posted
There are many Pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers here at ES. They spend their time attacking each other. The pseudo-Egyptocentric researchers are of two schools. One group accepts anything written by a "European Authority" as valid and reliable and will fight to the death supporting this research without, reservation e.g., the white Berbers are native to Africa.
The second group supports Europeans who write any piece supporting Black contributionism to ancient history i.e., Black Athena, Black Genesis and the work GJK Campbell-Dunn's . They accept this research with out verifying that it is valid and reliable and supported by earlier Afrocentric researchers. They believe that if it was written by a white European it has to be right, since "white is right".
Most contributors here are not original thinkers. The science they practice is called: "Science by Authority". People who practice science by authority believe that any research done by a European--no matter who they are, or done by Black researchers found acceptable by Europeans in the academy, e.g., Gates, Mboli and Keita is recognized as correct while they ignore research from "alternative African scholarly sources." not recognized by "mainstream" i.e., "Europeans".
A coconut is brown on the outside and white on the inside.
A coconut represents Blacks who are confused about their identity and need someone white to verify they are thinking correct and scholarly.These people spend their time citing any white scholar that happens to claim that Blacks have contributed anything to history.
The best example of this is references to Bernal's Black Athena-- which was promoting a Semitic-centric [Hyksos] origin for the Egyptian influence on ancient Greece--as an "Afro-Centric text".
These pseudo-coconuts they are pseudo-coconuts because they don't don't consiously see themselves as uncle TOMS because they support their views by citing any European who promotes an idea they feel illustrates a contribution of Blacks to world history. They don't realize that they continue to practice the old Afro-American saying, "If you're "white you're right.If you're black get back. If you're brown [or acceptable to whites] stick around.
The "alternative African scholarly sources." would represent the heroes of the Afrocentric Social Sciences: DuBois, J.A. Rogers, Diop, John Jackson and etc.
In the 1990's, the media in articles published by Newsweek, the New York Times, and Time magazine, was able to show that Ivan van Sertima and Hunter Adams were Charlatan
quote:
A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.
Ivan was shown to be a Charlatan because he could not back-up what he had wrote in the books he edited in the 1980's.Hunter, pretended to be a scientist working at Argon National Laboratory when he was really a Janitor.
This was pure deception on the part of conservatives. The attacks on Ivan were unfounded because Ivan, as the editor of the books only wrote about the upcoming chapters in the books you were about to read. Hunter, was wrong to pretend he was a scientist. At the time Hunter was employed by the University of Chicago and could have got his degree through the University--but he refused to do eventhough I advise him to do so as early as 1979.
Young researchers who write on this site accept that Afrocentrism lacks any foundation because of the media attacks on Ivan and Hunter. These young people have an inferiority complex, and seek out any white/European authority to support their work.
They do this out of ignorance. They don't know that Hunter and Ivan were not Afrocentists. Ivan was not an Afrocentrist's, he made a name for himself popularizing the work of others.
As a result, eventhough no one has falsified the research of DuBois, John Jackson, J.A. Rogers Diop , and the other heroes of the Afrocentric Social Science, young people here spend all their time citing anything written by "whites" that show some sort of contribution of Blacks to ancient history.This is sad.
I have taught research methods at the Graduate school level for years. One of the things we teach Graduate students is to become expert consumers of research literature. They become expert comsumers by understanding the foundations and theories of learning and pedagogy.Using this as the knowledge base you crtically analyze eucational research based on these theories.
Young researchers here don't know the roots of Afrocentrism or they read this literature with a jaundice eye, colored by Europeans who hate Afrocentrism because it shows history has been white washed--to white out African people from history. This is a sad situation because we have a 200 year tradition of the Afrocentric Social Science that was mianly contructed by Afro-American scholars who held Phds and MAs, most from Harverd, e.g.,Carter G. Woodson, DuBois and Hansberry.
Because of the tradition of an Afrocentric Social Science, young researchers should base their understanding of the African origin of Egypt, based on the research of Afrocentric social science like DuBois and Diop. But instead of doing this the young researchers here seek out any white authority or Black recognized by these whites, to support the African origin of Egypt.
This is not the way research should be done. Good research should cite the original research done by the heroes of Afrocentric research, and then cite the recent research that confirms the original findings of the Afrocentric researchers. This is the method used by Mena. Scientific research methods promote the continuity of research, instead of acting like every "new" publication on the African origin of Egypt is so significant or outstanding.
The research of Marc and Mike is a good example of confirmation studies, that is the major occupation of professional researchers. They have confirmed the theory of J.A. Rogers that the families of many European elites were of African origin. They also created a new hypothesis: Many early Americans were Black Europeans who immigrated to America from Europe. This was an important hypothesis, which Mike confirmed, because it added more evidence to the fact that all Afro-Americans were not slaves.
You can find out more on the Structure of the Afrocentric Social Science at:
The research of Marc and Mike is a good example of confirmation studies, that is the major occupation of professional researchers. They have confirmed the theory of J.A. Rogers that the families of many European elites were of African origin. They also created a new hypothesis: Many early Americans were Black Europeans who immigrated to America from Europe. This was an important hypothesis, which Mike confirmed, because it added more evidence to the fact that all Afro-Americans were not slaves.
1) When you refer to "Many early Americans were Black Europeans who immigrated to America" what is "many" ? Is something like 20 peopl, 200, or does it mean something like 2000 people?
2) Also what is the proof that these indentured servants were European and not African ?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I will not answer lioness because the purpose of the questions is to mire the thread in endless, pointless drivel. As is typical from lioness, it's a really stupid question.
It takes much evidence to create accurate historical scenarios that bridge the gap between the false "Made-up" history of the Albino people, and "True history. The link below showcases the Anecdotal and Empirical data that was used to extract "True history" from the Albino peoples "Made-up" history.
posted
Dr. Winters. Have YOU ever been to North Africa, have you seen an Amazigh...infact have you seen many of the different Amazigh groups? Do you know, up close, what an Amazigh looks like?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Dr. Winters. Have YOU ever been to North Africa, have you seen an Amazigh...infact have you seen many of the different Amazigh groups? Do you know, up close, what an Amazigh looks like?
Please excuse my interjection but you question is wrong on many counts.
Firstly, scientific knowledge is NOT based on INDIVIDUAL knowledge or experiences. It is based on the aggregate of ALL knowledge AND experiences. If a scientist could only rely on information that he had PERSONALLY gathered, we would still be in the stone age.
Secondly:
Who of these is actually an Amazigh?
Note that it goes from a Black woman in the middle, to what appears to be "Pure" Albinos on the right side.
. Obviously there can be "NO" actual ETHNIC group encompassing that much genetic variation. Therefore Amazigh as an ethnic group is a lie.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. enlighten me. I trying to understand the point of Dr Winters statement. I am saying the only scientific way to tell who is indgenous to Africa is by genetic testing barring the imposters, language and cultural adaptation. PN2 E is African and all the sub-clades. I contend also J1 is also African. It existed in Africa from the inception.
I contend also, based upon geographic ie latitudinal niches, Tunisian are the lighest of Africans and probably one of the purest North Africans along with the Saharawis.
I am slow at googling and grasping picture spamming. How do we know those people posted are Amazigh and not Turks? I don't rely on Googling images...sorry.
What am I mssing?
Have anyone of you been to Africa...North Africa?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^xyyman - Are you truly trying to identify ethnic groups based on DNA??????
That's silly.
Tell you what, please show us ONE SINGLE people (ethnic group) that has a unique DNA, not shared by any other people - except the San.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
deleted
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never been to Africa, so I am not going to sit here and argue what a Berber look like and who is and is not a Berber/Amazigh. I only interpret the data. Who was sampled is a whole different scope. I posted images of Amazigh and what I think they should look like. I am not sure who you posted are actually Berbers, they may be Turks. I tend to go to historical pictures to get a clearer idea of what a people look like. Modern images are deceptive. There are a few archive photos of Berbers on the web.
There has always been a conection between North Africa and Europe. And east Africa and Arabia. Here is an interesting piece of information…
=======
Neolithisation process within the Alboran territory: Models and possible African impact - Jörg Linstädter et al
The Neolithisation of the southern Iberian Peninsula and the Mediterranean Maghreb, here termed “Alboran territory”, must be considered as the same integrative process. By the mid-8th millennium calBP, both sides of the Western Mediterranean were inhabited by hunter-gatherer groups which probably maintained intercontinental contacts. However, from around 7.6 ka calBP,
. At the same time indigenous elements were integrated into this transitional process. The model presented here is supported by the available archaeological data from both sides of the Alboran territory. New 14C-data confirm the simultaneity of the EpipalaeolithiceNeolithic transition in southern Spain and northern Morocco. Results are discussed considering models and concepts from social anthropology dealing with migration and acculturation
Introduction In recent decades, the Holocene occupation history of the Iberian Peninsula and northern Morocco have been treated as separate entities which is due, perhaps partially, to the political situation in the area. Between 1912(ie RACISM!!!!)
Not only an interconnected process of transition in Northern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula was postulated, but even a significant African contribution to the European Neolithisation was suggested. Remarkably, by the 1950s this trend had ceased!!!!, mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the African perspective was lost following the publication of Arene Candide in Liguria (Bernabó Brea, 1946, 1956)..
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ohh that's rich Clyde, how hypocritical can you be. Is that not what you and your Whitey hating ilk (Marc, Ironcocksucker, Mike, XYYboy, Kikuyu, Troll Patrol, Narmer, Mena7, Nontruthhitman, Doug, Energy, Zarahan, Typezeiss) are doing, trying to Black wash history & trying to Black White people out of history. Trying to deny us of our history, our identities, our homeland & even our humanity. After all you all teach that White people have no history, no identity, no homeland, nothing to be proud of, are inferior, and aren't even human.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DHDoxies: Ohh that's rich Clyde, how hypocritical can you be. Is that not what you and your Whitey hating ilk (Marc, Ironcocksucker, Mike, XYYboy, Kikuyu, Troll Patrol, Narmer, Mena7, Nontruthhitman, Doug, Energy, Zarahan, Typezeiss) are doing, trying to Black wash history & trying to Black White people out of history. Trying to deny us of our history, our identities, our homeland & even our humanity. After all you all teach that White people have no history, no identity, no homeland, nothing to be proud of, are inferior, and aren't even human.
Lawdie! This boy is nuts... Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol, that paragraph "she" write is the same one as 2 months ago. Its like a copy and paste complaint about "whitey" .. **roll eyes**
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Dr. Winters. Have YOU ever been to North Africa, have you seen an Amazigh...infact have you seen many of the different Amazigh groups? Do you know, up close, what an Amazigh looks like?
according to xyymian theory Amazigh are the ancestors of Europeans
therefore they would look similar to each other
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not sure what they would look like. SSA are ancestral to everyone...so.....I am going strictly by the data.
Oh! and Europeans are mongrels. They have at least 3 ancestral groups...Loschbour Report(2014)
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman is right about much of his genetic knowledge. But he is wrong in making the Berbers native Africans. The Amazigh are of Germanic origin.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: One of the Albino tribes to invade Black Europe along with the Slavs and Turks, was the Germanics: the Alans were one of many Germanic tribes.
Note to xyyman - look at the map. That is why you cannot track ANY North Africans by DNA.
From Wiki - The migrations of the Alans during the 4th–5th centuries CE, from their homeland in the North Caucasus. Major settlement areas are shown in yellow; Alan civilian emigration in red, and; military campaigns in orange.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: OK. enlighten me. I trying to understand the point of Dr Winters statement. I am saying the only scientific way to tell who is indgenous to Africa is by genetic testing barring the imposters, language and cultural adaptation. PN2 E is African and all the sub-clades. I contend also J1 is also African. It existed in Africa from the inception.
I contend also, based upon geographic ie latitudinal niches, Tunisian are the lighest of Africans and probably one of the purest North Africans along with the Saharawis.
I am slow at googling and grasping picture spamming. How do we know those people posted are Amazigh and not Turks? I don't rely on Googling images...sorry.
What am I mssing?
Have anyone of you been to Africa...North Africa?
WHAT Tunisians? Tunisians are not one monolithic group. Are you talking about black Tunisians? or the various half caste groups in the area? Turks have poured in there by the thousands if not millions. Slave markers accepted so many white Europeans into that land its not even comprehensible. Then we have the Arabs, Persians, Romans, Greeks, vandles, all of which have contributed to the people there.
Saharawis again, which ones? Have you actually seen these people? They too are not one monolithic group in terms of look. Some go from being white, to half caste to black. The oldest groups in North Africa are miya miya suda (100% BLACKS). They are still there.
Not saying you do, but if one adheres to the absurdly stupid idea of adaptation, how can one explain the fact that blacks have been in North Africa since time began and there is no record of whites being there early on. Herodotus talks of ethiopis in the area, as does Pliny the Elder, Didorus and Strabo. Then during Hawqal's time we get whites living there and he includes them among the sinhaja. He said there are about 40 tribes of Sinhaja and of those, 20 some odd tribes are "white". He says they were original "sudaniyya" blacks, but then turn "white" because of them being in the extreme north for long periods. Depending on how he meant this, these could have been black Africans who went into Europe, conquered, lived, mated with whites, and found their way back later one (during or before Hawqal's time. Also, it is interesting he has sense enough to know that the people for whom this name belongs were originally black, not whites. Whites are not, nor will they ever be indigenous to Africa, unless we are talking albinos.
Ok, lets say it was adaptation. How do you explain people of the same ethnic group being black like oil and others being white like snow? There has been THOUSANDS of years of admixture. Enslavement of Europeans, then conquering by Europeans, then more enslavement of Europeans and the list goes on and on.
Like shomarka said a few years ago. You can not simply rely on genetics. it can only tell you what is in a location, not how it got there nor can it tell you how long.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Not saying you do, but if one adheres to the absurdly stupid idea of adaptation, how can one explain the fact that blacks have been in North Africa since time began and there is no record of whites being there early on. Herodotus talks of ethiopis in the area, as does Pliny the Elder, Didorus and Strabo.
Were Herodotus. Pliny the Elder, Didorus and Strabo white?
If so what is their origin?
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
Then during Hawqal's time we get whites living there and he includes them among the sinhaja. He said there are about 40 tribes of Sinhaja and of those, 20 some odd tribes are "white". He says they were original "sudaniyya" blacks, but then turn "white" because of them being in the extreme north for long periods. Depending on how he meant this, these could have been black Africans who went into Europe, conquered, lived, mated with whites, and found their way back later one (during or before Hawqal's time. Also, it is interesting he has sense enough to know that the people for whom this name belongs were originally black, not whites. Whites are not, nor will they ever be indigenous to Africa, unless we are talking albinos.
Do all people have African ancestry or did different people originate separtely?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Not saying you do, but if one adheres to the absurdly stupid idea of adaptation, how can one explain the fact that blacks have been in North Africa since time began and there is no record of whites being there early on. Herodotus talks of ethiopis in the area, as does Pliny the Elder, Didorus and Strabo.
Were Herodotus. Pliny the Elder, Didorus and Strabo white?
If so what is their origin?
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
Then during Hawqal's time we get whites living there and he includes them among the sinhaja. He said there are about 40 tribes of Sinhaja and of those, 20 some odd tribes are "white". He says they were original "sudaniyya" blacks, but then turn "white" because of them being in the extreme north for long periods. Depending on how he meant this, these could have been black Africans who went into Europe, conquered, lived, mated with whites, and found their way back later one (during or before Hawqal's time. Also, it is interesting he has sense enough to know that the people for whom this name belongs were originally black, not whites. Whites are not, nor will they ever be indigenous to Africa, unless we are talking albinos.
Do all people have African ancestry or did different people originate separtely?
Your train of thought is rather confusing. How does the ethnic makeup of Strabo, Herodotus, Hawqal meaningfully contribute to this discussion?
Secondly, regardless of where so called "modern humans" began ie Africa, what is to say the physical appearance of non blacks are partly the result of Africans mating with outside "things" like cavemen or whatever. Hasn't there been a number of studies released claiming this fact? There are too many variables here. What we do no for sure is, when we see eye witness accounts and especially rock art in the Sahara, we are talking about black populations in North Africa. We know for example Mande's originated from the Desert/North Africa and made their way south starting around 3,000 BCE or so.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Your train of thought is rather confusing. How does the ethnic makeup of Strabo, Herodotus, Hawqal meaningfully contribute to this discussion?
Secondly, regardless of where so called "modern humans" began ie Africa, what is to say the physical appearance of non blacks are partly the result of Africans mating with outside "things" like cavemen or whatever. Hasn't there been a number of studies released claiming this fact? There are too many variables here. What we do no for sure is, when we see eye witness accounts and especially rock art in the Sahara, we are talking about black populations in North Africa. We know for example Mande's originated from the Desert/North Africa and made their way south starting around 3,000 BCE or so. [/QB]
There are also caves in Africa and ancient people who lived in them. One more recent, not prehistoric example:
Garamantes hunt the Troglodyte Ethiopians, like wild animals ; they pursue them in chariots with four horses ; the Troglodytes (dwellers in caves) surpass in swiftness any men of whom we have ever heard : they subsist on snakes, lizards, and other reptiles. Their language resembles that of no other people ; indeed they utter only a cry like bats.
Archaeological Discovery: Earliest Evidence Of Our Cave-dwelling Human Ancestors Date: December 21, 2008
A research team led by Professor Michael Chazan, director of the University of Toronto's Archaeology Centre, has discovered the earliest evidence of our cave-dwelling human ancestors at the Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa.
Stone tools found at the bottom level of the cave — believed to be 2 million years old — show that human ancestors were in the cave earlier than ever thought before. Geological evidence indicates that these tools were left in the cave and not washed into the site from the outside world. Archaeological investigations of the Wonderwerk cave — a South African National Heritage site due to its role in discovering the human and environmental history of the area — began in the 1940s and research continues to this day.
Cavemen are simply human beings who live in caves.
Admixture between Nenderthals and the closely related Denisovans (Siberian site) hominid make up less than 5% of some human beings genome
example, genomes of people from New Guinea contain 4.8 percent Denisovan DNA. _________________________________
But anyway the problem is this: you said that adaptation is a stupid idea and you say:
"the physical appearance of non blacks are partly the result of Africans mating with outside "things" like cavemen or whatever."
^^^ how did all this variation in Africa occur? Why don't they all look of the same tribe? Biologists would say adaptation and mutation are the answer
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
why do some siblings look different, though they come from the same womb?
We don't know how many people first appeared on earth, nor do we know their physical makeup. There are to many variables to nail down the answers. As for a biologists summation, it doesn't mean much unless they have a time machine and were there, which they were not They are using a "educated" guess based on the theory created and tested in 30 days. A practice that wouldn't hold up in today's scientific standards of research.
Not only that, you have people who have lived in the same areas for 1,000s of years who have various physical make ups. Why did one group "adapt" and another didn't? Take for instance east africa and yoru using khoi khoi to further your agrument. Khoi khoi come from east africa, not south africa, where some of them are found today. The ones in the east, look like the ones in the south. The ones in the east live among groups that don't look like them. They should according to their theory, resemble their neighbors. Also remember east africa had HUGE empires and many of them brought white people back as slaves. Aksum allowed romans to settle and trade on its cost. How many other people did it absorb into the local population? Using flickr and pseudo science isn't going to cut it. You have to know the history as well. That is something that will take months and years to piece together, not quick google searches.
As for your garamante, those were blacks as well. If you read Herodotus work, from which you got your quote from concerning the Garamante he states that they refer to people as ethiopian when they don't know the name of the people, and the only descriptor they have is skin color. Doesn't mean garamante weren't black, just that the Greeks knew of the kingdom of Garma and new it's name.
last example, mande's absorbed so called pygmy populations as they marched south and set up kingdoms. Hence norther mande groups are taller than some of the forest belts one that have taken in pygmy dna.
so looking at current populations and making arguments for adaptation is rather futile. you have to know the historical background first.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
why do some siblings look different, though they come from the same womb?
We don't know how many people first appeared on earth, nor do we know their physical makeup. There are to many variables to nail down the answers. As for a biologists summation, it doesn't mean much unless they have a time machine and were there, which they were not They are using a "educated" guess based on the theory created and tested in 30 days. A practice that wouldn't hold up in today's scientific standards of research.
Not only that, you have people who have lived in the same areas for 1,000s of years who have various physical make ups. Why did one group "adapt" and another didn't? Take for instance east africa and yoru using khoi khoi to further your agrument. Khoi khoi come from east africa, not south africa, where some of them are found today. The ones in the east, look like the ones in the south. The ones in the east live among groups that don't look like them. They should according to their theory, resemble their neighbors. Also remember east africa had HUGE empires and many of them brought white people back as slaves. Aksum allowed romans to settle and trade on its cost. How many other people did it absorb into the local population? Using flickr and pseudo science isn't going to cut it. You have to know the history as well. That is something that will take months and years to piece together, not quick google searches.
As for your garamante, those were blacks as well. If you read Herodotus work, from which you got your quote from concerning the Garamante he states that they refer to people as ethiopian when they don't know the name of the people, and the only descriptor they have is skin color. Doesn't mean garamante weren't black, just that the Greeks knew of the kingdom of Garma and new it's name.
last example, mande's absorbed so called pygmy populations as they marched south and set up kingdoms. Hence norther mande groups are taller than some of the forest belts one that have taken in pygmy dna.
so looking at current populations and making arguments for adaptation is rather futile. you have to know the historical background first.
Historical record can only take you back less than 6,000 years and it's very limited in early periods
If you look at variation within a tribe or even between siblings of the same womb it's usually not as much as from one tribe to another, even moreso from one climate of Africa to another. (assuming that people have settled in a given area long enough to adapt to it- thousands of years)
But given variation in siblings, this is the result of random mutations, small variations in the DNA. One sister might be taller than their sister and it could be noticeable or tiny variation. One sister might be slightly stronger than another. The way adaptation occurs is if you look at a whole population is that when this population is subject to a set of environmental conditions one sister some percentage degree of the whole population might have a slight survival advantage over another part of the population. And in one generation this difference you could not see. Not all individuals with the advantage would survive better because there are some luck factors involved but a greater percentage of them would survive better. Then over several or more thousands years, a period far beyond our real time experience this advantage accumulates. At this point people who have more of an advantageous trait have survived better in that particular environment the result is that there are more of them. This is natural selection. At the same time people are having random small other mutations at the same time, variations so small they go unnoticed. Many of these variations don't have a benefit but some of them turn out to be an advantage. It's such a small scale advantage that a person often doesn't notice it or it's much to small to observe. If you go back to a human of 100,000 years ago it's far far before any historical record. So you have to analyze fossils. Suppose you had a hammer with a wooden handle. You use it for a lifetime and there's not still much wear on the handle. You pass on the hammer to your daughter and she uses it for her lifetime. Still not that much wear on the handle. But how about after six generations? Maybe at that point there is a noticeable dip in the handle. You might not even know unless you saw the hammer in it's original condition. So changes can accumulate over many lifetimes and far beyond history into prehistory. This is adaptation a sort of natural trial and error process "survival of the fit". The brother who could run a little faster escaped the lioness. He lived on to produce offspring and those offspring had a slight higher chance of being a fast runner. The slower brother got eaten before he could produce a child. Nature is not always nice
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
As for your garamante, those were blacks as well. If you read Herodotus work, from which you got your quote from concerning the Garamante he states that they refer to people as ethiopian when they don't know the name of the people, and the only descriptor they have is skin color. Doesn't mean garamante weren't black, just that the Greeks knew of the kingdom of Garma and new it's name.
last example, mande's absorbed so called pygmy populations as they marched south and set up kingdoms. Hence norther mande groups are taller than some of the forest belts one that have taken in pygmy dna.
so looking at current populations and making arguments for adaptation is rather futile. you have to know the historical background first. [/QB]
As far as I know this is all the references Herodotus makes to the Garamante:
Above the Nasamonians, towards the south, in the district where the wild beasts abound, dwell the Garamantians, who avoid all society or intercourse with their fellow-men, have no weapon of war, and do not know how to defend themselves. These border the Nasamonians on the south: westward along the sea-shore their neighbors are the Macea, who, by letting the locks about the crown of their head grow long, while they clip them close everywhere else, make their hair resemble a crest. In war these people use the skins of ostriches for shields. The river Cinyps rises among them from the height called "the Hill of the Graces," and runs from thence through their country to the sea. The Hill of the Graces is thickly covered with wood, and is thus very unlike the rest of Libya, which is bare. It is distant two hundred furlongs from the sea. Adjoining the Macae are the Gindanes, whose women wear on their legs anklets of leather. Each lover that a woman has gives her one; and she who can show the most is the best esteemed, as she appears to have been loved by the greatest number of men.
Ten days' journey from Augila there is again a salt-hill and a spring; palms of the fruitful kind grow here abundantly, as they do also at the other salt-hills. This region is inhabited by a nation called the Garamantians, a very powerful people, who cover the salt with mold, and then sow their crops. From thence is the shortest road to the Lutophagi, a journey of thirty days. In the Garamantian country are found the oxen which, as they graze, walk backwards. This they do because their horns curve outwards in front of their heads, so that it is not possible for them when grazing to move forwards, since in that case their horns would become fixed in the ground. Only herein do they differ from other oxen, and further in the thickness and hardness of their hides. The Garamantians have four-horse chariots, in which they chase the Troglodyte Ethiopians, who of all the nations whereof any account has reached our ears are by far the swiftest of foot. The Troglodytes feed on serpents, lizards, and other similar reptiles. Their language is unlike that of any other people; it sounds like the screeching of bats.
At the distance of ten days' journey from the Garamantians there is again another salt-hill and spring of water; around which dwell a people, called the Atarantians, who alone of all known nations are destitute of names. The title of Atarantians is borne by the whole race in common; but the men have no particular names of their own. The Atarantians, when the sun rises high in the heaven, curse him, and load him with reproaches, because (they say) he burns and wastes both their country and themselves. Once more at the distance of ten days' there is a salt-hill, a spring, and an inhabited tract. Near the salt is a mountain called Atlas, very taper and round; so lofty, moreover, that the top (it is said) cannot be seen, the clouds never quitting it either summer or winter. The natives call this mountain "the Pillar of Heaven"; and they themselves take their name from it, being called Atlantes. They are reported not to eat any living thing, and never to have any dreams.
Herodotus On Libya, from The Histories, c. 430 BCE __________________________________
^^^ I don't see Herodotus saying the Garamante were Ethiopian although that doesn't mean they weren't black. He didn't sepcify He already had a name for the people he said were hunted by the Garamante, Troglodytes. In one section he simply says "The Troglodytes feed on serpents, lizards, and other similar reptiles." "Ethiopian" is further description and he didn't say Ethiopian Garamantes. I think the best that can be said is that he doesn't pin down the Garamantes' etnnicity. But that wasn't my point. My point is that the Ethiopians involved were cavemen. There is nothing wrong with living in a cave
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
As for your garamante, those were blacks as well. If you read Herodotus work, from which you got your quote from concerning the Garamante he states that they refer to people as ethiopian when they don't know the name of the people, and the only descriptor they have is skin color. Doesn't mean garamante weren't black, just that the Greeks knew of the kingdom of Garma and new it's name.
last example, mande's absorbed so called pygmy populations as they marched south and set up kingdoms. Hence norther mande groups are taller than some of the forest belts one that have taken in pygmy dna.
so looking at current populations and making arguments for adaptation is rather futile. you have to know the historical background first.
As far as I know this is all the references Herodotus makes to the Garamante:
Above the Nasamonians, towards the south, in the district where the wild beasts abound, dwell the Garamantians, who avoid all society or intercourse with their fellow-men, have no weapon of war, and do not know how to defend themselves. These border the Nasamonians on the south: westward along the sea-shore their neighbors are the Macea, who, by letting the locks about the crown of their head grow long, while they clip them close everywhere else, make their hair resemble a crest. In war these people use the skins of ostriches for shields. The river Cinyps rises among them from the height called "the Hill of the Graces," and runs from thence through their country to the sea. The Hill of the Graces is thickly covered with wood, and is thus very unlike the rest of Libya, which is bare. It is distant two hundred furlongs from the sea. Adjoining the Macae are the Gindanes, whose women wear on their legs anklets of leather. Each lover that a woman has gives her one; and she who can show the most is the best esteemed, as she appears to have been loved by the greatest number of men.
Ten days' journey from Augila there is again a salt-hill and a spring; palms of the fruitful kind grow here abundantly, as they do also at the other salt-hills. This region is inhabited by a nation called the Garamantians, a very powerful people, who cover the salt with mold, and then sow their crops. From thence is the shortest road to the Lutophagi, a journey of thirty days. In the Garamantian country are found the oxen which, as they graze, walk backwards. This they do because their horns curve outwards in front of their heads, so that it is not possible for them when grazing to move forwards, since in that case their horns would become fixed in the ground. Only herein do they differ from other oxen, and further in the thickness and hardness of their hides. The Garamantians have four-horse chariots, in which they chase the Troglodyte Ethiopians, who of all the nations whereof any account has reached our ears are by far the swiftest of foot. The Troglodytes feed on serpents, lizards, and other similar reptiles. Their language is unlike that of any other people; it sounds like the screeching of bats.
At the distance of ten days' journey from the Garamantians there is again another salt-hill and spring of water; around which dwell a people, called the Atarantians, who alone of all known nations are destitute of names. The title of Atarantians is borne by the whole race in common; but the men have no particular names of their own. The Atarantians, when the sun rises high in the heaven, curse him, and load him with reproaches, because (they say) he burns and wastes both their country and themselves. Once more at the distance of ten days' there is a salt-hill, a spring, and an inhabited tract. Near the salt is a mountain called Atlas, very taper and round; so lofty, moreover, that the top (it is said) cannot be seen, the clouds never quitting it either summer or winter. The natives call this mountain "the Pillar of Heaven"; and they themselves take their name from it, being called Atlantes. They are reported not to eat any living thing, and never to have any dreams.
Herodotus On Libya, from The Histories, c. 430 BCE __________________________________
^^^ I don't see Herodotus saying the Garamante were Ethiopian although that doesn't mean they weren't black. He didn't sepcify He already had a name for the people he said were hunted by the Garamante, Troglodytes. In one section he simply says "The Troglodytes feed on serpents, lizards, and other similar reptiles." "Ethiopian" is further description and he didn't say Ethiopian Garamantes. I think the best that can be said is that he doesn't pin down the Garamantes' etnnicity. But that wasn't my point. My point is that the Ethiopians involved were cavemen. There is nothing wrong with living in a cave [/QB]
I will address this later, but I will say this now, Troglodyte means ones who live in caves. Has nothing to do with a polity, tribe name etc. as I said, Herodotus has said that Greeks only use names like Ethiopian for blacks and Scythian for whites when they do not know the name of the kingdom, polity, tribe etc.
Definition of Troglodyte from Merriam Webster:
1: a member of any of various peoples (as in antiquity) who lived or were reputed to live chiefly in caves
2: a person characterized by reclusive habits or outmoded or reactionary attitudes
As to this designation, I have heard theories that Greeks referred to traditional African homes like the ones you see in Tichett Watchett as Caves. ancient homes found in the Sahara seem to look just like the ones the Mande people built in Mauritania during Ancient Ghana's reign. Which would make sense given that Mandes left the desert and moved into Mauritania around 3,000 BCE
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic