 1) Is it valid to have say 3-5 or so categories like this for human morphology including skull type, hair type and facial features?
These "oid" words are considered obsolete and have a race science taint But instead of Negroid Caucasoid Mongoloid
it's easy to use other words, such as all geographic
African European Asian Oceana American Indian
etc
These words have no taint
But is it reasonable to use any words to differentiate and suggests general physical types groups as opposed to just noting individuals descriptions?
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Look, I'm not supporting all of his racial theories [i]
According to Sergi the Mediterranean race, the "greatest race in the world", was responsible for the great civilisations of ancient times, including those of Egypt, Carthage, Greece and Rome. These Mediterranean peoples were quite distinct from the peoples of northern Europe.[4]
Sergi argued that the Mediterraneans were more creative and imaginative than other peoples, which explained their ancient cultural and intellectual achievements,
What is your opinion of this claim?
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: the thread title is " How True Negroidism and Hamitic Hypothesis still exist" as usual Tishbite starts with two sentences, no quotes or data and then you don't see him again.
But anyway Forget "true Negroid" If we look at the paradigm "Negroid" (forget the 'true' part which is redundant) and include Mongoloid Caucasoid and possibly Australoid or one or two more.
Not dealing with each particular group name, these quesions: 1) Is it valid to have say 3-5 or so categories like this for human skulls? 1) Is it valid to have say 3-5 or so categories like this for human morphology including skull type, hair type and facial features?
These "oid" words are considered obsolete and have a race science taint But instead of Negroid Caucasoid Mongoloid
it's easy to use other words, such as all geographic
African European Asian Oceana American Indian
etc
These words have no taint
But is it reasonable to use any words to differentiate and suggests general physical types?
No, because "Negro and Negroid" wasn't just about a physical type, with it came notions of inferiority in culture and civilization, its all linked together, so when they say "true Negroes" they mean it to say the most inferior, and anything civilized found was said to be the work of "Hamites," so called superior Caucasoid/Europoids.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Look, I'm not supporting all of his racial theories [i]
According to Sergi the Mediterranean race, the "greatest race in the world", was responsible for the great civilisations of ancient times, including those of Egypt, Carthage, Greece and Rome. These Mediterranean peoples were quite distinct from the peoples of northern Europe.[4]
Sergi argued that the Mediterraneans were more creative and imaginative than other peoples, which explained their ancient cultural and intellectual achievements,
What is your opinion of this claim?
It was no different than Nordicism and people like Dienekes and Racial Reality/Evil Euro believed in it. The whole idea of linking physical traits with civilization and civilizing are all a European creation, unfortunately even some Africans bought into it.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Negro and Negroid" wasn't just about a physical type, with it came notions of inferiority in culture and civilization, its all linked together, so when they say "true Negroes" they mean it to say the most inferior, and anything civilized found was said to be the work of "Hamites," so called superior Caucasoid/Europoids.
I agree to a extent, camel/neander centrics dont want to believe that blacks were ever capable of producing things that they believe belong to high civilization, so the artworks of Ile-Ife become a offshoot of greek civilization or Kanem-Bornu/Mali becomes a berber civilization etc yet you will never hear these same camel/neander centrics who are always crying wolf mentnion this... But likely this isn't the reason you started this thread or what you're saying. More than likely the reason you started this thread was to ask why are "Hamites" (Horners) and "True Negroids" (West/Central Africans) are not put into the same category. So why don't you explain why they should be? Our ancestors split from one ahother in pre-history, we aren't related to eachother genetically or culturally pretty much at all, yet these said "Hamite" groups are genetically and culturally related to non-black eurasians. You will never see any of these groups that you're arguing for argue for you, so get over it tbh
Posts: 200 | From: Nibiru | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
"Negro and Negroid" wasn't just about a physical type, with it came notions of inferiority in culture and civilization, its all linked together, so when they say "true Negroes" they mean it to say the most inferior, and anything civilized found was said to be the work of "Hamites," so called superior Caucasoid/Europoids.
I agree to a extent, camel/neander centrics dont want to believe that blacks were ever capable of producing things that they believe belong to high civilization, so the artworks of Ile-Ife become a offshoot of greek civilization or Kanem-Bornu/Mali becomes a berber civilization etc yet you will never hear these same camel/neander centrics who are always crying wolf mentnion this... But likely this isn't the reason you started this thread or what you're saying. More than likely the reason you started this thread was to ask why are "Hamites" (Horners) and "True Negroids" (West/Central Africans) are not put into the same category. So why don't you explain why they should be? Our ancestors split from one ahother in pre-history, we aren't related to eachother genetically or culturally pretty much at all, yet these said "Hamite" groups are genetically and culturally related to non-black eurasians. You will never see any of these groups that you're arguing for argue for you, so get over it tbh
I don't believe there should same categories, nor racialism, Africans are so much interconnected that when you a division one way you're ignoring a connection some other .
The prupose of the topic was to show that the same Hamite/True Negro divide that was evident is late 19th century/early 20th century anthropology is still evident today
Its evident in your reponse, the "Hamites are so called more related to non-black Eurasians" as if its a one way thing and there's plenty of discordance with that.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: No, because "Negro and Negroid" wasn't just about a physical type, with it came notions of inferiority in culture and civilization, its all linked together, so when they say "true Negroes" they mean it to say the most inferior, and anything civilized found was said to be the work of "Hamites," so called superior Caucasoid/Europoids.
However Cheikh Anta Diop in African Origin Of Civilization using the word "Negroid" dozens of times with positive connotation
In genetic literature, True Negroid has now morphed into "Sub-Saharan African,Niger-Kordofanian, and Niger-Congo speakers, and the Natufians have become the Hamites of today or anything they title as Eurasian depending on the region being analyzed. Why does this still persist today in modified form
As far as genetic articles go you need quote examples
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
so when they say "true Negroes" they mean it to say the most inferior
In current genetics articles they sometimes use "Sub-Saharan" and use it typically as compared to "North African/Horn North African DNA predominated by E1b1b and is considered originating in the horn so the Horn and North Africa are considered not "Sub-Saharan" even though the Horn is geographically
I'm not saying this is the best way of doing thing s but this is typical as depicted the map I posted in the second post
Unlike in the early 1900s where you could read anthropologists adding into to this division talking about "inferior" races (and some of this going all the way up into the 60s) you will not see this superiority and inferiority discussed in modern genetics articles
What we do see is a two part classification being done in genetics articles >>
quote: Sub-Saharan
North Africa/Horn
what would be analogous in older terms to what you point to "Hamite/True Negro divide"
I might do it differently but you need articles quotes from current genetics articles to try to prove they are casting these groups as inferior/superior
We also have to question the idea that "civilization" and it's peoples are superior to villages and their people
population density map
It's a large continent and although there was a green Sahara period it has had population layout like this for a long time, so you will see some genetic differences that could be correlated to geography. How do you talk about it? (assuming it's valid to)
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted By Elijah the Tishbite: I don't believe there should same categories, nor racialism, Africans are so much interconnected that when you a division one way you're ignoring a connection some other .
Explain how West & Central Africans "are so interconnected" with Horn Africans? In what way?
quote:The prupose of the topic was to show that the same Hamite/True Negro divide that was evident is late 19th century/early 20th century anthropology is still evident today
"Hamites" and "True Negros" are divided cranially, so whats the issue with pointing that out? Why dont you yourself cite examples of this rebrand of Hamitiscism and also elaborate on how these differences should be explained.
quote:Its evident in your reponse, the "Hamites are so called more related to non-black Eurasians" as if its a one way thing and there's plenty of discordance with that.
Amharas, who would be considered Hamites for example, are genetically, linguistically, culturally and historically more intertwined with arabs from Yemen or Oman than they're to a West African. I have no idea what you're trying to say with the highlighted part?
I also struggle to understand how you can say in this thread
quote:This is why I am highly Afro American-centric and don't particularly care for some Africans, they can be just as anti-black as the white man.
They're just mad that Afro Americans are better than they are, way more successful, let them crouch up to the white man, lol
But then whine when these same africans, that you dont care for and also acknowledge are largely "anti-black", aren't put into the same racial category as you.
Posts: 200 | From: Nibiru | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shebitku: "Hamites" and "True Negros" are divided cranially, so whats the issue with pointing that out? Why dont you yourself cite examples of this rebrand of Hamitiscism and also elaborate on how these differences should be explained.
Prove it
quote:Its evident in your reponse, the "Hamites are so called more related to non-black Eurasians" as if its a one way thing and there's plenty of discordance with that.
Amharas, who would be considered Hamites for example, are genetically, linguistically, culturally and historically more intertwined with arabs from Yemen or Oman than they're to a West African. I have no idea what you're trying to say with the highlighted part?[/quote]
Proof?
I also struggle to understand how you can say in this thread
quote:This is why I am highly Afro American-centric and don't particularly care for some Africans, they can be just as anti-black as the white man.
They're just mad that Afro Americans are better than they are, way more successful, let them crouch up to the white man, lol
But then whine when these same africans, that you dont care for and also acknowledge are largely "anti-black", aren't put into the same racial category as you. [/QUOTE]
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My whole point was never to say they should be the same, go back to the first post.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Look, I'm not supporting all of his racial theories
According to Sergi the Mediterranean race, the "greatest race in the world", was responsible for the great civilisations of ancient times, including those of Egypt, Carthage, Greece and Rome. These Mediterranean peoples were quite distinct from the peoples of northern Europe.[4]
Sergi argued that the Mediterraneans were more creative and imaginative than other peoples, which explained their ancient cultural and intellectual achievements,
What is your opinion of this claim?
Aside from the racial views of inherent capabilities and being "greatest" his claims of a prehistoric expansion from North Africa into other parts of the Mediterranean Basin has been proven by genetics. As Swenet has pointed out, the skeletal data has always suggested it.
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: It was no different than Nordicism and people like Dienekes and Racial Reality/Evil Euro believed in it. The whole idea of linking physical traits with civilization and civilizing are all a European creation, unfortunately even some Africans bought into it.
Actually Dienekes like Sergi was a Mediterraneanist and was against Nordicism. He was a big promoter of "Mediterranean race" including that "Caucasoids" originated in Africa. He just still believed in "Negro" inferiority.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another trend in the aDNA scene that I find hard to fathom is the narrative that Nile Valley populations (not just Egyptians but also Nubians) somehow became more SSA-shifted in latter periods, despite the political and cultural domination of Eurasian cultures (e.g. Persian, Macedonian, Roman, Arab, Turkish, etc.) over the region within the last three millennia. Sure, I can buy that the trans-Saharan trade introduced some ancestry from other parts of Africa into the Nile basin, but those couldn't have been the only population influxes into the region over the last 3,000 years. Especially when both Egypt and Sudan were being "Eurasianized" at the cultural and political level during the same time period.
posted
^ Of course that finding is based solely on the Late Period Abusir sample. So that itself is questionable, but then there is also the label of that autosomal marker (IBD Yoruba) as 'Sub-Saharan' when there are other autosomal markers in Sub-Sahara such as Hadza in East Africa or Khoisan in Southern Africa.
As far as possible Sub-Saharan geneflow into Egypt, we know that the slave trade was controlled and participated by Arabs and later Turks. The indigenous Baladi Egyptians were serfs and no better than slaves producing for their Afrangi overlords so they were not purchasing any slaves. In fact we know from historical records that slaves were transported to the Delta to be shipped to the rest of the Caliphate.
Yet according to the same study, modern Maghrebi have higher occurrence of the 'Sub-Saharan' marker than Egyptians.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Another trend in the aDNA scene that I find hard to fathom is the narrative that Nile Valley populations (not just Egyptians but also Nubians) somehow became more SSA-shifted in latter periods, despite the political and cultural domination of Eurasian cultures (e.g. Persian, Macedonian, Roman, Arab, Turkish, etc.) over the region within the last three millennia. Sure, I can buy that the trans-Saharan trade introduced some ancestry from other parts of Africa into the Nile basin, but those couldn't have been the only population influxes into the region over the last 3,000 years. Especially when both Egypt and Sudan were being "Eurasianized" at the cultural and political level during the same time period.
I almost forgot. Why is it whenever we hear about slavery in Egypt during the Islamic period, the slaves in question are always 'Sub-Saharan' but we never hear about the WHITE slaves namely the Mamluks and later Janissaries.
The Mamluks were enslaved men used as soldiers who later overthrew their Arab masters and even started their own dynasty in Egypt. You can read more about them here. While the Janissaries were the same type of slaves brought in during the Ottoman Empire.
Many Baladi and even Arab Egyptians could call a fair-skinned but especially blue-eyed Egyptian by the slur 'mamluk' or 'saqaliba' (slav). Yet somehow we are to believe all Egyptians today represent the ancient dynastic populations.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic