History Channel Portrays Hannibal as Black, White People Cry Foul Over ‘Historical Revisionism
quote:History Channel‘s newest documentary series, Barbarians Rising, tackles the fall of Rome over the course of 700 years of invasions. However, the most recent episode that aired Monday depicts Hannibal of Carthage as a Black man, and many white history buffs are crying foul over the “historical inaccuracy.” In the series, Hannibal is portrayed by Black British actor Nicholas Pinnock. The famous Carthaginian was a thorn in the empire’s side. He became a general at the age of 26 and managed to unite barbarian tribes to stop Rome’s imperial rise. The military genius was famous for climbing the Alps with war elephants whose sole purpose was to stomp the Roman army. Hannibal ultimately wanted to invade Rome, but he failed to do so. There have been debates over the race of Hannibal. This debate still continues till this day.
These are the same people who'll whine that black people are obsessed with race and "race doesn't matter"...until its someone famous.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^Agreed 100%. And these are also the same people who have no problem with the Ancient Egyptians being portrayed as lily white Europeans, with British accents mind you.. lol!
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Who said egyptsearch, realhistoryww, and the so called Afrocentrics arent getting the message out ??
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
U guys have to understand what the real issue is.
Its the camel nose in the tent thing.
they are rightly disturbed.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Lettem have some cheeze with that whine.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
The euronuts who responded, are typically those folks who have very little knowledge and understanding. They are the least intelligent, and follow racist YouTube-channels posting dumb stuff.
Gourara or Ghurara Berbers of southwestern Algeria are considered Zenata
quote:Zenata (Berber: Ijenaden) are a major old Berber ethnic group of North Africa. They were an umbrella-group encompassing probably hundreds of large linguistically or genealogically related Berber tribes in the north, center and east of Berber North Africa (excluding the Nile valley of Egypt). Zenata Berbers were the founders of several Berber empires, kingdoms and princedoms in North Africa.
The actual problem here, is that the education system has falsified history and indigenous people for so long, common folks clearly have a misguided view on things.
quote:The Kingdom of Morocco
"Sanhaja, Masmoda, and Zenata are the three tribes constituting the Berbers ..."
quote:" ...in the old sources the terms Berber, Sanhaja, Massufa, Lamtuna and Tuareg are often used interchangeably"
--Marq de Villiers and Sheila Hirtle ( 2009). Timbuktu: The Sahara's Fabled city of Gold, p. 271.
quote:"Zenata (Berber: Ijenaden) are a major old Berber ethnic group of North Africa. They were an umbrella-group encompassing probably hundreds of large linguistically or genealogically related Berber tribes in the north, center and east of Berber North Africa (excluding the Nile valley of Egypt). Zenata Berbers were the founders of several Berber empires, kingdoms and princedoms in North Africa."
quote: "The Berber-Abidiya region is situated just south of the fifth Nile cataract in Sudan. This project, a joint mission with the Sudanese National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums (NCAM), is focussed on the late Kushite city of Dangeil (third century BC – fourth century AD) and associated cemeteries."
lol @ euronuts.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: These are the same people who'll whine that black people are obsessed with race and "race doesn't matter"...until its someone famous.
No, it's not them. It's the folks who will say North Africa is not black and never was. It stems from a long tradition of prejudice writings and other media-outlets.
UNBOXED: The World Beyond the West & the Problem of Eurocentrism
When I read this reaction, I seriously laughed out loud.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Ish Geber
The argument is NOT with indigenous Northwest Africans/Berbers, who we(hell most Euronuts sometimes admit) all know were indigenous Africans and black especially according to classical writers and especially during the medieval period.
But with Hannibal Barca who is said to be of Phoenician descent, which is what most of these Eurocentrics are claiming and thus they claim we can't argue if Hannibal was black.
But there are historians who argue that Hannibal was black.
French historian Gabriel Audisio said in 1961:
"I consider Hannibal to be neither a Phoenician, nor a Carthaginian, nor a Punic, but a North African".
Gilbert Picard wrote:
"The majority of the (Carthaginian) populace seems to have had African, indeed Negroid, ancestry".
Audisio continued to explain why they were Black:
"The Carthaginians, colonizers of North Africa, in contrast to today's colonizers of Algeria, were not averse to mixed marriage. The historians agree that this was accepted social custom among the aristocracy as well as the middle & lower classes. One is, then, in no way hindered in saying that Hannibal was part of this majority of African ancestry".
So the argument of Hannibal's race/ethnicity is NOT as one sided as these Euronuts want it to be...
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
I know Keita found in his studies of Northern African crania that ancient Carthaginian and other Maghrebi samples were "heterogeneous", showing a mix of African, European-like, and intermediate types. And I think it very likely that Saharan and West Africans were present in the region alongside people of Iberian and Phoenician heritage. Besides, the actor in that Hannibal video isn't even that dark-skinned, but could pass for an African/Phoenician mix. So I would say the video's depiction isn't out of the question.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
"Phoenician heritage"
What is Phoenician heritage ?
Phoenician appears to be a cultural affiliation as opposed to strict ethnic race one. In any event, from the looks of artifacts and where they colonized, they were Black or mostly so.
Your probkem stems from bias caused by fake Euro nut history being the basis Of your thinking.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I know Keita found in his studies of Northern African crania that ancient Carthaginian and other Maghrebi samples were "heterogeneous", showing a mix of African, European-like, and intermediate types. And I think it very likely that Saharan and West Africans were present in the region alongside people of Iberian and Phoenician heritage. Besides, the actor in that Hannibal video isn't even that dark-skinned, but could pass for an African/Phoenician mix. So I would say the video's depiction isn't out of the question.
What does an African/Phoenician mix look like? The guy in the video looks like a typical "black" person to me. Hannibal in that past History Channel doc looked more like a African/Near Eastern mix.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Never mind Nodnarb's comment.
His mind is still clouded by Albino rubbish. He cant think straight about the issue.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I know Keita found in his studies of Northern African crania that ancient Carthaginian and other Maghrebi samples were "heterogeneous", showing a mix of African, European-like, and intermediate types. And I think it very likely that Saharan and West Africans were present in the region alongside people of Iberian and Phoenician heritage. Besides, the actor in that Hannibal video isn't even that dark-skinned, but could pass for an African/Phoenician mix. So I would say the video's depiction isn't out of the question.
What does an African/Phoenician mix look like? The guy in the video looks like a typical "black" person to me. Hannibal in that past History Channel doc looked more like a African/Near Eastern mix.
I meant to say he doesn't look that dark-skinned to me, so the odds are great he's carrying some light-skin allele that isn't of African origin. I would think that an African/Phoenician mix would possess an allele like that too.
That is of course assuming the founding Phoenicians from the Lebanese region mostly looked like this: Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
Also, to play devil's advocate, what do people here make of ancient Carthaginian coinage?
To be sure, some of these coins were made by Greek artists (source), but they're identified as depicting either Carthaginian deities like Tanit or Carthaginian politicians.
In fairness there is also this Italian coin which some have claimed depicts Hannibal: Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I meant to say he doesn't look that dark-skinned to me, so the odds are great he's carrying some light-skin allele that isn't of African origin. I would think that an African/Phoenician mix would possess an allele like that too.
Wait what? Can you elaborate how dark you're speaking? Since "Black" people come in many shades. More importantly studies have shown that Africans have the largest skin color variation.
quote:Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.
The Khoisans who skin color is apart of in-built African diversity are actually LIGHTER than that actors skin color.
Also the guy playing Hannibal has "stereotypical black" features
So what there is "not that African" about the actors features? I see Sahalian Africans with those features. You can see Northern Nigerians with those types of features.
Again I am talking about the actor.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Just a question, are there *any* contemporary accounts describing what Hannibal may have looked like? Can't find anything and it would seem none of the statues said to be him are definitively him *shrugs*
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Just a question, are there *any* contemporary accounts describing what Hannibal may have looked like?
If they ever existed u can bet Albinos have already destroyed them or hidden them.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
'To be sure, some of these coins were made by Greek artists (source), but they're identified as depicting either Carthaginian deities like Tanit or Carthaginian politicians. '
You answered ur own question.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Just a question, are there *any* contemporary accounts describing what Hannibal may have looked like? Can't find anything and it would seem none of the statues said to be him are definitively him *shrugs*
Finding any Ancient descriptions on Hannibal is extremely hard or even impossible. I posted the ethnic origins of Hannibal, but it was by a modern author and not a classical writer.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Don't confuse ethnicity with race.
There's no question of Hannibal's ethnicity. He was Punic Carthaginian.
By Hannibal's time the ancient Lebanese founders of Khart Haddas were absorbed into the region's population as Doc Ben points out in his The Blackman's North and East Africa.
However, Carthge was cosmopolitan and neither 'pennies' of mahouts nor 'dollars' of Melkhart are likely to have Hannibal's living image.
This thread may present info not seen before but please don't neglect all the foregoing Hannibal threads posted on ES over the past decade.
There's a wealth of info right here on ES to be found nowhere else on the Web.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Just a question, are there *any* contemporary accounts describing what Hannibal may have looked like? Can't find anything and it would seem none of the statues said to be him are definitively him *shrugs*
From what I have read, no surviving accounts bothered to describe him.
@ BlessedbyHorus
Whatever made be said of the actor's ancestry, all I meant to convey was that his appearance doesn't look out of the range for an African/Phoenician mix (in my opinion anyway). So the people complaining his appearance is inaccurate or unrealistic are probably in the wrong.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
History Channel Portrays Hannibal as Black, White People Cry Foul Over ‘Historical Revisionism
quote:History Channel‘s newest documentary series, Barbarians Rising, tackles the fall of Rome over the course of 700 years of invasions. However, the most recent episode that aired Monday depicts Hannibal of Carthage as a Black man, and many white history buffs are crying foul over the “historical inaccuracy.” In the series, Hannibal is portrayed by Black British actor Nicholas Pinnock. The famous Carthaginian was a thorn in the empire’s side. He became a general at the age of 26 and managed to unite barbarian tribes to stop Rome’s imperial rise. The military genius was famous for climbing the Alps with war elephants whose sole purpose was to stomp the Roman army. Hannibal ultimately wanted to invade Rome, but he failed to do so. There have been debates over the race of Hannibal. This debate still continues till this day.
who financed this?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Please clarify.
Africa is a huge continent. Phoenicia was a tiny state.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: ... pass for an African/Phoenician mix.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Why are you posting beduin sheikh Abisha when hundreds of urban ancient Lebanese manufactured images abound?
Time to abandon stereotypes and wishful thinking of a single so-called typical phenotype supposing to rep a whole continent, a vast region or even a relatively smaller locality.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I know Keita found in his studies of Northern African crania that ancient Carthaginian and other Maghrebi samples were "heterogeneous", showing a mix of African, European-like, and intermediate types. And I think it very likely that Saharan and West Africans were present in the region alongside people of Iberian and Phoenician heritage. Besides, the actor in that Hannibal video isn't even that dark-skinned, but could pass for an African/Phoenician mix. So I would say the video's depiction isn't out of the question.
What does an African/Phoenician mix look like? The guy in the video looks like a typical "black" person to me. Hannibal in that past History Channel doc looked more like a African/Near Eastern mix.
I meant to say he doesn't look that dark-skinned to me, so the odds are great he's carrying some light-skin allele that isn't of African origin. I would think that an African/Phoenician mix would possess an allele like that too.
That is of course assuming the founding Phoenicians from the Lebanese region mostly looked like this:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
A Punic mask in the Bardo Museum, Tunis
Mask of a bearded man, from the Phoenician cemetery at Akhziv (northern Israel) Pottery, painted (700-600 BCE)
Sand-core glass amulets (4th-3rd BCE) from Carthage, Tunisia
Statue of Baal Hammon; the chief god of Carthage. The National Bardo Museum (Tunis).
Sea people, Egyptian relief
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
"'The Phoenician civilization flourished along the eastern coastlines of the Mediterranean Sea (the present-day coasts of Syria, Lebanon, and northern Israel) from approximately 2000 BC to 500 BC
"The Phoenicians likely referred to themselves as Canaanites."
The ancient Greeks were the originators of the term “Phoenicia,” which derives from an ancient Greek word (phoinikes) for the color purple."
I didn't know Phoenician was originally a Greek term. Good find.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
wikipedia:
Etymology[edit] The name Phoenicians, like Latin Poenī (adj. poenicus, later pūnicus), comes from Greek Φοίνικες (Phoínikes), attested since Homer and influenced by phoînix "Tyrian purple, crimson; murex" (itself from φοινός phoinós "blood red",[8] of uncertain etymology; R.S.P. Beekes has suggested a Pre-Greek origin of the ethnonym).[9] The oldest attested form of the word is the Mycenaean po-ni-ki-jo, po-ni-ki, ultimately borrowed from Ancient Egyptian fnḫw (fenkhu)[10] "Asiatics, Semites". In the Amarna tablets of the 14th century BC, people from the region called themselves Kenaani or Kinaani.[11] Much later, in the 6th century BC, Hecataeus of Miletus writes that Phoenicia was formerly called χνα (Latinized: khna), a name that Philo of Byblos later adopted into his mythology as his eponym for the Phoenicians: "Khna who was afterwards called Phoinix".[12]
The folk-etymological association of phoiniki with phoînix mirrors that in Akkadian which tied kinaḫni, kinaḫḫi "Canaan; Phoenicia" to kinaḫḫu "red-dyed wool".[13][14] The land was natively known as knʿn (cf. Eblaite ca-na-na-um, ca-na-na), remembered in the 6th century BC by Hecataeus under the Greek form Chna, and its people as the knʿny (cf. Punic. They called themselves Kn'n, a name that survived until the 4th century AD, in North Africa.
Origins: 3200–1200 BC[edit]
Sarcophagus of Eshmunazor II, Phoenician King of Sidon found near Sidon, in southern Lebanon Herodotus' account (written c. 440 BC) refers to the myths of Io and Europa. (History, I:1):
According to the Persians best informed in history, the Phoenicians began the quarrel. These people, who had formerly dwelt on the shores of the Erythraean Sea, having migrated to the Mediterranean and settled in the parts which they now inhabit, began at once, they say, to adventure on long voyages, freighting their vessels with the wares of Egypt and Assyria ...[15]
The Greek historian Strabo believed that the Phoenicians originated from Bahrain.[16] Herodotus also believed that the homeland of the Phoenicians was Bahrain.[17][18] This theory was accepted by the 19th-century German classicist Arnold Heeren who said that: "In the Greek geographers, for instance, we read of two islands, named Tyrus or Tylos, and Arad, Bahrain, which boasted that they were the mother country of the Phoenicians, and exhibited relics of Phoenician temples."[19] The people of Tyre in South Lebanon in particular have long maintained Persian Gulf origins, and the similarity in the words "Tylos" and "Tyre" has been commented upon.[20] However, there is little evidence of occupation at all in Bahrain during the time when such migration had supposedly taken place.[21]
Culturally, they appear to have derived uninterrupted from the chalcolithic cultures of the region. Byblos is attested as an archaeological site from the Old Kingdom of Egypt.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The presence of African individuals in Punic populations from the Island of Ibiza (Spain): contributions from physical anthropology
Thanks, Swenet.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Keita had a blurb on Carthage in Studies of ancient crania..
Furthermore, the blacks of the ancient Maghreb were apparently not foreign or a caste. Pittard (1924) notes with surprise the race of the remains found in the Sarcophagus of the Priestess of’ Tanit in Carthage, noting them to be Negroid (see also Bertholon and Chantre, 1913). --Keita 1990. Studies of Ancient Crania
"“Black Africa,” as usually presented, also is a problematic cultural and biological construct, and a product of philosophical idealism, with an associated set of fixed ideas about phenotypes, culture, and geography. “Black African,” biologically speaking, has been frequently restricted to the extreme “Negro” morphotype, as though this were a biological unit, and below a certain latitude; this would be analogous to “White European” being restricted to the “Nordic” or “East Baltic” phenotype above a certain latitude.
Modern biology, ancient Saharan art and remains, classical European writers and artifacts, and ancient Maghrebian and Nile Valley remains and archaeology make problematic the boundaries of a “Black African” entity in terms of geography, culture, or biological characteristics in the ancient period (see reviews in Snowden, 1970; Hiernaux, 1975; Keita, 1990). “Subsaharan” is not a terminological improvement, since “Blacks” were not confined below any particular latitude. For example, there is morphological continuity of Negroid traits from the later Paleolithic through early dynastic periods in southern Egypt & Nubia (see descriptions in Thoma, 1984; Stewart, 1985; Anderson, 1968; Stoessiger, 1927; Strouhal, 1968; Morant, 1925). Moreover, as Snowden (1970) notes, “Blacks” were described in ancient Carthage and on the southern slopes of the Atlas mountains, all at the latitude of northern Egypt." --Keita 1992. Further studies of ancient crania from North Africa. AJPA 87:245-254
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The presence of African individuals in Punic populations from the Island of Ibiza (Spain): contributions from physical anthropology
Ibiza is off the coast of Spain, right? Still very fascinating results.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Tukuler
Just letting you know I sent you a PM.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I dont get the Ebonics and "smaking lips" its not like they're saying he's an African American. Further HAnnibal and the Phonecians had nothing to do with Modern Europeans anyway. Hell at least they traded with Africans.
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
' I dont get the Ebonics and "smaking lips" its not like they're saying he's an African American. Further HAnnibal and the Phonecians had nothing to do with Modern Europeans anyway. Hell at least they traded with Africans.'
If u dont have something constructive or semi intelligent to say, then please shut up.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
This sums it up well, its sad that these people think they or their Northern/Western European Ancestors had anything to do with the Phonecians. These are the same people that dont say a word when Australians and English/White Americans play Moses and the Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Keita had a blurb on Carthage in Studies of ancient crania..
Furthermore, the blacks of the ancient Maghreb were apparently not foreign or a caste. Pittard (1924) notes with surprise the race of the remains found in the Sarcophagus of the Priestess of’ Tanit in Carthage, noting them to be Negroid (see also Bertholon and Chantre, 1913). --Keita 1990. Studies of Ancient Crania
"“Black Africa,” as usually presented, also is a problematic cultural and biological construct, and a product of philosophical idealism, with an associated set of fixed ideas about phenotypes, culture, and geography. “Black African,” biologically speaking, has been frequently restricted to the extreme “Negro” morphotype, as though this were a biological unit, and below a certain latitude; this would be analogous to “White European” being restricted to the “Nordic” or “East Baltic” phenotype above a certain latitude.
Modern biology, ancient Saharan art and remains, classical European writers and artifacts, and ancient Maghrebian and Nile Valley remains and archaeology make problematic the boundaries of a “Black African” entity in terms of geography, culture, or biological characteristics in the ancient period (see reviews in Snowden, 1970; Hiernaux, 1975; Keita, 1990). “Subsaharan” is not a terminological improvement, since “Blacks” were not confined below any particular latitude. For example, there is morphological continuity of Negroid traits from the later Paleolithic through early dynastic periods in southern Egypt & Nubia (see descriptions in Thoma, 1984; Stewart, 1985; Anderson, 1968; Stoessiger, 1927; Strouhal, 1968; Morant, 1925). Moreover, as Snowden (1970) notes, “Blacks” were described in ancient Carthage and on the southern slopes of the Atlas mountains, all at the latitude of northern Egypt." --Keita 1992. Further studies of ancient crania from North Africa. AJPA 87:245-254
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: ' I dont get the Ebonics and "smaking lips" its not like they're saying he's an African American. Further HAnnibal and the Phonecians had nothing to do with Modern Europeans anyway. Hell at least they traded with Africans.'
If u dont have something constructive or semi intelligent to say, then please shut up.
This ISN'T YOUR thread for you to enforcing things. Jari did not say anything wrong...
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Its sad, its like these people expect every significant Empire/Culture to be shown as not just "Kakazoid" but clearly White in a western Sense, as some of the comments claim Hannibal was not "Arab" or "Berber" but white as in North West European. Its mind boggling then they turn around and pretend like they care about North Africans. 99% of North Africans would stick out like a sore thumb among Europeans and white Americans including Berbers like Zidane and the late Gadaffi. Plus these are the same people who will bemoan Immigration from the same North Africans they claim as white when it comes to **** like Hannibal...
Also this is nothing new, these are the same people who protest any black lead or black person shown in a positive light in non black mrketed Movies..
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Don't confuse ethnicity with race.
There's no question of Hannibal's ethnicity. He was Punic Carthaginian.
By Hannibal's time the ancient Lebanese founders of Khart Haddas were absorbed into the region's population as Doc Ben points out in his The Blackman's North and East Africa.
However, Carthge was cosmopolitan and neither 'pennies' of mahouts nor 'dollars' of Melkhart are likely to have Hannibal's living image.
This thread may present info not seen before but please don't neglect all the foregoing Hannibal threads posted on ES over the past decade.
There's a wealth of info right here on ES to be found nowhere else on the Web.
History Channel Portrays Hannibal as Black, White People Cry Foul Over ‘Historical Revisionism
quote:History Channel‘s newest documentary series, Barbarians Rising, tackles the fall of Rome over the course of 700 years of invasions. However, the most recent episode that aired Monday depicts Hannibal of Carthage as a Black man, and many white history buffs are crying foul over the “historical inaccuracy.” In the series, Hannibal is portrayed by Black British actor Nicholas Pinnock. The famous Carthaginian was a thorn in the empire’s side. He became a general at the age of 26 and managed to unite barbarian tribes to stop Rome’s imperial rise. The military genius was famous for climbing the Alps with war elephants whose sole purpose was to stomp the Roman army. Hannibal ultimately wanted to invade Rome, but he failed to do so. There have been debates over the race of Hannibal. This debate still continues till this day.
Some random fools put up comments on a youtube video and the Atalanta Blackstar deems that worthy of an article. as if there aren't 10 million comments a day on these videos from all points of view.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Tukuler your inbox is full.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Don't make a new PM Keep replying to the same old one. Hope that'll work
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^I know, but its still saying your inbox is full.
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
Wow History Channel make a documentary showing Carthaginian General Hannibal as a Black man. I think the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Jews and Babylonians were a mixture Black and Brown people. The ruling political, economic, religious and intellectual elite of those people were probably Black people. I think the Roman were a mixture of Brown, Black and White people. The Roman elite was a mixture of Brown, Black and maybe White people. The Black Phoenicians probably recruited the White people as mercenary and soldier for their army.
There was a previous History Channel video that show Hannibal was a Black man. I cant find the Ancient Egyptsearch Forum thread about the previous Black Hannibal.
Carthaginian general Hannibal of the Barca ruling family.
Black or Brown Roman general Scipio Africanus who defeated General Hannibal Barca. It was a war between the Black and Brown elite family of the Mediterranean world to dominate the sea trade of the Mediterranean sea.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
OK try replying the L S PM now.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^I know, but its still saying your inbox is full.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
You dont think History Channel isnt noticing this, You think it stops at youtube comments?? You dont think these racists arent on Twitter and even writing letters. These are the same people and offspring of the people who were upset when time showed Adam and eve as black(based on evidence btw) Anytime a Person of color is shown in a positive light white people tend to be upset...why?
History Channel Portrays Hannibal as Black, White People Cry Foul Over ‘Historical Revisionism
quote:History Channel‘s newest documentary series, Barbarians Rising, tackles the fall of Rome over the course of 700 years of invasions. However, the most recent episode that aired Monday depicts Hannibal of Carthage as a Black man, and many white history buffs are crying foul over the “historical inaccuracy.” In the series, Hannibal is portrayed by Black British actor Nicholas Pinnock. The famous Carthaginian was a thorn in the empire’s side. He became a general at the age of 26 and managed to unite barbarian tribes to stop Rome’s imperial rise. The military genius was famous for climbing the Alps with war elephants whose sole purpose was to stomp the Roman army. Hannibal ultimately wanted to invade Rome, but he failed to do so. There have been debates over the race of Hannibal. This debate still continues till this day.
Some random fools put up comments on a youtube video and the Atalanta Blackstar deems that worthy of an article. as if there aren't 10 million comments a day on these videos from all points of view.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@Jari
Exactly!
Anyways, going onto something different, one should note that Phoenician settlements were quite small. More smaller compared to Greek settlements and their numbers only numbered in the hundreds.
quote:Material of about the same date comes from Utica, and of seventh-or sixth century date from Leptis Magna (Lebda),Hadrumetum(Sousse, Tipasa, Siga (Rachgoun), Lixus( on the Oued Loukkos) and Mogador, the last being the most distant Phoenician settlement so far known. Finds of parallel date have been made at Motya in Sicily,Nora(Nuri), Sulcis and Tharros (Torre di S. Giovanni) in Sardinia and at Cadiz and Almunecar in Spain. It must be emphasized that, unlike the settlements which the Greeks were making in Sicily,Italy and elsewhere in the 8th and 7th centuries, all the Phoenician settlements including Carthage itself,remained small places, with perhaps no more than a few hundred settlers at most, for generations. Furthermore,they long remained political subordinate to Tyre as was to be expected having regard to their prime function as anchorages and supply points.
General History of Africa, II Ancient Civilizations of Africa, James Currey, p.247
This seems to confirm that the original Phoenician settlers were absorbed by the native Carthaginians. But lets not forget other non-black settlers like those from Europe...
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The presence of African individuals in Punic populations from the Island of Ibiza (Spain): contributions from physical anthropology
Ibiza is off the coast of Spain, right? Still very fascinating results.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
This is like a trend now. Some magazines or news websites take some youtube comments or twitters by random nobodies and try to turn it into news. It's not a real story. It's a real story when people identified by first and last name organize and do something, not people typing two sentences on social media. Anybody who likes the idea of Hannibal being black and this documentary depicting him that way should celebrate rather than paying attention to social media anonymous nobodies and feeling victimized.
If you want a real story find another article reacting negatively or questioning this casting in a known publication with a named author
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Yeah they never really settled more n enough people to set up trade entrepôts.
Still got Lebanese merchants in Senegal some committing 'racial suicide' marrying local girls and amalgamating culturally.
Shades of Hanno, Bafor 'religion', and doo.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Jari
Exactly!
Anyways, going onto something different, one should note that Phoenician settlements were quite small. More smaller compared to Greek settlements and their numbers only numbered in the hundreds.
quote:Material of about the same date comes from Utica, and of seventh-or sixth century date from Leptis Magna (Lebda),Hadrumetum(Sousse, Tipasa, Siga (Rachgoun), Lixus( on the Oued Loukkos) and Mogador, the last being the most distant Phoenician settlement so far known. Finds of parallel date have been made at Motya in Sicily,Nora(Nuri), Sulcis and Tharros (Torre di S. Giovanni) in Sardinia and at Cadiz and Almunecar in Spain. It must be emphasized that, unlike the settlements which the Greeks were making in Sicily,Italy and elsewhere in the 8th and 7th centuries, all the Phoenician settlements including Carthage itself,remained small places, with perhaps no more than a few hundred settlers at most, for generations. Furthermore,they long remained political subordinate to Tyre as was to be expected having regard to their prime function as anchorages and supply points.
General History of Africa, II Ancient Civilizations of Africa, James Currey, p.247
This seems to confirm that the original Phoenician settlers were absorbed by the native Carthaginians. But lets not forget other non-black settlers like those from Europe...
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Fortytwo Tribes posted this link on Atlantic Star.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This is like a trend now. Some magazines or news websites take some youtube comments or twitters by random nobodies and try to turn it into news. It's not a real story. It's a real story when people identified by first and last name organize and do something, not people typing two sentences on social media. Anybody who likes the idea of Hannibal being black and this documentary depicting him that way should celebrate rather than paying attention to social media anonymous nobodies and feeling victimized.
If you want a real story find another article reacting negatively or questioning this casting in a known publication with a named author
There have been debates over the race of Hannibal. This debate still continues till this day.
Here are some Youtube comments that where left below the clip:
quote:"The Phoenician port of Lpgy was founded at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC and first populated by the Garamantes. The city, which was part of the domain of Carthage, passed under the ephemeral control of Massinissa, King of Numidia. The Romans, who had quartered a garrison there during the war against Jugurtha, integrated it, in 46 BC, into the province of Africa while at the same time allowing it a certain measure of autonomy."
quote:"• 27 B.C.–14 A.D.The principate of Augustus is established. Rome is transformed into a city of marble. The Roman frontiers are expanded and semiconquered territories reinforced. Augustus reconciles with Parthia (22–19 B.C.), and his campaign against Garamantes in Africa is successful (19 B.C.). Many social and religious reforms are enacted. Gaul and its frontiers are organized (15–13 B.C.). The imperial mint at Lugdunum is founded (15–14 B.C.)."
quote:"The findings challenge a view dating back to Roman accounts that the Garamantes consisted of barbaric nomads and troublemakers on the edge of the Roman Empire.'
quote:"In the Sahara, population agglomeration is also evident in certain areas such as the Libyan Fezzan, which (albeit much later) also saw the emergence of an indigenous Saharan “civilization” in the form of the Garamantian Tribal Confederaion, the development of which has been described explicitly in terms of adaptation to increased aridity (Brooks, 2006; di Lernia et al., 2002; Mattingly et al., 2003)."
--Nick Brooks (2013): Beyond collapse: climate change and causality during the Middle Holocene Climatic Transition, 6400–5000 years before present, Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 112:2, 93-104
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Anybody who likes the idea of Hannibal being black and this documentary depicting him that way should celebrate rather than paying attention to social media anonymous nobodies and feeling victimized.
If you want a real story find another article reacting negatively or questioning this casting in a known publication with a named author
But you're right, it's rich to read the idioticy by these individuals, like Danny Brown.
quote:
Figurine of an israelite slave found in the Hecht Museum in the University of Haifa, Israel.
quote:The Earliest Known Image of the Virgin Mary (Circa 150 CE)
quote:
This fresco of Christ Among the Apostles is in an arcosolium of the Crypt of Ampliatus in the Catacombs of St. Domitilla in Rome. The Catacombs of Domitilla date from the 2nd through 4th centuries. According to W.F. Volbach, "The extent to which the type of the apostolic group as been developed suggests a 4th-century origin" for this particular fresco.
quote:
Original Depiction of Jesus, c. 3rd century Roman catacombs. The Christian catacombs are extremely important for the art history of Early Christian art, as they contain the great majority of examples from before about 400 AD, in fresco and sculpture.
quote:The wider Jewish world began taking more notice of the Ibo in 2012 - filmmaker Jeff Lieberman released a documentary “Re-emerging: The Jews of Nigeria,” and Northeastern University professor William F.S. Miles published “The Jews of Nigeria: An Afro-Judaic Odyssey."
I don't know what you're trying to tell, but thanks for your support post. I will post a few more for your collection, see below. And I am going to contact Dana on this one too.
quote: Mehri, Meheri, Mahri or Mahra (Arabic: مهري), also known as Arab Salah (Somali: Carab Saalax), is one of the largest tribes and a sub-tribe of the Himyarites inhabiting the Al Mahrah Governorate in Yemen, and other countries in the Arabian Peninsula such as the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The Meheri also inhabit the autonomous region of Puntland in northeastern Somalia. they have been proud nomads and fishermen for thousands of years. the mehri population are an estimated 136,000. they're mother tounge is Mehri but they also speak Arabic and Somali.
Mehri or Mahri is a Modern South Arabian language, a branch of the greater Semitic language family, and is spoken by the mehri populations in isolated areas of the eastern part of Yemen and western Oman. It is a remnant of the ancient indigenous language group spoken in the southern Arabian Peninsula before the spread of Arabic along with the Muslim religion in the 7th century CE. It is also spoken today in Kuwait by guest workers originally from these areas.
Given the dominance of the Arabic language in the region over the past 1,400 years and the high bilingualism with Arabic among Mehri speakers, Mehri is at some risk of extinction. It is primarily a spoken language with little existing in print and almost no literacy in the written form among native speakers.
Mehri had 71,000 speakers in Yemen, 51,000 in Oman and 14,400 in Kuwait reported in 2000 and un-estimated amount in Somalia. Mehri speakers are known in the region as the Mahra tribe.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Yeah they never really settled more n enough people to set up trade entrepôts.
Still got Lebanese merchants in Senegal some committing 'racial suicide' marrying local girls and amalgamating culturally.
Shades of Hanno, Bafor 'religion', and doo.
Aye... Sorry for the late reply. I'm trying to find additional sources detailing the settlement size of Carthage by the Phoenicians.
And those Lebanese men must love them some African women... Nothing new tho.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Yeah they never really settled more n enough people to set up trade entrepôts.
Still got Lebanese merchants in Senegal some committing 'racial suicide' marrying local girls and amalgamating culturally.
Shades of Hanno, Bafor 'religion', and doo.
Aye... Sorry for the late reply. I'm trying to find additional sources detailing the settlement size of Carthage by the Phoenicians.
And those Lebanese men must love them some African women... Nothing new tho.
Moors from Mauritania...Sadly these are the people who once owned Darker African slaves but as you can see these people are a shade lighter than their slaves. anyway..
Also Numidian coins may be related to Carthage
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Moors from Mauritania...Sadly these are the people who once owned Darker African slaves but as you can see these people are a shade lighter than their slaves. anyway..
Can you show which ethnic groups "enslaved" other ethnic groups?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
The Bidanes enslaved the Haratin, thats what the video is referencing.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Moors from Mauritania...Sadly these are the people who once owned Darker African slaves but as you can see these people are a shade lighter than their slaves. anyway..
Can you show which ethnic groups "enslaved" other ethnic groups?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The Bidanes enslaved the Haratin, thats what the video is referencing.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Moors from Mauritania...Sadly these are the people who once owned Darker African slaves but as you can see these people are a shade lighter than their slaves. anyway..
It really depends on what you consider to define an Ethnic group..do you consider culture the defining characteristic, if so then yes, the Bidanes/Haratin are techically different ethnic groups, as the Bidanes descend from Nomadic Berbers and Nomadic Arab invaders and the Heratin from Sedentary Africans from the Oasis of the Sahara and below the Desert..If not then they are just two North African people on Nomadic with some mixture from Invader Arabs and the other Sedentary also with some but less mixture with the Invaders. It has nothing to do with skin color but culture and Islamic interpretations and so called "Arab" lineages...
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The Bidanes enslaved the Haratin, thats what the video is referencing.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Moors from Mauritania...Sadly these are the people who once owned Darker African slaves but as you can see these people are a shade lighter than their slaves. anyway..
Can you show which ethnic groups "enslaved" other ethnic groups?
Are Bidanes and Haratin ethnic groups?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Bidan means white. Hartin varies in meaning.
In Mauritania both Beydane and Haritane are ethnic Maurs.
The latter have no affiliation with any Gnawa ('Guineans') ethnicities.
Ethnicity is not biologically determined, though in general most, even all, members are akin by phenotype. Ethnicity is lifestyle and cultural trappings. Or at least that was the meaning last century.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: It really depends on what you consider to define an Ethnic group..do you consider culture the defining characteristic, if so then yes, the Bidanes/Haratin are techically different ethnic groups, as the Bidanes descend from Nomadic Berbers and Nomadic Arab invaders and the Heratin from Sedentary Africans from the Oasis of the Sahara and below the Desert..If not then they are just two North African people on Nomadic with some mixture from Invader Arabs and the other Sedentary also with some but less mixture with the Invaders. It has nothing to do with skin color but culture and Islamic interpretations and so called "Arab" lineages...
The Tuareg/ Kel is a cluster name for several ethnic groups (tribe). Nomadic "Berbers" are clusters of several ethnic groups (tribes). I like to know which group(-s) you are referring at.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^Did you read what I wrote?, I dont know how I can answer you any further??
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Yes Both are Mauritanian Moors but the caste of Bidane is determined by Arab or Arab/Berber Nomadic Male lineage weather one is 1 shade Lighter or even in some cases Darker or the same shade as the Haratin.
In any case these are just Mauritanian Moors, lets not forget the Moors of other regions the Zenata of Morocco, linked to the Sanhadja and thus the Almoravids.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Bidan means white. Hartin varies in meaning.
In Mauritania both Beydane and Haritane are ethnic Maurs.
The latter have no affiliation with any Gnawa ('Guineans') ethnicities.
Ethnicity is not biologically determined, though in general most, even all, members are akin by phenotype. Ethnicity is lifestyle and cultural trappings. Or at least that was the meaning last century.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Did you read what I wrote?, I dont know how I can answer you any further??
Of course I reed what you wrote. But did you read what I wrote?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
whatever
I respect your tremendous contributions to these fora over the many years and won't split hairs with you ... -- yet.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
You asked me what people were in the video..I answered
You asked me if they were ethnic groups...again I answered...
now you ask me what ethnic groups Im speaking of...again.
If you have something to say just say it...because at this point Im confused.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Did you read what I wrote?, I dont know how I can answer you any further??
Of course I reed what you wrote. But did you read what I wrote?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You asked me what people were in the video..I answered
You asked me if they were ethnic groups...again I answered...
now you ask me what ethnic groups Im speaking of...again.
If you have something to say just say it...because at this point Im confused.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Did you read what I wrote?, I dont know how I can answer you any further??
Of course I reed what you wrote. But did you read what I wrote?
What I asked was:
"Can you show which ethnic groups "enslaved" other ethnic groups?" I was not referring to the videos, because I had not seen them. You answered with "Bidanes and Haratin" but those aren't ethnic groups (tribes).
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
No splitting hairs bro if Im wrong just let me know you know more about this than me..
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: whatever
I respect your tremendous contributions to these fora over the many years and won't split hairs with you ... -- yet.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Ish in my original post I never said anything about ethnic groups... how about we just get back to the topic
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You asked me what people were in the video..I answered
You asked me if they were ethnic groups...again I answered...
now you ask me what ethnic groups Im speaking of...again.
If you have something to say just say it...because at this point Im confused.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Did you read what I wrote?, I dont know how I can answer you any further??
Of course I reed what you wrote. But did you read what I wrote?
What I asked was:
"Can you show which ethnic groups "enslaved" other ethnic groups?" I was not referring to the videos, because I had not seen them. You answered with "Bidanes and Haratin" but those aren't ethnic groups (tribes).
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ish in my original post I never said anything about ethnic groups... how about we just get back to the topic
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You asked me what people were in the video..I answered
You asked me if they were ethnic groups...again I answered...
now you ask me what ethnic groups Im speaking of...again.
If you have something to say just say it...because at this point Im confused.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Did you read what I wrote?, I dont know how I can answer you any further??
Of course I reed what you wrote. But did you read what I wrote?
What I asked was:
"Can you show which ethnic groups "enslaved" other ethnic groups?" I was not referring to the videos, because I had not seen them. You answered with "Bidanes and Haratin" but those aren't ethnic groups (tribes).
Was it the Ttan, Tgor or Tgos in particular who were envoled in the slave trade?
Dr. Anja Fischer did a pretty good job here, from what I can tell.
The term Tawariq originates from the Arabic language. It was first mentioned in the writings of Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) (Casajus 2000: 19). The terms Touareg and Tuareg are incorrect transcriptions from the Arabic term Tawariq into French (Hureiki 2003: 58).
Tawariq is the plural of Tariq (masc.sg.) and not of Targui. The term Targui (Targi) is an invention of French colonial writers (Hureiki 2003: 58). Hence Targuia (Targia) is not the female singular form, but Tariqat. Consequently, Tuareg/Touareg is already the plural and it is not necessary to add a “s” in order to build the plural. In the Sahara region the term Tuareg is used as a swear word and is comparable with the use of the word gypsy.
MEANING:
Tawariq – The ghosts of the night?
The Arabic term Tariq (Tawariq) has different meanings. According to Hureiki it could be translated as “ghosts of the night” or “morning star” (In detail see Hureiki 2003:60ff.).
Tawariq – abandoned by God?
The term was first mentioned in scripts in Timbuktu in the 16th century (Hureiki 2003: 65). Tawariq has the linguistic root “t-r-q”. Mauritanian authors, declared enemies of the Imushar, started to spell the term Tawariq with the root “t-r-k” in the chronicles of Timbuktu during the 18th century. In doing so they traced the term back to the verb taraka (t-r-k), which means “to abandon”. Consequently, the interpretation of Tawariq meaning “abandoned by God” arose.
But not only Arab people walked right into the “orthographic trap” of the moors (Hureiki 2003: 66), but also European travelers like Duveyrier (1864: 317-318) and Barth (1965: 227-228), who visited the Arabic moors in Timbuktu.
Tawariq – The Abandoned?
According to the etymology of Banu Hilal, an Arabic conqueror of North Africa, the term Tuareg derives from the word Taraka (to abandon). The legend says that a hero called Dhiyab released a city from evil ghosts or a snake. As a reward he got 40 virgins, who he married to his followers. They abandoned the women and the fatherless children were called Tuareg (Klute 2013: 182 from Norris 1975).
Tuareg – Targa?
It is said, that the origin of the term stems from an area close to Ubari in Libya called Targa (Keenan 1977: 15; Sudlow 2001: 3)
But the question is, why the Tuareg society should be named after that region, when the people of the area were called Garamantes. There is no historical evidence that prove any connection between Targa and Tawariq. The region is also called Targa (according to Foucauld). The term targa is translated as “irrigation canal” in the dictionary of Kabyle-Francais (Dallet 1982). Hence the term "Targa" (t-r-g) and "Tawariq/Tariq/Tuareg " (t-r-g) do not have the same root. An irrigation canal is also called Tagohamt in Tamahaq. Furthermore, Arabic chroniclers reported on a society called “Tawariq” with the singular “Tariq” and not “Targa” ever since the Middle Ages.
The development of the Berber term Targa/Targa as the overall term for society into the Arabic term Tawariq (Tuareg) would be rather astonishing from a linguistic perspective.
Until now the only clear thing is that the transcription from the Arabic term Tawariq into T(o)uareg is a colonial fabrication.
The etymology of the term Tuareg is still not resolved and at the same time not really relevant, because members of the society called themselves Imuhar/Imuschar or Imascheren and not Tuareg.
Although the term Tuareg contains a certain “allure” among Europeans and Americans, the term is used as swear word in North and West Africa.
In contemporary Europe it is common to no longer call Roma and Sinti peoples Gypsies and the Inuit no longer Eskimos. Similarly, in the near future, the Imuhar/Imuschar/Imascheren are hopefully no longer called Tuareg.
Who are my teachers? All of them (meaning everybody including you in particular).
I'mjjust another point of view
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: No splitting hairs bro if Im wrong just let me know you know more about this than me..
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: whatever
I respect your tremendous contributions to these fora over the many years and won't split hairs with you ... -- yet.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
But of course Bidane and Haritane are ethnic groups. They're two sub-ethnies of Maur. Zenaga are a sub-ethny of Bidane.
Why wouldn't Bafor be the primary component of Haritane? Haratine have no love for Soninke, Wolof, or halPulaaren less lone identify as such.
Mauritania is a nasty country and I'd rather claim Senegal though Futa Toro is on both sides of the river.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You asked me what people were in the video..I answered
You asked me if they were ethnic groups...again I answered...
now you ask me what ethnic groups Im speaking of...again.
If you have something to say just say it...because at this point Im confused.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Did you read what I wrote?, I dont know how I can answer you any further??
Of course I reed what you wrote. But did you read what I wrote?
What I asked was:
"Can you show which ethnic groups "enslaved" other ethnic groups?" I was not referring to the videos, because I had not seen them. You answered with "Bidanes and Haratin" but those aren't ethnic groups (tribes).
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: But of course Bidane and Haritane are ethnic groups. They're two sub-ethnies of Maur. Zenaga are a sub-ethny of Bidane.
Why wouldn't Bafor be the primary component of Haritane? Haratine have no love for Soninke, Wolof, or halPulaaren less lone identify as such.
Mauritania is a nasty country and I'd rather claim Senegal though Futa Toro is on both sides of the river.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You asked me what people were in the video..I answered
You asked me if they were ethnic groups...again I answered...
now you ask me what ethnic groups Im speaking of...again.
If you have something to say just say it...because at this point Im confused.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Did you read what I wrote?, I dont know how I can answer you any further??
Of course I reed what you wrote. But did you read what I wrote?
What I asked was:
"Can you show which ethnic groups "enslaved" other ethnic groups?" I was not referring to the videos, because I had not seen them. You answered with "Bidanes and Haratin" but those aren't ethnic groups (tribes).
So, we're talking about the Zenaga (Sanhaja) from Mauri specifically?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
We already KNOW that Berbers origins lie and Africa and again we KNOW the native population of Carthage were African.
Can we PLEASE keep thread about Hannibal? I don't know how this thread got about certain Berber groups.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: So, we're talking about the Zenaga (Sanhaja) from Mauri specifically? [/QB]
Haratin in Mauritania[edit] See also: Slavery in Mauritania In Mauritania, the Haratin form one of the largest ethnic groups and account for as much as 40% of the Mauritanians. They are sometimes referred to as "Black Moors",[2] in contrast to Beidane, or "White Moors". The Haratin are Arabic-speakers and generally claim a Berber or Arab origin. This is unlike the sub-Saharan African peoples in southern Mauritania (such as the Wolof and the Soninke). The Haratine, in contrast, consider themselves part of the Moorish community. Their origin is unclear: some are thought to be the descendants of traded slaves from other regions of Africa (Central and Eastern Africa Sahel region) while others are thought to be descendants of a sedentary population of who have lived in the location since the Neolithic period when the Sahara was occupied by black skinned people.[3]
Most Haratine are descended from Bambara, Fulani, Soninké and Wolof people, groups that fled south beyond the Senegal River valley when the Berbers, and later the Moors, settled in the region during the 3rd century CE. Those who remained intermarried with the Berbers and Arabs.[4] They were historically the rulers of kingdoms spread all over North Africa.[5]
Although the Mauritanian government has issued emancipation declarations, discrimination against Haratin is still widespread, and some continue to be, for all practical purposes, enslaved, while large numbers live in other forms of informal dependence on their former masters. Amnesty International reported that in 1994 90,000 Haratine still lived as "property" of their master, with the report indicating that "slavery in Mauritania is most dominant within the traditional upper class of the Moors."[6]
The report also observed that "[s]ocial attitudes have changed among most urban Moors, but in rural areas, the ancient divide is still very alive." There have been many attempts to assess the real extension of slavery in modern Mauritania, but these have mostly been frustrated by the Nouakchott government's official stance that the practice has been eliminated. Amnesty further estimated that some 300,000 freed slaves continued to serve their former masters because of psychological or economic dependence.[6]
Which Sahara or Sahel society did not hold people in slavery?
While there's no overt trade today and to westerners the word used would be client not slave.
Better to be a client of Twareg or Fulani than of a Maur (though when they bring their clients into the USA for instance the Maur are never condescending to them in public).
-:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: What I asked was:
"Can you show which ethnic groups "enslaved" other ethnic groups?" I was not referring to the videos, because I had not seen them. You answered with "Bidanes and Haratin" ...
quote:Was it the Ttan, Tgor or Tgos in particular who were envoled in the slave trade?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: So, we're talking about the Zenaga (Sanhaja) from Mauri specifically?
Haratin in Mauritania[edit] See also: Slavery in Mauritania In Mauritania, the Haratin form one of the largest ethnic groups and account for as much as 40% of the Mauritanians. They are sometimes referred to as "Black Moors",[2] in contrast to Beidane, or "White Moors". The Haratin are Arabic-speakers and generally claim a Berber or Arab origin. This is unlike the sub-Saharan African peoples in southern Mauritania (such as the Wolof and the Soninke). The Haratine, in contrast, consider themselves part of the Moorish community. Their origin is unclear: some are thought to be the descendants of traded slaves from other regions of Africa (Central and Eastern Africa Sahel region) while others are thought to be descendants of a sedentary population of who have lived in the location since the Neolithic period when the Sahara was occupied by black skinned people.[3]
Most Haratine are descended from Bambara, Fulani, Soninké and Wolof people, groups that fled south beyond the Senegal River valley when the Berbers, and later the Moors, settled in the region during the 3rd century CE. Those who remained intermarried with the Berbers and Arabs.[4] They were historically the rulers of kingdoms spread all over North Africa.[5]
Although the Mauritanian government has issued emancipation declarations, discrimination against Haratin is still widespread, and some continue to be, for all practical purposes, enslaved, while large numbers live in other forms of informal dependence on their former masters. Amnesty International reported that in 1994 90,000 Haratine still lived as "property" of their master, with the report indicating that "slavery in Mauritania is most dominant within the traditional upper class of the Moors."[6]
The report also observed that "[s]ocial attitudes have changed among most urban Moors, but in rural areas, the ancient divide is still very alive." There have been many attempts to assess the real extension of slavery in modern Mauritania, but these have mostly been frustrated by the Nouakchott government's official stance that the practice has been eliminated. Amnesty further estimated that some 300,000 freed slaves continued to serve their former masters because of psychological or economic dependence.[6]
That is a western interpretation. You still haven't told my which ethnic (tribe) groups in particular did what and what not. And what kind of slave work did/ does the Haratine fulfill?
What I notice in your post are building contradictions.
-"They are sometimes referred to as "Black Moors",[2] in contrast to Beidane, or "White Moors". The Haratin are Arabic-speakers and generally claim a Berber or Arab origin. This is unlike the sub-Saharan African peoples in southern Mauritan"
-Most Haratine are descended from Bambara, Fulani, Soninké and Wolof people, groups that fled south beyond the Senegal River valley when the Berbers, and later the Moors, settled in the region during the 3rd century CE. Those who remained intermarried with the Berbers and Arabs.[4] They were historically the rulers of kingdoms spread all over North Africa.[5]
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Aw s h I t man
Which Sahara or Sahel society did not hold people in slavery?
While there's no overt trade today and to westerners the word used would be client not slave.
Better to be a client of Twareg or Fulani than of a Maur (though when they bring their clients into the USA for instance the Maur are never condescending to them in public).
-:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: What I asked was:
"Can you show which ethnic groups "enslaved" other ethnic groups?" I was not referring to the videos, because I had not seen them. You answered with "Bidanes and Haratin" ...
quote:Was it the Ttan, Tgor or Tgos in particular who were envoled in the slave trade?
I know the client was to pay his/ her debt, then go free. Or at least that in the traditional sense. But slavery has existed in different societies, so yes that makes it complex.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Look it up in google:
beidane haratine slave
4,360 results
_________________
this is some rare topic you can't find information on?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Look it up in google:
beidane haratine slave
4,360 results
_________________
this is some rare topic you can't find information on?
How does that answer the question I am addressing, on ethnic (tribal) designation? Why is it they never write they specific ethnic designation? And yes of course I can find info on "beidane haratine slave" in any search engine. However, that is not the question.
I took a quick look at "DOCUMENTARY: THE LONG PATH TO FREEDOM". There are "former slaves" of different color complexions.
quote: Caste is the most specific of these crucial concepts. When applied to West African societies, it is used in the very general meaning of the division of societies into hierarchically-ranked, endogamous-occupational groups. The relationship between these has ritual as well as economic significance.
All of the groups in the western Sudan who were integrated and functioning parts of one or more indigenous empires of the past, share a basic common class structure: Free People (nobles and commoners), Casted People (different craftsmen), Artisans and Entertainers (griots), Freed People (former slaves) and Slaves. Likewise, the caste division of these structures is largely the same (weavers, leatherworkers, entertainers, etc...). The similarly of social structure, the migratory nature of the area’s population, the fact that marriage rules apply more strictly to first marriages and become progressively looser thereafter, and that except for slave status, the offspring’s status follows the father’s, permits a much greater social mobility over a generation or two than would otherwise seem likely.
To understand Mauritanian society, one must understand its ethnic groups, its tribes, social-economic classes and its castes. The major ethic groups and subdivision are as follows:
The Hassaniya speakers who predominate over the majority of the country except along the river are divisible into two crucial subgroups – the Beydane or white Moors and the Haratine or black Moors. The Beydane are traditionally further divided into Z’waya (religious or marabout groups), M’allmin (craftsmen) and Igawen (entertainers). Besides the traditional occupation by which these subgroups are identified, they generally involve themselves in some other types commercial trading, livestock raising or both.
The Haratine are commonly referred to as “freed slaves,” in contrast to the term Abid that means a captured slave. They are viewed as the descendants of former black slaves that were originally taken from along the river, Mali or Senegal. Some live as an integral part of a larger Beydane encampment. Others have their own encampments and work as herders or are settled in Haratine agricultural communities. Haratines generally categorize themselves in the following groups: Arabs, Africans or distinctly different group. While they are generally held in low esteem in some areas of Mauritania, Haratine are considered higher than *Zenaga. This is especially true in eastern areas where some Haratine groups have risen above their normal sharecropper role to acquire considerable herds of animals.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: So, we're talking about the Zenaga (Sanhaja) from Mauri specifically?
Haratin in Mauritania[edit] See also: Slavery in Mauritania In Mauritania, the Haratin form one of the largest ethnic groups and account for as much as 40% of the Mauritanians. They are sometimes referred to as "Black Moors",[2] in contrast to Beidane, or "White Moors". The Haratin are Arabic-speakers and generally claim a Berber or Arab origin. This is unlike the sub-Saharan African peoples in southern Mauritania (such as the Wolof and the Soninke). The Haratine, in contrast, consider themselves part of the Moorish community. Their origin is unclear: some are thought to be the descendants of traded slaves from other regions of Africa (Central and Eastern Africa Sahel region) while others are thought to be descendants of a sedentary population of who have lived in the location since the Neolithic period when the Sahara was occupied by black skinned people.[3]
Most Haratine are descended from Bambara, Fulani, Soninké and Wolof people, groups that fled south beyond the Senegal River valley when the Berbers, and later the Moors, settled in the region during the 3rd century CE. Those who remained intermarried with the Berbers and Arabs.[4] They were historically the rulers of kingdoms spread all over North Africa.[5]
Although the Mauritanian government has issued emancipation declarations, discrimination against Haratin is still widespread, and some continue to be, for all practical purposes, enslaved, while large numbers live in other forms of informal dependence on their former masters. Amnesty International reported that in 1994 90,000 Haratine still lived as "property" of their master, with the report indicating that "slavery in Mauritania is most dominant within the traditional upper class of the Moors."[6]
The report also observed that "[s]ocial attitudes have changed among most urban Moors, but in rural areas, the ancient divide is still very alive." There have been many attempts to assess the real extension of slavery in modern Mauritania, but these have mostly been frustrated by the Nouakchott government's official stance that the practice has been eliminated. Amnesty further estimated that some 300,000 freed slaves continued to serve their former masters because of psychological or economic dependence.[6]
That is a western interpretation. You still haven't told my which ethnic (tribe) groups in particular did what and what not. And what kind of slave work did/ does the Haratine fulfill?
What I notice in your post are building contradictions.
Mauritania has a caste system and it doesn't go strictly by tribal groups and contradictory aspects are a reality there. What is different from India is that there is more mixing between the groups. The upper caste are those people who claim more Arab ancestry.
Mauritania’s socio-cultural situation often strikes outsiders as unusually complex and difficult to understand. It certainly is different from which most westerners are acculturated and provides a refreshing opportunity to cleanse one’s mind of numerous ethnocentric stereotypes. This is especially true of four crucial concepts: tribe, ethnic group, class and caste. These four terms are continuously confused and the term “tribe” is often misused. A tribe is a political unit. This unit may claim descent from a common ancestor or not. What is important is they recognize belonging to a unit that is based on some present or past common interest in exerting power: either to obtain or protect themselves, or their resources. Tribes are concrete entities made up of individual members who can gather, appoint leaders, make war, etc. People can be admitted into or thrown out of a tribe. For westerners, a tribe is very similar to a Scottish clan. An ethnic group is a somewhat more abstract entity than a tribe. Its existence is based on the feeling of a shared identity on the part of people who possess a common life style, language, religion, or other major cultural institution. One belongs to an ethnic group because both the individual and others “feel” they belong. A person is neither admitted into nor thrown out of an ethnic group. Often, people of the same ethnic group deny the legitimacy of each other’s claimed identity. There is no inherent political basis to ethnic identity, though political units can manipulate ethnic differences for such purposes. Members of the same ethnic group need not be allies and in fact, may have been enemies. Class is a still more abstract concept than ethnic group. People are members of the same class when someone “classifies” them together as members of a certain class. There is not a prerequisite for ascribing membership. Someone can be classified as a member of the working class based on the job he does even if he believes he is a descendant of the King of England and entitled to be considered as royalty. Caste is the most specific of these crucial concepts. When applied to West African societies, it is used in the very general meaning of the division of societies into hierarchically-ranked, endogamous-occupational groups. The relationship between these has ritual as well as economic significance. All of the groups in the western Sudan who were integrated and functioning parts of one or more indigenous empires of the past, share a basic common class structure: Free People (nobles and commoners), Casted People (different craftsmen), Artisans and Entertainers (griots), Freed People (former slaves) and Slaves. Likewise, the caste division of these structures is largely the same (weavers, leatherworkers, entertainers, etc...). The similarly of social structure, the migratory nature of the area’s population, the fact that marriage rules apply more strictly to first marriages and become progressively looser thereafter, and that except for slave status, the offspring’s status follows the father’s, permits a much greater social mobility over a generation or two than would otherwise seem likely. To understand Mauritanian society, one must understand its ethnic groups, its tribes, social-economic classes and its castes. The major ethic groups and subdivision are as follows: The Hassaniya speakers who predominate over the majority of the country except along the river are divisible into two crucial subgroups – the Beydane or white Moors and the Haratine or black Moors. The Beydane are traditionally further divided into Z’waya (religious or marabout groups), M’allmin (craftsmen) and Igawen (entertainers). Besides the traditional occupation by which these subgroups are identified, they generally involve themselves in some other types commercial trading, livestock raising or both. The Haratine are commonly referred to as “freed slaves,” in contrast to the term Abid that means a captured slave. They are viewed as the descendants of former black slaves that were originally taken from along the river, Mali or Senegal. Some live as an integral part of a larger Beydane encampment. Others have their own encampments and work as herders or are settled in Haratine agricultural communities. Haratines generally categorize themselves in the following groups: Arabs, Africans or distinctly different group. While they are generally held in low esteem in some areas of Mauritania, Haratine are considered higher than Zenaga. This is especially true in eastern areas where some Haratine groups have risen above their normal sharecropper role to acquire considerable herds of animals. The Halpulaar are speakers of the Pulaar language. The largest group is the Toucouleur, and make up the agricultural populations that dominate both sides of the Senegal River. Prior to colonial domination, they lived under a highly stratified theocracy. While the traditional division of their society into Rimbe (free men), Nyenybe (artisans) and Maccube (captives) still has meaning in terms of individual social status, it no longer dictates actual occupations or the power relationships between different subgroups and particular individuals. The Peul (Fulbe, Fula or Fulani) are Halpulaar cattle pastoralists whose migration patterns often include Mali and Senegal. In terms of social status, the Peul largely function as a semi-itinerant cattle-owning class, equivalent to status to the Trobe (Halpulaar religious nobles). Some confusion as to their practices and class exist because many of their former slaves (Rimiibe) have adopted their lifestyle and present themselves as “authentic Peul.” The Soninke (Sarakolle) are predominant in the Guidimaka region, which borders eastern Senegal and Mali. They still maintain a highly stratified social structure and their organization closely resembles that of the Malian Bambara. This social structure includes slavery. It stresses hard work, close cooperation and extremely tight extended family relations under the authority of a patriarch. From the beginning of their history, the Soninke have been closely associated with male exploitation of migratory economic activities either as traders or laborers. Local power was traditionally allotted and maintained by several powerful lineage groups. Perhaps the greatest reversal they have suffered since independence is to see their region of Mauritania, which was a favored commercial river trade outlet in colonial times, become a backwater to a distant coastal capital. The Wolof is the single largest ethnic group in Senegal. While they too have a traditionally stratified class society, its traditional divisions are largely meaningless today. This is especially true among the expatriate communities found in Mauritania near the border region around Rosso and in the capital, Nouakchott. Because they are the predominant group in Senegal, they can more easily integrate into the Senegalese society. Therefore, their presence in Mauritania generally represents a response to opportunities that already existed and they profitably exploited (i.e. urban skills such as carpentry, masonry, etc.). Of all these groups, only the Hassaniya-speaking Beydanes and Haratine have tribes. The Toucouleur, Peul, Wolof and Soninke are not tribes nor do they belong to tribes. They are united in extended family groups of different sizes and cohesion while their settlements may be divided into sections referred to as Halagaiz, Halgay or Halagai (circles). The Toucouleur and Wolof live in settled communities along the river that are not only permanent but are quite ancient in some cases. Such settlements are often characterized by substantial investments in both personal and community physical infrastructure (houses and mosque). Depending on size, they are further divisible into neighborhoods (quartiers) and family concessions. The same is true of the Soninke, except that these communities are usually inland and more cohesive than those of the Toucouleur and Wolof. The Peul tend to live in smaller hamlets (wuro) usually composed of straw huts that are sometimes surrounded by flimsy fences. If the whole family travels with the herd, these are occupied seasonally. Other times, only specific herders (teenage boys) will leave with the animals and the others stay home. This pattern generally is referred to as transhumance – having fixed home locations but with substantial seasonal movement of at least some members of the household. However, these fixed locations are neither as permanent nor do they function as an interdependent community as do Toucouleur communities. Of course today the situation is rapidly changing. In the last two decades, the country’s population has gone from being two-thirds nomad, one-third sedentary, to exactly the opposite (one-third nomad, two-thirds sedentary). The change has been so recent that Mauritania does not yet have a well-established urban population with severed ties from the rural population. Most urban dwellers from the head of state to the unemployed squatter, are still closely tied to rural values and specific rural communities. Hassaniya or Moor culture has traditionally been a nomadic society with links to trading, religious centers, and oases areas. Most of the relationships that unite people are therefore more social than residential due to the fluid residential patterns. Geographic identity is very important. It usually occurs on the level of regional identities and is expressed when people find themselves third-party strangers (i.e. in Nouakchott, people often see a unity among those from Trarza, as opposed to others from Tagant or Adrar). This phenomenon is being somewhat both expressed and catered to by the government’s decision to denote administrative regions by their traditional names. The social cement that unties people extends across regions. Basically, a Beydane belongs to one of a large number of tribes or clans (Qabila) whose members theoretically descend from a common ancestor. These, however, generally are large and ancient to the point of having little meaning in terms of the management of everyday life. As a result they break down into smaller factions called Fakhdh or fractions. In theory, members of the same Fakhdh also descend from a common descendant of the original founder of the Qabila. In reality, membership in both a Qabila and Fakhdh can change, which are as much an alliance of people with similar social status as they are actual kin groups. It is usually the Fakhdh that is the actual functioning alliance and members of different Fakhdh of the same Qabila may be actually allied against each other. The Fakhdh themselves are composed of patrilineal extended families (father and sons) called Ahel. The Ahel are the most fundamentally important kin units, especially since divorce is quite frequent in many areas and the nuclear family of husband, wife and children is unstable. In the rural areas, the basic living unit is the Khayma or tent. It is generally synonymous with the nuclear family. The Frig is the encampment of which three different categories are generally recognized: (1) small Frig from 1-15 tents, generally referred to as a Khyam; (2) Frig of 10-20 tents called Nezla; and (3) very large encampments are called V’rig Massa. The Massa where the chief has his tent is referred to as Helle or El Qariya (the tribal center). It can be said that tribal and social barriers tend to merge and Mauritanians from all areas can be found in government positions and all tend to interact socially. While change is occurring in regard to ethnic, tribal and class identity, the old categories are still operative, applicable, and crucial for a proper understanding of the country’s present socio-economic situation. A brief description such as this cannot do justice to either the complexity of the subject for the reader who wishes to acquire a profound knowledge of the culture. It is hoped, however, that it will provide what is necessary to understanding the basic milieu.
In December 2014, Mohamed Mkhaïtir, a blogger who was held in pre-trial detention for almost a year, was sentenced to death for apostasy at the Nouadhibou Court in northwest Mauritania. He had written a blog criticizing the use of religion to marginalize certain groups in society, and was still in detention at the end of 2015.2
In January, the Rosso Court in southern Mauritania sentenced Brahim Bilal Ramdane, Djiby Sow and Biram Dah Abeid, a former presidential candidate and president of the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement in Mauritania, to two years in prison for belonging to an unrecognized organization, participating in an unauthorized assembly and assaulting security officers. The three activists were arrested in November 2014 with other protesters while campaigning against slavery and raising awareness among the local population of the land rights of people of slave descent. Their sentences were upheld by the Appeal Court of Aleg in August 2015.3
In August, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association called on the National Assembly to reject a draft law on civil society associations that had been approved by the Council of Ministers without public consultation.
In November, retired colonel Oumar Ould Beibacar was arrested at a political rally in the capital Nouakchott, during which he spoke of the extrajudicial execution of military officers in the 1990s. He was detained at the Nouakchott Directorate for National Security and released six days later but remained under judicial supervision.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
NEW MAURITANIAN ANTI-SLAVERY LAW IS WORTHLESS IF IT IS NOT IMPLEMENTED.
Press Release
Minority Rights Group International (MRGI) and Anti-Slavery International welcomed the adoption of a new anti-slavery law in Mauritania but said that it will be worthless if it is not implemented.
Slavery has been criminalised in Mauritania since 2007 but only one conviction has so far been achieved, and the perpetrator not only was handed a sentence of less than the legal minimum provided by the law, but also walked free pending an appeal that has never taken place.
“The real issue is the lack of political and judicial will to end slavery”, said Carla Clarke, Senior Legal Officer at MRGI.
“Passing legislation is relatively simple. Implementing it however requires real commitment which we simply have not seen”, she said. “Instead, we’ve seen the complete opposite with numerous complaints brought under the existing 2007 law failing because of lack of adequate investigation by the authorities or cases simply languishing in the courts without any hearings.”
Sarah Mathewson, Africa Programme Co-ordinator at Anti-Slavery International said:
“There are positives in the new law but if we see the same level of resistance to implementation as with the current law, then it will be worthless.”
The new law was passed last Thursday 13 August and replaces an earlier 2007 law which criminalised slavery in Mauritania for the first time. This law declares slavery a crime against humanity and raises the act of slavery from an ‘offence’ to a ‘crime’, raising sentences of imprisonment to 10 to 20 years. It also creates special tribunals in each region to address issues related to slavery, although the details of the new system have not been revealed.
Moreover, the law is lacking in provisions relating to protecting the rights of victims of slavery and takes no account of the amendments proposed by civil society and the UN Human Rights Council.
The most positive element of the new legislation is allowing third party human rights organisations to bring cases on behalf of victims. So far the victims have commonly faced pressure to drop their complaints as they remain economically and psychologically dependent on their masters and mistresses.
However, the new law was adopted during the same week that a draft law restricting the freedom of association of NGOs was being discussed, potentially threatening the ability of organisations campaigning against slavery to act on behalf of the victims.
In an example of the treatment such organisations commonly receive from the government, the leaders of the Initiative for the Resurgence of Abolitionism (IRA) are currently in jail for campaigning against slavery, convicted of ‘belonging to an illegal organisation’, in spite of repeated attempts to submit applications for official registration without any response or explanation.
Sarah Mathewson said:
“It is ironic that the Mauritanian government congratulates itself on passing the new anti-slavery law on the one hand but is prosecuting anti-slavery activists on spurious charges and is planning to quash whatever little freedom anti-slavery organisations have with the other.”
In December 2014, Mohamed Mkhaïtir, a blogger who was held in pre-trial detention for almost a year, was sentenced to death for apostasy at the Nouadhibou Court in northwest Mauritania. He had written a blog criticizing the use of religion to marginalize certain groups in society, and was still in detention at the end of 2015.2
In January, the Rosso Court in southern Mauritania sentenced Brahim Bilal Ramdane, Djiby Sow and Biram Dah Abeid, a former presidential candidate and president of the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement in Mauritania, to two years in prison for belonging to an unrecognized organization, participating in an unauthorized assembly and assaulting security officers. The three activists were arrested in November 2014 with other protesters while campaigning against slavery and raising awareness among the local population of the land rights of people of slave descent. Their sentences were upheld by the Appeal Court of Aleg in August 2015.3
In August, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association called on the National Assembly to reject a draft law on civil society associations that had been approved by the Council of Ministers without public consultation.
In November, retired colonel Oumar Ould Beibacar was arrested at a political rally in the capital Nouakchott, during which he spoke of the extrajudicial execution of military officers in the 1990s. He was detained at the Nouakchott Directorate for National Security and released six days later but remained under judicial supervision.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Slavery in Tunisia was a specific manifestation of the Arab slave trade. Abolished on 23 January 1846 by Ahmed I Bey, then by France after the installation of the French Protectorate of Tunisia, slavery nevertheless persisted until the beginning of the twentieth century.
Tunisia was in a similar position to that of Algeria, with a geographic position which linked it the main Trans-Saharan routes. It received caravans from Fezzan and Ghadamès, which consisted solely, in the eighteenth century, of gold powder and slaves, according to contemporary witnesses. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, slaves arrived annually in numbers ranging between 500 and 1,200. From Tunisia they were carried on to the ports of the Levant.
Tunsian slaves derived from two principle zones: Europe and a large area stretching from West Africa to Lake Chad. The kingdoms of Bornu and the region of Fezzan provided the majority of caravans. The greater part of the slaves were reduced to slavery in local wars between rival tribes or in abduction raids. Caravan routes from many Saharan centres terminated at Tunis. In addition to Ghadamès, which connected the beylik to Fezzan, Morzouk and the Kingdom of Bornou, Timbuktu was in regular contact with the Beylik via the caravan route which passed through M'zab and Djerid and put the country in touch with African groups and peoples of a large zone touching the Bambara lands, the city of Djenne and several regions of the central West Africa. The names of slaves and freedmen reported in archival documents confirm these multiple, diverse origins: beseide common names like Burnaoui, Ghdamsi and Ouargli, are names indicating origin in other centres of West Africa like Jennaoui and Tombouctaoui.
European slaves, for their part, were captured in the course of razzias on the coast of the European lands, mostly Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and from the capture of European ships. The men were used for diverse tasks (galleys, slave drivers, public works, etc.), while women were used as domestic workers and in harems. Unlike the men, it was very rare for women to be freed, although the women often converted to Islam.
On 29 April 1841, Ahmed I Bey had an interview with Thomas Reade who advised him to ban the slave trade. Ahmed I was convinced of the necessity of this action; himself the son of a slave, he was considered open to progress and quick to act against all forms of fanaticism. He decided to ban the export of slaves the same day that he met with Reade. Proceeding in stages, he closed the slave market of Tunis in August and declared in December 1842 that everyone born in the country would thereafter be free.[8]
To alleviate discontent, Ahmed obtained fatwas from the ulama beforehand from the Bach-mufti Sidi Brahim Riahi, which forbade slavery, categorically and without any precedent in the Arab Muslim world. The complete abolition of slavery throughout the country was declared in a decree of 23 January 1846.[9][10] However, although the abolition was accepted by the urban population, it was rejected - according to Ibn Abi Dhiaf - at Djerba, among the Bedouins, and among the peasants who required a cheap and obedient workforce.[11]
This resistance justified the second abolition announced by the French in a decree of Ali III Bey on 28 May 1890.[12] This decree promulgated financial sanctions (in the form of fines) and penal sanctions (in the form of imprisonment) for those who continued to engage in the slave trade or to keep slaves as servants. The colonial accounts tended to pass over the first abolition and focus on the second.
Over the second half of the nineteenth century, the majority of the old slaves, male or female, formed an urban underclass, relying on their former masters or living in precarious circumstances (foundouks on the outskirts). Often they work as bread sellers, street merchants, masseurs in the Moorish baths, domestic servants or simple criminals, easily nabbed by the municipal police for drunkenness or petty larceny. Up to 10% of prostitutes in Tunis are descended from former slaves.[13] After abolition, then, a process of impoverishment and social marginalisation of the old slaves took place because enfranchisement had secured legal emancipation but not social freedom.
___________________________________
Huffington Post, Black Voices
Slavery’s Legacy Still Echoes In Tunisia’s All-Black Village 03/11/2015
He is black, she is white. They get to know each other as their families’ goats and sheep graze under the row of palm trees that separates his village of Gosba from her village of Drouj. They fall in love. The family of Soulef, who is white, refuses to let her marry Ameur, a black man. She does not care and goes to live with him on the other side of the palm trees. The year is 2000.
Fifteen years later, the inhabitants of Gosba continue to tell the story of “the runaway” who came to live with them. Today she lives in a one-room abode on some thin mattresses, with her husband and their three sons. A small TV, its images flickering with fatigue since it is never turned off, is perched on a wooden chair. There is nothing else. Soulef says that until last year she had not seen her family for 14 years, even though they live less than a mile away. They could almost wave to one another from afar.
Not even on a map
Those who know of it call it the “village of blacks,” located in the Medenine region of southeastern Tunisia.
Somewhere in the district of Sidi Makhlouf, Gosba does not appear on any map. The village has about 5,000 inhabitants and one concrete road, the one that comes from Sidi Makhlouf, the capital of the district. Some paths link the various plots, which are spaced widely apart.
From a distance, it looks like a huge wasteland dotted with brick houses. Up close, it looks the same. The houses are mostly the color of the cement they were built with, except for a few that have been painted for weddings.
The economy is practically non-existent. A few men are farmers, but it is hard to tell what they grow. Others are fishermen or hold seasonal employment on the tourist island of Djerba. Women spend their days collecting shellfish on a beach just over six miles away.
And yes, everyone in Gosba is black. Well, almost.
An invisible wall
Only 10 or so women stand out for their “whiteness.” Other than Soulef, they all come from “far away.” All the other inhabitants of Gosba were born here.
Seen from Gosba, the surrounding villages of Drouj and Sidi Makhlouf are “white” villages. It’s as if an invisible wall cuts Gosba off from the world, forcing the “blacks” to remain among themselves.
Mixed marriages are very rare. There are many legends which seek to explain this separation, passed down from fathers or grandfathers.
Béchir, an English teacher, firmly believes in his version. According to him, three slaves, all brothers, who worked on a plantation on the other side of the palm trees during the 19th century stood up to their “white” master. The master ended up placing them on the land that constitutes Gosba today.
The community grew with the abolition of slavery, a process that started officially in 1846 but was not effectively completed until the end of the 19th century. From these three brothers the three Gosba tribes were born.
If she doubts the truth of the legends, Italian researcher Marta Scaglioni, based in Gosba, considers it “very likely” that the inhabitants of Gosba are the direct descendants of slaves. “It is on the slave trade route,” she explains. The slaves came from Niger and Chad.
Residents explain that, in the area, they are sometimes called “Abid Buntun,” the “servants” of the Buntun, the region’s historically main ethnic group.
One bus for whites, one bus for blacks
Each morning, the school bus leaves Gosba to take the “black” children to school in Sidi Makhlouf. At the same time, another bus takes the “white” children from Drouj to the same school. As Drouj is situated between Gosba and Sidi Makhlouf, logic would dictate that only one bus is needed.
“But those in Drouj refuse,” says Béchir, the English teacher. He does not hesitate to speak of racism. “My teacher friends in Drouj tell me that their daughters will not marry a black. That’s what they say: ‘a black.’”
Gosba’s inhabitants, however, are comfortable with the colour of their skin. “I am not Arab, I am black,” explains Mohammed Naroui, a police officer who married a white woman from the outside. “If there is a football match between Algeria and Senegal, I will be for Senegal.”
Messaoud, director of the youth centre in Sidi Makhlouf for the last three years, is of mixed race from his grandfather’s side of the family and is one of the lightest-skinned in the community. Yet he does not hesitate to call himself black. Nonetheless, according to him, speaking of racism is old-fashioned. “Before, blacks could not get jobs with the district or high-level jobs with companies. But, little by little, it is starting to change.”
Ameur and Soulef, a modern-day Romeo and Juliet, acknowledge that racism exists, but say it is the standard of living that divides the population today.
Gosba is poor, very poor. Running water is scarce, the police absent, as well as most activities. In Sidi Makhlouf, which has the same number of inhabitants, there are numerous shops and cafés.
Messaoud told his superiors that “if there were justice, the youth centre [which he heads] would be in Gosba, where the youth are marginalized.”
“Youths in Gosba have a reputation for being delinquents. The state’s absence has damned a generation,” he says.
The black inhabitants of Gosba are seen by their neighbors as being poor or criminals. The lack of diversity and contact do not help. More than a skin color, “black” has become a social class in Gosba.
In 2013, Messaoud staged a play at the youth centre about a love story between black and white, under the palm trees.
“If we are oppressed, it is also because we do not step up and speak. We have to address our mindset for anything to change.”
______________________
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
LOL @ Lioness, you're weird, why you post what I posted, only to repost it?LOL
You say;:
"Mauritania has a caste system and it doesn't go strictly by tribal groups and contradictory aspects are a reality there. What is different from India is that there is more mixing between the groups. The upper caste are those people who claim more Arab ancestry."
You completely ignore to actual facts of what I am addressing. I don't know about India. And I don't speak about India. The initial claim was "Tuaregs" so and so this and that. People could not respond so the thread has been derailed. And that is what you do best, derail. LOL
So before you continue with more derail, tell "if you can" that is, since "you act" as a specialist. Which ethnic groups are we talking about. LOL Names is what I am asking for, specialist. You can post stories of deprivation all day. But that is not what I am asking for.
"Slavery’s Legacy Still Echoes In Tunisia’s All-Black Village?"
What is black lioness? LOL
quote:"Sanhaja, Masmoda, and Zenata are the three tribes constituting the Berbers ..."
"Rapid and catastrophic environmental changes in the Holocene and human response" first joint meeting of IGCP 490 and ICSU Environmental catastrophes in Mauritania, the desert and the coast January 4-18, 2004
Field conference departing from Atar Atar, Mauritania
Organizers Suzanne Leroy, Aziz Ballouche, Mohamed Salem Ould Sabar, and Sylvain Philip (Hommes et Montagnes travel agency)
View Abstracts Conference Homepage
What is the impact of Holocene climatic changes on human societies: analysis of Neolithic population dynamic and dietary customs. by Jousse, Helene
UMR Paléoenvironnements et Paléobiosphère, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France.
quote: The reconstruction of human cultural patterns in relation to environmental variations is an essential topic in modern archaeology.
In western Africa, a first Holocene humid phase beginning c. 11,000 years BP is known from the analysis of lacustrine sediments (Riser, 1983 ; Gasse, 2002). The monsoon activity increased and reloaded hydrological networks (like the Saharan depressions) leading to the formation of large palaeolakes. The colonisation of the Sahara by vegetation, animals and humans was then possible essentially around the topographic features like Ahaggar (fig. 1). But since 8,000 years BP, the climate began to oscillate towards a new arid episode, and disturbed the ecosystems (Jolly et al., 1998; Jousse, 2003).
First, the early Neolithics exploited the wild faunas, by hunting and fishing, and occupied small sites without any trace of settlement in relatively high latitudes. Then, due to the climatic deterioration, they had to move southwards.
This context leads us to consider the notion of refugia. Figure 1 presents the main zones colonised by humans in western Africa. When the fossil valleys of Azaouad, Tilemsi and Azaouagh became dry, after ca. 5,000 yr BP, humans had to find refuges in the Sahelian belt, and gathered around topographic features (like the Adrar des Iforas, and the Mauritanians Dhar) and major rivers, especially the Niger Interior Delta, called the Mema.
Whereas the Middle Neolithic is relatively well-known, the situation obviously becomes more complex and less information is available concerning local developments in late Neolithic times.. Only some cultural affiliations existed between the populations of Araouane and Kobadi in the Mema. Elsewhere, and especially along the Atlantic coast and in the Dhar Tichitt and Nema, the question of the origin of Neolithic peopling remains unsolved.
A study of the palaeoenvironment of those refugia was performed by analysing antelopes ecological requirements (Jousse, submitted). It shows that even if the general climate was drying from 5,000 – 4,000 yr BP in the Sahara and Sahel, edaphic particularities of these refugia allowed the persistence of local gallery forest or tree savannas, where humans and animals could have lived (fig. 2). At the same time, cultural innovation like agriculture, cattle breeding, social organisation in villages are recognised. For the moment, the relation between the northern and the southern populations are not well known.
How did humans react against aridity? Their dietary behaviour are followed along the Holocene, in relation with the environment, demographic expansion, settling process and emergence of productive activities.
- The first point concerns the pastoralism. The progression of cattle pastoralism from eastern Africa (fig. 3) is recorded from 7,400 yr BP in the Ahaggar and only from 4,400 yr BP in western Africa. This trend of breeding activities and human migrations can be related to climatic evolution. Since forests are infested by Tse-Tse flies preventing cattle breeding, the reduction of forest in the low-Sahelian belt freed new areas to be colonised. Because of the weakness of the archaeozoological material available, it is difficult to know what was the first pattern of cattle exploitation.
- A second analysis was carried on the resources balance, between fishing-hunting-breeding activities. The diagrams on figures 4 and 5 present the number of species of wild mammals, fishes and domestic stock, from a literature compilation. Fishing is known around Saharan lakes and in the Niger. Of course, it persisted with the presence of water points and even in historical times, fishing became a specialised activity among population living in the Niger Interior Delta. Despite the general environmental deterioration, hunting does not decrease thanks to the upholding of the vegetation in these refugia (fig. 2). On the contrary, it is locally more diversified, because at this local scale, the game diversity is closely related to the vegetation cover. Hence, the arrival of pastoral activities was not prevalent over other activities in late Neolithic, when diversifying resources appeared as an answer to the crisis.
This situation got worse in the beginning of historic times, from 2,000 yr BP, when intense settling process and an abrupt aridity event (Lézine & Casanova, 1989) led to a more important perturbation of wild animals communities. They progressively disappeared from the human diet, and the cattle, camel and caprin breeding prevailed as today.
Gasse, F., 2002. Diatom-inferred salinity and carbonate oxygen isotopes in Holocene waterbodies of the western Sahara and Sahel (Africa). Quaternary Science Reviews: 717-767.
Jolly, D., Harrison S. P., Damnati B. and Bonnefille R. , 1998. Simulated climate and biomes of Africa during the late Quaternary : Comparison with pollen and lake status data. Quaternary Science Review 17: 629-657.
Jousse H., 2003. Impact des variations environnementales sur la structure des communautés mammaliennes et l'anthropisation des milieux: exemple des faunes holocènes du Sahara occidental. Thèse de l’Université Lyon 1, 405 p.
Jousse H, 2003. Using archaeological fauna to calibrate palaeovegetation: the Holocene Bovids of western Africa. Submit to Quaternary Science Reviews in november 2003, référence: QSR 03-333.
Lézine, A. M. and J. Casanova, 1989. Pollen and hydrological evidence for the interpretation of past climate in tropical West Africa during the Holocene. Quaternary Science Review 8: 45-55.
Riser, J., 1983. Les phases lacustres holocènes. Sahara ou Sahel ? Quaternaire récent du bassin de Taoudenni (Mali). Marseille: 65-86.
quote:VI Passing on from there we came to the large river Lixos [the Draa in Morocco], flowing from Libya, beside which nomads called Lixitae [Berbers] pastured their flocks. We stayed some time with them and became friends.
VII Inland from there dwelt inhospitable Ethiopians [negroes] in a land ridden with wild beasts and hemmed in by great mountains. They say that Lixos flows down from there and that among these mountains Troglodytes of strange appearance dwell, who according to the Lixitae can run more swiftly than horses.
So apparently Hanno recorded darker-skinned African people living in the interior of the Maghreb. Could these be indigenous Northwest Africans without Eurasian admixture, or would they be of Saharan or West African descent instead?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
TROGLODYTES (rporyAoUTas), a Greek word meaning "cave-dwellers." Caves have been widely used as human habitations both in prehistoric and in historic times (see CAVE), and ancient writers speak of Troglodytes in various parts of the world, as in 3Icesia near the lower Danube (Strabo, vii. 5, p. 318), in the Caucasus (Id., xi. 5, p. 506), but especially in various parts of Africa from Libya (Id., xvii. 3, p. 828) to the Red Sea. Herodotus (iv. 183) tells of a race of Troglodyte Ethiopians in inner Africa, very swift of foot, living on lizards and creeping things, and with a speech like the screech of an owl. The Garamantes hunted them for slaves. It has been supposed that these Troglodytes may be Tibbus, who still in part are cave-dwellers. Aristotle also (Hist. An., vii. 12) speaks of a dwarfish race of Troglodytes on the upper course of the Nile, who possessed horses and were in his opinion the Pygmies of fable. But the best known of these African cave-dwellers were the inhabitants of the "Troglodyte country" on the coast of the Red Sea, who reached as far north as the Greek port of Berenice, and of whose Strange and savage customs an interesting account has been preserved by Diodorus and Photius from Agatharchides.1 They were a pastoral people, living entirely on the flesh of their herds, or, in the season of fresh pasture, on mingled milk and blood. But they killed only old or sick cattle (as indeed they killed old men who could no longer follow the flock), and the butchers were called " unclean "; nay, they gave the name of parent to no man, but only to the cattle of which they had their subsistence. This last point seems to be a confused indication of totemism. They went almost naked ; the women wore necklaces of shells as amulets. Marriage was unknown, except among the chiefs, - a fact which agrees with the prevalence of female kinship in these regions in much later times. They practised circumcision or a mutilation of a more serious kind. The whole account, much of which must be here passed by, is one of the most curious pictures of savage life in ancient literature.
The Biblical Horim, who inhabited Mount Seir before the Edomites, bore a name which means cave-dwellers, and may probably have been a kindred people to the Troglodytes on the other side of the Red Sea. Jerome, on Obadiah 5, speaks of this region as containing many cave-dwellings, and such habitations are still sometimes used on the borders of the Syro-Arabian desert.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: cave-dweller," 1550s, from Middle French troglodyte and directly from Latin troglodytae (plural), from Greek troglodytes "cave-dweller, cave-man" (in reference to tribes identified as living in various places by ancient writers; by Herodotus on the African coast of the Red Sea), literally "one who creeps into holes," from trogle "hole, mouse-hole" (from trogein "to gnaw, nibble, munch;" see trout) + dyein "go in, dive in." Related: Troglodytic.
quote: "In particular, the Tuareg have 50% to 80% of their paternal lineages E1b1b1b-M81 [34], [35]. The Tuareg are seminomadic pastoralist groups that are mostly spread between Libya, Algeria, Mali, and Niger. They speak a Berber language and are believed to be the descendents of the Garamantes people of Fezzan, Libya (500 BC - 700 CE) [34]."
--Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. (2014)
Genome-Wide and Paternal Diversity Reveal a Recent Origin of Human Populations in North Africa
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: We already KNOW that Berbers origins lie and Africa and again we KNOW the native population of Carthage were African.
Can we PLEASE keep thread about Hannibal? I don't know how this thread got about certain Berber groups.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The issue of Hannibal’s ethnicity and what he looked like are no doubt vital to many but remain contentious matters even to scholars. Let me try to explain why in the following several points.
First, we have no certain contemporary image from his own time to show us what he looked like. The primary source closest to his time is the Greek historian Polybius who lived almost a century later, and he gives no verbal description. No other ancient sources that have survived do either. We do have the curious information that he was possibly prone to disguising himself at times. There may be a few silver coins from the Punic culture in Spain, most likely minted around the mid-to-late 3rd century bce in what soon became known as Carthago Nova (now Cartagena), but these coin images are arguable because they may depict his father, Hamilcar, or other relatives instead. After Hannibal’s life, the Romans likely recalled every silver Punic coin they could find—including any that might have shown Hannibal—and melted them down to make new Roman coins with their own images. So we are left with mostly modern interpretations from long after the Roman Empire.
Second, regarding his DNA, as far as we know, we have no skeleton, fragmentary bones, or physical traces of him, so establishing his ethnicity would be mostly speculative. From what we think we know about his family ancestry, however, his Barcid family (if that’s even the right name) has been generally understood as descending from Phoenician aristocracy. If still the same relative ethnic or DNA group, which is also very difficult to prove since so many different peoples have moved into the region since, including peoples from Arabian homelands, his original ancestry would be located in what is modern Lebanon today. As far as we know, little to no Africanization—if that is an acceptable term—happened there in that region before or during his era. So attempting to say much about his original ancestry from Phoenicia is very difficult. On the other hand, since the Phoenicians arrived and then later settled in what is now Tunisia relatively early, possibly beginning around almost 1,000 years before Hannibal, it is very possible his family had intermixed in DNA with peoples then living in North Africa. But this too seems quite distant from any potential Nilotic DNA stream including via the “superhighway” of the Nile River. The distance between the Nile and Tunis is almost four times as far as the distance between the Nile and Tyre, but that may not be as important as our lack of knowledge about any potential spreading of African DNA overland across North Africa at that time, which is again possible but not known. The barrier of the Sahara would otherwise make any such ancient DNA distribution from south to north difficult but not impossible. New studies suggest that around Hannibal’s time there was likely more trans-Saharan travel via Garamantian oases [i.e., oases controlled by the Garamantes, a Berber people], so we shouldn’t deny any possible Africanization of the region of Carthage.
If Africanization was part of Hannibal’s heritage, I and other scholars would be most interested in seeing the evidence, as we should always be ready to learn and change our perceptions when needed. If our human ancestry derives originally from Africa, it was so long ago, possibly hundreds of thousands of years in the past, who can realistically say what that original DNA was like and what people looked like then? We still must have much more hard science conducted for years into the future to even come close to understanding that prehistory. I must add just as a personal note that my own father had some African ancestry because it appears in our DNA even if it may not show in external phenotypes. Sadly, “race” has too often been a divisive political term.
Ultimately, this is a difficult question that may be even more difficult to answer simply because of lack of information. History is an imperfect record and the further back we go, all too often the less evidence survives. For now, that seems true of Hannibal’s ethnicity..
NGC Ancients: Carthaginians Borrowed Sicilian Coin Designs
Posted on 10/16/2012
Collectors are especially fond of these Carthaginian war coins, which are generically termed “Siculo-Punic.”
The western Mediterranean was populated by many different peoples in ancient times: Phoenicians, Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans just to name a few. Over the course of time these peoples’ interests clashed, resulting in wars, usually over land rights and commercial conflicts.
The Romans and the Carthaginians were two of the most powerful forces in the region, and in the 3rd and 2nd Centuries B.C., they engaged in three successive conflicts known as the Punic Wars. But long before those, the Carthaginians were at odds with the Greeks, who had colonized some of the same regions desired by the Carthaginians, principally the island of Sicily.
The Carthaginians originated in Phoenicia and were of Punic heritage. Centuries before either the Greeks or the Romans migrated west, the Punic people founded a network of coastal cities that in early times were little more than trade hubs. These Phoenicians were extraordinary sailors, and had a keen interest in commerce. These skills combined to allow the settlers in Carthage to build an enviable, commercial empire.
Three centuries of warfare between the Greeks and the Carthaginians who competed for supremacy in Sicily had many profound effects, not the least of which was a most attractive and varied series of coins.
Collectors are especially fond of these Carthaginian war coins, which are generically termed “Siculo-Punic.” They feature a combination of Sicilian Greek and Punic elements, and bear Punic inscriptions which are still a bit mysterious. The best of these coins were struck from dies cut by the best (presumably) Greek artists that the Carthaginians could afford to hire.
The most influential prototypes for early Siculo-Punic coins were silver tetradrachms of Syracuse. These issues were struck by Carthaginians in the late 5th and throughout the 4th centuries B.C. at Panormus, Thermai, and a third, unidentified Sicilian mint.
The designs of these Carthaginian copies are faithful, but their style is sometimes stiff and approximating, which suggests the engraver was Punic rather than Greek. A few dies from the series at Panormus, however, were of a fluid, “Greek,” style.
Except for the final series, the Arethusa head adopted from the coinage of Syracuse was favored by the Carthaginians. Indeed, they combined this type with designs depicting two important Carthaginian symbols: that of the horse and the palm tree.
The reverses of the early issues either show a horse standing or in action, with a palm tree in the background. The style on most of these coins is fantastic. The horse is usually shown in profile to the right or the left, but sometimes the head is shown slightly facing the viewer. The horse is calmly standing or is depicted prancing, trotting, leaping, or performing a trick. There can be no doubt that the artists had a deep understanding of horses, for the nuances of form and movement are clearly rendered. Understandably, these are among the most expensive coins in the Siculo-Punic series.
Later, the horse-and-palm reverse was transformed to show only the head and neck of the horse with a comparatively small palm tree in the field behind. Here the die cutters’ love of the horse is still evident, for the composition is precise and the details often are amazing.
On these coins – the last of the Siculo-Punic tetradrachms – the new obverse type is the head of young Heracles wearing the scalp of the Nemean lion, which must have been borrowed from the silver tetradrachms of the Macedonian King Alexander III “the Great” (r. 336-323 B.C.).
It is somewhat odd that the Heracles obverse was adopted, since the coins of the Macedonian Kingdom became the main currency in Greece, Egypt, the Holy Land, and Asia Minor. They did not flow west of Greece in great quantities. Indeed, the Corinthian stater was the main Greek coin that was exported westward.
Clearly, the broad trade networks of Carthaginian merchants must have been responsible. They readily traded with Greeks, Egyptians, and peoples of their Phoenician homeland; and in all of these places, Alexander’s coinage had been the “standard” for more than a generation before this final Siculo-Punic series began in about 300 B.C. Furthermore, when the Punic people saw the head of Heracles, they no doubt saw it as a mirror image of their own mythological hero, Melqart.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
So this idiot never read Bertholon (sp) or any other researchers on the physical remains of high class Carthaginians nor compared Carthage culture to contemporaneous Sidon and Tyre.
Hooboy!
This guy knows not ethnicity from phenotype. We know Hannibal's ethnic group (Poeni). Its his hair, colour, and facial features that're unknowns.
Even worse, Hunt's ignorance dates the ssuccessful Hss OoA events to hundreds of thousands years ago.
So sad. See why college rejects encyclopedia references?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: . . . As far as we know, little to no Africanization—if that is an acceptable term—happened there in that region before or during his era.
. . . .
If Africanization was part of Hannibal’s heritage, I and other scholars would be most interested in seeing the evidence, ...
In the Punic burial grounds, negroid remains were not rare and there were black auxiliaries in the Carthaginian army who were certainly not Nilotics. Furthermore, if we are to believe Diodorus(XX, 57.5), a lieutenant of Agathocles in northern Tuninisa at the close of the fourth century before our era overcame a people who skin was similar to the Ethiopian'. There is much evidence of the presence of 'Ethiopians' on the southern borders of Africa Minor. Throughout the classical period, mention is also made of peoples belonging to intermediate races, the Melano-Getules, or Leuco-Ethiopians in particular in Ptolemy.
General History of Africa: Ancient civilizations of Africa By G. Mokhtar, Unesco. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa p. 427
]
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan:
Keita in his important 1990, Studies of ancient crania in Norther Africa notes:
"Pittard (1924) notes with surprise the race of the remains found in the Sarcophagus of the Priestess of’ Tanit in Carthage, noting them to be Negroid (see also Bertholon and Chantre, 1913)."
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Originally posted by Evergreen 11 June, 2009 09:13 PM :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: THE PRESENCE OF AFRICAN INDIVIDUALS IN PUNIC POPULATIONS FROM THE ISLAND OF IBIZA (SPAIN): CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Nicholas Márquez-Grant*
ABSTRACT: The origin of the Punic population of Ibiza has been a much debated issue, not only in the field of anthropology, but in archaeology as well. The establishment of rural settlements and the apparent demographic growth throughout the island, especially from the 4th century BC onwards, has been mainly recognised as the result of a colonization process involving a large-scale immigration of people. The material culture from this period seems to indicate that the probable origin of these immigrants was the area of the Central Mediterranean, especially Carthage. This paper compares measurements from Ibizan skulls dating from between the sixth and second centuries BC with craniometric data from modern American populations by employing the forensic discriminant functions of the FORDISC 2.0 (Ousley and Jantz, 1996) computer program. In spite of the method’s limitations, the results seem to suggest the presence of several individuals of North African and sub-Saharan ancestry in Punic Ibiza.
A little more on word association. What comes to mind when one reads or hears the word Mediterranean?
Greece? Italy? Maybe Monaco and Spain?
Well the shorelines of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and the north of Morocco are all Mediterranean too.
Hence when reading of Mediterraneans in Africa the image that comes to mind should not be of a Greek or Italian phenotype especially when dealing with ancient and pre-historic eras.
I'd also like to add that when the quoted writer implies sub-Saharans (though admitting problems associated with Fordisc) again we're facing those ingrained ideas and imaginary boundaries for the presence of certain phenotypes.
From pre-history to at least the 4th century of our era, Graeco-Latin writers noted blacks, some of whom they called Ethiopian, in the region south of the Atlas and north of the Sahara.
Strabo even mentions them displacing littoral populations.
quote:"that Ethiopians overran Libya as far as Dyris [the Atlas Mountains] and that some of them stayed in Dyris, while others occupied a great part of the sea-board."
Geography 1.2.26
Yet all we ever hear of is blacks being pushed southward.
So when Márquez-Grant says that some individuals are sub-Saharan its a denial of indigenous supra-Saharans unless they fit the stilted mold of perceived "Berber" and Mediterranean phenotypes. It's a denial of the autochtonous blacks of northernmost Africa.
When the Sahara began its last drying phase all the blacks in it didn't move either south or east, some moved to the north and some moved to the west.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen 11 June, 2009 09:32 PM: [qb] THE PRESENCE OF AFRICAN INDIVIDUALS IN PUNIC POPULATIONS FROM THE ISLAND OF IBIZA (SPAIN): CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Nicholas Márquez-Grant*
ABSTRACT: The origin of the Punic population of Ibiza has been a much debated issue, not only in the field of anthropology, but in archaeology as well. The establishment of rural settlements and the apparent demographic growth throughout the island, especially from the 4th century BC onwards, has been mainly recognised as the result of a colonization process involving a large-scale immigration of people. The material culture from this period seems to indicate that the probable origin of these immigrants was the area of the Central Mediterranean, especially Carthage. This paper compares measurements from Ibizan skulls dating from between the sixth and second centuries BC with craniometric data from modern American populations by employing the forensic discriminant functions of the FORDISC 2.0 (Ousley and Jantz, 1996) computer program. In spite of the method’s limitations, the results seem to suggest the presence of several individuals of North African and sub-Saharan ancestry in Punic Ibiza.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:
By the time Arab writers began jotting down their observations, the only organized black group left in the Sahara was the Tebu (Teda), who lived in the fortress-like Tibesti Mountains. In the interval did all the other Ethiopians migrate south? People under pressure often move, sometimes across large stretches, but a vast movement of peoples from one side of the Sahara to the other in a relatively short period of time would have been a death march rather than a migration. Some suggestion has been made that the Berbers adopted the camel as an unstoppable fighting machine and used it to dislodge the Ethiopians from [End Page 476] their North African homeland. If so, why didn’t the Ethiopians adopt the camel as well? Probably because the camel was not an unstoppable fighting machine, not nearly as effective as the horse, which continued to be the mount of choice in battle. 42 And underlying this thesis is the assumption of some kind of awful ancient race war in which the white tribes ganged up against the black tribes and expelled or exterminated them. No evidence exists to support any such assumption. The most likely scenario is the simplest. The Ethiopian tribes were absorbed by the Berber tribes, or they became oasis dwellers known today as the Haratin, or both. Perhaps Ibn Hawqal’s strange report of the Banu Tanamak, who
Uninformed presumptions: "why didn’t the Ethiopians adopt the camel as well?"
??? Note the black camelier in the desert
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Abraham Cresques Atlas of charts
Description: ... Africa : a Berber on a camel , King Black Mussa Melly sitting on a throne, a Black guiding a camel, the king of Organa , a sovereign Nubia Prester John ) , the Sultan of Egypt sitting cross-legged ( solda of babillonia )
.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Uninformed presumptions: "why didn’t the Ethiopians adopt the camel as well?"
??? Note the black camelier in the desert
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Abraham Cresques Atlas of charts
Description: ... Africa : a Berber on a camel , King Black Mussa Melly sitting on a throne, a Black guiding a camel, the king of Organa , a sovereign Nubia Prester John ) , the Sultan of Egypt sitting cross-legged ( solda of babillonia )
.
we're supposed to regard this as accurate?
And the king of Organa dressed in blue was the ruler of a place in Senegal? One can determine the ethnicty of this camel driver?
who's this from the same map?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
A History of the Middle East By Saul S. Friedman
____________________________
Therefore if one wants to highlight leaders in the region that had been described as having African ancestry, instead of Hannibal, the following: Syphax, Masinissia and Jugurtha, the Numidians or Lusius Quietus
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Oh no (thrpwing both hands in the air above my head) not this same **** all over again and again, no memorance less lone progress, just feigned knowledge from data miners ignorance who can take her ass here http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008792;p=1 where I summarily whooped it not so long ago.
Your own sources, from whom you apparently retained no lesson, only identifies a nameless Berber as the camel rider, Organa as Kanem-Bornu, and the nude camelier is a Tubu.
So stop with your silly games. I'm not reliving the past with you but will entertain serious enqueries from any of the newly registered members.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:
Up to the present, it has been found impracticable to keep open the road that leads to the country of the Garamantes, as the robber bands of that people have filled up the wells with sand, which wells do not require to be digged to any great depth, if you but have knowledge of the locality. --Pliny
quote: The Garamantes hunt the Ethiopian hole-men, or troglodytes, in four-horse chariots, for these troglodytes are exceedingly swift of foot—more so than any people of whom we have any information. They eat snakes and lizards and other reptiles and speak a language like no other, but squeak like bats.
--Herodotus
So if "Ethiopian" as per the old usage is to mean non-berber type Africans looking like so called Sub Saharan Africans then the Garamantes were not of this type.
But Herodotus describes "Ethiopians" as being in this Libya region in Libyan caves. But the Egyptians seems not to have recorded them. Were they migrants to the region or indigenous? There's no information
This raises the question if the Garamantes were not (old defintion) "Aethiopian"
then why were they not ""Aethiopian" ?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Mauri reserved for south of Sahara folk? Your reference is more presumptive and ignorant than even you.
you're right about this Mauri corresponds with berber speakers of the Morocco region, the quote s incorrect
However the main point is that this term Mauri or other terms describing Africans were not applied to Hannibal by the Classical writers -unlike Numidian leaders in the region Numidians, sometimes described as the same people as Mauri in old Mauretania, now part of Morocco
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Ninny, why would a Carthaginian be called a Mauretanian, Numidian, or any other nationality? You need to read Zarahan's presentation on the 4 "races" in Carthage per Diodorus 1st century BCE.
And to keep the record straight Numidia was mostly eastern Algeria though the term was loosely thrown around for Maghrebi nomads and for any unfriendlies to Roman eyes.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I apologize for the name calling even though you intended to get under my skin.
Western Æthiopians were not the only and exclusive blacks of the Maghreb and NW Africa. Most likely Æthiopian referred to a latitude of origin in addition to a group's overall complexion.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I was thinking this exactly, also we have physical remains of Africans in Punic Colonies as far North as Ibiza, so intermarriage was discouraged??
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: We already KNOW that Berbers origins lie and Africa and again we KNOW the native population of Carthage were African.
Can we PLEASE keep thread about Hannibal? I don't know how this thread got about certain Berber groups.
Because there is this online debate about Hannibal's army. And whether or not Hannibal himself was a Berber or actually Phoenician. Which in both instances would not make a lot of difference, I think.
As we all know, Hannibal was at war with the Roman army. The Garamantes have a special place in this history.
quote:"The Phoenician port of Lpgy was founded at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC and first populated by the Garamantes. The city, which was part of the domain of Carthage, passed under the ephemeral control of Massinissa, King of Numidia. The Romans, who had quartered a garrison there during the war against Jugurtha, integrated it, in 46 BC, into the province of Africa while at the same time allowing it a certain measure of autonomy."
quote:"• 27 B.C.–14 A.D.The principate of Augustus is established. Rome is transformed into a city of marble. The Roman frontiers are expanded and semiconquered territories reinforced. Augustus reconciles with Parthia (22–19 B.C.), and his campaign against Garamantes in Africa is successful (19 B.C.). Many social and religious reforms are enacted. Gaul and its frontiers are organized (15–13 B.C.). The imperial mint at Lugdunum is founded (15–14 B.C.)."
quote: The Carthaginian general Hannibal (247-182 BCE) was one of the greatest military leaders in history. His most famous campaign took place during the Second Punic War (218-202), when he caught the Romans off guard by crossing the Alps.
Description: Melqart (Heracles) on a coin of Hannibal Date :ca. 220 CE–ca. 202 CE Creator Unidentified (photo from www) Linked: Hannibal Barca, Lake Trasimene (217 BCE) Categories: Punic Tags: Coin, Deity
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
If still the same relative ethnic or DNA group, which is also very difficult to prove since so many different peoples have moved into the region since, including peoples from Arabian homelands, his original ancestry would be located in what is modern Lebanon today. --Patrick Hunt, Encyclopedia Britannica
Therefore if one wants to highlight leaders in the region that had been described as having African ancestry, instead of Hannibal, the following: Syphax, Masinissia and Jugurtha, the Numidians or Lusius Quietus
:I
"The Mauretanii live in stuffy huts both in winter and in summer and at every other time, never removing from them either because of snow or the heat of the sun or any other discomfort whatever due to nature. And they sleep on the ground, the prosperous among them, if it should so happen, spreading a fleece under themselves. Moreover, it is not customary among them to change their clothing with the seasons, but they wear a thick cloak and a rough shirt at all times. And they have neither bread nor wine nor any other good thing, but they take grain, either wheat or barley, and, without boiling it or grinding it to flour or barley-meal, they eat it in a manner not a whit different from that of animals. . . .A certain Mauretanian woman had managed somehow to crush a little grain, and making of it a very tiny cake, threw it into the hot ashes on the hearth. For thus it is the custom among the Mauretanii to bake their loaves. . . . ... . . . . since the time when the Mauretanii wrested Aurasium from the Vandals, not a single enemy had until now ever come there or so much as caused the barbarians to be afraid that they would come, but even the populous city of Tamougadis [Timgad], situated against the mountain on the east at the beginning of the plain, was emptied of its population by the Mauretanii and razed to the ground, in order that the enemy should not only not be able to camp there, but should not even have the city as an excuse for coming near the mountains. And the Mauretanii of that place held also the land to the west of Aurasium, a tract both extensive and fertile. And beyond these dwelt other nations of the Mauretanii, who were ruled by Ortaïas, who had come, as was stated above, as an ally of Solomon and the Romans. And I have heard this man say that beyond the country which he ruled there was no habitation of men, but desert land extending to a great distance, and that beyond that there are men, not black-skinned like the Mauretanii, but very white in body and fair-haired." Accounts of Ancient Mauretania, c. 430 BCE- 550 CE From Herodotus, Strabo, and Procopius of Caesarea
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Procopius of Caesarea: History of the Wars, c. 550 CE Books III.xxv.3-9; IV.vi.10-14, vii.3, xi.16-20, xiii.26-29
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The idea that Hannibal was black comes from J.A. Rogers who said the Phoenicians were Negroid, the same amateur historian who wrote a book on there being five Negro U.S. presidents.
So the standard by which these five U.S, presidents were black can also be applied to the Phoenicians
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
LyingAss Liarness then why did Italian producers and directors of movies make Hannibal black?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by the lioness: So the standard by which these five U.S, presidents were black can also be applied to the Phoenicians
That at least a segment of the Phoenicians would have matched Rogers' description isn't some sort of desperate sleight of hand one drop argument as you're making it out to be. You made that up.
^Look how long people go in circles even though a good source was posted on page 1. Why does this happen so often on this site? Especially lioness with her selective, and sometimes poorly informed sources. There seems to be very little building on top of available resources.
Again, data on Carthaginian skeletal remains so, hopefully, there won't be another attempt down the road to downplay the presence of Sub-Saharan Africans there:
Quote: Punic Carthage, North Africa (Sarcophagus 5). FORDISC classification: BM (black male, US)
Punic Carthage, North Africa (Sarcophagus 7). FORDISC classification: BM (black male, US)
Punic Carthage, North Africa (Sarcophagus 14). FORDISC classification: BM (black male, US)
So how is Rodgers anymore of a "amateur" historian than the guy you posted who was clearly talking out his Arse calling the Mauritani Sub Saharan and claiming that so called black Africans were some sort of rare never before seen anamoly in Carthage and her colonies and even Rome, how is that not Amateur but Rodgers is?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The idea that Hannibal was black comes from J.A. Rogers who said the Phoenicians were Negroid, the same amateur historian who wrote a book on there being five Negro U.S. presidents.
So the standard by which these five U.S, presidents were black can also be applied to the Phoenicians
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] So how is Rodgers anymore of a "amateur" historian than the guy you posted who was clearly talking out his Arse calling the Mauritani Sub Saharan and claiming that so called black Africans were some sort of rare never before seen anamoly in Carthage and her colonies and even Rome, how is that not Amateur but Rodgers is?
True, they both made errors
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB]
quote: Originally posted by the lioness: So the standard by which these five U.S, presidents were black can also be applied to the Phoenicians
That at least a segment of the Phoenicians would have matched Rogers' description isn't some sort of desperate sleight of hand one drop argument as you're making it out to be. You made that up.
when you say "Phoenicians" do you mean nationality?
analogous to saying there are millions of Americans of African descent?
The term ‘Phoenician’ may here refer to both individuals from the Eastern Mediterranean, the origin of the Phoenician civilisation; and individuals that regardless of geographical or ancestral origin, lived and/or worked and were integrated in the Phoenician culture.
notes 5, Márquez-Grant, 2005
____________________________
The presence of african individuals in punic populations from the Island of Ibiza (Spain): contributions from physical anthropology Nicholas Márquez-Grant, 2005
excerpts
This present work differs from other human skeletal studies on Punic Ibiza in that it considers an individual skeleton as a single sample, rather than using a population mean composed by a group of skeletons.
The palaeontological site of Es Pouàs in the northern part of Ibiza, seems to sug- gest human presence at least as early as the 5th or 6th millennium BC (Alcover et al., 1994: 237; Costa, 2000; Costa and Benito, 2000; Costa and Guerrero, 2001). Nicholas Márquez-Grant
Island colonization The early colonization of the Balearic Islands is still uncertain, but a review of the available evidence (Calvo et al., 2002: 182-183) reveals human presence before 3000 BC, and agriculture and herding becoming established between 2300 and 2100 BC.
These remains come from the megalithic burial site of Ca Na Costa (Fernández et al., 1988) dated to circa 2000 BC (Costa and Guerrero, 2001: 35). In Ibiza, the earliest human skeletal evidence was found at the site of Can Sergent, dated to around 720 BC and 550 BC (Costa and Benito, 2000; Costa, 2000: 351). At least five individuals were interred here: three male, one female and one infant (González and Lalueza, 2000).
Phoenician colonization4 The Phoenician colonization can be considered as the roots of the Carthaginian culture (Tarradell, 1955: 66). The Phoenicians were people from the Eastern Mediterranean, and more specifically, the area of present day Lebanon.
In the 6th century BC the Phoenicians lost control over their colonies in the west- ern Mediterranean (Aubet, 1995). This created a separation between the eastern and west- ern Mediterranean. In the West and Central areas, Carthage took economic and political control over previous Phoenician colonies such as Ibiza. This phase is known today as the Punic or Carthaginian period.
The Punic (Carthaginian) period6 The influence of Carthage on Ibiza was marked by deep transformations in the social, economic, political, ideological and religious spheres. These changes included an apparent demographic growth,
note 6 The definition of ‘Phoenician’, ‘Punic’ and ‘Carthaginian’ is complex in itself (see Moscati, 1988). Tarradell and Font (1975: 245) indicate that ‘Phoenician’ meant ‘oriental’, from Phoenicia; while ‘Punic’ was the name given by the Romans to the Carthaginians. The word ‘Phoenician’ is used here to refer to those establish- ments directly founded by those individuals coming from the eastern Mediterranean, and up to the 6th century BC. After this date the word ‘Punic’ will be used to refer to those areas in the Central and Western Mediterranean under the influence of Carthage. Finally, ‘Carthaginian’ will be used to refer to what is or derives from the city of Carthage (in present day Tunisia), including culture, products and people.
Rural settlements were occupied probably by small human groups, possibly families or blood related individuals as well as freemen (Benito et al. 2000: 307). Servants may also have been present (see Fernández and Fuentes, 1983; Gómez, 2000: 357). Any small indigenous human communities that may have been present since the Bronze Age would have been absorbed into the Punic identity of these rural inhabitants (Benito et al., 2000: 307).
Diodorus Siculus (Book V. 16), writing in the 1st century BC, stated that Ibiza con- sisted of people from a variety of nationalities. Considering other Punic enclaves, human skeletal remains from Carthage, in North Africa, seem to indicate that there is no clear eth- nic unity (Charles-Picard and Charles-Picard, 1958: 129), while epitaphs reveal the possi- ble presence of individuals of Cypriotic and Phoenician origins (Benichou-Safar, 1982: 184). According to historical sources, the spreading of Punic settlements in western Sardinia since the 4th century BC is associated with peasant and slave immigration from North Africa (van Dommelen, 1997: 313, citing Bondì, 1987: 181). In antiquity, slaves were obtained from areas in the Mediterranean as well as northern Europe (Thompson, 2003: 3-4). In ancient Greece and Rome, some members of society came from sub- Saharan Africa (see Snowden, 1970). In later periods, between the 5th and 8th centuries AD, the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic Islands also received merchants from the Eastern and Central Mediterranean (García, 1972).
8 A DNA study on the living Ibizan population also shows an association with North Africa (Picornell et al., 1996). As with other types of evidence using present day materials, the North African influence may not nec- essarily come from Punic times, but from other contexts such as the Medieval period.
The present work aims to clarify this debate by examining what remains of the peo- ple themselves: their skeletons.
The samples are small, the cemeteries cover a rela- tively wide chronological age, not all individuals of society may have been buried in the population, and only the more complete skulls were selected.
most of the skulls employed here come from hypogea underground tombs). It may be that these indi- viduals are of a different social and economic status (see Tarradell and Font, 1975: 52; Fernández, 1986: 160; Marí and Hachuel, 1990), as well as ancestral origin than the indi- viduals buried in simple fossae. These differences in social status, culture and/or ancestry may also have been present between individuals from inhumation tombs versus cremated skeletons, which were also present in Punic times (see Gómez, 1985; Reverte, 1986).
FORDISC 2.0 (Ousley and Jantz, 1996) was created for forensic applications in the USA. The programme has two reference databases: the Forensic Data Bank (present day crania, forensic and modern cases) and the Howells database (Howells 1973, 1989). The Forensic Data Bank groups individuals into ‘American Blacks’, ‘American Whites’, ‘American Indians’, ‘Japanese’, ‘Chinese’, ‘Vietnamese’ and ‘Hispanic’.
Only two of its categories were used, determined by the nature of the research and the geographical and chronological background of Ibiza: ‘American Blacks’ with a reference sample of 150 males and 125 females, and ‘American Whites’ with 271 males and 195 females (Ousley and Jantz, 1996). Therefore, the study assumed that each skull belonged to either group.
__________________________
^^^ major flaw in the database, no MIddle Eastern or Southern Europeans. It can't be taken seriously. Why do such comparisons and then leave out both the modern population of the regions and the neighboring populations as well as the Lebanese population whom these Ibizans derive ? Neither are African Americans, mainly of West African descent the Africans in close proximity to the Phoenician colonies in Africa.
-lioness
continuing: ________________________
quote:
Having suggested the likely presence of individuals of Sub-Saharan ancestry from Ibizan skulls, identified by reasonable probabilities and typicalities (in skulls with both values above 60%), there are a number of skulls (e.g. PM01/UE59, CM-3, CNE-2) with high probabilities, both ‘White’ and ‘Black’ but with low typicalities. What may these results suggest? It does seems that a result such as ‘White female’ and a high probability, will indicate that it is not ‘male’ and not ‘Black’ (Luís Cabo, pers. comm.). However, if the typicality is low there might be a considerable chance that it is not a ‘Black female’ (Luís Cabo, pers. comm.). It is true that by providing only a choice between ‘White’ (European Caucasoid ancestry) and ‘Black’ (sub-Saharan ancestry), the computer programme might force skulls of North Africa or Eastern Mediterranean ancestry into the category ‘Black’.
The limited sample size in this work does not really portray the initial wave of immigrants into the Punic period. These may have come from one or many geographical locations. Therefore, the results can only suggest, at present, that individuals with African characteristics were present in the Punic rural and urban populations.
Does this mean Africans were in Phoenician Ibiza? Yes - but they have no idea which Africans. What was their role/s and what percentage of the population were they? Were they primarily mercenaries, slaves or integrated broadly into the Punic population? -unknown
Pierre Zalloua is one of the leading geneticists in the Middle East. As well as working to reveal the underlying genetic factors of diseases such as diabetes and coronary artery disease, he is the principal investigator for the Genographic Project in the Middle East and North Africa.
Using this technique, Zalloua's team discovered that the Phoenician signature is still carried by 6% of males in populations around the Mediterranean and remains in 30% of males in the area where the Phoenician civilization existed.
Identifying Genetic Traces of Historical Expansions: Phoenician Footprints in the Mediterranean
Pierre A. Zalloua,1,2,13 Daniel E. Platt,3,13 Mirvat El Sibai,1 Jade Khalife,1 Nadine Makhoul,1 Marc Haber,1 Yali Xue,4 Hassan Izaabel,5 Elena Bosch,6 Susan M. Adams,7 Eduardo Arroyo,8 Ana María López-Parra,8 Mercedes Aler,9 Antònia Picornell,10 Misericordia Ramon,10 Mark A. Jobling,7 David Comas,6 Jaume Bertranpetit,6 R. Spencer Wells,11 Chris Tyler-Smith,4,∗ and The Genographic Consortium12
Abstract The Phoenicians were the dominant traders in the Mediterranean Sea two thousand to three thousand years ago and expanded from their homeland in the Levant to establish colonies and trading posts throughout the Mediterranean, but then they disappeared from history. We wished to identify their male genetic traces in modern populations. Therefore, we chose Phoenician-influenced sites on the basis of well-documented historical records and collected new Y-chromosomal data from 1330 men from six such sites, as well as comparative data from the literature. We then developed an analytical strategy to distinguish between lineages specifically associated with the Phoenicians and those spread by geographically similar but historically distinct events, such as the Neolithic, Greek, and Jewish expansions. This involved comparing historically documented Phoenician sites with neighboring non-Phoenician sites for the identification of weak but systematic signatures shared by the Phoenician sites that could not readily be explained by chance or by other expansions. From these comparisons, we found that haplogroup J2, in general, and six Y-STR haplotypes, in particular, exhibited a Phoenician signature that contributed > 6% to the modern Phoenician-influenced populations examined. Our methodology can be applied to any historically documented expansion in which contact and noncontact sites can be identified.
A European Mitochondrial Haplotype Identified in Ancient Phoenician Remains from Carthage, North Africa
Elizabeth A. Matisoo-Smith , Anna L. Gosling, James Boocock, Olga Kardailsky, Yara Kurumilian, Sihem Roudesli-Chebbi, Leila Badre, Jean-Paul Morel, Leïla Ladjimi Sebaï, Pierre A. Zalloua Published: May 25, 2016
Abstract
While Phoenician culture and trade networks had a significant impact on Western civilizations, we know little about the Phoenicians themselves. In 1994, a Punic burial crypt was discovered on Byrsa Hill, near the entry to the National Museum of Carthage in Tunisia. Inside this crypt were the remains of a young man along with a range of burial goods, all dating to the late 6th century BCE. Here we describe the complete mitochondrial genome recovered from the Young Man of Byrsa and identify that he carried a rare European haplogroup, likely linking his maternal ancestry to Phoenician influenced locations somewhere on the North Mediterranean coast, the islands of the Mediterranean or the Iberian Peninsula. This result not only provides the first direct ancient DNA evidence of a Phoenician individual but the earliest evidence of a European mitochondrial haplogroup, U5b2c1, in North Africa.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: LyingAss Liarness then why did Italian producers and directors of movies make Hannibal black?
Stop lying
It's Massinissa portrayed as black in Cabiria not Hannibal
besides, entertainment media is irrelevant to historical accuracy
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ The above is Procopius only
Procopius of Caesarea: History of the Wars, c. 550 CE Books III.xxv.3-9; IV.vi.10-14, vii.3, xi.16-20, xiii.26-29
Forest for the trees. The point is he explicitly states the Mauretanii of NW Africa are black skinned compared to the white skinned people who lived further beyond them.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: The point is he explicitly states the Mauretanii of NW Africa are black skinned compared to the white skinned people who lived further beyond them.
which white skinned people?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lioness said the Phoenicians are only negroid if one uses the one drop rule standard. Let's look at the facts:
Márquez-Grant: FORDISC, are prehistoric to medieval Spanish, 20th century Granada, modern Ibizan, Neolithic Alicante samples Euro-American over Afro-American?
FORDISC: chuuuch.
Márquez-Grant: FORDISC, are these Carthaginians and this Phoenician Euro-American over Afro-American?
FORDISC: nah.
Nuff said.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Swenet is America negroid?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Just hold the L, lioness. FORDISC was 'asked' if the Phoenician and the Carthaginian samples are consistent with Euro-Americans like all the tested Spanish sample are. This is FORDISC's answer:
You notice how the people, like the author the lioness posted, who bemoan and belittle the idea of "black" people in Carthage they never address the actual evidence...just mention some fictional Busts made after Hannibals death, when the actual evidence says different..
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The article
quote: THE PRESENCE OF AFRICAN INDIVIDUALS IN PUNIC POPULATIONS FROM THE ISLAND OF IBIZA (SPAIN): CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Nicholas Márquez-Grant*
Three of these skulls were classified as ‘Black’, likely proving the presence of individuals in the Ibizan populations with sub-Saharan ancestry.
Said that 3 out of 24 people (12.5%) in this Phoenician samples were black.
Assuming skeletons can be measured for blackness and that these three individuals were black. Who were these blacks?
so were the Carthaginians black?
was Hannibal black?
Is America black?
we have the FORDISC, let's answer these basic questions
____________________________________
Some people in Phoenician Ibiza were black. I find it unremarkable
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Said that 3 out of 24 people (12.5%) in this Phoenician samples were black.
Learn how to read. They looked at a subset of the 24 individuals with so-called "convincing" results and out of this subset, 3 happened to have a 'black' classification, while 4 had a 'white' classification.
And to be clear, I'm not talking about the Ibizan Punic sample right now. They just add another layer of unnecessarily complexity so people can speculate why they were there and whether the Sub-Saharan-looking inidviduals arrived as slaves. I saw your quote about alleged Sub-Saharan slaves in Sardinia earlier, so I'm not playing that game with you. The Ibizan Punic sample may also have local Islander and mainland European contributions, allowing you to conveniently beef up the European component among the original Carthaginians.
For now, I'm sticking to the North African Carthaginian samples (i.e. Sarcophagus 5, 7, 14 and the other North African Carthaginian samples studied by Bertholon and Chantre, 1913).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You notice how the people, like the author the lioness posted, who bemoan and belittle the idea of "black" people in Carthage they never address the actual evidence...just mention some fictional Busts made after Hannibals death, when the actual evidence says different..
Yep. And as we already know:
In light of Lioness' comments re: the "US Black" classifications simply being a reflection of Carthaginians being eastern Mediterraneans (as opposed to the presence of actual people from SSA), here is some more data.
quote:The Lachish series is found to plot nearest the Maghreb and “E” series, both of whose centroids plot nearer the Romano-British groups than any of the other series; the D2 value between these series is significant as previously noted. Examination of the classi- fication results (when Lachish is run as an unknown) shows that the “E” series receives the plurality, with the Maghreb series re- ceiving a very small percentage. The results seem to indicate that the morphometric pat- terns of crania in the Lachish series show a great range of variation with many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice. This suggests that the Lachish series might contain crania from these areas. Historically it is known that Egypt had long been in contact with this area, as noted earlier. . . . The notable classification of Lachisch crania into the northern Egyptian, but not Maghreb, series suggests that it is not help- ful to stereotypically generalize about mor- phometrics of people in “North Africa.” This Maghreb series is actually quite morpho- metrically heterogeneous (Keita, 1983).
—Keita 1988
Significance? Aside from the fact that some crania in the Lachish sample reproduce Márquez-Grant's "African American" FORDISC classification of the Phoenician (showing the Phoenician with high prob & low typ "US Black" classification is not an anomaly), the Maghrebi sample used here is a pooled Chalcolithic Algerian and Carthaginian sample. Both constituent samples are morphometrically close before showing ties with other samples in the Mediterranean Basin (Keita 1990) which calls into question lioness' attempt to paint Carthaginians as transplants from the Levant.
Moreover, few Lachish individuals classified in the Maghrebi sample while the late dynastic Egyptian sample was congruent with many. Which is interesting in light of lioness claim that the results should be read as that the Carthaginians are 'simply' eastern Mediterraneans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Said that 3 out of 24 people (12.5%) in this Phoenician samples were black.
Learn how to read. They looked at a subset of the 24 individuals with so-called "convincing" results and out of this subset, 3 happened to have a 'black' classification, while 4 had a 'white' classification.
And to be clear, I'm not talking about the Ibizan sample right now. They just add another layer of unnecessarily complexity so people can speculate why they were there and whether they arrived as slaves. I saw your quote about Sub-Saharan slaves in Sardinia earlier, so I'm not playing that game with you. The Ibizan sample may also have local Europeans and immigrants from mainland Europe, allowing you to conveniently beef up the European component among the original Carthaginians.
I'm sticking to the North African Carthaginian samples (i.e. Sarcophagus 5, 7, 14 and the other North African Carthaginian samples studied by Bertholon and Chantre, 1913).
They have 24 skulls and are comparing those skulls not to Middle Eastern or South Europeans, the two populations most relevant, Instead they used "white Americans" (primarily German, Irish and English) and instead of a North African population they used "Black Americans" who are primarily West African.
So what's the point of this to get into American racial politics? They should be waiting for a better program data base before doing assessments like this,
Anyway they found only on individual "racially pure" enough to categorized racially, a white woman. Three other persons almost were pure enough to be American Blacks but they didn't quite meet the criteria.
It's a dumb study. The location is South Europe the source population is Middle Eastern. Those people should not have "white Americans" and "Black Americans" as their yardstick. I really hate this black and white simpleminded Americacentric type of analysis
As I said. They found three skulls in Ibiza they feel were almost "black" , unremarkable. One can go to a random cemetery in America and do the same thing
And these 3 tell us who the Phoenicians were? Come on son
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You have no idea how these studies work. In fact, you haven't even read the paper. You're just quote-mining and protesting without proving that your objections hold water.
Take this for instance:
quote:Originally posted by lioness,: So what's the point of this to get into American racial politics? They should be waiting for a better program data base before doing assessments like this,
Prove that "better samples" would provide more credible results. You obviously haven't seen what happens when you subject populations to FORDISC's full panel of comparative samples and you get oddball results that require shitloads of interpretation like Pacific Islander and East Asian. More = not better in this case.
quote:Originally posted by lioness,: It's a dumb study. The location is South Europe the source population is Middle Eastern. Those people should not have "white Americans" and "Black Americans" as their yardstick.
US Americans are even better comparative samples than Middle Eastern samples, because the populations you would have to sample in the eastern Mediterranean already include hybrid phenotypes. Carthaginians potentially clustering with these samples would therefore partially reflect this and would not prove that no SSA and hybrid individuals were present among the Carthaginians.
For instance:
quote:The present report deals with reconstructing the facial shapes of ancient inhabitants of Israel based on their cranial remains. The skulls of a male from the Hellenistic period and a female from the Roman period have been reconstructed. ... From an anthropometric point of view, the two skulls studied here definitely belong to the same sample from the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine populations of Israel as well as from Jews from Prague. Based on its facial reconstruction, the male skull may belong to the large Mediterranean group that inhabited this area from historic to modern times. The female skull also exhibits all the Mediterranean features but, in addition, probably some equatorial (African) mixture manifested by the shape of the reconstructed nose and the facial prognatism.
You're talking but you're not saying anything.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] You have no idea how these studies work. In fact, you haven't even read the paper. You're just quote-mining and protesting without proving that your objections hold water.
I read the article more than once, stop bullshitting Above is verbiage. there is no argument there. "what you say doesn't hold water" - don't waste everybody's time with this blowing wind, you accuse me of quote mining when my whole last post was written by me, go figure I'm not Gish Ibore
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Take this for instance:
quote:Originally posted by lioness,: So what's the point of this to get into American racial politics? They should be waiting for a better program data base before doing assessments like this,
Prove that "better samples" would provide more credible results. You obviously haven't seen what happens when you subject populations to FORDISC's full panel of comparative samples and you get oddball results that require shitloads of interpretation like Pacific Islander and East Asian. More = not better in this case.
US Americans are even better comparative samples than Middle Eastern samples, because the populations you would have to sample in the eastern Mediterranean already include mulatto phenotypes.
Stop your typical straw man attempts. I did not say full panel of "subject populations to FORDISC's "full panel" of comparative samples"
I said subject to the more RELEVANT populations, Southern European and Middle Eastern and North African NOT less relevant Japanese, etc
Even the author admits to these limitations
Now you are bringing up "mulatto phenotypes" and it reveals you are on the same level as Mike, you just have a layer technical lingo on top, the simplistic black/white, either/or paradigm, as if these are separate "races"and that everything else is a "mulatto" between them and you are always more into craniometrics oriented than genetics. You have the old racialist mindset in new clothes
Guess what? The intermediates are taking over and doing away with both blacks and white. You're on your way out buddy
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Mulatto phenotypes, hybrid phenotypes, who cares. I'm not submitting some sort of dissertation. I'm posting on Egyptsearch.
quote:The present report deals with reconstructing the facial shapes of ancient inhabitants of Israel based on their cranial remains. The skulls of a male from the Hellenistic period and a female from the Roman period have been reconstructed. ... From an anthropometric point of view, the two skulls studied here definitely belong to the same sample from the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine populations of Israel as well as from Jews from Prague. Based on its facial reconstruction, the male skull may belong to the large Mediterranean group that inhabited this area from historic to modern times. The female skull also exhibits all the Mediterranean features but, in addition, probably some equatorial (African) mixture manifested by the shape of the reconstructed nose and the facial prognatism.
quote:The MBII samples studied here then represent an intrusive group, and their characteristics suggest that they originated from a damper and/or more temperate climate than that of Israel.
You think population genetics will provide more cover for you to obscure, protest and introduce doubt? You're really mistaken if you think you can escape my point of the North African influences in Israel and beyond by playing some sort of hit and run whack-a-mole game with me.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Again you come out with the straw man
quote:
FORDISC 2.0 (Ousley and Jantz, 1996) was created for forensic applications in the USA. The programme has two reference databases: the Forensic Data Bank (present day crania, forensic and modern cases) and the Howells database (Howells 1973, 1989). The Forensic Data Bank groups individuals into ‘American Blacks’, ‘American Whites’, ‘American Indians’, ‘Japanese’, ‘Chinese’, ‘Vietnamese’ and ‘Hispanic’. The Howells database, groups individuals into geographical regions but was not applied to the Ibizan individuals. A priori, the latter reference database did not have sufficient samples that were appropriate for Ibiza. Preliminary analyses also resulted in Punic skulls having affinities with a variety of world populations. It was the Forensic Data Bank reference sample that was employed for the present study. Only two of its categories were used, determined by the nature of the research and the geographical and chronological background of Ibiza: ‘American Blacks’ with a reference sample of 150 males and 125 females, and ‘American Whites’ with 271 males and 195 females (Ousley and Jantz, 1996). Therefore, the study assumed that each skull belonged to either group.
-- The presence of african individuals in punic populations from the Island of Ibiza (Spain): contributions from physical anthropology Nicholas Márquez-Grant
You're bringing up North Africa. They didn't test for North Africa or Ibiza
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I have no idea what you're talking about or what's supposed to be the strawman attack on my part.
And your objections don't make sense. You can tell by the patterns of affinity of samples what their affinities are. You don't need "the right samples". Stop polluting this thread with your whiny and crappy objections.
Recent samples around the Mediterranean with European-like ancestry will NEVER prefer African Americans over European Americans, unless they have admixture from Africans or something about the analysis is very wrong. Do you have any idea how stupid your objections sound?
So, no, "better samples" has nothing to do with it. Certain Carthaginian samples classifying with "US blacks" over "US whites" is final. There is no "plot twist" down the road that can somehow turn these results around in a way that doesn't involve substantial African ancestry for these individuals.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The idea that Hannibal was black comes from J.A. Rogers who said the Phoenicians were Negroid, the same amateur historian who wrote a book on there being five Negro U.S. presidents.
So the standard by which these five U.S, presidents were black can also be applied to the Phoenicians
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Thx Nehesy thx
Page 200 plate 21
somebody please scan and post these extremely (excuse me) When to use black and when not to negro racial sense otherwise nigger
Canaanite ancient Syrian ancient Lebanese ratchet Retjenu sand crawler niggas please please please please -- I got no access to a scanner at the moment, thanks
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Phoenician colonization4 The Phoenician colonization can be considered as the roots of the Carthaginian culture (Tarradell, 1955: 66). The Phoenicians were people from the Eastern Mediterranean, and more specifically, the area of present day Lebanon.
So? LOL
quote: By the collapse of the Late Bronze Age societies (approximately 3200 YBP), the Mediterranean Basin underwent different waves of invasion, particularly by the Greeks of the Aegean Sea and, to a lower extent, by Levantine (Phoenicians) groups [50]. Both of them established a set of different colonies along the Mediterranean coasts of Southern Europe and North Africa.
Previous Y-chromosome genetic studies on the Phoenician colonization demonstrated that haplogroup J2 in general, and six haplotypes in particular (PCS1+ through PCS6+), may potentially have represented lineages linked with the spread of the Phoenicians (“Phoenician Colonization Signal”) into the Mediterranean [51]. At this respect, it is worth noting the presence of 4 PCS+ haplotypes (namely PCS1+, PCS2+, PCS4+, PCS5+; [51]) in 9 samples of our Sicilian and Southern Italian dataset, particularly belonging to haplogroups J1-M267 (n = 2), J2-M410* (n = 1), J2-M67 (n = 5), and J2-M12 (n = 2). However, sub-lineages of haplogroup J2 have been also associated with the Neolithic colonization of mainland Greece, Crete and Southern Italy [52], and our TMRCA estimates for J2-subhaplogroups (ranging from 3271±1157 YBP to 3767±1332 YBP) cannot exclude an earlier arrival of at least some of the J2 chromosomes in Sicily and Southern-Italy during Neolithic times.
--Stefania Sarno et al.
PLoS One. 2014; 9(4): e96074. Published online 2014 Apr 30. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096074 PMCID: PMC4005757 An Ancient Mediterranean Melting Pot: Investigating the Uniparental Genetic Structure and Population History of Sicily and Southern Italy
quote:Today, it is very frequent in the Levant, Anatolia and Iran41,42 and its recent spread in the Mediterranean is believed to have been facilitated by the maritime trading culture of the Phoenicians (1550–300 BC). According to Zalloua and collaborators43 evidence of Phoenician influence in Tunisian is apparent by the presence of the J-M172 Y-chromosome haplogroup in coastal regions considered as areas of Phoenician contact (versus inland). In Sousse, the J-M172 lineage is exclusively represented by its J-M410 clade, of which the J-L24 mutation is the most prevalent (12 individuals). The remaining seven individuals belong to the following subclades: J-M410 (three individuals), J-Page55 (two individuals) and J-DYS445 ⩽ 7 (one individual).
--Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al.
Sousse: extreme genetic heterogeneity in North Africa
Journal of Human Genetics 60, 41-49 (January 2015) | doi:10.1038/jhg.2014.99
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The article
quote: THE PRESENCE OF AFRICAN INDIVIDUALS IN PUNIC POPULATIONS FROM THE ISLAND OF IBIZA (SPAIN): CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Nicholas Márquez-Grant*
Three of these skulls were classified as ‘Black’, likely proving the presence of individuals in the Ibizan populations with sub-Saharan ancestry.
Said that 3 out of 24 people (12.5%) in this Phoenician samples were black.
Assuming skeletons can be measured for blackness and that these three individuals were black. Who were these blacks?
so were the Carthaginians black?
was Hannibal black?
Is America black?
we have the FORDISC, let's answer these basic questions
____________________________________
Some people in Phoenician Ibiza were black. I find it unremarkable
quote: Only in the case of skull VR47/U30 was one of these measurements included (maximum frontal breadth). This allowed the inclusion of this skull as the urban context is poorly represented in the samples. The required measurements were also taken from the published data.
Measurements were then introduced into the forensic discriminant programme FORDISC 2.0 (Ousley and Jantz, 1996). This programme was selected as it contains data from samples with a European Caucasoid background as well as data from individuals with a sub-Saharan ancestry. It also does not require the complete set of measurements, which is appropriate for the incompletely preserved Ibizan skulls
--Nicholas Márquez-Grant
The presence of african individuals in punic populations from the Island of Ibiza (Spain): contributions from physical anthropology
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^ Ish Gebor picture spamming on people whose looks he's comfortable with
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [D]ata on Carthaginian skeletal remains so, hopefully, there won't be another attempt down the road to downplay the presence of Sub-Saharan Africans there:
Quote: Punic Carthage, North Africa (Sarcophagus 5). FORDISC classification: BM (black male, US)
Punic Carthage, North Africa (Sarcophagus 7). FORDISC classification: BM (black male, US)
Punic Carthage, North Africa (Sarcophagus 14). FORDISC classification: BM (black male, US)
As a sidenote, in Keita 1990 at least 12% of the Maghreb sample (which, as I said earlier, is comprised of Carthaginians and Copper Age Algerians) groups with equatorial Africans (Gabon and Teita) in addition to the 15% that groups with predynastic Egyptians. The percentages that group with Europeans range from 13% to 17%, depending on the analysis. The rest group with the dynastic Egyptians and Nubians.
Anyone who thinks this pattern of relationships is consistent with an unadmixed population or that there is room for "improvement" towards a non-African affinity pending "better non-European samples from the Middle East" is not fit to comment on this subject matter.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
America has admixture as well
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
So?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^ Ish Gebor picture spamming on people whose looks he's comfortable with
Aw, got your feelings hurt? lol GOOD!
Ps, you are too dumb to analyze the data.
"as it contains data from samples with a European Caucasoid background" BAHAHHAAHA.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Several lines of evidence suggest that E-M78 sub-haplogroups E-V12, E-V22 and E-V65 have been involved in trans-Mediterranean migrations directly from Africa. These haplogroups are common in northern Africa, where they likely originated, ...
-- Cruciani et al 2007
Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
For those of you who play Total War: Rome II on Steam...
I have a new mod up which makes the Carthaginian units biologically African (or "black") in appearance. It's actually a redoing of a mod I made a few years back, but the game has updated several times since the first one and has probably made it obsolete.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: For those of you who play Total War: Rome II on Steam...
I have a new mod up which makes the Carthaginian units biologically African (or "black") in appearance. It's actually a redoing of a mod I made a few years back, but the game has updated several times since the first one and has probably made it obsolete.
Pretty good but not quite black enough. You need to tweek up the blackness 10% more
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lioness, you just posted this elsewhere. In light of your strange objections in regards to Márquez-Grant over the last couple of days, you seem surprisingly eager to post proof that African American classifications in FORDISC don't bode well for your theory that strong African ancestry is not implied for the Carthaginian individuals with similar results.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] Source article on Bangle Lady
Again, I'm left wondering if you even read the paper/have the basic comprehension to know when you're debunking yourself.
The African American FORDISC classification of this woman could be independently verified with what the authors called "black ancestral traits". But lioness thinks we can make the Carthaginian FORDISC assignment of substantial African ancestry go away "if only we had the right Middle Easterners".
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
Phoenician mask
Phoenician Canaanite mask
Phoenician mask
Phoenician mask
Carthaginian mask
Phoenician mask with moon eyes
Goddess Tanit
[img] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Goddess_Tanit_%284th_cent._b.C.%29_-_Museu_d%27Arqueologia_de_Catalunya_-_Barcelona_2014_%28crop_1%29.jpg/450px-Goddess_Ta nit_%284th_cent._b.C.%29_-_Museu_d%27Arqueologia_de_Catalunya_-_Barcelona_2014_%28crop_1%29.jpg [/img] Goddess Tanit
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
Goddess Tanit
Tanit Ibiza Spain
Goddess Tanit
Goddess Tanit stela
Goddess Tanit
Carthaginian goddesses
Bronze Tanit Ibiza
Tanit symbol
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
God Baal
Goddess Tanit
Goddess Tanit
Carthaginian coin
Dama del Eche
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
Dama de Elche
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lioness, you just posted this elsewhere. In light of your strange objections in regards to Márquez-Grant over the last couple of days, you seem surprisingly eager to post proof that African American classifications in FORDISC don't bode well for your theory that strong African ancestry is not implied for the Carthaginian individuals with similar results.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] Source article on Bangle Lady
Again, I'm left wondering if you even read the paper/have the basic comprehension to know when you're debunking yourself.
The African American FORDISC classification of this woman could be independently verified with what the authors called "black ancestral traits". But lioness thinks we can make the Carthaginian FORDISC assignment of substantial African ancestry go away "if only we had the right Middle Easterners".
A Lady of York: migration, ethnicity and identity in Roman Britain S. Leach,1 H. Eckardt1, C. Chenery1,2, G. Mu ̈ldner1 & M. Lewis1 March 2010,
The remains of the ‘ivory bangle lady’ were analysed using standard methods for the assessment of ancestry in forensic anthropology (see Bass 1995; Byers 2005). During the osteological analysis it was noted that the facial characteristics of this female exhibited a mix of ‘black’ and ‘white’ ancestral traits (Figure 3). The skull exhibited a low, wide and broad nasal ridge and wide inter-orbital breadth suggestive of ‘black’ ancestry, while the nasal spine and nasal border demonstrated ‘white’ characteristics. The shape of the nasal aperture was inconclusive.
The craniomorphometric analysis suggests that she may have been of ‘mixed race’ ancestry.
The case of the ‘ivory bangle lady’ contradicts assumptions that may derive from more recent historical experience, namely that immigrants are low status and male, and that African individuals are likely to have been slaves. Instead, it is clear that both women and children moved across the Empire, often associated with the military (James 2001: 80).
Artefactual evidence also suggests that ‘the Roman north was a cosmopolitan place with a great mixing of people from all over the empire’ (Cool 2002: 42). For example, Swan (1992) argued for the presence of North Africans in York on the basis of braziers and other vessels typical of North African food-ways but made in local fabrics.
Roman North Africa is well known for its mixed populations (e.g. Mattingly & Hitchner 1995: 171-4) reflecting Phoenician, Berber and generally Mediterranean influences, and individuals from Roman North Africa are therefore more likely to display mixed rather than strongly Sub-Saharan features.
[/QUOTE]
If she was a Roman citizen she was Roman in that sense.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Swenet's basic premise is that human skulls have two poles of extremity. One is black and the other is white and this can be determined by measurements. That is belief in race
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
^Based on craniometrics who would have stronger African Affiliation, Nipsey Hussle or Jordan Peele?
lol
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet's basic premise is that human skulls have two poles of extremity. One is black and the other is white and this can be determined by measurements. That is belief in race
Populations can be analyzed in terms of how they fit in between two morphological extremes. In capable hands, there is population affinity information that can be gained from that. That's one of the basic premises of all physical anthropology. Very sad that you still seem to be confused about that after six years.
It's very simple.
--living Middle Easterners are in a genetic cluster with Europeans, owing to several recent and impactful admixture events on top of the affinity that was already there due to OOA --because of this, they're expected to have a similar morphological distance to Africans --almost all deviations from this expectation on the part of living European or Middle Eastern groups is due to admixture from some outside source
You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. That's why you think Carthaginian affinities are still up in the air pending the inclusion of a "great white hope" that can make the absolute horror of non-white Carthaginians go away. But, like I said, the African American classifications are final (in the sense of showing strong African presence there) and there is nothing you can do about that other than pout like a baby.
And I never said Carthaginians with closer affinity to FORDISC's African American samples would necessarily mean said Carthaginians would cluster with equatorial inner Africans. So, attempts to contrast my post with quotes saying the Romano-British woman had so called 'white' traits to a similar degree as African Americans are hopelessly clueless. As are your constant complaints that "America is mixed".
Notice the habitual lack of sources in your posts. Sources you do post every once in a blue moon are quote-mined (see your sad botching of Márquez-Grant who supposedly observed Afram classifictions "for only three Punic Ibizans"). How can you stoop so low? How can you walk away with the illusion that only three individuals classified as African American in a paper filled with statements it was much more than three?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Carthage was in Africa therefore if many of the people living there came to have the mixed look of berbers it would be unsurprising ]. I don't see what the news flash is.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Carthage was in Africa therefore if many of the people living there came to have the mixed look of berbers it would be unsurprising .
Post evidence showing that Carthaginians had a mixed look of Berbers (and nothing more), RIGHT NOW or you're lying and deliberately misrepresenting Márquez-Grant who said the Punic remains included BOTH North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
You said you read the study several times so if said evidence is not forthcoming we know you're deliberately lying and can't be trusted to accurately portray anything involving ancient Africans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Carthage was in Africa therefore if many of the people living there came to have the mixed look of berbers it would be unsurprising .
Post evidence showing that Carthaginians had a mixed look of Berbers (and nothing more), RIGHT NOW or you're lying and deliberately misrepresenting Márquez-Grant.
I didn't say Márquez-Grant.My remarks are based on reading this article, also reading > sIdentifying Genetic Traces of Historical Expansions: Phoenician Footprints in the Mediterranean by Pierre A. Zalloua Plus looking at the art and at other sources over the years
However according to the Márquez-Grant. article no persons met the criteria for "black" skulls Before I proceed that is a very deep problem of course using a color to describe a skull morphology. Anyway they indicate it means African American (supposedly on average 24% European) . So none of the skulls fit the criteria for being African American except three almost do. There is one they classify as "white American" That leaves 19 unknowns people who might, if they had a better database be affiliated with Southern European, Maghrebian E-M81 carriers, Near Easterners, Sub Saharan Africans, the usual suspect mix for berbers. Unlike you Márquez-Grant admits to FORDISC's limitations.
Suppose there were three individuals in Phoenician Ibiza whose skulls resembled African Americans.Tell us Swenet can you draw a conclusion on the whole civilization based on that?
There is no way of knowing at what percentage such people were in the society. The Phoenicians come from Lebanon. So would these African American looking skulls be similar to them or would these be soldiers, slaves or naturalized citizens of some sort who were only Phoenician in nationality? The answer is unknown.
That is a study of 24 individuals and it's foolish to attempt to do demographics of the whole civilization based on that. This the authors have said, so no need to keep stretching.
The Island Ibiza has it's own particularities
In 654 BC, Phoenician settlers founded a port in the Balearic Islands, Ibiza was a major trading post along the Mediterranean routes. Ibiza began establishing its own trading stations along the nearby Balearic island of Majorca, such as Na Guardis, where numerous Balearic mercenaries hired on, no doubt as slingers to fight for Carthage.
quote: At this time the Carthaginians, being elated over their successes in Sicily and eager to become lords of the whole island, voted to prepare great armaments; and electing as general Hannibal, who had razed to the ground both the city of the Selinuntians and that of the Himeraeans, they committed to him full authority over the conduct of the war. When he begged to be excused because of his age, they appointed besides him another general, Himilcon, the son of Hanno and of the same family.42 2 These two, after full consultation, dispatched certain citizens who were held in high esteem among the Carthaginians with large sums of money, some to Iberia and others to the Baliarides Islands, with orders to recruit as many mercenaries as possible. 3 And they themselves canvassed Libya, enrolling as soldiers Libyans and Phoenicians and the stoutest from among their own citizens. Moreover they summoned soldiers also from the nations and kings who were their allies, Maurusians and Nomads and certain peoples who dwell in the regions toward Cyrenê. 4 Also from Italy they hired Campanians and brought them over to Libya; for they knew that their aid would be of great assistance to them and that the Campanians who had p349been left behind in Sicily, because they had fallen out with the Carthaginians,43 would fight on the side of the Sicilian Greeks. 5 And when the armaments were finally assembled at Carthage, the sum total of the troops collected together with the cavalry was a little over one hundred and twenty thousand, according to Timaeus, but three hundred thousand, according to Ephorus.
DIODORUS SICULUS LIBRARY OF HISTORY
(Book XIII)
79.8
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
^ hmm so... who's skull is "blacker" is it Nipsey hussles or Jordan Peele? ...better yet, lets rephrase the question, who's skull would serve as a better determinant for the AfrAm phenotype? which is more African?
Lioness' would make an exceptional Limbo player(s) ..Figuratively that is.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So none of the skulls fit the criteria for being African American except three almost do.
Your posts in regards to this topic are a complete and utter fail. You're a mess and all over the place.
The Phoenician haplogroup study is completely irrelevant spam because you've already been told that the closest sample to Carthaginians so far are the pre-Carthaginian Algerians, not Phoenicians or other populations in the Mediterranean Basin. Do I need to remind you that Keita's sample from Israel (Lachish) preferred late dynastic northern Egyptians over the pooled Algerian + Carthaginian sample?
Your claim that the African American classifications were necessarily overturned in the case of the individuals who failed to meet the stringent criteria is a lie as you know (from reading the paper several times) that neither the West Africans nor the "African/Portugese Mulatto" controls met these criteria of similarity to this African American sample. They ALL 'failed' these stringent criteria, while still reporting the same moderate' African American classifications as most individuals within the Carthaginian sample. So you're debunked on that one as well.
Your claim that the remaining individuals with weaker African American classifications are "unknowns" with better results around the Mediterranean is complete fail because Márquez-Grant clearly states that Spanish (prehistoric all the way to medieval), Bedouin and North African samples don't report the affinities these Punic individuals have with African Americans. The Spanish, North African and Bedouin samples are all more homogeneous and have poorer affinities with African Americans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The Spanish, North African and Bedouin samples are all more homogeneous and have poorer affinities with African Americans. [/QB]
Again it goes back to how "Phoenician" is defined as an ethnic group or as a nationality
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet's basic premise is that human skulls have two poles of extremity. One is black and the other is white and this can be determined by measurements. That is belief in race
Lioness that premise has been debunked. Your excuse was, "it's picture spam". lol
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Again, you're talking about Phoenicians when I'm talking about Carthaginians. In the quote you're responding I say that Carthaginians have a degree of affinity to African Americans that Spanish, North Africans and Bedouin samples don't have. Not sure why you bring the Phoenicians back up again.
Just admit that you botched Márquez-Grant. The man never said that only three individuals classify as African Americans. In fact, he gives higher priority to a reading of African ancestry for the other ones. And this is not based on speculation but on his own tests aimed at clarifying the affinities of the remaining samples with a weaker African American classification:
quote: In the light of these results, and considering the FORDISC 2.0 results from populations in Iberia, North Africa and sub-Saharan African which have not been presented here due to space limitations, it can be suggested that those Ibizan skulls classified as ‘Black’ with reasonable to high probabilities and low typicalities clearly have an African, and perhaps an Eastern Mediterranean, ancestry.
Again:
"considering the FORDISC 2.0 results from populations in Iberia, North Africa and sub-Saharan African which have not been presented here due to space limitations"
The Carthaginian sample has more of a tendency towards Africans than all these circum-Mediterranean samples. This is final. They had a Sub-Saharan component independent of the Berber component, whether you like it or not.
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
The Carthaginian sample has more of a tendency towards Africans than all these circum-Mediterranean samples. This is final. They had a Sub-Saharan component independent of the Berber component, whether you like it or not.
Carthage was in Tunisia along the coast of North Africa. What would the explanation of a Sub-Saharan component being there be ?
No sarcasm please, what are some possible explanations?
I assume they were not related to the Capsians 10,000 to 6,000 BC
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
The Carthaginian sample has more of a tendency towards Africans than all these circum-Mediterranean samples. This is final. They had a Sub-Saharan component independent of the Berber component, whether you like it or not.
Carthage was in Tunisia along the coast of North Africa. What would the explanation of a Sub-Saharan component being there be ?
Hypotheses non fingo.
You'd just blindly antagonize what I'd say, anyway. You'll have to do with what you've already been told about coastal Algerians and Tunisians 1000BCE:
quote:The analyses demonstrate the metric het- erogeneity of pre-Roman mid-Holocene Maghreban crania. The range of variation in the restricted area described extends from a tropical African metric pattern to a Euro- pean one and supports the phenotypic vari- ability observed in and near Carthage by ancient writers and in morphological stud- ies. Thus the population emerges as a com- posite entity, no doubt also containing hy- brid individuals. However, the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indi- cates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans. Fur- thermore, the series from the coastal Magh- reb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses.
—Keita 1990
Sites of Keita's 1000BCE Maghrebi sample, showing that these Maghrebi samples are not inland and that you need to come to grips with the SSA presence along coastal sites:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
The Carthaginian sample has more of a tendency towards Africans than all these circum-Mediterranean samples. This is final. They had a Sub-Saharan component independent of the Berber component, whether you like it or not.
Carthage was in Tunisia along the coast of North Africa. What would the explanation of a Sub-Saharan component being there be ?
No sarcasm please, what are some possible explanations?
I assume they were not related to the Capsians 10,000 to 6,000 BC
Hypotheses non fingo. You'd just blindly antagonize what I'd say, anyway.
Don't be afraid to give a hypothesis just because of what I may or may not say
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indi- cates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans. Fur- thermore, the series from the coastal Magh- reb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses.
—Keita 1990
Why would one mention far off northwest Europeans in looking at the Maghreb?
Anyway what groups cluster crainiometrically with northern dynastic Egyptians?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Why would one mention far off northwest Europeans in looking at the Maghreb?
Because taking a southern European sample defeats the purpose. How many times do we have to go over the fact that if you want to see where a test population (in this case, coastal Maghreb) sits in between two extremes, you're supposed to take, well.... TWO EXTREMES. Not more hybrid samples. If you want to know whether Obama resembles people who come from his Luo ethnic background, would you use Colin Powell as an example of Europeans and Tiger Woods as a proxy of Luos? Or maybe you would do something obtuse like that. After all, you did propose the joke that we need to take hybrid Middle Eastern samples and contrast them with Carthaginians so that we can obfuscate the latter sample's affinity with African Americans.
Why are you even taking positions as adamantly as you do? You obviously can't handle yourself on even the basics. Just take a backseat and stick to posting and commenting on pictures.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Why would one mention far off northwest Europeans in looking at the Maghreb?
Because taking a southern European sample defeats the purpose. How many times do we have to go over the fact that if you want to see where a test population (in this case, coastal Maghreb) sits in between two extremes, you're supposed to take, well.... TWO EXTREMES. Not more hybrid samples. If you want to know whether Obama resembles people who come from his Luo ethnic background, would you use Colin Powell as an example of Europeans and Tiger Woods as a proxy of Luos? Or maybe you would do something obtuse like that. After all, you did propose the joke that we need to take hybrid Middle Eastern samples and contrast them with Carthaginians so that we can obfuscate the latter sample's affinity with African Americans.
Why are you even taking positions as adamantly as you do? You obviously can't handle yourself on even the basics. Just take a backseat and stick to posting and commenting on pictures.
Don't be insulting about pictures I do more research than many people here. I go to the source material and read them and post more hard to find text than anybody.
One could argue that the furthest extreme of a Sub Saharan African on a genetic and morphological level would be an Inuit or Siberian. And next to that we might deal with a Northern Russian of Scandinavian rather than a "white American" who is at a more Central Euroepan position. On the other end we would have an African rather than an African American who is 24% European ! As noted by the authors they did not have African samples.
I'm noticing you have a mindset that I often see on Egyptsearch in people that know less than you do. That is no recognition of an intermediate position between tropically adapted and cold adapted people. You only speak of "hybrid" and that shows your bias. The reason that there are "cold adapted" (relatively more) people is that they were former tropically adapted people who moved into new environments gradually and this represents more people than admixed people but you keep saying hybrid, bringing up Tiger Woods etc as if that is the only explanation. You need to stop doing that. Admixture is only part of the story and it is the lesser part. Intermediate populations are much larger than admixtures.
The skull is not one measurement it is many measurements. Each variance of a particular measurement does not necessarily vary in proportion to the other measurements hence a significant element of uncertainty in crainiometry and including diet, bottlenecking and other factors in addition to temperature adaptation.
So we look at the fordisc data available at that time and decide to use black Americans and white americans as "opposites" for comparison to our sample. BAs are "1" and WAs are "20"
Our sample is say, 7 and that is closer to black American than to white American.
But it is closer to an intermediate position.
You argue that in this study Carthaginian skulls Phoenicians were more similar to African American skulls than they were to white American skulls.
>> OK I have no argument against that
We look at a given ancient skull from anywhere in the world. What are we trying determine? I would say what living population is it closest to. You say it's more important to compare it to black Americans and white Americans and see which it is closest.
My question to you is what modern population anywhere in the world is closest crainimetrically to the Cartheginians?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: One could argue that the furthest extreme of a Sub Saharan African on a genetic and morphological level would be an Inuit or Siberian.
Okay genius. how would it further our understanding of Obama's morphological population affinity if we would use Siberians as a proxy for Obama's European ancestry? Try to answer that question without scratching your head re: the pointlessness of your silly suggestions.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You need to stop doing that. Admixture is only part of the story and it is the lesser part. Intermediate populations are much larger than admixtures.
Give examples of such naturally intermediate populations and prove that I've ever forced them in between two extremes. Either that, or you're fabricating bs now.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So we look at the fordisc data available at that time and decide to use black Americans and white americans as "opposites" for comparison to our sample. BAs are "1" and WAs are "20"
Our sample is say, 7 and that is closer to black American than to white American.
SMH. I think she's starting to see the light. Not quite there yet, but she's finally picking up some crumbs allowing her to somewhat accurately portray what's happening with some of the Carthaginian individuals.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You argue that in this study Carthaginian skulls Phoenicians were more similar to African American skulls than they were to white American skulls.
Not only that, I also argue that in some cases, African Americans were intermediate between Carthaginian and Phoenician individuals on the one hand and Europeans on the other hand. We've already discussed the fact that Carthaginians included a Sub-Saharan component in addition to a Berber component. Keita said in that post you cut short (deliberately[?]) that not all Carthaginians with African features were hybrids. (Hopefully it won't take another 15 back and forth exchanges to get that simple fact to sink in).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: OK I have no argument against that
Really? Glad to have your approval. I feel so relieved.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: We look at a given ancient skull from anywhere in the world. What are we trying determine? I would say what living population is it closest to. You say it's more important to compare it to black Americans and white Americans and see which it is closest.
I did? Where did I say it was appropriate to randomly treat populations as an admixture between a European source and a African American source?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
And of all the quoted you left out the most important one
quote: what modern population anywhere in the world is closest crainimetrically to the Cartheginians?
.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
No, troll. I've already answered that several times. Either you're baiting or for some reason it's not sinking in like some of the other things I've had to say repeatedly.
quote:However, the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indi- cates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans. Fur- thermore, the series from the coastal Magh- reb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses.
—Keita 1990
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Significance? Aside from the fact that some crania in the Lachish sample reproduce Márquez-Grant's "African American" FORDISC classification of the Phoenician (showing the Phoenician with high prob & low typ "US Black" classification is not an anomaly), the Maghrebi sample used here is a pooled Chalcolithic Algerian and Carthaginian sample. Both constituent samples are morphometrically close before showing ties with other samples in the Mediterranean Basin (Keita 1990) which calls into question lioness' attempt to paint Carthaginians as transplants from the Levant.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: And of all the quoted you left out the most important one
quote: what modern population anywhere in the world is closest crainimetrically to the Cartheginians?
.
Again, dynastic Egyptians are not modern, so let us know when you have an answer and stop name calling which is trolling behavior an attempt to instigate an emotional reaction from me
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Answered as well. You should have also come across the answer to your question during the supposedly several times you read Márquez-Grant.
quote:The most complete skull from a Phoenician sample from Israel (Smith et al., 1990) provided a ‘Black male’ result with high probability but low typicality. Probabilities ranging between 0.600 and 1.000 in the category ‘Black’, with typicalities mainly under 0.400 were present in Punic skulls from Carthage (Bertholon and Chantre, 1913), Neolithic and proto-historic skulls from Sahara and sub-Saharan Africa (data collected by Chamla, 1968), and in modern African skulls measured by Barras de Aragón (1911).
The answer from looking at all the evidence is African Americans or some other population that includes equatorial African + European-like + hybrid/intermediate phenotypes. And it should be noted that European-like does not necessarily mean European because this is what some of the so-called 'white' Carthaginians would have looked like:
quote:Facial reconstruction of a Punic skull from Puig des Molins (PM01/UE52). Drawing by Simon Lygo and anthropological study by N. Márquez-Grant. This skull has been studied elsewhere (Márquez-Grant, in press) and resulted in a ‘White Male’ with a posterior probability of .841 and a typicality OF .669.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Carthage was started my Phoenician traders form Lebanon. Then what happened?
What African population is the main component of the African component in Carthaginians?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Stop asking for handouts. Read the reading materials and give back to the community after all you've learned during your information leeching routines (i.e. getting information out of people while antagonizing and feigning competence).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Stop asking for handouts. Read the reading materials and give back to the community after all you've learned during your information leeching routines (i.e. getting information out of people while antagonizing and feigning competence).
Guess what? We come to the difficult questions. Let them not be a stumbling block
I'm not the only one reading this.
For the benefit of the readership >>
Carthage was started my Phoenician traders form Lebanon. Then what happened?
What African population is the main component of the African component in Carthaginians?
I might agree with you. I'm bogged down now been doing the moor art research in AE
- perhaps some overlap there? Maure etc?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Hopelessly obtuse and opaque when tendered independent analysis built on absorbing and synthesizing data to confirm/disconfirm personal hypotheses.
Woefully transparent trying to bog down topics, asking the just answered (which was also answered innumerable times in past, yearly, monthly, weekly, even hourly judging from the above).
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Guess what? We come to the difficult questions. Let them not be a stumbling block
I'm not the only one reading this.
For the benefit of the readership >>
Carthage was started my Phoenician traders form Lebanon. Then what happened?
What African population is the main component of the African component in Carthaginians?
I might agree with you. I'm bogged down now been doing the moor art research in AE
- perhaps some overlap there? Maure etc?
The irony ...The fact that you've dragged and warped a simple concept for a series of posts now makes the above statement seem disingenuous.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
The Carthaginian sample has more of a tendency towards Africans than all these circum-Mediterranean samples. This is final. They had a Sub-Saharan component independent of the Berber component, whether you like it or not.
Carthage was in Tunisia along the coast of North Africa. What would the explanation of a Sub-Saharan component being there be ?
No sarcasm please, what are some possible explanations?
I assume they were not related to the Capsians 10,000 to 6,000 BC
quote: Evidence from throughout the Sahara indicates that the region experienced a cool, dry and windy climate during the last glacial period, followed by a wetter climate with the onset of the current interglacial, with humid conditions being fully established by around 10,000 years BP, when we see the first evidence of a reoccupation of parts of the central Sahara by hunter gathers, most likely originating from sub-Saharan Africa (Cremaschi and Di Lernia, 1998; Goudie, 1992; Phillipson, 1993; Ritchie, 1994; Roberts, 1998).
[...]
Conical tumuli, platform burials and a V-type monument represent structures similar to those found in other Saharan regions and associated with human burials, appearing in sixth millennium BP onwards in northeast Niger and southwest Libya (Sivilli, 2002). In the latter area a shift in emphasis from faunal to human burials, complete by the early fifth millennium BP, has been interpreted by Di Lernia and Manzi (2002) as being associated with a changes in social organisation that occurred at a time of increasing aridity. While further research is required in order to place the funerary monuments of Western Sahara in their chronological context, we can postulate a similar process as a hypothesis to be tested, based on the high density of burial sites recorded in the 2002 survey. Fig. 2: Megaliths associated with tumulus burial (to right of frame), north of Tifariti (Fig. 1). A monument consisting of sixty five stelae was also of great interest; precise alignments north and east, a division of the area covered into separate units, and a deliberate scattering of quartzite inside the structure, are suggestive of an astronomical function associated with funerary rituals. Stelae are also associated with a number of burial sites, again suggesting dual funerary and astronomical functions (Figure 2). Further similarities with other Saharan regions are evident in the rock art recorded in the study area, although local stylistic developments are also apparent. Carvings of wild fauna at the site of Sluguilla resemble the Tazina style found in Algeria, Libya and Morocco (Pichler and Rodrigue, 2003), although examples of elephant and rhinoceros in a naturalistic style reminiscent of engravings from the central Sahara believed to date from the early Holocene are also present.
--Nick Brooks et al. (2004)
The prehistory of Western Sahara in a regional context: the archaeology of the "free zone"
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Saharan Studies Programme and School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Coauthors: Di Lernia, Savino ((Department of Scienze Storiche, Archeologiche, e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Via Palestro 63, 00185 – Rome, Italy) and Drake, Nick (Department of Geography, King’s College, Strand, London WC2R 2LS).
quote: The presence of sub-Saharan L-type mtDNA sequences in North Africa has traditionally been explained by the recent slave trade. However, gene flow between sub-Saharan and northern African populations would also have been made possible earlier through the greening of the Sahara resulting from Early Holocene climatic improvement. In this article, we examine human dispersals across the Sahara through the analysis of the sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroup L3e5, which is not only commonly found in the Lake Chad Basin (∼17%), but which also attains nonnegligible frequencies (∼10%) in some Northwestern African populations. Age estimates point to its origin ∼10 ka, probably directly in the Lake Chad Basin, where the clade occurs across linguistic boundaries. The virtual absence of this specific haplogroup in Daza from Northern Chad and all West African populations suggests that its migration took place elsewhere, perhaps through Northern Niger. Interestingly, independent confirmation of Early Holocene contacts between North Africa and the Lake Chad Basin have been provided by craniofacial data from Central Niger, supporting our suggestion that the Early Holocene offered a suitable climatic window for genetic exchanges between North and sub-Saharan Africa. In view of its younger founder age in North Africa, the discontinuous distribution of L3e5 was probably caused by the Middle Holocene re-expansion of the Sahara desert, disrupting the clade's original continuous spread.
--Eliška Podgorná et al.
Annals of Human Genetics Volume 77, Issue 6, pages 513–523, November 2013
The Genetic Impact of the Lake Chad Basin Population in North Africa as Documented by Mitochondrial Diversity and Internal Variation of the L3e5 Haplogroup
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
quote:Museum of Antiquities piece busts history wide open
Bronze sculpture of Hannibal may have belonged to Napoleon
Napoleon-Bust--Jeff-Glasel
This bronze bust of Hannibal is on display in the U of S Museum of Antinquities.
Curators at the University of Saskatchewan’s Museum of Antiquities have made the surprising discovery that the bust of Hannibal may have once sat on the mantlepiece of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Modelled on famed Roman General Hannibal Barca, the bust was recently announced to have possibly been owned by the legendary French Emperor after new evidence came into light in support of the theory. Though the museum had been interested in pursuing the idea for some time, it wasn’t until assistant curator Helanna Miazga made it her pet project that any concrete headway was made.
“This past summer in August I kind of took the project for my own… and I found in one of his secretary’s memoirs a description of Saint-Cloud Château, which was one of his main seats of power, and on the mantelpiece in his workroom there was a bronze bust of Hannibal and Scipio — who’s the roman general who defeated Hannibal and they’re both military icons of Napoleon,” Miazga said. “That was the first major clue.
“We have the only bronze bust of Hannibal that we know of. There might be one in a private collection somewhere but we have no way of knowing that.”
The bust in question has been among other pieces in the Museum of Antiquities since 1989, when it was received as a donation. While there is still further investigating to be done into the item — which is believed to have been created by either French sculptor François Girardon or his protegé Sébastian Slodtz — this new information could help to fill in holes in its history that had once proved elusive.
Miazga cited one possible avenue of research as looking “into the Scipio bust that was with Hannibal, to try to locate that one. It would be interesting to know where that one was as well, just to try and figure out who had it in the first place. The Saint-Cloud Château was sacked twice — once in 1814, right after Napoleon was done being the French emperor, and again in 1870.
I did read someone’s account of the sacking in 1814 that said that the Prussian looted the place, so it could have ended up in Prussia or anywhere with a Germanic background.”
While the current appraisal of the artifact could not be revealed due to insurance purposes, Miazga said that the bust once sold at auction for a mere $60.
Made in the 17th century, the bust veers toward the end of the timeline covered by the museum. Miazga referred to the item as among the collection’s “prized jewels” and listed other such items as including a collection of original coins and a selection of ancient glass dated to the 13th century Before Common Era — over 2,000 years old.
Miazga is particularly excited by the enthusiastic response to the revelation, and believes that associating the bust with a name as commonly known as Napoleon has helped to generate a buzz among the community.
“It’s great for the museum, the attention he’s been getting,” Miazga said. “Lots of people have been calling it the Napoleon bust, but it’s a bust of Hannibal. It’s just showing how people are connecting with Napoleon Bonaparte and the French Revolution and more modern history than anything that’s ancient.”
While Miazga is proud of the work that’s been done on the Hannibal bust, she hopes that the spotlight it’s put on the Museum of Antiquities will inspire academics and members of the greater community to seek it out as a partner in their research.
“We’re here. Come and do research. We have all the information that you need,” Miazga said. “We can help you do research. Even academics — professors that are interested in French art — just come over.”
Visitors can see the Hannibal bust for themselves during the Museum of Antiquities regular operating hours: 9 a.m. – 4 p.m. Monday to Friday and 12 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Saturdays.
In late January 2015, the website of the French-speaking Radio Canada, announced the discovery of a bust of Hannibal that belonged to Napoleon Bonaparte in the collection of the antiquities museum of the University of Saskatchewan, the English-speaking province located in west-central Canada. This was quite an intriguing piece of news! As we await the publication of more details concerning the research that has allowed the curators to reach this conclusion, here is an update on this exceptional artwork with insight from the museum specialists from the University of Saskatchewan.
[...]
The bust of Hannibal owned by the University of Saskatchewan The article by Radio Canada which appeared in late January 2015, which sparked off our little investigation, already gives valuable information about the object in the collection of the Canadian Museum of Antiquities: – The bust dates from the seventeenth century; – It was sold at auction in New York for about $70 in 1939; – It was discovered in the collection of the museum in 1988, with no idea of how it got there. – The curators on site were able to establish its possession by Napoleon thanks to references to bust found in a document written by Napoleon's
LOL, Lioness you should admit that Swenet won this one, Im just saying he's provided you with everything you're asking for, at this point it seems you are just being willfully ignorant.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Answered as well. You should have also come across the answer to your question during the supposedly several times you read Márquez-Grant.
quote:The most complete skull from a Phoenician sample from Israel (Smith et al., 1990) provided a ‘Black male’ result with high probability but low typicality. Probabilities ranging between 0.600 and 1.000 in the category ‘Black’, with typicalities mainly under 0.400 were present in Punic skulls from Carthage (Bertholon and Chantre, 1913), Neolithic and proto-historic skulls from Sahara and sub-Saharan Africa (data collected by Chamla, 1968), and in modern African skulls measured by Barras de Aragón (1911).
The answer from looking at all the evidence is African Americans or some other population that includes equatorial African + European-like + hybrid/intermediate phenotypes. And it should be noted that European-like does not necessarily mean European because this is what some of the so-called 'white' Carthaginians would have looked like:
quote:Facial reconstruction of a Punic skull from Puig des Molins (PM01/UE52). Drawing by Simon Lygo and anthropological study by N. Márquez-Grant. This skull has been studied elsewhere (Márquez-Grant, in press) and resulted in a ‘White Male’ with a posterior probability of .841 and a typicality OF .669.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: Elephants were the tanks of ancient Mediterranean warfare, commonly used for trampling and intimidating enemies. Yet there was only one battle in which African elephants and their Asian cousins are known to have met—the Battle of Raphia, in Gaza, in 217 B.C. According to the historian Polybius, it wasn’t even a contest. He writes that the African pachyderms, under the command of the Ptolemaic pharaoh of Egypt, panicked and tried to flee at the sight of the larger Asian elephants of the Seleucid army. Yet African savannah elephants are typically bigger and stronger than Asian ones. Had Polybius gotten it wrong? Modern writers have speculated that the Egyptians had African forest elephants, a smaller species than the savannah variety. Later Roman and Carthaginian armies, including Hannibal’s forces, might also have used forest elephants.
That idea has crept into modern accounts, depictions, and even video games such as Age of Empires, in which war elephants have the rounded ears and dwarfish proportions of the forest dwellers. Now geneticists have found that the species of elephant that the Egyptians had access to came from modern-day Eritrea in East Africa, and share no genetic markers with forest elephants. “The idea that they used forest elephants was not based on evidence, but it got repeated over and over,” says geneticist Alfred Roca of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “It makes no sense. Forest elephants lived in the Congo basin, thousands of miles from the Mediterranean.” The matter of Polybius’ account remains unsettled."
That's a good one Ish Gebor, I'd read about it but forgot the details.
Congo forest elephants are likely not dwarfed, they just never attained the larger size of the African savanna elephants. Similarly, the Congo okapi forest giraffe is smaller than savanna giraffes, and Congo pygmy people are smaller than savanna peoples.
An opposite situation is that the Congo giant forest hog is (I think) larger than savanna warthogs.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
The common ancestor of the Congo forest elephants those of the savanna are bigger than both modern species. The forest elephants selected for a smaller size, they dwarfed.
Also interesting is Polybius testimony on the matter. Eritrean Elephants are still as big if not bigger than asian elephants, they're African savanna elephants.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The common ancestor of the Congo forest elephants those of the savanna are bigger than both modern species. The forest elephants selected for a smaller size, they dwarfed.
Also interesting is Polybius testimony on the matter. Eritrean Elephants are still as big if not bigger than asian elephants, they're African savanna elephants.
Thanks for posting this one.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
I know its unusual, but for the lack of a better source. It's reasonable.
Roman bronze elephant Staatliche Antikensammlungen SL 50
Roman bronze elephant Staatliche Antikensammlungen SL 50
Piazzale delle Corporazioni Ostia Antica
Mosaic with an elephant. Part of Statio 14 (for Sabratha office) of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni, Ostia Antica, Latium, Italy.
quote: The North African elephant (Loxodonta africana pharaoensis) was the subspecies of the African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana), or possibly a separate elephant species, that existed in North Africa north of the Sahara until becoming extinct in Ancient Roman times. These were the famous war elephants used by Carthage in the Punic Wars, their conflict with the Roman Republic. Although the subspecies has been formally described,[1][2] it has not been widely recognized by taxonomists. Other names for this animal include the North African forest elephant, Carthaginian elephant, and Atlas elephant. Originally, its natural range probably extended across North Africa and down to the present Sudanese and Eritrean coasts.
I recall reading somewhere that the ancient Greeks and Romans tended to assume everything was bigger in India, as if it were like Texas. If so, that might account for Polybius's claim that Indian elephants had to be bigger than their African brethren. Regardless, I always found the identification of North African elephants as forest elephants rather nonsensical. If any elephants in Africa could thrive in the deserts and scrublands of North Africa, it'd be the bush elephants, not those adapted to living in humid jungles.
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
Elmaestro: "The common ancestor of the Congo forest elephants those of the savanna are bigger than both modern species. The forest elephants selected for a smaller size, they dwarfed."
That is very unlikely. Rather, savanna elephants likely enlarged.
A parallel example: Modern Horse/Zebra (grass-grazers) ancestors were rainforest leaf-browsers of small size (dog-like). Those that adapted to a grassland became larger. The plausible reason for giant forest hogs is that they are omnivorous, so have weaker selection for shrinkage.
Technically, a dwarf has short limbs and normal frame size.
Note: Both the North African elephants and Sirenian seacows (close kin, including manatees and dugongs) had formerly lived around the Mediterranean, then went extinct during classic Rome times, perhaps due to the excellent roadways constructed then allowing easier transportation of game and trade.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Wow, this is incredibly interesting..
All of the classical depictions and descriptions gives me the hint that the North African subspecies was of the forest variety. If you take into account the (un)likelihood of a North African Elep. being a subspecies of the Savanna Elep. but resembling the neighboring forest elephant and going extinct, it should make you question the authenticity of the claim that the north Africans at the time retrieved their Elephants from east Africa.
For something like the dwarfing of a species to happen there have to be selective pressure or breeding... however, there is no evidence of breeding and the north African subgroup is extinct which weakens the argument of selective pressure..
Modern Forest elephants stretch as far as Guinea. The western variety of the forest elephant are and were undergoing rapid population decline mostly due to the deforestation of the region. The elephants said to have roamed West African areas of Morocco could have been a subspecies or even a sibling of the forest elephant driven to extinction due to the aridification and deforestation of the Sahara.
I want to know where exactly the Ptolemis got their elephants from though, because if they were in fact from east africa, they're most like not of the same variety of the proposed atlas elephant. And Polybius was probably trippin'
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: Elmaestro: "The common ancestor of the Congo forest elephants those of the savanna are bigger than both modern species. The forest elephants selected for a smaller size, they dwarfed."
That is very unlikely. Rather, savanna elephants likely enlarged.
A parallel example: Modern Horse/Zebra (grass-grazers) ancestors were rainforest leaf-browsers of small size (dog-like). Those that adapted to a grassland became larger. The plausible reason for giant forest hogs is that they are omnivorous, so have weaker selection for shrinkage.
Technically, a dwarf has short limbs and normal frame size.
Note: Both the North African elephants and Sirenian seacows (close kin, including manatees and dugongs) had formerly lived around the Mediterranean, then went extinct during classic Rome times, perhaps due to the excellent roadways constructed then allowing easier transportation of game and trade.
IDK about that, being that selection pressure drove the OOA species to a smaller size as well, the phylochart I posted above correlated with an at least intermediate (Asian elephant sized) common ancestor for the Afro elephants.
Evolutionary zoology isn't as clear cut as you would think, you have to think probability as opposed to design, Adaptation doesn't drive evolution, death does... Parallel causalities/origins cannot be drawn between two species even though they parallel in relative morphology and fitness.
Also is there anything I can read about the Mediterranean-elephants you speak of?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I recall reading somewhere that the ancient Greeks and Romans tended to assume everything was bigger in India, as if it were like Texas. If so, that might account for Polybius's claim that Indian elephants had to be bigger than their African brethren. Regardless, I always found the identification of North African elephants as forest elephants rather nonsensical. If any elephants in Africa could thrive in the deserts and scrublands of North Africa, it'd be the bush elephants, not those adapted to living in humid jungles.
Yes I remember that too, that was by Martin Bernal.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Wow, this is incredibly interesting..
All of the classical depictions and descriptions gives me the hint that the North African subspecies was of the forest variety. If you take into account the (un)likelihood of a North African Elep. being a subspecies of the Savanna Elep. but resembling the neighboring forest elephant and going extinct, it should make you question the authenticity of the claim that the north Africans at the time retrieved their Elephants from east Africa.
For something like the dwarfing of a species to happen there have to be selective pressure or breeding... however, there is no evidence of breeding and the north African subgroup is extinct which weakens the argument of selective pressure..
Modern Forest elephants stretch as far as Guinea. The western variety of the forest elephant are and were undergoing rapid population decline mostly due to the deforestation of the region. The elephants said to have roamed West African areas of Morocco could have been a subspecies or even a sibling of the forest elephant driven to extinction due to the aridification and deforestation of the Sahara.
I want to know where exactly the Ptolemis got their elephants from though, because if they were in fact from east africa, they're most like not of the same variety of the proposed atlas elephant. And Polybius was probably trippin'
Eritrean elephants pulling heavy artillery into Ethiopia, October 1935.
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
This statue looks like a statue of Hercules
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Side kick, Ancestry DNA Results! (Brazilian/Lebanese)
It looks than this one. Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Has anyone seen this coin of Hannibal?
It looks than this one.
^^^^ this is Hannibal Hannibal spent 16 years of his generalship in Italy
we should expect to see evidence of him in Italy rather than Spain or Africa
the elephant on the coin is an Asiatic elephant because Hannibal's favorite elephant was from Syria (surus) (Hannibal employed Indian mahouts to conduct his elephants thus giving evidence for his elephants being originally from Asia rather than Africa) 7)τῶν δὲ θηρίων εἰθισμένων τοῖς Ἰνδοῖς μέχρι μὲν πρὸς τὸ ὑγρὸν ἀεὶπειθαρχεῖν, εἰς δὲ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐμβαίνειν οὐδαμῶς ἔτι τολμώντων, ἦγον διὰ τοῦχώματος δύο προθέμενοι θηλείας, πειθαρχούντων αὐταῖς τῶν θηρίων 3.46.11 polybius
Ἰνδοῖς means indian
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
How does anyone know that that coin, or any other coin, depicts Hannibal?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra: How does anyone know that that coin, or any other coin, depicts Hannibal?
it was discovered at lake trasimene where Hannibal had his famous battle
coins only depict gods and celebrities
so far no roman or Etruscan god looks like this man on the coin and the only celebrity that distinguish themself at lake trasimene was Hannibal
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The idea that Hannibal was black comes from J.A. Rogers who said the Phoenicians were Negroid, the same amateur historian who wrote a book on there being five Negro U.S. presidents.
So the standard by which these five U.S, presidents were black can also be applied to the Phoenicians
that is highly incorrect
Hannibal being black is old
"great in his way was Hannibal, the Carthaginian; and great in his, the great African poet Terence, the friend and associate of Hannibal's conqueror. science, learning, religion, war, poetry have here their negro representatives" pg 94 God's Image in Ebony: Being a Series of Biographical Sketches, Facts ... By Frederick William Chesson, Wilson Armistead 1854
"Hanno, the father of hamilcar and the grandfather of hannibal, was a negro" pg 33 Black Man By William Wells Brow
"that even hannibal, who in his youth was very handsome for a black man"Bible Defence of Slavery: To which is Added a Faithful Exposition of that ... By Josiah Priest pg 197-198
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
During the 2nd Punic wars neither the Romans nor the Carthagenians used images of actual persons on their coins.
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by capra: How does anyone know that that coin, or any other coin, depicts Hannibal?
it was discovered at lake trasimene where Hannibal had his famous battle
coins only depict gods and celebrities
so far no roman or Etruscan god looks like this man on the coin and the only celebrity that distinguish themself at lake trasimene was Hannibal
So, Hannibal stopped in the aftermath of the battle to issue a new coinage? That's not very convincing. Why shouldn't it have belonged to an African soldier?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: During the 2nd Punic wars neither the Romans nor the Carthagenians used images of actual persons on their coins.
Carthage did not have coins
the Greeks however did depict actual people on coins
Hannibal was very knowledgeable of Greek culture
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by capra: How does anyone know that that coin, or any other coin, depicts Hannibal?
it was discovered at lake trasimene where Hannibal had his famous battle
coins only depict gods and celebrities
so far no roman or Etruscan god looks like this man on the coin and the only celebrity that distinguish themself at lake trasimene was Hannibal
So, Hannibal stopped in the aftermath of the battle to issue a new coinage? That's not very convincing. Why shouldn't it have belonged to an African soldier?
the battle of lake trasimene gave Hannibal mastery of all northern Italy
no where in history have coins ever been struck in honor of a random soldier
no other African warrior ever distinguish himself more at trasimene than Hannibal
so no that is not a good conjecture
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
Not a picture of a random African soldier, a coin carried by an African soldier. Depicting an African god or hero.
The coin being found at Lake Trasimene doesn't imply that the image it bears has anything to do with Lake Trasimene. Coins move around, that's what they're for.
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra: Not a picture of a random African soldier, an African coin left there by an African soldier. Depicting an African god or hero.
which African soldier?
Hannibal?
Hannibal was the only African soldier that could strike his own coin at that time in that location
so which African soldier are you talking about?
which god or hero looks like the man on the coin?
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
Why on earth are you assuming the coin was struck at that time in that location? There were tens of thousands of soldiers there in the pay of Carthage, assuming the coin is even contemporary with the battle.
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra: The coin being found at Lake Trasimene doesn't imply that the image it bears has anything to do with Lake Trasimene. Coins move around, that's what they're for.
show me this coin in another location that is far away from lake trasimene
whats wrong with Hannibal being black? do you think black people are inferior?
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
Show me any evidence that Hannibal issued coinage at Lake Trasimene.
And don't even bother trying the racism bullshit. I don't care if he was purple.
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra: Why on earth are you assuming the coin was struck at that time in that location? There were tens of thousands of soldiers there in the pay of Carthage, assuming the coin is even contemporary with the battle.
recall another time where an African is riding an Syrian elephant at lake trasimene
the only man that fits this description is Hannibal (Hannibal rode this elephant personally)
what is wrong with Hannibal being black? what do you have against black people?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra: Show me any evidence that Hannibal issued coinage at Lake Trasimene.
And don't even bother trying the racism bullshit. I don't care if he was purple.
Absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence
the image on the coin fits the description
if you don't care what color he is than why are you so bent on proving this coin is not Hannibal
you obviously have an vendetta against black people
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
recall another time where an African is riding an Syrian elephant at lake trasimene
the only man that fits this description is Hannibal (Hannibal rode this elephant himself)
what is wrong with Hannibal being black? what do you have against black people?
there is nothing wrong with Hannibal being black but apart from this coin why do you think he was?
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: the image on the coin fits the description
What description? If we have a description of Hannibal why are we arguing over this coin?
I am not trying to prove the coin does or does not depict Hannibal.
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
recall another time where an African is riding an Syrian elephant at lake trasimene
the only man that fits this description is Hannibal (Hannibal rode this elephant himself)
what is wrong with Hannibal being black? what do you have against black people?
there is nothing wrong with Hannibal being black but apart from this coin why do you think he was?
he was called a Carthaginian, Afer, and libyan
these people were described as fuscus, piceis and aquilus
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
recall another time where an African is riding an Syrian elephant at lake trasimene
the only man that fits this description is Hannibal (Hannibal rode this elephant himself)
what is wrong with Hannibal being black? what do you have against black people?
there is nothing wrong with Hannibal being black but apart from this coin why do you think he was?
he was called a Carthaginian, Afer, and libyan
these people were described as fuscus, piceis and aquilus
What was the ethnic background of Carthage and who founded it?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
recall another time where an African is riding an Syrian elephant at lake trasimene
the only man that fits this description is Hannibal (Hannibal rode this elephant himself)
what is wrong with Hannibal being black? what do you have against black people?
there is nothing wrong with Hannibal being black but apart from this coin why do you think he was?
he was called a Carthaginian, Afer, and libyan
these people were described as fuscus, piceis and aquilus
What was the ethnic background of Carthage and who founded it?
Carthage was founded by Phoenicians
similar to how New York city was founded by English men
the inhabitants of Carthage were made up of libyphoenicians (mixture of Africans and Phoenicians)though mainly African they could trace their linage to one Phoenician ancestor
the Phoenicians according to Strabo were called Ethiopians
Herodotus said they originated from the red sea
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
Carthage was founded by Phoenicians
similar to how New York city was founded by English men
the inhabitants of Carthage were made up of libyphoenicians (mixture of Africans and Phoenicians)though mainly African
How do you know they were mainly African?
What is the evidence of African settlements existing at the time the Phoenicians came?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
if the man on the coin was white both capra and the lioness would agree the man on the coin is Hannibal but since he is black they both try to deny it being Hannibal
this is obvious unless you both have historical evidence that proves the Carthaginians or Hannibal was white or tawny i must disagree
unless you can prove the man on the coin is a god or fictional hero rather than Hannibal i must disagree
unless you can prove that there was another African warrior with an Asiatic elephant that distinguish himself at lake trasimene i must disagree
im convinced as a honest historian that the man on the coin is no other than Hannibal
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
Carthage was founded by Phoenicians
similar to how New York city was founded by English men
the inhabitants of Carthage were made up of libyphoenicians (mixture of Africans and Phoenicians)though mainly African
How do you know they were mainly African?
What is the evidence of African settlements existing at the time the Phoenicians came?
only a handful of Phoenicians founded Carthage
Carthaginian and African were used interchangeably
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: if the man on the coin was white both capra and the lioness would agree the man on the coin is Hannibal but since he is black they both try to deny it being Hannibal
this is obvious unless you both have historical evidence that proves the Carthaginians or Hannibal was white or tawny i must disagree
unless you can prove the man on the coin is a god or fictional hero rather than Hannibal i must disagree
unless you can prove that there was another African warrior with an Asiatic elephant that distinguish himself at lake trasimene i must disagree
im convinced as a honest historian that the man on the coin is no other than Hannibal
Shoulda said it like this from the jump, I was reading the convo with the wocka flocka meme face... Um, so we don't use Occam's razor anymore? Btw, what was written in the previous 5 pages of this thread? Did anyone revisit or peek and see?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
unless you can prove the man on the coin is a god or fictional hero rather than Hannibal i must disagree
you had a whole thread saying that the Carthaginians didn't have coins
Every coin mentioned you said was not that of a real person but instead a God or Goddess.
But what you didn't realize is that like the Egyptians, sometimes these rulers depicted themselves as the personification of Gods. That is why you will see Tutankhamun depicted dark brown but then as the personification of Osiris depicted jet black. Similarly European rulers sometimes depict themselves with Greek wreaths or as personifying a God
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
So Hannibal is a tawny white man depicting himself as a true negro god?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
unless you can prove the man on the coin is a god or fictional hero rather than Hannibal i must disagree
you had a whole thread saying that the Carthaginians didn't have coins
Every coin mentioned you said was not that of a real person but instead a God or Goddess.
But what you didn't realize is that like the Egyptians, sometimes these rulers depicted themselves as the personification of Gods. That is why you will see Tutankhamun depicted dark brown but then as the personification of Osiris depicted jet black. Similarly European rulers sometimes depict themselves with Greek wreaths or as personifying a God
show me an ancient Egyptian pharaoh depicted in the form of a foreign god
the Carthaginians had their own gods
^^^^the coins above depict portraits of Hercules and a Sicilian king
Hannibal did not have a African elephant as his main elephant nor did he fight with a club
his elephant drivers were from india
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
im not convinced that the black man on the coin is some random African hero or god
no evidence backs this theory up
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what nation produced this coin ?
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: if the man on the coin was white both capra and the lioness would agree the man on the coin is Hannibal
No, I would think he is some unidentified white dude rather than some unidentified black dude.
quote:unless you both have historical evidence that proves the Carthaginians or Hannibal was white or tawny i must disagree
Supposing North Africans at that time were black, that would not tell us that this particular black dude was Hannibal.
quote:unless you can prove the man on the coin is a god or fictional hero rather than Hannibal i must disagree
We don't have to prove shit, we are saying it is *unidentified*. Your claim about setting up a mint in a sea of corpses is fantastical, the subject of the portrait remains unidentified.
quote:unless you can prove that there was another African warrior with an Asiatic elephant
If you can actually identify the elephant as Hannibal's personal elephant, then obviously that would be evidence that the image is of Hannibal. Naturally I am skeptical of this claim also.
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: if the man on the coin was white both capra and the lioness would agree the man on the coin is Hannibal
No, I would think he is some unidentified white dude rather than some unidentified black dude.
quote:unless you both have historical evidence that proves the Carthaginians or Hannibal was white or tawny i must disagree
Supposing North Africans at that time were black, that would not tell us that this particular black dude was Hannibal.
quote:unless you can prove the man on the coin is a god or fictional hero rather than Hannibal i must disagree
We don't have to prove shit, we are saying it is *unidentified*. Your claim about setting up a mint in a sea of corpses is fantastical, the subject of the portrait remains unidentified.
quote:unless you can prove that there was another African warrior with an Asiatic elephant
If you can actually identify the elephant as Hannibal's personal elephant, then obviously that would be evidence that the image is of Hannibal. Naturally I am skeptical of this claim also.
with your logic than this man is unidentified
^^^this is some random white dude
just face it your a racist
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
what nation produced this coin ?
no nation (there is no nation or city at lake trasimene)
it was produced by Hannibal
the Carthaginians cut ties from Hannibal and his father when they crossed into Spain
the above is a triumph coin
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
bottom line im not convinced that the man on the coin is some random African
this boils down to a matter of belief
you don't want to believe that the man is Hannibal because he is black
unless you have a better argument proving that the coin is not his image than please share
i believe it is his because 1. it was located at lake trasimene
2. Hannibal's favorite elephant was named surus (the Syrian) thus making him an Asiatic elephant (Hannibal's mahouts were from India further proving his elephants were from Asia)
3. the man on the coin looks the proper age around 25-28 which Hannibal was during that time
4. During the battle of trasimene Hannibal only had one elephant left and that was the one he rode
5. Hannibal was called an Afer which Virgil describes as being woolly haired, dark complexioned, and thick lips
6. nobody else man or god distinguish themselves at lake trasimene but Hannibal
so im convinced i rest my case on the image of the coin
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
^^^this is some random white dude
To me, it is. Googling the image, I suppose that is identified as Alexander the Great (by someone other than me) because it looks a lot like pictures that actually say "Alexander" on them. Do you have some ancient pictures that say "Hannibal" on them? Because that would help.
It's not that this black dude couldn't possibly be Hannibal, but that your argument for this black dude being Hannibal is unconvincing. There is no point in continuing this rather boring debate.
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
^^^this is some random white dude
To me, it is. Googling the image, I suppose that is identified as Alexander the Great (by someone other than me) because it looks a lot like pictures that actually say "Alexander" on them. Do you have some ancient pictures that say "Hannibal" on them? Because that would help.
It's not that this black dude couldn't possibly be Hannibal, but that your argument for this black dude being Hannibal is unconvincing. There is no point in continuing this rather boring debate.
bottom line im not convinced that the man on the coin is some random African
this boils down to a matter of belief
you don't want to believe that the man is Hannibal because he is black
unless you have a better argument proving that the coin is not his image than please share
i believe it is his because 1. it was located at lake trasimene
2. Hannibal's favorite elephant was named surus (the Syrian) thus making him an Asiatic elephant (Hannibal's mahouts were from India further proving his elephants were from Asia)
3. the man on the coin looks the proper age around 25-28 which Hannibal was during that time
4. During the battle of trasimene Hannibal only had one elephant left and that was the one he rode
5. Hannibal was called an Afer which Virgil describes as being woolly haired, dark complexioned, and thick lips
6. nobody else man or god distinguish themselves at lake trasimene but Hannibal
so im convinced i rest my case on the image of the coin
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I am so far swayed by the logic of Lake Trasimeno where there was but one elephant left to Hannibaal before he re-upped. And the fact those 'pennies' were minted and circulated only in that region.
Thanks again, actually that whole thread is interesting.
Yes I eat lamb and goat, though I like goats, carnivory is contradictory that way.
i think your missing the point of Tukuler's thread
he said he was correcting his previous thread post in light of new evidence
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
what nation produced this coin ?
no nation (there is no nation or city at lake trasimene)
it was produced by Hannibal
the Carthaginians cut ties from Hannibal and his father when they crossed into Spain
the above is a triumph coin
who created this coin?
sicilian
Did Sicilian artisans create both of the above coins ?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
what nation produced this coin ?
no nation (there is no nation or city at lake trasimene)
it was produced by Hannibal
the Carthaginians cut ties from Hannibal and his father when they crossed into Spain
the above is a triumph coin
who created this coin?
sicilian
Did Sicilian artisans create both of the above coins ?
please Get to the point because i don't have time to go back and forth on this thread
the coin of Hannibal was created by Etruscan artist
the coin of the Greek was created by Sicilians (the image of the Greek could be the Greek tyrant Agathocles of Syracuse because the African elephant could symbolize his military expedition in north Africa)
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: i think your missing the point of Tukuler's thread
he said he was correcting his previous thread post in light of new evidence
Yes, I know. I did't know all the other stuff that is in those links, though.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
there are at least 3 points of view on this
a) this is how Carthaginians looked so I believe it is Hannibal because Hannibal was said to have rode an elephant
b) the Carthaginian leadership did not look like that. That is an African mercenary who was hired for his experience in elephant driving
c) the identity of the person on the coin is unknown
I choose "C"
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: so the questioner doesn't like being questioned ???
of course not because i would be called "the answerer"
here's a question for you whats your point?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
there are at least 3 points of view on this
a) this is how Carthaginians looked so I believe it is Hannibal because Hannibal was said to have rode an elephant
b) the Carthaginian leadership did not look like that. That is an African mercenary who was hired for his experience in elephant driving
c) the identity of the person on the coin is unknown
I choose "C"
how is it unknown when it was discovered at lake trasimene? history tells us that Hannibal fought at lake trasimene which he had an Asiatic elephant that fit this elephant which is also Asiatic
Hannibal was an African so why not the man on the coin be his image?
if you continue to believe its unknown then your in denial
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The claim that the above coin depicts Hannibal Barca is a belief rather than fact
The person depicted is unknown
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The point is this boils down to a matter of belief rather than fact
is it not a fact that Hannibal fought at trasimene?
is it not a fact Hannibal only had one elephant left during this battle?
is it not a fact that Hannibal was an African?
surely this man couldn't be Italian or a Gaul
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The claim that the above coin depicts Hannibal Barca is a belief rather than fact
The person depicted is unknown
the man on the coin is Hannibal Barca that is a fact
it is a fact Hannibal fought at trasimene where this coin was discovered
it is a fact Hannibal had one elephant left during this war which is why there is an elephant on the coin
it is a fact Hannibal was called an Afer which was used synonyms for negro which is depicted on this coin
it is a fact Hannibal's favorite and only surviving elephant was Asiatic which is depicted on the coin
it is a fact Hannibal was the most distinguish warrior in that battle
anybody who deny this is in denial
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@the questioner
Do you have a source that states Hannibal was called an "Afer."
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @the questioner
Do you have a source that states Hannibal was called an "Afer."
Quintus Horatius Flaccus called him an dirus afer
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @the questioner
Do you have a source that states Hannibal was called an "Afer."
Quintus Horatius Flaccus called him an dirus afer
Can you post the quote/source? Along with the definition of Afer?
I ask because it would REALLY help your argument if true and will really build the argument for Hannibal being black.
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
”|qui primus alma risit adorea, dirus per urbes afer ut italas, ceu flamma per taedas, vel eurus per siculas equitavit undas.| 40-45 carmen iv drusi laudes ‘’since the dire Afer sped his way through the Italian cities, as the flame does through the pines, or the south-east wind over Sicilian waters.’’ Carmen iv 40-45 horatii flacci carminum liber iv quartus
"Of Afer race, her whole figure bears proof of her country. Her hair tightly-curled, her lips thick, her color, very dark (fuscus), broad chest and breasts low hanging, and with belly somewhat pinched; thin legs, large feet and broad. Her tough skinned heels were seemed with many cracks."[31.35] virgil moretum |Erat unica custos, afra genus, tota patriam testante figura, torta comam, labroque tumens et fusca colore, pectore lata, jacens mammis, compressior alvo, cruribus exilis, spatiosa prodiga planta; continuis rimis calcanea scissa rigebant.| virgil moretum
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@the questioner
Good post! Did some digging on the term "Afer" and it means what you say.
quote:African; inhabitant of north coast of Africa (except Egypt); Carthaginian
quote:Latin Africa (terra) "African land, Libya, the Carthaginian territory, the province of Africa; Africa as a continent," fem. of adjective Africus, from Afer "an African," a word of uncertain origin. The Latin word originally was used only in reference to the region around modern Tunisia; it gradually was extended to the whole continent. Derivation from a Phoenician cognate of Arabic afar "dust, earth" is tempting. The Middle English word was Affrike.
However your source doesn't seem to be referencing Hannibal. Do you got one that references him being called an Afer?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Why not just Google afer Hannibal flaccus
Afer 's been covered here many a Time
How do we move forward if every two years we start at Square One refusing to use what those before us left here for us
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @the questioner
Good post! Did some digging on the term "Afer" and it means what you say.
quote:African; inhabitant of north coast of Africa (except Egypt); Carthaginian
quote:Latin Africa (terra) "African land, Libya, the Carthaginian territory, the province of Africa; Africa as a continent," fem. of adjective Africus, from Afer "an African," a word of uncertain origin. The Latin word originally was used only in reference to the region around modern Tunisia; it gradually was extended to the whole continent. Derivation from a Phoenician cognate of Arabic afar "dust, earth" is tempting. The Middle English word was Affrike.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why not just Google afer Hannibal flaccus
Afer 's been covered here many a Time
How do we move forward if every two years we start at Square One refusing to use what those before us left here for us
1. Maybe because I wasn't hear during those years?
2. The Questioner is the one making the argument and is confident in his argument and so I am interested in him proving his point.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @the questioner
Good post! Did some digging on the term "Afer" and it means what you say.
quote:African; inhabitant of north coast of Africa (except Egypt); Carthaginian
quote:Latin Africa (terra) "African land, Libya, the Carthaginian territory, the province of Africa; Africa as a continent," fem. of adjective Africus, from Afer "an African," a word of uncertain origin. The Latin word originally was used only in reference to the region around modern Tunisia; it gradually was extended to the whole continent. Derivation from a Phoenician cognate of Arabic afar "dust, earth" is tempting. The Middle English word was Affrike.
As somebody who's presented ancient docs. Here I don't blame the man for giving up sources that he had to spend hours days months who knows how long to find
Notice tenebris is also in this reference
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
If you have background in the in the subject matter then you already know what the questioner is putting down
Okay you just got here two years ago so what stops you from using the archive
I'll never understand all this running to other blogs and all that stuff when we got who knows what stored away here in our very own archiveto build up on or polish up or whatever needs to be done to it to present it this year 2017 I mean what the hell maybe doesn't need any work at all just needs to be reposted
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If you have background in the in the subject matter then you already know what the questioner is putting down
Okay you just got here two years ago so what stops you from using the archive
I'll never understand all this running to other blogs and all that stuff when we got who knows what stored away here in our very own archiveto build up on or polish up or whatever needs to be done to it to present it this year 2017 I mean what the hell maybe doesn't need any work at all just needs to be reposted
Tukuler people who have not been here for years are not going to magically know where these threads are. And I admit I am not that informed on Hannibal or Carthage. I do know many Punic remains showed "Negroid features" and many of the indigenous Punic was were African. But thats where it ends.
But AGAIN while I respect the Questioner and his arguments its on HIM to provide the evidence since he is the one arguing that Hannibal is black. So far his argument has been good.
If we have a long archive for Hannibal's description on here then please bump those threads. I give full permission.
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
Hannibal also was called a Libyan
Libyan is the Greek word for Afer
Hannibal the Libyan which is equivalent to Hannibal the Afer
" they added “africanus” to his imperial titles, giving him their name, for the Libyans are called Afers in Latin." [7.5.8] History of the Roman Empire: From the Death of Marcus Aurelius by Herodian
"for Hannibal the Libyan, a most inveterate enemy of Rome" plutarch's lives on titus flaminius IX 3-6
• “just look at the physical difference between the Germans and Scythians from Libyans and Ethiopians is this due simply to god willing it, without the preexisting cause of climate and geography having a joint influence , as it were, with the gods in the determination of skin colors?” Julian’s against the galileans I:143 from Flavius Claudius Iulianus Augustus or Julian the apostate
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
@The Questioner
Once again good job. So we know the term "Afer" meant black and curly haired. And the term "Libyan" also meant Afer.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If you have background in the in the subject matter then you already know what the questioner is putting down
Okay you just got here two years ago so what stops you from using the archive
I'll never understand all this running to other blogs and all that stuff when we got who knows what stored away here in our very own archiveto build up on or polish up or whatever needs to be done to it to present it this year 2017 I mean what the hell maybe doesn't need any work at all just needs to be reposted
Tukuler people who have not been here for years are not going to magically know where these threads are. And I admit I am not that informed on Hannibal or Carthage. I do know many Punic remains showed "Negroid features" and many of the indigenous Punic was were African. But thats where it ends.
But AGAIN while I respect the Questioner and his arguments its on HIM to provide the evidence since he is the one arguing that Hannibal is black. So far his argument has been good.
If we have a long archive for Hannibal's description on here then please bump those threads. I give full permission.
You really don't get it. You think I have magic powers? No I simply format a query like
key1 key2 site:egyptsearch.com
I'm teaching you a tool that you can find a hell of a much more than just afer so give yourself permission
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: What you're telling me What kind of man would I be If I don't talk about what I see
The lioness threatened to keep a special eye on me simply because I use the initials TL instead of spelling out the lioness
But you want to tell me to be civil and pay no attention to the fact that we have a dereliction of Duty going on that you as part of management should be addressing
I tried venting privately to admin who's box is full
But you know what if nobody else cares why der fuchs should I
You want to lock the thread because I'm telling the facts of the matter
And they called me draconian
I don't know why you're taking this personally. That went for Lioness too and EVERYONE in this thread.
Edit: If you believe Lioness is targeting you than tell Punos_Rey or me. Otherwise I want ALL parties to be civil. Its not that hard.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If you have background in the in the subject matter then you already know what the questioner is putting down
Okay you just got here two years ago so what stops you from using the archive
I'll never understand all this running to other blogs and all that stuff when we got who knows what stored away here in our very own archiveto build up on or polish up or whatever needs to be done to it to present it this year 2017 I mean what the hell maybe doesn't need any work at all just needs to be reposted
Tukuler people who have not been here for years are not going to magically know where these threads are. And I admit I am not that informed on Hannibal or Carthage. I do know many Punic remains showed "Negroid features" and many of the indigenous Punic was were African. But thats where it ends.
But AGAIN while I respect the Questioner and his arguments its on HIM to provide the evidence since he is the one arguing that Hannibal is black. So far his argument has been good.
If we have a long archive for Hannibal's description on here then please bump those threads. I give full permission.
You really don't get it. You think I have magic powers? No I simply format a query like
key1 key2 site:egyptsearch.com
I'm teaching you a tool that you can find a hell of a much more than just afer so give yourself permission
Thanks for the tip. But again I was asking the Questioner because again he was making the argument. He provided the info I asked for and so it ends there. Burden of proof?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I I've volleyed an earlier p.m. back to you . Please use it . No need to clog up my p.m. box with new threads S . Thank you
Alsoat your pleasure delete or keep the posts I made that are totally off topic
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I I've volleyed an earlier p.m. back to you . Please use it . No need to clog up my p.m. box with new threads S . Thank you
Alsoat your pleasure delete or keep the posts I made that are totally off topic
PM sent. Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
1. for those who say "That is an African mercenary who was hired for his experience in elephant driving"
this point could not be possible because the elephant is not from Africa and Polybius calls Hannibal's elephant drivers Indians(Ἰνδοῖς) not Africans(Libyans) or Ethiopians
2. for those who say "the coin's portrait is unknown" History tells us that there is only one man who traveled with an elephant and distinguished himself at lake trasimene and that is Hannibal
3. for those who say "the man is one of hannibal's most distinguish soldiers" this argument also could not hold weight because the most distinguish soldier at the battle of lake trasimene was Ducarius the Gaul
obviously the man on the coin is not Gaulish because Gauls were white Europeans with Caucasoid features
without a doubt the man on the coin is Hannibal
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
The claim that the above coin depicts Hannibal Barca is a belief rather than fact
The person depicted is unknown
the man on the coin is Hannibal Barca that is a fact
it is a fact Hannibal fought at trasimene where this coin was discovered
where is your credible source that says either of these coins was discovered at trasimene?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
The claim that the above coin depicts Hannibal Barca is a belief rather than fact
The person depicted is unknown
the man on the coin is Hannibal Barca that is a fact
it is a fact Hannibal fought at trasimene where this coin was discovered
where is your credible source that says either of these coins was discovered at trasimene?
Ernest babelon speaks of these coins discovered at trasimene
Carthaginian men wore earrings just like the man on the coin "quia incedunt cum anulatis auribus" (Well here they(Carthaginians) are with ear rings) poenulus by plautus V.II. 982
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
She knows that. We covered it in the WAS HANNIBAL BLACK thread I just bumped and reposted numastic notes on one of those coins that sold for $1,600.
The question is why she persists trolling nonsense. She's a good data miner. No doubt she looked it up again before she decided to troll
You already laid out at least 3 solid pieces of evidence in favour of coins depicting Hannibaal.
Now the only partially convinc9ing counter to it is there are 6 mintings of this coin. All show an afer. They don't look exactly like the same man.
Sorry, no scanner. Rogers Sex & Race v1 p81
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Ernest babelon speaks of these coins discovered at trasimene
Carthaginian men wore earrings just like the man on the coin "quia incedunt cum anulatis auribus" (Well here they(Carthaginians) are with ear rings) poenulus by plautus V.II. 982 [/QB]
^Excellent source, in French that does describe the coin found at Trasimene although the site of a battle does not mean the same location was the site of a mint where coins were struck
However the text describes the head as that of Hannibal's elephant rider.
If the man is an elephant rider and the elephant was Indian that does not mean that an African manhout could not also train and ride an Indian elephant. As for earrings they are not mentioned in these several pages about the coin. To my eyes I don't even see earrings worn by the men on these coins! I have also not noticed a Carthaginian artifact depicting a male with earrings, have you seen one? However earrings worn by men are numerous in Egyptian depictions of Nubians. It seems that the man in this coin might have been described as 'Aethiopian' but was Hannibal described that way? It would not be unreasonable to guess that Hannibal might have looked partially Lebanese as well as African.
As to the ratio of people of Phoenician descent to people of African descent living in Carthage at the time that is not known. It was founded by a foreign culture. How would they be able to take over a larger number of Africans if there was a large number of Africans already settled there? The indigenous people of the region today are often smaller sized groups of nomadic peoples and there is no evidence of sedentary culture in the Maghreb before the Phoenicians and Greeks until you go back about a thousand years earlier. It was believed in ancient times that Africa was originally populated by Gaetulians and Libyans, both nomadic peoples.
You went to great lengths in another thread of yours to say that the Carthaginians did not have coins, only leather money but now without evidence you claim that the famous Carthaginian, Hannibal commissioned this coin and at the same time say at the time he did so he was no longer Carthaginian! Furthermore in the same thread you went to great lengths to say all coins mentioned in this period depicted gods and goddesses rather than real people.
But could this coin be a depiction of Hannibal himself?
Maybe
As for the Carthaginians you should be able to find other Carthaginian artifacts for context
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [qb] She knows that. We covered it in the WAS HANNIBAL BLACK thread I just bumped and reposted numastic notes on one of those coins that sold for $1,600.
The question is why she persists trolling nonsense. She's a good data miner. No doubt she looked it up again before she decided to troll
You already laid out at least 3 solid pieces of evidence in favour of coins depicting Hannibaal.
Now the only partially convinc9ing counter to it is there are 6 mintings of this coin. All show an afer. They don't look exactly like the same man.
Sorry, no scanner. Rogers Sex & Race v1 p81
the 6 mints depict the same man i can show many coins where Alexander the great and Julius Caesar look slightly different
these coins look slightly different but generally depict the same man the man has big lips, large forehead, twisted hair, and earrings (though faded)
if your looking for perfection in art work during this time period you would be nitpicking
so it is not a convincing counter
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I married my wife with a shekel of Tyre which depicts Dhul Qarnayim AKA Alexander. Why would anybody expect his image not to change over several mints over several centuries?
It's not an established fact who the bronze coins represent . You wish away evidence because it counters your well grounded opinion.
The bronzes are all from the same Chiana Valley from the same three-year period and the same mint unlike coins of Melqart, Iskander, or Julius Caesar.
All we can do is drop weight in each balance of the scale. So far the weights tip in Hannibaal's favor.
It's possible various minters of varying skill who may never have seen the man himself cast differing profiles and hair quality. It's also possible that it's not Hannibaal at all, though not likely.
Only a priori considerations rule out either option in favor of the other.
And please no lecture about the blacks of North Africa. I've been presenting that here since 2005 with the native Aughriga who greeted the Kanaani upon arrival and made them lease land for many a year. Also that Afer most likely derives from Aughriga as does our word Africa.
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Ernest babelon speaks of these coins discovered at trasimene
Carthaginian men wore earrings just like the man on the coin "quia incedunt cum anulatis auribus" (Well here they(Carthaginians) are with ear rings) poenulus by plautus V.II. 982
^Excellent source, in French that does describe the coin found at Trasimene although the site of a battle does not mean the same location was the site of a mint where coins were struck
However the text describes the head as that of Hannibal's elephant rider.
If the man is an elephant rider and the elephant was Indian that does not mean that an African manhout could not also train and ride an Indian elephant. As for earrings they are not mentioned in these several pages about the coin. To my eyes I don't even see earrings worn by the men on these coins! I have also not noticed a Carthaginian artifact depicting a male with earrings, have you seen one? However earrings worn by men are numerous in Egyptian depictions of Nubians. It seems that the man in this coin might have been described as 'Aethiopian' but was Hannibal described that way? It would not be unreasonable to guess that Hannibal might have looked partially Lebanese as well as African.
As to the ratio of people of Phoenician descent to people of African descent living in Carthage at the time that is not known. It was founded by a foreign culture. How would they be able to take over a larger number of Africans if there was a large number of Africans already settled there? The indigenous people of the region today are often smaller sized groups of nomadic peoples and there is no evidence of sedentary culture in the Maghreb before the Phoenicians and Greeks until you go back about a thousand years earlier. It was believed in ancient times that Africa was originally populated by Gaetulians and Libyans, both nomadic peoples.
You went to great lengths in another thread of yours to say that the Carthaginians did not have coins, only leather money but now without evidence you claim that the famous Carthaginian, Hannibal commissioned this coin and at the same time say at the time he did so he was no longer Carthaginian! Furthermore in the same thread you went to great lengths to say all coins mentioned in this period depicted gods and goddesses rather than real people.
But could this coin be a depiction of Hannibal himself?
Maybe
As for the Carthaginians you should be able to find other Carthaginian artifacts for context [/QB]
you must remember that Carthage was utterly destroyed so finding artifacts will be very difficult
i thoroughly proved that all of the so called artifacts of Carthage are Greek
"^Excellent source, in French that does describe the coin found at Trasimene although the site of a battle does not mean the same location was the site of a mint where coins were struck" (these coins could be found no where else also you must remember that Hannibal was the only man at trasimene that distinguish himself who rode an Asiatic elephant)
!. "However the text describes the head as that of Hannibal's elephant rider."
Hannibal's elephant rider were from India which i have proven
2. "If the man is an elephant rider and the elephant was Indian that does not mean that an African manhout could not also train and ride an Indian elephant."
Hannibal's elephant drivers were from india
3. "As for earrings they are not mentioned in these several pages about the coin. To my eyes I don't even see earrings worn by the men on these coins!"
the earrings are faded how ever you can see them in this coin
4. "I have also not noticed a Carthaginian artifact depicting a male with earrings, have you seen one?"
what your falsely assuming is Carthaginian art work is actually Greek art work
5. "However earrings worn by men are numerous in Egyptian depictions of Nubians. It seems that the man in this coin might have been described as 'Aethiopian' but was Hannibal described that way?"
Hannibal was called an Afer which is equivalent to Ethiopian ”Neger: aethiops; afer; femina aethiops; afra.” Neues deutsch-lateinisches Handwörterbuch nach F.K. Kraft's grösserem Werke ... By Friedrich Karl Kraft 1826
6. "It would not be unreasonable to guess that Hannibal might have looked partially Lebanese as well as African."
there were no Lebanese during antiquity only Phoenicians the modern Lebanese are mixed with various middle eastern people through out the years
7. "As to the ratio of people of Phoenician descent to people of African descent living in Carthage at the time that is not known. It was founded by a foreign culture. How would they be able to take over a larger number of Africans if there was a large number of Africans already settled there? The indigenous people of the region today are often smaller sized groups of nomadic peoples and there is no evidence of sedentary culture in the Maghreb before the Phoenicians and Greeks until you go back about a thousand years earlier. It was believed in ancient times that Africa was originally populated by Gaetulians and Libyans, both nomadic peoples. "
the Swahili is a prime example of what the Phoenician population did at Carthage Swahili culture is foreign but the inhabitants are African
8. "You went to great lengths in another thread of yours to say that the Carthaginians did not have coins, only leather money but now without evidence you claim that the famous Carthaginian, Hannibal commissioned this coin and at the same time say at the time he did so he was no longer Carthaginian! Furthermore in the same thread you went to great lengths to say all coins mentioned in this period depicted gods and goddesses rather than real people."
the Carthaginians did not strike coins themselves however these coins of Hannibal were created by the etruscans who Hannibal promised to free from the oppression of Rome
all of the coins that are said to be associated with Carthage depict Greek gods and goddess
the coins of Persephone (tanit) were brought to Carthage by agathocles of syracuse
9. "But could this coin be a depiction of Hannibal himself?
Maybe
As for the Carthaginians you should be able to find other Carthaginian artifacts for context"
artifacts? hardly because Carthage was destroyed
Delenda est carthago hopefully you heard that proverb before
Mod Edit
Please use images that do not stretch page.
[ 22. June 2017, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: BlessedbyHorus ]
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Oh I meant for you to go ahead now and use the smaller images that I put up okay
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I married my wife with a shekel of Tyre which depicts Dhul Qarnayim AKA Alexander. Why would anyone expect his image not to change over several mints over several centuries?
It's not an established fact who the bronze coins represent . You wish away evidence because it counters your well grounded opinion.
The bronzes are all from the same Chiaroni Valley from the same three-year period and the same mint unlike coins of Melqart, Iskander, or Julius Caesar.
All we can do is drop weight in each balance of the scale. So far the weights tip in Hannibaal's favor.
It's possible various minters of varying skill who may never have seen the man himself cast differing profiles and hair quality. It's also possible that it's not t a Hannibal at all.
Only a priori considerations rule out either option in favor of the other.
And please no lecture about the blacks of North Africa. I've been presenting that here since 2005 with the native Aughriga who greeted the Kanaani upon arrival and made them lease land for many a year. Also that Afer most likely derives from Aughriga as does our word Africa.
the fact the coins of hannibal depict an black African is really the only reason people question it
lets be real here
because scholarly it is with out a doubt Hannibal
for the reasons that it historically fits the narrative of Hannibal
Mod Edit
Please use images that do not stretch page.
[ 22. June 2017, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: BlessedbyHorus ]
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Indeed the same man but obviously not the same coin. No two of them are the same engraving.
The coins we're discussing however are • the same mint • approximately the same year • variant engraving.
theLioness (initials tL, I'm not giving the full spelling every time) posted a variety of Juba coins. No mistaking of profile or hair quality. If she'd be so kind as to repost them here, please.
Below are coins from the Wildwind site mentioned in the post from the cpmpanion thread
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
the earrings are faded how ever you can see them in this coin
no earring just a bad quality reproduction. We have already seen several versions of these coins. If you look to the right of his forehead, three unidentified blotches And the Nubians had earrings so if he was shown with earrings it wouldn't prove anything
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
you must remember that Carthage was utterly destroyed so finding artifacts will be very difficult
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
i thoroughly proved that all of the so called artifacts of Carthage are Greek
Again, then the problem is that you exclude this coin from that statement.
But the statement is not true. If you burn a city there are still objects to find in excavation
A Punic mask in the Carthage museum
^ yes there's the earring at left on his right ear as well as a nose ring
Carthage National Museum is a national museum in Byrsa, Tunisia. Along with the Bardo National Museum, it is one of the two main local archaeological museums in the region.
Some of the best pieces found in excavations are limestone/marble carvings, depicting animals, plants and even human sculptures. Of special note is a marble sarcophagus of a priest and priestess from the 3rd century BC, discovered in the necropolis of Carthage. The Museum also has a noted collection of masks and jewelry in cast glass. The various excavations at the site have uncovered numerous items characterizing the Phoenician civilization.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Ibiza no. 98. BH. Janiform bearded and negro heads, with patterned collar; above, ram and lion heads
37/27 Carthage no. 601. BH. Satyr head; lion head above; behind, negro head and lion forepart.
37/30 Paris, BN, Chandon de Briailles. BH;PB. Janiform bearded and negro heads; above, ram and lion heads. I
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
here is another one where the earring is more visible
the earring is too small to be Nubian
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
the point of the earrings is further proof that the man is Carthaginian because Carthaginian men wore earrings
we can definitely conclude that he could not be Roman, Greek, Etruscan, or Gaul
judging by his hair he could not be Indian either
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I see in your reference that an earrings are mentioned, yes
translated:
quote:
p 156
The negro of the coins we are studying has a characteristic physiognomy which does not allow us to misunderstand the ethnographic intention of the engraver of the coin: he has rings in his ears; His flat nose, his big lips, his hair arranged in tendrils and in stages [retorto aine, known as Martial] are in conformity with the Negro type that all the branches of classical art make known to us. The elephant carries a small bell in the neck. It has long, fan-shaped ears, which distinguish the African elephant (elephas capensis) from the Asian elephant (elephas indicus), which, although larger, has very short ears. These differences of race are very clearly indicated, not only by the ancient authors, but also on the monuments themselves and in particular on the coins. It is sufficient, for instance, to compare, for example, the currencies of the kings of Egypt, Syria, and Bactria with those of the kings of Numidia and Mauretania, to the type of the elephant.
^^ also notice in copying URLs that are too long, after you do it you can come in and delete most of the end of it and it still works. Before posting hit preview and then click on it to verify it works
He may be incorrect on the elephant type though
while the line illustration at the top of the book chapter shows the coin with larger ears, the photos here seem very convincingly of the shorter eared Indian type.
I'm still not entirely convinced that there is an earring here but maybe
comparatively >
A Punic mask in the Carthage museum
^ with earring
Libyan captive, Egypt
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Statue of the chief Carthaginian god, Baal Hammon Musée national du Bardo, Tunesia
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Statue of the chief Carthaginian god, Baal Hammon Musée national du Bardo, Tunesia
^^^ how do you know this is Baal Hammon?
this could be serapis
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
Discovered at Tunisia (Carthage)
How do you know this is also not a Carthaginian?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ I don't know that is not a Carthaginian
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
The earrings are on each of the 5 coins. But if you don't want to see them you won't. Just zoom this image and you can clearly see the ring
The photo quality of the coin below is just fine,
I expect more a priora roorag about how that's anything but an earring rather than acknowledging the obvious.
the earrings are faded how ever you can see them in this coin
no earring just a bad quality reproduction .
.
Here's two coins from Rogers by Marc Washington
Source: P. R. Garrucci, La Monete dell' Italia Antica (Rome: 1885), Part II, p. 58; Plate No. LXXV, Coin Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
^^^ with out a doubt the man on the coins originally had earrings
note: we have not seen all of the coins but ernest babelon and P. R. Garrucci seen coins that are not displayed to the public
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Bumping this thread again, with a screencap and link to the study on Punic remains from Ibiza that Swenet cited earlier:
By my count, over half the Punic Ibizan crania classify as "Black" (i.e. they physically resemble African-Americans) according to this analysis.
Though, in the interest of fairness, a later study on aDNA from Punic Ibizan samples showed mostly European mtDNAs, with the one Punic genome they were able to sequence showing more European than North African genetic affinity.
quote:Ibiza was permanently settled around the 7th century BCE by founders arriving from west Phoenicia. The founding population grew significantly and reached its height during the 4th century BCE. We obtained nine complete mitochondrial genomes from skeletal remains from two Punic necropoli in Ibiza and a Bronze Age site from Formentara. We also obtained low coverage (0.47X average depth) of the genome of one individual, directly dated to 361–178 cal BCE, from the Cas Molí site on Ibiza. We analysed and compared ancient DNA results with 18 new mitochondrial genomes from modern Ibizans to determine the ancestry of the founders of Ibiza. The mitochondrial results indicate a predominantly recent European maternal ancestry for the current Ibizan population while the whole genome data suggest a significant Eastern Mediterranean component. Our mitochondrial results suggest a genetic discontinuity between the early Phoenician settlers and the island’s modern inhabitants. Our data, while limited, suggest that the Eastern or North African influence in the Punic population of Ibiza was primarily male dominated.
Though I should point out that, with the exception of Puig des Molins, most of the Ibizan sites from which these genetic samples were obtained appear to be different locations from the ones from which the crania in the older study came. So there is the possibility that, were aDNA recovered from the crania analyzed in the first study, the results might look different from what you see in the second study.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
^^Good post and could be. Ancient Punics were very diverse imo.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: ^^Good post and could be. Ancient Punics were very diverse imo.
Agreed. That's to be expected since the Carthaginian empire was a transcontinental one that covered territory in Europe and the western Mediterranean as well as North Africa. Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Bumping this thread again, with a screencap and link to the study on Punic remains from Ibiza that Swenet cited earlier:
By my count, over half the Punic Ibizan crania classify as "Black" (i.e. they physically resemble African-Americans) according to this analysis.
Though, in the interest of fairness, a later study on aDNA from Punic Ibizan samples showed mostly European mtDNAs, with the one Punic genome they were able to sequence showing more European than North African genetic affinity.
quote:Ibiza was permanently settled around the 7th century BCE by founders arriving from west Phoenicia. The founding population grew significantly and reached its height during the 4th century BCE. We obtained nine complete mitochondrial genomes from skeletal remains from two Punic necropoli in Ibiza and a Bronze Age site from Formentara. We also obtained low coverage (0.47X average depth) of the genome of one individual, directly dated to 361–178 cal BCE, from the Cas Molí site on Ibiza. We analysed and compared ancient DNA results with 18 new mitochondrial genomes from modern Ibizans to determine the ancestry of the founders of Ibiza. The mitochondrial results indicate a predominantly recent European maternal ancestry for the current Ibizan population while the whole genome data suggest a significant Eastern Mediterranean component. Our mitochondrial results suggest a genetic discontinuity between the early Phoenician settlers and the island’s modern inhabitants. Our data, while limited, suggest that the Eastern or North African influence in the Punic population of Ibiza was primarily male dominated.
Though I should point out that, with the exception of Puig des Molins, most of the Ibizan sites from which these genetic samples were obtained appear to be different locations from the ones from which the crania in the older study came. So there is the possibility that, were aDNA recovered from the crania analyzed in the first study, the results might look different from what you see in the second study.
The study you posted doesn't say they looked black but show SSA affinities like modern north africans. They didn't actually use any north african sample in this study, read :
quote:Measurements were then introduced into the forensic discriminant programme FORDISC 2.0 (Ousley and Jantz, 1996). This programme was selected as it contains data from samples with a European Caucasoid background as well as data from individuals with a sub-Saharan ancestry [...] Only two of its categories were used , determined by the nature of the research and the geographical and chronological background of Ibiza: ‘American Blacks’ with a reference sample of 150 males and 125 females, and ‘American Whites’ with 271 males and 195 females (Ousley and Jantz, 1996). Therefore, the study assumed that each skull belonged to either group.
Again read carefully :
quote:Even if the skull comes from a group identity different to those in the database, which is the case of the Ibizan material, the programme will still classify the specimen with the closest group available (Ubelaker, 1998: 131). Also, the system is based on American populations. No North African samples are available in the database. Caution applying FORDISC 2.0 to non-American ancient populations has been highlighted elsewhere (see Ubelaker et al., 2002).
The reconstruction they propose doesn't look black but north african :
Moreover why did you avoid the autosomal result we have from one ibiza punic ? :
quote:The Ibiza Phoenician individual published in 50 232 is not consistent with forming a clade with any of the Bronze233 Age individuals from the Balaeric islands newly reported in this study, and indeed we find that she234 can not be modeled even with our least parsimonious model of 4 distal sources. However, when we235 add in a North African source of ancestry, we can fit her as a two-way mix of 18.8 ± 7.9%236 Anatolia_Neolithic and 81.2 ± 7.9% Morocco_LN ancestry (p=0.141) (Supplementary Materials). We237 also can fit the Ibiza Phoenician as two-way mixture of a variety of groups closer to her in time one238 of which is always Morocco_LN. While several of these models include a Balaeric Island Bronze Age239 source, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Ibiza Phoenician individual has no local Balaeric240 ancestry at all. Specifically, we find that we can fit her with models that do not have a Balaeric241 source and that instead have Balaeric Bronze Age individuals in the outgroups (e.g. (e.g. 17.1 ±242 3.5% France_Bell_Beaker and 82.9 ± 3.5% Morocco_LN, p=0.869) (Supplementary Table 11)."
quote:Considering that in qpWave this individual did not form a clade with the other Balearic individuals, it is possible that these models represent an unsampled group. These results clearly demonstrate a link to North African ancestry in the Phoenician settlement of the Balearic Islands.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Bumping this thread again, with a screencap and link to the study on Punic remains from Ibiza that Swenet cited earlier:
By my count, over half the Punic Ibizan crania classify as "Black" (i.e. they physically resemble African-Americans) according to this analysis.
Though, in the interest of fairness, a later study on aDNA from Punic Ibizan samples showed mostly European mtDNAs, with the one Punic genome they were able to sequence showing more European than North African genetic affinity.
quote:Ibiza was permanently settled around the 7th century BCE by founders arriving from west Phoenicia. The founding population grew significantly and reached its height during the 4th century BCE. We obtained nine complete mitochondrial genomes from skeletal remains from two Punic necropoli in Ibiza and a Bronze Age site from Formentara. We also obtained low coverage (0.47X average depth) of the genome of one individual, directly dated to 361–178 cal BCE, from the Cas Molí site on Ibiza. We analysed and compared ancient DNA results with 18 new mitochondrial genomes from modern Ibizans to determine the ancestry of the founders of Ibiza. The mitochondrial results indicate a predominantly recent European maternal ancestry for the current Ibizan population while the whole genome data suggest a significant Eastern Mediterranean component. Our mitochondrial results suggest a genetic discontinuity between the early Phoenician settlers and the island’s modern inhabitants. Our data, while limited, suggest that the Eastern or North African influence in the Punic population of Ibiza was primarily male dominated.
Though I should point out that, with the exception of Puig des Molins, most of the Ibizan sites from which these genetic samples were obtained appear to be different locations from the ones from which the crania in the older study came. So there is the possibility that, were aDNA recovered from the crania analyzed in the first study, the results might look different from what you see in the second study.
The study you posted doesn't say they looked black but show SSA affinities like modern north africans. They didn't actually use any north african sample in this study, read :
quote:Measurements were then introduced into the forensic discriminant programme FORDISC 2.0 (Ousley and Jantz, 1996). This programme was selected as it contains data from samples with a European Caucasoid background as well as data from individuals with a sub-Saharan ancestry [...] Only two of its categories were used , determined by the nature of the research and the geographical and chronological background of Ibiza: ‘American Blacks’ with a reference sample of 150 males and 125 females, and ‘American Whites’ with 271 males and 195 females (Ousley and Jantz, 1996). Therefore, the study assumed that each skull belonged to either group.
Again read carefully :
quote:Even if the skull comes from a group identity different to those in the database, which is the case of the Ibizan material, the programme will still classify the specimen with the closest group available (Ubelaker, 1998: 131). Also, the system is based on American populations. No North African samples are available in the database. Caution applying FORDISC 2.0 to non-American ancient populations has been highlighted elsewhere (see Ubelaker et al., 2002).
The reconstruction they propose doesn't look black but north african :
Moreover why did you avoid the autosomal result we have from one ibiza punic ? :
quote:The Ibiza Phoenician individual published in 50 232 is not consistent with forming a clade with any of the Bronze233 Age individuals from the Balaeric islands newly reported in this study, and indeed we find that she234 can not be modeled even with our least parsimonious model of 4 distal sources. However, when we235 add in a North African source of ancestry, we can fit her as a two-way mix of 18.8 ± 7.9%236 Anatolia_Neolithic and 81.2 ± 7.9% Morocco_LN ancestry (p=0.141) (Supplementary Materials). We237 also can fit the Ibiza Phoenician as two-way mixture of a variety of groups closer to her in time one238 of which is always Morocco_LN. While several of these models include a Balaeric Island Bronze Age239 source, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Ibiza Phoenician individual has no local Balaeric240 ancestry at all. Specifically, we find that we can fit her with models that do not have a Balaeric241 source and that instead have Balaeric Bronze Age individuals in the outgroups (e.g. (e.g. 17.1 ±242 3.5% France_Bell_Beaker and 82.9 ± 3.5% Morocco_LN, p=0.869) (Supplementary Table 11)."
quote:Considering that in qpWave this individual did not form a clade with the other Balearic individuals, it is possible that these models represent an unsampled group. These results clearly demonstrate a link to North African ancestry in the Phoenician settlement of the Balearic Islands.
The point they are making is this was a mixed population and elements of that population would have had black African features. According to you "North Africans" are a monolithic population that only look one way and have only one set of features. This is not supported by any facts on the ground.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point they are making is this was a mixed population and elements of that population would have had black African features. According to you "North Africans" are a monolithic population that only look one way and have only one set of features. This is not supported by any facts on the ground. [/QB]
I'm myself roughly 20% black and most north africans are around 20-30% they already show this ssa affinity so obviously if you only put white americans and afro-americans samples, NAs will diverge in the direction of afro-americans.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
please give your 20% back you don't deserve it
Barka Surname
quote:This surname is predominantly found in Africa, where 95 percent of Barka are found; 58 percent are found in West Africa and 44 percent are found in Chadic Africa. Barka is also the 28,772nd most numerous given name on earth, held by 28,820 people.
Malam Mamane Barka was born in 1958 or 1959 in Tesker, a town in the east of the then autonomous republic of Niger. He came from the nomadic people of Toubou
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
Brq literally means the thunder in phoenician (same sense in hebrew and arabic) but yatunde think it has to do with the nilo-saharan dialect of toubous XD
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
Coin depicting Hamilcar Barca :
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
That is not Hamilcar that is Melqart (Hercules)
Melqart Melqart (Phoenician: lit. Melek-qart, "King of the City") was the tutelary god of the Phoenician city of Tyre.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
nope that's not melqart :
"Carthaginian silver dishekel. The head has been identified as Hamilcar Barca (c. 285 – c. 228 BCE). Minted in Carthago Nova, Spain, 237-227 BCE."
But even if you were right why would a black population depicts one of their main god as typically mediterranean looking ?
why not something like this ? :
Anyway here other depictions of carthaginian figures and deities from the Barcid era :
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Carthaginian leaders were often depicted as gods. It can be Hamilcar or even Hannibal. British museum attributes it to Hannibal.
Here is another one attributed to Hasdrubal, younger brother of Hannibal.
This has been attributed to Hannibal
The black man on a coin depicted earlier in this thread can not with any certainty be tied to Hannibal.
Here is an article adressing the issue of that type of coin:
quote: The imagery on the coin has been interpreted as representing one of Hannibal’s war elephants on one side and its black mahout, or driver, on the other. According to this theory, the coin was minted by an as-yet-unidentified Etruscan city as a sign of goodwill toward the Carthaginians who, under General Hasdrubal, were marching to join his brother Hannibal in a combined attack on the city of Rome itself. Hasdrubal, however, was defeated by Roman legions far to the north in 207 B.C. Etruscan hopes for aid vanished with him.
From this hypothetical association with Carthage has followed the suggestion that these coins were used by the Etruscans as payment to the invading Carthaginian mercenaries. Yet this account of the coin’s origin comes with some serious caveats. Sporadically produced, Etruscan coinage seems to have been intended solely for local barter or trade. Besides, by the time Hannibal approached Etruscan territory, the association of his army with elephants would only have been a distant memory.
The appearance of the elephant and black man’s head on the coin may more convincingly be accounted for by the Etruscans’ sustained contact with the sophisticated intellectual climate of Greece. The profile head of a black man occurs as part of the long-standing vocabulary of visual symbolism presented on Greek coins in the eastern Mediterranean.
His distinctive visage is often paired with a key religious symbol of the city-state that issued them. For example, in a coin from Delphi minted in the early fifth century B.C., the head of a black man essentially like this one occurs on one side, while on the other is a three-part symbol alluding to the pre-eminent local sanctuary of Apollo, god of wisdom and prophecy. The black man seems to represent Delphos, the legendary founder of the city whose mother’s name, Melaina, literally means “black woman.” Derived from this etymological association with dark-skinned ethnicity, the image of Delphos as a black man serves as the visual epitome of the city.
In the coin from Delphi, as in other examples of the black head on Greek coins, the intention seems to have been to conjure an ideal image of humanity, of the sort famously attributed to the Ethiopian by the renowned Greek authors Homer and Hesiod.
Living on the southern fringes of the known world, the Ethiopian was held to be the handsomest of men, especially beloved by the gods. The projection of such superlative qualities on these exotic lands and their inhabitants is typical of the ancient Greek mind, and a similar intention for the presence of the black man on the Etruscan coin could apply as well. As with the example from Delphi, he may also personify some local attribute, such as the authority by whom the coin was minted. The elephant on the other side may represent the virtue of wisdom and strength, also associated with Turms, the Etruscan equivalent of the Greek god Hermes. What meaning this could have had in an Etruscan context remains unclear, but it undoubtedly carried a positive meaning of the highest order.
Both this Greek orientation and the mahout characterization of the black head on the coin are instructive, reflecting two very different yet complementary experiences with the African presence in the ancient world. In the art of this period, the black man could be abstracted into a symbol of ideal nobility, while on a more concrete level he could be shown as a real man playing a very real role in the history of ancient Rome. Either way, he was to leave an indelible imprint on western civilization during its most formative period.
PHOENICIANS IN THE CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN: MELQART’S CONVERSION TO HERCULES Legend tells us that he was one of Jason’s 50 Argonauts on that epic journey to retrieve the Golden Fleece from Colchis, an ancient city over 1,200 miles east of Greece. Afterward, he turned west and forged the “Heraclean Way” on his return trip from the southernmost tip of Iberia. For this reason, the monolithic rocks on each side of Gibraltar, the origin of his trek, are still called the Pillars of Hercules.
Of course, these travels never actually happened because Hercules never actually existed. But the Greeks used his mythos to justify their interests in the western Mediterranean. Wherever Greeks colonized, Hercules had conveniently voyaged first to clear the land of wild beasts and savages. And when ancient Greece’s hegemony in the Mediterranean began to dwindle, her successors adopted the same tactic.
By Michael Arnold November 8, 2020 – The Collector
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Then we have a bust from Capua traditionally attributed to Hannibal
It seems yatunde is not able to answer my questions and can't explain why these blacks always portrayed themselves as caucasoids ...Geez these afrocentrists really want to stay in their illusion.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Then we have a bust from Capua traditionally attributed to Hannibal
I have some doubts on this one since Hannibal was quite young during the second punic war while that looks like a mature man in his 40s-50s. Some have argued that the bust generally attributed to Juba II was in fact depicting Hannibal.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
Exporting Hercules: How A Greek God Influenced Western Superpowers The Greek god Hercules was adopted by Punic and Roman colonial powers to legitimize their expansion in the western Mediterranean. His mythology linked them to the inheritance of ancient Greece
Melqart, Guardian of the Universe and chief deity of the preeminent Phoenician city of Tyre, came to be associated with Hercules. Greek gods had long been worshipped in the region thanks to the strong Hellenic presence in Sicily. And as Carthage carved out a slice of the island for itself, it began to syncretize its old Levantine culture with that of the Greeks.
This distinctly Punic identity taking root in western Sicily saw Melqart transform into Hercules-Melqart. His effigies started to follow Greek artistic standards as early as the late 6th century. And his profile, minted on Punic coinage in Spain, Sardinia, and Sicily, took on a very Herculean character.
It’s worth mentioning that the Phoenicians initially used Melqart as the Greeks did Hercules. In the early Phoenician colony of Gades in Iberia, the cult of Melqart was established as a cultural link to its distant colonizer. So it’s reasonable that Punic Sicilians would look to both as having some claim as the mythological father of the west, and ultimately conflate them. In any case, Melqart’s story became interchangeable with that of Hercules, even in such ventures as the forging of the Heraclean Way.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
Appropriation is a hell of a drug
Melqart went from this
To the Greek form of Hercules in profile...
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
idk why she suddenly spam infos about melqart but ok...
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
Because on your coins is Melqart/Hercules in Greek from.. it is not Hannibal himself
The coin could have been minted under Hannibal in Sicily hence why it has that attestation but the images are always of the GODS themselves
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
Why did carthaginians depict their dead relatives as mediterranean looking ? :
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Because on your coins is Melqart/Hercules in Greek from.. it is not Hannibal himself
The coin could have been minted under Hannibal in Sicily hence why it has that attestation but the images are always of the GODS themselves
I showed you that this is not what the description says about the coin, I also showed you hundreds of carthaginian coins depicting both historical figures and deities yet none are black why ?
DO NOT AVOID THIS QUESTION : IF THEY WERE BLACKS WHY are their GODS Depicted as CAUCASOID/MED LOOKING ?
+ you literally try to depict them as black meanwhile we have genetic and anthropologic results lmao
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Why do so many of the Roman coins depicting Berber kings look like Europeans?
Some of the potential reasons:
• Some of these kings were allies of the Romans against other berbers and they may have Romanized their appearance to some extent
• Sometimes of the berber kings were of mixed ancestry Romnano-African
• Sometimes a Roman God or a Roman God hybridized with a berber king is depicted on a coin representing a particular king
• And as we see with the bronze bust of Juba above if a person has broad features some of it it may not come across as much in a profile view
Herr is one of the coins of Juba II's father Juba I , king of Numidia It looks a bit peculiar. Is that his hair? It seems incongruous with his European looking features and beard How accurate is was it to his actual physical appearance?
Does this look believable?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
Why not simply because they look like that ? Do you think my face would have looked "european" on coins ? If they were following specific cannons without any kind of realism then we should expect homogeneous depictions but that's not the case they're all unique and show specific traits moreover roman emperors put their real faces on those coins so I don't see why NAs kings wouldn't have done the same.
There is no "broad" features on Juba II he looks typically north african (I'd say even typically moroccan) and about juba I yes that's his hair but these are not "dreads" but plainted hair they used to do that with a stick like for example modern afars do :
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why did carthaginians depict their dead relatives as mediterranean looking ? :
So now you are saying that the Carthagenians were mixed looking?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
There is no "broad" features on Juba II he looks typically north african (I'd say even typically moroccan)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: that's broad features to you ?
obviously
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: juba I yes that's his hair but these are not "dreads" but plainted hair they used to do that with a stick like for example modern afars do :
[/QB]
How do we know this is not natural locking of the hair, that when you don't comb it and leave it alone, it locks up like this, not those neater, thinner Afar curls?
How do we know if his beard was really like that?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
yet in the many coins of Juba II he is always looking thoroughly European
no that's a 2d profile depiction of him what do you expect ? If you put my face on it it would be the same
here my profile :
Will you say I'm european now ?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
There is no "broad" features on Juba II he looks typically north african (I'd say even typically moroccan)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: that's broad features to you ?
obviously
Overall the bust look normal to me (very familiar phenotype) :
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
yet in the many coins of Juba II he is always looking thoroughly European
no that's a 2d profile depiction of him what do you expect ? If you put my face on it it would be the same
here my profile :
Will you say I'm european now ?
Your profile looks nothing like those Greek profiles
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
yet in the many coins of Juba II he is always looking thoroughly European
no that's a 2d profile depiction of him what do you expect ? If you put my face on it it would be the same
here my profile :
Will you say I'm european now ?
Your profile looks nothing like those Greek profiles
You look Spanish to me...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
You look Spanish to me...
some of that may be due to the skin tone and moustache coming in
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yet in the many coins of Juba II he is always looking thoroughly European
no that's a 2d profile depiction of him what do you expect ? If you put my face on it it would be the same
here my profile :
Will you say I'm european now ?
Your profile looks nothing like those Greek profiles
You look Spanish to me...
You probably confuse mexicans with spaniards but anyway my profile is perfectly caucasoid like on those coins so such profiles are not exclusive to europeans
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
the wideness of the nose is not captured in the profile view. This nose is not that common in so called Caucasians although there may be some
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Wait a minute, our French buddy here insists Carthaginians were all "Caucasoid" like himself based on certain portraiture (all of which bears obvious Greek or Roman artistic influences). Yet, when presented with evidence that some Carthaginian skeletal remains physically resembled those of African-Americans, he claims that they had to have been the remains of "Caucasoid" North Africans like himself.
So, does that mean ancient and modern North Africans are "Caucasoids" who happen to have crania that could be confused with those of modern African-Americans? Are African-American people now "Caucasoid" too since they supposedly resemble modern North African "Caucasoids" at the skeletal level?
I'll grant that the Ibiza study's methodology is a bit imprecise and would benefit from comparisons to various North African populations across time, but c'mon, if ancient Carthaginians were so uniformly "Caucasoid", you'd think none of them would have crania that would be confused for those of a population that is 70-75% West or Central African on average.
P.S. The reconstruction from the Ibiza paper, the one our French friend claimed "looked North African instead of Black", was one of the ones their software identified as a "White male", not a "Black male". Read the caption. They don't appear to have a reconstruction of any of the "Black" specimens. Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Wait a minute, our French buddy here insists Carthaginians were all "Caucasoid" like himself based on certain portraiture (all of which bears obvious Greek or Roman artistic influences). Yet, when presented with evidence that some Carthaginian skeletal remains physically resembled those of African-Americans, he claims that they had to have been the remains of "Caucasoid" North Africans like himself.
So, does that mean ancient and modern North Africans are "Caucasoids" who happen to have crania that could be confused with those of modern African-Americans? Are African-American people now "Caucasoid" too since they supposedly resemble modern North African "Caucasoids" at the skeletal level?
I'll grant that the Ibiza study's methodology is a bit imprecise and would benefit from comparisons to various North African populations across time, but c'mon, if ancient Carthaginians were so uniformly "Caucasoid", you'd think none of them would have crania that would be confused for those of a population that is 70-75% West or Central African on average.
P.S. The reconstruction from the Ibiza paper, the one our French friend claimed "looked North African instead of Black", was one of the ones their software identified as a "White male", not a "Black male". Read the caption. They don't appear to have a reconstruction of any of the "Black" specimens.
I already posted a study on punic remains which you strangely didn't comment. Moreover the paper never implied the skeletal remains were "black" or similar to afro-americans but appeared closer to it than to white americans and such affinities are based on a limited set of criterias which they admit was too small.
And yes you can be caucasoid looking and yet having ssa affinities under close scrutiny, a simple example :
quote:Second, the post-Pleistocene North Africans are similar to Europeans in that they possess numerous dental features involving morphological simplification. Any North African deviations away from this pattern are in the direction of mass-additive Sub-Saharan traits. This finding supports the results of prior genetic-based studies that link North Africans to Europeans and western Asians, yet record several Sub-Saharan tendencies. Together, the two findings suggest that a morphologically simple dental pattern is shared by the indigenous peoples of North Africa, as well as Europe and perhaps western Asia, and this pattern has existed for the past 4,000 to perhaps 8,500+/- years."
Irish J.D. 1998b. Diachronic and synchronic dental trait affinities of late and post-pleistocene peoples from North Africa. Homo. 49(2) 138-155
The study is obviously flawed in all of its aspects but since it's the only one which mentions "black" you couldn't resist sharing it like the snake you are but al hamdulillah I did my researches.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
the wideness of the nose is not captured in the profile view. This nose is not that common in so called Caucasians although there may be some
That's not a negroid nose and yes it's common among berbers here some examples :
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
And, for the record, I don't even think the skulls classified as "Black" in the Ibiza study were pure SSA. More likely, they had a lot of ANA or similar ancestry that is neither Eurasian nor sub-Saharan. But our Frenchman here is convinced that a North African population can have enough "sub-Saharan" traits for FORDISC to confuse them for people with predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry while still being "Caucasoid" overall. I mean, if these were really "Caucasoids" with only a little "sub-Saharan" influence (like the individuals he wants to pass off as the real North Africans), does he really think the software would prefer an African-American to a European-American classification for them? Does he really think the pendulum would swing in an African-American direction if the sub-Saharan traits are at such a minimum?
I mean, FORDISC, the very software used in the Ibiza study, is on record as misidentifying Kushite crania from Sudan as "White" or various other "non-Black" ethnicities, even though they likely had more sub-Saharan ancestry than modern coastal Maghrebis. It doesn't seem that the program is prone to classifying crania as "Black" due to the slightest expression of sub-Saharan-like traits.
quote:Of the remaining crania, 12 were identified as white, 11 as black, 3 as Japanese, 1 as Hispanic, and 1 as Native American.
By the way,
quote:I already posted a study on punic remains which you strangely didn't comment.
Are you referring to the Chamla studies from the 1970s? I don't see how they refute the Ibiza study from 2005. In the end, both studies are essentially sorting crania into one of a few "racial" groups. The big difference is that Chamla probably didn't have a computer to do the sorting for him.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
the wideness of the nose is not captured in the profile view. This nose is not that common in so called Caucasians although there may be some
That's not a negroid nose and yes it's common among berbers here some examples :
there are various possibilities
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: And, for the record, I don't even think the skulls classified as "Black" in the Ibiza study were pure SSA. More likely, they had a lot of ANA or similar ancestry that is neither Eurasian nor sub-Saharan. But our Frenchman here is convinced that a North African population can have enough "sub-Saharan" traits for FORDISC to confuse them for people with predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry while still being "Caucasoid" overall. I mean, if these were really "Caucasoids" with only a little "sub-Saharan" influence (like the individuals he wants to pass off as the real North Africans), does he really think the software would prefer an African-American to a European-American classification for them? Does he really think the pendulum would swing in an African-American direction if the sub-Saharan traits are at such a minimum?
I mean, FORDISC, the very software used in the Ibiza study, is on record as misidentifying Kushite crania from Sudan as "White" or various other "non-Black" ethnicities, even though they likely had more sub-Saharan ancestry than modern coastal Maghrebis. It doesn't seem that the program is prone to classifying crania as "Black" due to the slightest expression of sub-Saharan-like traits.
quote:Of the remaining crania, 12 were identified as white, 11 as black, 3 as Japanese, 1 as Hispanic, and 1 as Native American.
By the way,
quote:I already posted a study on punic remains which you strangely didn't comment.
Are you referring to the Chamla studies from the 1970s? I don't see how they refute the Ibiza study from 2005. In the end, both studies are essentially sorting crania into one of a few "racial" groups. The big difference is that Chamla probably didn't have a computer to do the sorting for him.
They did not "confuse them" with people who are predominantely sub-saharan african we're dealing with a spectrum of what they call "typicality" but anyway again pay attention to what they say :
quote:Caution applying FORDISC 2.0 to non-American ancient populations has been highlighted elsewhere (see Ubelaker et al., 2002).
HERE PAY ATTENTION :
quote:It is true that by providing only a choice between ‘White’ (European Caucasoid ancestry) and ‘Black’ (sub-Saharan ancestry), the computer programme might force skulls of North Africa or Eastern Mediterranean ancestry into the category ‘Black’.
quote:By selecting the FORDISC 2.0 options ‘White male’ and ‘Black male’, all the populations indicated ‘White male’.
Also are you now going to say phoenicians were black too ? :
quote:The most complete skull from a Phoenician sample from Israel (Smith et al., 1990) provided a ‘Black male’ result with high probability but low typicality. P
So their only conclusion was that there is evidence of african individuals in the ibizan populations which is not surprising since like I've said many times all the datas point to punics/carthaginians being mostly punicized north africans and not pure phoenicians (btw the paper also highlights that the afro-american sample they used doesn't show the same results as other SSA samples they tested)
The study of Chamla completely contradicts what you posted since it shows that negroid traits were minimal and the samples show affinities with north africans and other west mediterranean populations. Now Go make your childish drawings where you fetishize black women.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:By selecting the FORDISC 2.0 options ‘White male’ and ‘Black male’, all the populations indicated ‘White male’.
I have no idea what you were trying to argue by quoting this out of context, but the populations they are referring to prehistoric to medieval Iberians.
quote:Published data was selected from locations that may have had a genetic influence on Ibiza such as the Iberian Peninsula, the Eastern Mediterranean, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Male population means were taken from Prehistoric to Mediaeval sites from the Iberian Peninsula (gathered from various authors by Lalueza et al., 1996). By selecting the FORDISC 2.0 options ‘White male’ and ‘Black male’, all the populations indicated ‘White male’.
Anyway, as Swenet mentioned earlier in this thread (and to address your claim that so-called "Caucasoid" North African skulls might be confused for "Black" ones by the software), the authors actually did use FORDISC on a number of circum-Mediterranean populations, including some North African ones, in addition to the Ibiza crania. And they still stand by their conclusions of distinctly African ancestry in the Ibiza material even after doing so.
quote:In the light of these results, and considering the FORDISC 2.0 results from populations in Iberia, North Africa and sub-Saharan African which have not been presented here due to space limitations, it can be suggested that those Ibizan skulls classified as ‘Black’ with reasonable to high probabilities and low typicalities clearly have an African, and perhaps an Eastern Mediterranean, ancestry.
quote:Also are you now going to say phoenicians were black too ?
quote:Now Go make your childish drawings where you fetishize black women.
It sure beats trying to reason with racist Frenchmen like you. I'm out.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
why did you avoid this ?
quote:It is true that by providing only a choice between ‘White’ (European Caucasoid ancestry) and ‘Black’ (sub-Saharan ancestry), the computer programme might force skulls of North Africa or Eastern Mediterranean ancestry into the category ‘Black’.
and since when are egyptians black ? Moreover we have two egyptian samples from Lebanon and they literally have the same results as the abusir samples. What a coincidence that among hundreds of phoenician skulls they fall on a kushite one ... Stop being desesperate and admit the study is flawed.
I posted the result of one punic from this puig de molin necropolis, he had north african and east med ancestry but no substantial "black" ancestry.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
There are plenty of black Egyptians. I can't believe that you seriously think you are schooling people on the history of Africans in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There are plenty of black Egyptians. I can't believe that you seriously think you are schooling people on the history of Africans in Africa.
The marsa alam folks are dressed like arabs not egyptians but of course you didn't know that Mr the "african"
Imazighen from Siwa aren't really similar to other berbers and their dna reflects the centuries of the trans-saharan slave trade, Siwa being one of the main market in the road to Egypt and the middle East (if needed I can post sources)
As for the Qara oasis that's far from the Nile Valley and well into the Sahara so these aren't really proper egyptians. Why don't you post how people along nile look like ?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There are plenty of black Egyptians. I can't believe that you seriously think you are schooling people on the history of Africans in Africa.
The marsa alam folks are dressed like arabs not egyptians but of course you didn't know that Mr the "african"
Imazighen from Siwa aren't really similar to other berbers and their dna reflects the centuries of the trans-saharan slave trade, Siwa being one of the main market in the road to Egypt and the middle East (if needed I can post sources)
As for the Qara oasis that's far from the Nile Valley and well into the Sahara so these aren't really proper egyptians. Why don't you post how people along nile look like ?
So according to you the fact that the historical accounts of blacks in North Africa are false and blacks in North Africa are simply recent arrivals?
You and your gibberish is ridiculous. Black Africans have always been in North Africa and your absurd claims otherwise are simply false. Light skinned people are not the first people of North Africa and it is only within the last few thousand years that light skin became dominant along the coast. And even with that, those lighter skinned folks descend from black Africans. This absurdity of trying to claim otherwise is hilarious.
Come on man stop pretending that you are proving something here with your nonsense.
quote: The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated by sequencing a portion of the control region (including HVS-I and part of HVS-II) and surveying haplogroup-specific coding region markers. Our findings show that the Berber mitochondrial pool is characterized by an overall high frequency of Western Eurasian haplogroups, a somehow lower frequency of sub-Saharan L lineages, and a significant (but differential) presence of North African haplogroups U6 and M1, thus occupying an intermediate position between European and sub-Saharan populations in PCA analysis. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations.
Not to mention black people have always been along the Nile and still are on the Nile from Aswan to Luxor and further north. The idea that these blacks just got there recently is stupid.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I dont see how they are not "proper" Egyptians, considering the Western desert played its role in Ancient Egyptian history...
I guess you could argue they are not "proper" Egyptians, though in modern times they are culturally Egyptian and possibly the Oasis dwellers could be related/descended from the "Lybians" from A. Egypt?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So according to you the fact that the historical accounts of blacks in North Africa are false and blacks in North Africa are simply recent arrivals?
Again strawman ? Not all but most are indeed recent arrivals ; You think you can erase millions of people just so it fits your narrative ?
Ah but I forget "They can't be imported because they are AFRICANS !!" ...5 mins later "AFRICANS are the most diverse people on earth !!"
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You and your gibberish is ridiculous. Black Africans have always been in North Africa and your absurd claims otherwise are simply false. Light skinned people are not the first people of North Africa and it is only within the last few thousand years that light skin became dominant along the coast. And even with that, those lighter skinned folks descend from black Africans. This absurdity of trying to claim otherwise is hilarious.
Define "black people". Btw History began in the last few thousand years so you can try to darkwash prehistorical north africans yet that wouldn't be enough to claim our history.
Are you implying that colors in Egyptian art have never been symbolic ? Or should I conclude some egyptians were blue skinned ? (yes I know those are deities but still)
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I dont see how they are not "proper" Egyptians, considering the Western desert played its role in Ancient Egyptian history...
Dakhla/Bahriya
Siwa
How is that supposed to be an argument ? Greeks also played their role in ancient egyptian history, same for persians, libyans or nubians...
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I guess you could argue they are not "proper" Egyptians, though in modern times they are culturally Egyptian and possibly the Oasis dwellers could be related/descended from the "Lybians" from A. Egypt?
I never denied that and yes they can at least partially descend from ancient libyans if we look at the history of these oasis
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So according to you the fact that the historical accounts of blacks in North Africa are false and blacks in North Africa are simply recent arrivals?
Again strawman ? Not all but most are indeed recent arrivals ; You think you can erase millions of people just so it fits your narrative ?
You are spouting gibberish again. Africans, black Africans are aboriginal to North Africa. This is the point you keep trying to deny. They were there before there were any "light skin" genes and they were there after light skinned populations evolved. Because of that their features are very diverse, including straight hair, curly hair, thin noses, wide noses and everything else. And just specifically referring to North Africa I am talking of all the black populations that have been in North Africa prior to, during and after the last wet phase 10,000 years ago in the Sahara. "Berbers" are not that ancient and are simply speakers of a language that is only about 6,000 years old. They are not a "race" and aren't all light skinned today and weren't all light skinned in history and the language did not originate with light skinned people. And North Africa is not just the parts of Africa along the coast of the Mediterranean. And as has been shown numerous times, the history of black Africans in and around the mediterranean is ancient.
You trying to deny facts of history is the problem nothing else.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Ah but I forget "They can't be imported because they are AFRICANS !!" ...5 mins later "AFRICANS are the most diverse people on earth !!"
Who the hell imported the black African ancestors of the Tuaregs to Africa? Who imported the black Africans in the last wet phase to the Sahara? Nobody did. You keep talking that stupid nonsense that light skin people are responsible for bringing black skin to Africa which is obviously stupid. It isn't historical and isn't based on any historical facts.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You and your gibberish is ridiculous. Black Africans have always been in North Africa and your absurd claims otherwise are simply false. Light skinned people are not the first people of North Africa and it is only within the last few thousand years that light skin became dominant along the coast. And even with that, those lighter skinned folks descend from black Africans. This absurdity of trying to claim otherwise is hilarious.
Define "black people". Btw History began in the last few thousand years so you can try to darkwash prehistorical north africans yet that wouldn't be enough to claim our history.
Black Africans have been in Africa for more than a few thousand years. You know this yet you keep trying to use this "few thousand" years of light skin people to erase black Africans in North Africa with stupid nonsense. Black Africans were not "imported" to North Africa by Europeans, Arabs, Levantines or anybody else and have been there for far more than 'a few thousand years'. This is the point you keep trying to avoid because you know that light skin isn't "ancient" like black skin which is the most ancient phenotype of humans all over the planet.
Are you implying that colors in Egyptian art have never been symbolic ? Or should I conclude some egyptians were blue skinned ? (yes I know those are deities but still)
Black Africans in AE art looking the same as black Africans in North Africa today and in history is not "symbolic". It is only symbolic of you trying to make up an ancient history of light skin people in Africa before black Africans which is absurd. Light skin is not the aboriginal phenotype of humans, black skin is.
That said, the crux of the issue with you is you deny that these populations in North Africa who are light skinned have recent mixture. Yes, some of those light skin genes evolved naturally in North Africa, but that isn't "white". But because of the location of North Africa in the Mediterranean, you have had mixture. You have had historical ancient migrations of black Africans into Europe, where they mixed with Europeans and you have had migrations of Europeans into parts of North Africa. You keep down playing or ignoring that, trying to claim that light skinned North Africans are "pure", pure what?
Carthage was a civilization that spanned the Mediterranean, they had outposts in Europe and armies made up of Africans and Europeans. There was mixture in Carthage. And in saying that they were mixed, that doesn't mean that all of these Punic North Africans looked the same. It means there was variation of features among them and among the populations that settled in Europe.
And because of that variation of features in Carthage among the populations in that part of North Africa, there is no reason that Hannibal could not have been black. Your whole argument against it is the nonsensical gibberish that there were no blacks in Carthage because the light skinned people were the only "indigenous" people in North Africa, which is absurd.
And to show how ancient black people are you got black people along the Red Sea in the Sinai and in the Levant......
And when I post this, it is to show that humans are diverse and that black skin has always been part of that diversity especially as you go back further in time. As opposed to the nonsense you keep spouting.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are spouting gibberish again. Africans, black Africans are aboriginal to North Africa. This is the point you keep trying to deny. They were there before there were any "light skin" genes and they were there after light skinned populations evolved. Because of that their features are very diverse, including straight hair, curly hair, thin noses, wide noses and everything else. And just specifically referring to North Africa I am talking of all the black populations that have been in North Africa prior to, during and after the last wet phase 10,000 years ago in the Sahara. "Berbers" are not that ancient and are simply speakers of a language that is only about 6,000 years old. They are not a "race" and aren't all light skinned today and weren't all light skinned in history and the language did not originate with light skinned people. And North Africa is not just the parts of Africa along the coast of the Mediterranean. And as has been shown numerous times, the history of black Africans in and around the mediterranean is ancient.
So you imply that "black africans" are all the same ? There is no diversity ? For example, Are you at least aware that people like eritreans or ethiopians are genetically closer to white skinned middle eastern people than west africans like yourself ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Who the hell imported the black African ancestors of the Tuaregs to Africa? Who imported the black Africans in the last wet phase to the Sahara? Nobody did. You keep talking that stupid nonsense that light skin people are responsible for bringing black skin to Africa which is obviously stupid. It isn't historical and isn't based on any historical facts.
Are you implying Tuaregs did not practice slavery ? Also have I ever denied the presence of dark skinned folks in the Sahara ?
And yes "white skinned" caucasoid north africans did import massively west african slaves in their regions this is an established fact and today you can visit these communities who descent from slaves they sing about it, they have festivals to remember their roots some of them even remember their tribes, etc
Again :
quote:This essay examines Ahmad Baba’s efforts to persuade Maghribi scholars to accept the Islamic status of self-professed Muslims in West Africa and to reject racial slavery. Towards this end, Ahmad Baba wrote a legal treatise that suggested that Northwest Africans were illegally enslaving West Africans on the basis of race. This treatise, entitled Mi‘raj al-Su‘ud, drew upon a century of jurisprudence produced in Timbuktu and set Islamic standards for enslavement that defined as illicit a substantial portion of the slave trade as it then existed."
quote:"The term ‘imported Blacks’ referred to ‘Black’ West Africans who had been enslaved and traded across the Sahara into North Africa. This trans-Saharan trade in slaves began at least two thousand years ago, but was not well documented until the spread of Islam across North Africa in the late seventh century. By the time Ahmad Baba was born, it was a flourishing trade that still dwarfed the incipient Atlantic trade in slaves (Austen 1979). Ahmad Baba’s Mi‘raj provides us with evidence about the ideological underpinnings of this trade in the early seventeenth century, especially with regard to notions of ethnicity and race, as well as Islamic law. But his text went far beyond a mere interpretation of law and practice, and made a specific attempt to change the behaviour of North Africans, whom he accused of sometimes purchasing West African slaves on the basis of race, rather than according to the regulations of Islam. In particular, he feared that free Muslims were being captured and traded across the Sahara, where they were enslaved by fellow Muslims, contravening the dictates of their religion."
quote:The black populations of West Africa, Islamisized or not, became the targeted slave pool for North Africans. Arab-Berber white Muslims in the Maghreb have utilised a number of arguments – racist and religious at the same time – to justify the enslavement of Blacks, even converted Blacks. They forged a racial slavery from the centuries of writings of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence that reigns in North Africa (Ould Ciré 2014). They exploited the Hamatic myth to justify the eternal slavery of black people (Hunwick 1999).
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans have been in Africa for more than a few thousand years. You know this yet you keep trying to use this "few thousand" years of light skin people to erase black Africans in North Africa with stupid nonsense. Black Africans were not "imported" to North Africa by Europeans, Arabs, Levantines or anybody else and have been there for far more than 'a few thousand years'. This is the point you keep trying to avoid because you know that light skin isn't "ancient" like black skin which is the most ancient phenotype of humans all over the planet.
Pigmentation isn't enough to define the ethnicity of someone ; many people on this planet have similar skin tone as me yet we're genetically very different and don't feel any kind of kinship. Maybe you act like that because you grew up in the West where every "black" is the same.
And yes black africans were imported massively :
quote:In his monumental Tableau géographique de l’Ouest Africain au moyen age, Raymond Mauny estimated that in its first 900 years (seventh–fifteenth centuries), the Islamic Saharan trade delivered nearly 6 million live black slaves to the far side of the desert. According to his calculations, the trade started at a modest average rate of 1,000 slaves/year in the seventh century, doubled in the next century and again in the ninth, reached 5,000 slaves/year in thirteenth century, doubled to 10,000/year in the fourteenth century, and doubled again to 20,000/year in the fifteenth. The trade continued at that average yearly rate, Mauny believed, until the twentieth century; however he later revised his figures upwards125 (see Table 3.1)."
John Wright, the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade, pp. 38
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans in AE art looking the same as black Africans in North Africa today and in history is not "symbolic". It is only symbolic of you trying to make up an ancient history of light skin people in Africa before black Africans which is absurd. Light skin is not the aboriginal phenotype of humans, black skin is.
Yes black africans in AE art looked the same as black africans in sub-saharan africa and yes in many cases colors are symbolic :
quote:In ancient Egyptian paintings, the color of everything is a clue and a sign of its true existence. Except for some practical uses, colors in the art of ancient Egyptian painting have symbolic connotations. According to Schenkel (2007) and Baines (1985) there are six colors green, red, yellow, blue, white and black in the paintings of Egyptian artists. Except for blue and yellow colors, there are words for the rest of the colors in the Ancient Egyptian language. The symbolic meaning of each color in ancient Egyptian art and its origin are presented in the following paragraphs and analyzed
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That said, the crux of the issue with you is you deny that these populations in North Africa who are light skinned have recent mixture. Yes, some of those light skin genes evolved naturally in North Africa, but that isn't "white". But because of the location of North Africa in the Mediterranean, you have had mixture. You have had historical ancient migrations of black Africans into Europe, where they mixed with Europeans and you have had migrations of Europeans into parts of North Africa. You keep down playing or ignoring that, trying to claim that light skinned North Africans are "pure", pure what?
Carthage was a civilization that spanned the Mediterranean, they had outposts in Europe and armies made up of Africans and Europeans. There was mixture in Carthage. And in saying that they were mixed, that doesn't mean that all of these Punic North Africans looked the same. It means there was variation of features among them and among the populations that settled in Europe.
And because of that variation of features in Carthage among the populations in that part of North Africa, there is no reason that Hannibal could not have been black. Your whole argument against it is the nonsensical gibberish that there were no blacks in Carthage because the light skinned people were the only "indigenous" people in North Africa, which is absurd.
And to show how ancient black people are you got black people along the Red Sea in the Sinai and in the Levant......
And when I post this, it is to show that humans are diverse and that black skin has always been part of that diversity especially as you go back further in time. As opposed to the nonsense you keep spouting. [/QB]
"recent mixture" yes sub-saharan african ancestry from the slave trade for the rest that was already there at least 5k years ago : Iberomaurusians were already predominantly eurasian genetically, late neolithic moroccans were roughly 60% EEF, copper age north africans already had a profile similar to modern day north africans, etc etc
I already posted datas on carthaginians hereand here
as for the rest of your speculations that's gibberish coming from someone that clearly (And I'm sure of it) hasn't read any historical book about this time period.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
eritreans or ethiopians are genetically closer to white skinned middle eastern people than west africans like yourself ?
If I'm not mistaken,Doug M isn't African and your prejudice nature can't allow you to see pass certain Africans. And most of those light skin Mid Easterners are mixed with Ethiopian like people and the various Turkic tribes,with the Ethiopian like people being original.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: eritreans or ethiopians are genetically closer to white skinned middle eastern people than west africans like yourself ?
If I'm not mistaken,Doug M isn't African and your prejudice nature can't allow you to see pass certain Africans. And most of those light skin Mid Easterners are mixed with Ethiopian like people and the various Turkic tribes,with the Ethiopian like people being original.
DougM is Afro-american which means of west african descent. As for genetics, horners have middle eastern admixture (natufian) in high proportion (40-50%) which is why they are craniometrically caucasoid and genetically closer to middle easterners.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are spouting gibberish again. Africans, black Africans are aboriginal to North Africa. This is the point you keep trying to deny. They were there before there were any "light skin" genes and they were there after light skinned populations evolved. Because of that their features are very diverse, including straight hair, curly hair, thin noses, wide noses and everything else. And just specifically referring to North Africa I am talking of all the black populations that have been in North Africa prior to, during and after the last wet phase 10,000 years ago in the Sahara. "Berbers" are not that ancient and are simply speakers of a language that is only about 6,000 years old. They are not a "race" and aren't all light skinned today and weren't all light skinned in history and the language did not originate with light skinned people. And North Africa is not just the parts of Africa along the coast of the Mediterranean. And as has been shown numerous times, the history of black Africans in and around the mediterranean is ancient.
So you imply that "black africans" are all the same ? There is no diversity ? For example, Are you at least aware that people like eritreans or ethiopians are genetically closer to white skinned middle eastern people than west africans like yourself ?
Black Ethiopians are not "close" to Europeans. They do not get their feature diversity as Africans from Europeans or Eurasians. Of course some Ethiopians have mixture but according to somebody like you, African diversity and history only comes from contact and mixture with Europeans. When the opposite is true, Ethiopians and blacks from North East Africa were the first settlers of Eurasia and there have been blacks in Arabia and the Levant since that time. Trying to turn this fact of history around is the problem. Africans came first and then all these other people. Not the other way around. Africans are aboriginal to the entire planet and black skin is aboriginal to all humanity. The nonsense you are talking about is irrelevant.
Genotype is not phenotype. Phenotype is not defined by what genetic lineage you carry. Ethiopians are black because they are indigenous to Africa and Africans evolved dark skin because Africa straddles the equator. Europe has absolutely nothing to do with that and the presence of so-called Eurasian genes does not change black Africans into Europeans. Europeans carrying E lineages from Africa are not black Africans. You are simply confused.
Again, aboriginal Europeans were also black. So obviously they got their features from Africans and this is the thing they are so busy trying to deny. Even though their own papers and studies are admitting this. Meaning the evolution of straight hair and thin lips, and thin noses happened first among black skinned people before they even got to Europe. "Racial" thinking tries to impose this idea that certain features only belong to certain groups which is false. And this is what you keep spouting.
You think you can come here and spout that gibberish about Ethiopians being not black Africans because of some genes when you don't accept that North Africans are Africans because they carry African genes. So you are spouting complete and utter gibberish.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Who the hell imported the black African ancestors of the Tuaregs to Africa? Who imported the black Africans in the last wet phase to the Sahara? Nobody did. You keep talking that stupid nonsense that light skin people are responsible for bringing black skin to Africa which is obviously stupid. It isn't historical and isn't based on any historical facts.
Are you implying Tuaregs did not practice slavery ? Also have I ever denied the presence of dark skinned folks in the Sahara ?
And yes "white skinned" caucasoid north africans did import massively west african slaves in their regions this is an established fact and today you can visit these communities who descent from slaves they sing about it, they have festivals to remember their roots some of them even remember their tribes, etc
The ancestors of the Tuaregs were Saharan populations present since 10,000 years ago. They are not West Africans. Obviously you have a problem with geography. West Africa is thousands of miles away from the coast of North Africa. You do not have to go to West Africa to find blacks in North Africa. That is you making up nonsense. Again, the abundant rock art of the Sahara shows black Africans in the Sahara 10,000 years ago. Tassili N'ajjer is not West Africa. You are basically trying to argue that no blacks EVER existed in the Sahara and that the only blacks came all the way thousands of miles away in West Africa which is stupid and false. You are making up fairy tales and expecting people to believe that BS knowing it is false.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Again :
quote:This essay examines Ahmad Baba’s efforts to persuade Maghribi scholars to accept the Islamic status of self-professed Muslims in West Africa and to reject racial slavery. Towards this end, Ahmad Baba wrote a legal treatise that suggested that Northwest Africans were illegally enslaving West Africans on the basis of race. This treatise, entitled Mi‘raj al-Su‘ud, drew upon a century of jurisprudence produced in Timbuktu and set Islamic standards for enslavement that defined as illicit a substantial portion of the slave trade as it then existed."
quote:"The term ‘imported Blacks’ referred to ‘Black’ West Africans who had been enslaved and traded across the Sahara into North Africa. This trans-Saharan trade in slaves began at least two thousand years ago, but was not well documented until the spread of Islam across North Africa in the late seventh century. By the time Ahmad Baba was born, it was a flourishing trade that still dwarfed the incipient Atlantic trade in slaves (Austen 1979). Ahmad Baba’s Mi‘raj provides us with evidence about the ideological underpinnings of this trade in the early seventeenth century, especially with regard to notions of ethnicity and race, as well as Islamic law. But his text went far beyond a mere interpretation of law and practice, and made a specific attempt to change the behaviour of North Africans, whom he accused of sometimes purchasing West African slaves on the basis of race, rather than according to the regulations of Islam. In particular, he feared that free Muslims were being captured and traded across the Sahara, where they were enslaved by fellow Muslims, contravening the dictates of their religion."
African history did not start in the 1700s. Arabs are not responsible for the black Africans being in the Sahara since before 10,0000 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:The black populations of West Africa, Islamisized or not, became the targeted slave pool for North Africans. Arab-Berber white Muslims in the Maghreb have utilised a number of arguments – racist and religious at the same time – to justify the enslavement of Blacks, even converted Blacks. They forged a racial slavery from the centuries of writings of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence that reigns in North Africa (Ould Ciré 2014). They exploited the Hamatic myth to justify the eternal slavery of black people (Hunwick 1999).
We aren't talking about West Africans and the Spread of Islam as black Africans in North Africa predate Islam, predate Greece, predate Rome, predate Carthage and predate modern Europe. All you can do is focus on the last 1,000 years as somehow representative of ALL of African history which is gibberish. The Wet Sahara was full of black Africans and this is where the ancestors of ancient black coastal North Africans originated. They were not West Africans. Your attempts to jump around history and pretend that black African history starts with Islam or Turks or Romans is stupid. Because in reality you know that coastal North Africa is mixed because of all these invaders, from Romans, to Greeks, to Islam and the Colonial European powers. And therefore that is the only 'history' you can speak of which is the history of mixing. Then you want to claim this mixed population is ancient and older than black Africans. You aren't fooling anybody with your gibberish.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans have been in Africa for more than a few thousand years. You know this yet you keep trying to use this "few thousand" years of light skin people to erase black Africans in North Africa with stupid nonsense. Black Africans were not "imported" to North Africa by Europeans, Arabs, Levantines or anybody else and have been there for far more than 'a few thousand years'. This is the point you keep trying to avoid because you know that light skin isn't "ancient" like black skin which is the most ancient phenotype of humans all over the planet.
Pigmentation isn't enough to define the ethnicity of someone ; many people on this planet have similar skin tone as me yet we're genetically very different and don't feel any kind of kinship. Maybe you act like that because you grew up in the West where every "black" is the same.
Black skin is a well defined characteristic of phenotype. Your attempts to duck and dodge are the issue because you are trying to deny that black skin has been present in humans longer than light skin. And yes, light skin is present in many parts of North Africa but that does not mean that black skin was never present or isn't present in North Africa. All your standard stupid gibberish is not educating anybody here on anything other than your insane attempts to redefine black skin in order to deny that it has always been there in North Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: And yes black africans were imported massively :
quote:In his monumental Tableau géographique de l’Ouest Africain au moyen age, Raymond Mauny estimated that in its first 900 years (seventh–fifteenth centuries), the Islamic Saharan trade delivered nearly 6 million live black slaves to the far side of the desert. According to his calculations, the trade started at a modest average rate of 1,000 slaves/year in the seventh century, doubled in the next century and again in the ninth, reached 5,000 slaves/year in thirteenth century, doubled to 10,000/year in the fourteenth century, and doubled again to 20,000/year in the fifteenth. The trade continued at that average yearly rate, Mauny believed, until the twentieth century; however he later revised his figures upwards125 (see Table 3.1)."
John Wright, the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade, pp. 38
quote: In Greek mythology, Memnon (/ˈmɛmnən/; Ancient Greek: Μέμνων means 'resolute'[1]) was a king of Aethiopia and son of Tithonus and Eos. As a warrior he was considered to be almost Achilles' equal in skill. During the Trojan War, he brought an army to Troy's defense and killed Antilochus, Nestor's son, during a fierce battle. Nestor challenged Memnon to a fight, but Memnon refused being there was little honor in killing the aged man. Nestor then pleaded with Achilles to avenge his son's death. Despite warnings that soon after Memnon falls so too would Achilles, the two men fought. Memnon drew blood from Achilles but Achilles drove his spear through Memnons chest, sending the Aethiopian army running. The death of Memnon echoes that of Hector, another defender of Troy whom Achilles also killed out of revenge for a fallen comrade, Patroclus.
After Memnon's death, Zeus was moved by Eos' tears and granted him immortality. Memnon's death is related at length in the lost epic Aethiopis, composed after The Iliad, circa the 7th century BCE. Quintus of Smyrna records Memnon's death in Posthomerica. His death is also described in Philostratus' Imagines.
Not to mention the word "slave" comes from "slav" as in Slavic people who were enslaved for thousands of years in Europe to the point that they became the basis of the word. Your non historical quotes are irrelevant to the presence of blacks in Carthage, 1500 years before any of those books you keep citing.
Not to mention "Berbers" were enslaved in North Africa by Arabs as part of the expansion of Islam into North Africa in the 8th century. Ibn Butlan famously said that the best slave woman was a Berber woman. This idea that "Berbers" were somehow a separate "race" immune from slavery and subjugation ignores all the facts of history. They were subjugated by the Romans. They were subjugated by the Byzantines, they were subjugated by the Arabs, which is why arab names, language and culture dominate the region. They were dominated by the Turks. They were dominated by the European colonists in the 19th century. Yet we are to believe all these groups who openly practiced slavery didn't enslave any Berbers nor import European/Circassian slaves into North African harems........ Please. GTFOH with that nonsense.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans in AE art looking the same as black Africans in North Africa today and in history is not "symbolic". It is only symbolic of you trying to make up an ancient history of light skin people in Africa before black Africans which is absurd. Light skin is not the aboriginal phenotype of humans, black skin is.
Yes black africans in AE art looked the same as black africans in sub-saharan africa and yes in many cases colors are symbolic :
quote:In ancient Egyptian paintings, the color of everything is a clue and a sign of its true existence. Except for some practical uses, colors in the art of ancient Egyptian painting have symbolic connotations. According to Schenkel (2007) and Baines (1985) there are six colors green, red, yellow, blue, white and black in the paintings of Egyptian artists. Except for blue and yellow colors, there are words for the rest of the colors in the Ancient Egyptian language. The symbolic meaning of each color in ancient Egyptian art and its origin are presented in the following paragraphs and analyzed
So why would proud ancient "light skinned" North Africans paint thenselves as black Africans? If they were like you and so determined to prove their light skin and heritage why would they do that symbolically or otherwise? And what makes you think brown skin is somehow not indigenous to ancient North Africa? Your absurd gibberish is ridiculous.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That said, the crux of the issue with you is you deny that these populations in North Africa who are light skinned have recent mixture. Yes, some of those light skin genes evolved naturally in North Africa, but that isn't "white". But because of the location of North Africa in the Mediterranean, you have had mixture. You have had historical ancient migrations of black Africans into Europe, where they mixed with Europeans and you have had migrations of Europeans into parts of North Africa. You keep down playing or ignoring that, trying to claim that light skinned North Africans are "pure", pure what?
Carthage was a civilization that spanned the Mediterranean, they had outposts in Europe and armies made up of Africans and Europeans. There was mixture in Carthage. And in saying that they were mixed, that doesn't mean that all of these Punic North Africans looked the same. It means there was variation of features among them and among the populations that settled in Europe.
And because of that variation of features in Carthage among the populations in that part of North Africa, there is no reason that Hannibal could not have been black. Your whole argument against it is the nonsensical gibberish that there were no blacks in Carthage because the light skinned people were the only "indigenous" people in North Africa, which is absurd.
And to show how ancient black people are you got black people along the Red Sea in the Sinai and in the Levant......
And when I post this, it is to show that humans are diverse and that black skin has always been part of that diversity especially as you go back further in time. As opposed to the nonsense you keep spouting.
"recent mixture" yes sub-saharan african ancestry from the slave trade for the rest that was already there at least 5k years ago : Iberomaurusians were already predominantly eurasian genetically, late neolithic moroccans were roughly 60% EEF, copper age north africans already had a profile similar to modern day north africans, etc etc
I already posted datas on carthaginians hereand here
as for the rest of your speculations that's gibberish coming from someone that clearly (And I'm sure of it) hasn't read any historical book about this time period.
Again, your attempts to duck and dodge historical facts with genetic misinformation is irrelevant. Ancient Iberomaurisans were not "light skinned" like modern North Africans, they were descended from black Africans in the Sahara.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
Alright I see you haven't improved much nor can understand what I post ...at this point it must be a problem of IQ
Geez ...the guy literally think basal eurasians were similar to modern day horners, that west africans couldn't have been imported because there were already "black africans" in the sahara 10k years ago then for no reason bring europeans and start exposing his insecurities "everyone was black so caucasoid features come from us".
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Alright I see you haven't improved much nor can understand what I post ...at this point it must be a problem of IQ
Geez ...the guy literally think basal eurasians were similar to modern day horners, that west africans couldn't have been imported because there were already "black africans" in the sahara 10k years ago then for no reason bring europeans and start exposing his insecurities "everyone was black so caucasoid features come from us".
Literally this reply shows you have a lack of integrity and honesty because we aren't talking about "basal eurasians", which is a meaningless concept when it comes to African history. Ancient Africans in North Africa were not "basal Eurasians". Black Africans being present in North africa and the Mediterranean since ancient times is not contested. It is you who is desperate to change the point from the fact of the presence of black Africans for thousands and thousands of years in North Africa in order to pretend that there were none in Carthage.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote: according to somebody like you, African diversity and history only comes from contact and mixture with Europeans.
quote:Ethiopians and blacks from North East Africa were the first settlers of Eurasia
quote:Europe has absolutely nothing to do with that and the presence of so-called Eurasian genes does not change black Africans into Europeans.
quote:aboriginal Europeans were also black. So obviously they got their features from Africans and this is the thing they are so busy trying to deny.
quote:you don't accept that North Africans are Africans because they carry African genes.
quote:You are basically trying to argue that no blacks EVER existed in the Sahara
This is exactly what I said in one of the post above : " Also have I ever denied the presence of dark skinned folks in the Sahara ? "
quote:The Wet Sahara was full of black Africans and this is where the ancestors of ancient black coastal North Africans originated.
Reality :
quote:In the course of these pages, North Africa has thus appeared to us as an African land resolutely turned towards Mediterranean Europe and the Near East. The first Homo sapiens who inhabited it, the Iberomaurusians and the Capsians, can in no way be compared to the races of Black Africa. [...] The present population continues and reflects to a large extent that of the past. The Mediterraneans form the majority and descendants of the Cro-Magnons of Mechta-Afalou can be found there.
D. Ferembach, Histoire raciale de l'Afrique du Nord, p. 136
quote:Your attempts to jump around history and pretend that black African history starts with Islam or Turks or Romans is stupid.
quote:Because in reality you know that coastal North Africa is mixed because of all these invaders, from Romans, to Greeks, to Islam and the Colonial European powers. And therefore that is the only 'history' you can speak of which is the history of mixing.
Romans :
quote: It has thus been argued that soldiers were likely to have found partners among local,non-Roman women; their children, then, would be good candidates for a pool of people among whom a hybrid ethnic identity might emerge. Examples might include Carteia in Spain and Lugdunum Convenarum in France, both said to be populated by children of Roman soldiers and local women (Woolf 2011: 18). However, in the case of North Africa, such evidence as we have for such relationships—typically commemorative epitaphs—shows virtually no such mixing; in fact, the chief pool of women to whom soldiers had recourse were the daughters of their comrades or predecessors (Cherry 1998: 101–40).
Jeremy Mcinerney, Ethnicity in the ancient mediterranean, pp. 120
quote:In fact, if we seek to determine the numerical importance of the contingent of Roman or Italian immigrants in Africa, we have every reason to admit that it was small: and it does not grow much even if we add the non-Italian immigrants. These immigrants include senior civil servants, but the junior staff of the offices are recruited locally; a few large landowners, but most often they reside in Rome and are represented in Africa by stewards and farmers, many of local origin; a few Italian, Oriental or Spanish merchants in the cities of the coast and in a few large localities in the interior such as Cirta. These are contributions that do not change the Berber character [...]"
quote:In Greek mythology, Memnon (/ˈmɛmnən/; Ancient Greek: Μέμνων means 'resolute'[1]) was a king of Aethiopia
Again " Memnon was a king of Aethiopia[/B] "
aethiopia :
quote:This idea that "Berbers" were somehow a separate "race" immune from slavery and subjugation ignores all the facts of history.
quote:So why would proud ancient "light skinned" North Africans paint thenselves as black Africans?
quote:And what makes you think brown skin is somehow not indigenous to ancient North Africa?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:
according to somebody like you, African diversity and history only comes from contact and mixture with Europeans.
quote:Ethiopians and blacks from North East Africa were the first settlers of Eurasia
quote:Europe has absolutely nothing to do with that and the presence of so-called Eurasian genes does not change black Africans into Europeans.
quote:aboriginal Europeans were also black. So obviously they got their features from Africans and this is the thing they are so busy trying to deny.
quote:you don't accept that North Africans are Africans because they carry African genes.
quote:You are basically trying to argue that no blacks EVER existed in the Sahara
This is exactly what I said in one of the post above : " Also have I ever denied the presence of dark skinned folks in the Sahara ? "
quote:The Wet Sahara was full of black Africans and this is where the ancestors of ancient black coastal North Africans originated.
So since you keep posting images of confusion because you are indeed confused.
First, the post below shows everything that I said above that you quoted is correct.
And this is to the crux of your whole reason for being on this forum. First, you absolutely believe that over 10,000 years ago a group of light skinned Eurasians appeared in North Africa as a "package". And this "package" or "cultural complex" was basically derived from Eurasia, including language and culture. As such these populations were not AFRICANS and distinguished themselves from Africans. And this cultural complex is what is being identified as "Berber" in the sense of being a "race" defined by phenotype, language and culture as ultimately Eurasian in origin. And this is what you just quoted below after arguing up and down on other threads otherwise.
Therefore, in order for that to be true, there could not have been any migration of Saharans into Coastal North Africa during or after the last wet phase. And in addition, that also means that the Berber language could not have arisen among populations migrating out of the Sahara as well from regions South and East. All of that is exactly what your position here and what you swear us "Afrocentrics" need to be educated on.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
Reality :
quote:In the course of these pages, North Africa has thus appeared to us as an African land resolutely turned towards Mediterranean Europe and the Near East. The first Homo sapiens who inhabited it, the Iberomaurusians and the Capsians, can in no way be compared to the races of Black Africa. [...] The present population continues and reflects to a large extent that of the past. The Mediterraneans form the majority and descendants of the Cro-Magnons of Mechta-Afalou can be found there.
D. Ferembach, Histoire raciale de l'Afrique du Nord, p. 136
Which confirms everything about you and what you believe.
Unfortunately again, the Taforalt paper DOES NOT support any of that and is basically somthing that promotes an ideology that is the core of this Berber nationalism created by the French. And yes, Denise Frerembach was a French anthropologist along with Gabriel Camps.
We discussed this before and you keep repeating false information.
In all of these threads you jumped and contradicted yourself saying that Berbers weren't Europeans while quoting authors saying they exactly were. You are all over the place including arguing that North Africans shouldn't be just called 'Africans' as if Africa implies Central and South Africa, even after starting a thread showing clearly that the fist use of the word Africa was in coastal North Africa. I don't even know why you keep kidding yourself believing you are proving something to somebody with your nonsense.
Not only that, you keep quoting from the French Berber Encyclopedia while claiming that you are proud of your history, but all of that is being written and defined by the French. The former colonizers of North Africa. But according to you the French colonists didn't have an impact and aren't mixing with you even though millions of Berbers live in France and you even posted pictures of Berbers married to French people. Nothing you say has any value as all you do is whine and moan about the fact that blacks have always been in Africa trying to maintain this mythology of an exclusively white ancient North Africa as if all of North Africa is along the coast. Dude. You are obsessed with this foolishness to the point you don't even see when people agree with you on some points. But whatever.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Your attempts to jump around history and pretend that black African history starts with Islam or Turks or Romans is stupid.
quote:Because in reality you know that coastal North Africa is mixed because of all these invaders, from Romans, to Greeks, to Islam and the Colonial European powers. And therefore that is the only 'history' you can speak of which is the history of mixing.
Romans :
quote: It has thus been argued that soldiers were likely to have found partners among local,non-Roman women; their children, then, would be good candidates for a pool of people among whom a hybrid ethnic identity might emerge. Examples might include Carteia in Spain and Lugdunum Convenarum in France, both said to be populated by children of Roman soldiers and local women (Woolf 2011: 18). However, in the case of North Africa, such evidence as we have for such relationships—typically commemorative epitaphs—shows virtually no such mixing; in fact, the chief pool of women to whom soldiers had recourse were the daughters of their comrades or predecessors (Cherry 1998: 101–40).
Jeremy Mcinerney, Ethnicity in the ancient mediterranean, pp. 120
quote:In fact, if we seek to determine the numerical importance of the contingent of Roman or Italian immigrants in Africa, we have every reason to admit that it was small: and it does not grow much even if we add the non-Italian immigrants. These immigrants include senior civil servants, but the junior staff of the offices are recruited locally; a few large landowners, but most often they reside in Rome and are represented in Africa by stewards and farmers, many of local origin; a few Italian, Oriental or Spanish merchants in the cities of the coast and in a few large localities in the interior such as Cirta. These are contributions that do not change the Berber character [...]"
I am talking about the fact that so many "berbers" live in France and obviously many of them are marrying French people. And the same goes or those Africans from other parts of Africa who migrate to France. And France is closer to North Africa than is to West Africa.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:In Greek mythology, Memnon (/ˈmɛmnən/; Ancient Greek: Μέμνων means 'resolute'[1]) was a king of Aethiopia
Again " Memnon was a king of Aethiopia[/B] "
aethiopia :
The Odyssey was written almost 500 years before Herodatus wrote his geographies. As I stated, the Odyssey was inspired partly by the evens and history as seen in the frescoes from Pylos. In this context, Aethiopian simply means "burnt face" people, in other words black people. And these "Aethiopians" are included in the Odyssey due to the presence of so many obvious black skinned people in the time of Nestor as seen in the paintings from his palace. There is no documentation on where exactly these "blacks" came from in the palace of Nestor. And, many of the local populations are also depicted as very dark, while the "Aethiopians" are depicted as literally jet black. That was the point. The frescoes from the palace of Nestor show clearly the black presence in the ancient Mediterranean and is NOT mythology.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:This idea that "Berbers" were somehow a separate "race" immune from slavery and subjugation ignores all the facts of history.
quote:So why would proud ancient "light skinned" North Africans paint thenselves as black Africans?
quote:And what makes you think brown skin is somehow not indigenous to ancient North Africa?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:In Greek mythology, Memnon (/ˈmɛmnən/; Ancient Greek: Μέμνων means 'resolute'[1]) was a king of Aethiopia
Again " Memnon was a king of Aethiopia[/B] "
aethiopia :
quote:This idea that "Berbers" were somehow a separate "race" immune from slavery and subjugation ignores all the facts of history.
quote:So why would proud ancient "light skinned" North Africans paint thenselves as black Africans?
Obviously nobody said that the ancient people of Kemet were Dinka. You are delusional. Like I said before they looked like this:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: And what makes you think brown skin is somehow not indigenous to ancient North Africa?
[/QUOTE]
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
And this is to the crux of your whole reason for being on this forum. First, you absolutely believe that over 10,000 years ago a group of light skinned Eurasians appeared in North Africa as a "package".
More like 25k-23k years ago a group of eurasian settled in north africa and mixed with the local aterians which gave birth to iberomaurusians who had their own industry completely different from the previous one. That's literally what all the papers show but you keep denying them.
AND AGAIN STOP WITH YOUR STRAWMAN I NEVER SAID THESE EURASIANS WERE LIGHT SKINNED I LITERALLY POSTED MANY TIMES QUOTES WHICH HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THEY LACKED SUCH ALLELES.
but like I said being dark skin doesn't mean they looked black nor that they were genetically affiliated to people like you.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And this "package" or "cultural complex" was basically derived from Eurasia, including language and culture.
For language we don't have any data so I couldn't have made an opinion on it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As such these populations were not AFRICANS and distinguished themselves from Africans.
They were partially ANA therefore part african and lived in this area for at least 15 to 20k years therefore making them indigenous.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And this cultural complex is what is being identified as "Berber" in the sense of being a "race" defined by phenotype, language and culture as ultimately Eurasian in origin. And this is what you just quoted below after arguing up and down on other threads otherwise.
Wtf ?? Since when are iberomaurusians supposed to be berber ? Proto-berbers are most likely those capsians who migrated from the Nile Delta and were genetically different from modern north africans but based on their remains they weren't much different craniometrically from modern NAs and might have been some kind of Natufian/KEN_N population. Later we see the expansion of farming and coastal north africans got it from southern europeans who were similar to neolithic anatolians and these populations form the bulk of ancestry of north africans and most NAs have roughly the same proportions for each component therefore yes there is a "berber" profile ; a profile that defines most people who live in NW Africa.
Yes you can find some blacks in NA, yes you can find some europeans, yes you can find some arabs but these people do not form a substantial part of our population. So yes we do have our own phenotypes, culture and genetic profile. Stop trying to make it seems like NW africa is america.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Therefore, in order for that to be true, there could not have been any migration of Saharans into Coastal North Africa during or after the last wet phase. And in addition, that also means that the Berber language could not have arisen among populations migrating out of the Sahara as well from regions South and East. All of that is exactly what your position here and what you swear us "Afrocentrics" need to be educated on.
There could have been migrations from the Sahara but we do not detect any major impact whether culturally or genetically ; moreover eurasians could have also settled in the Sahara. If you disagree then feel free to post your evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately again, the Taforalt paper DOES NOT support any of that and is basically somthing that promotes an ideology that is the core of this Berber nationalism created by the French. And yes, Denise Frerembach was a French anthropologist along with Gabriel Camps.
It actually does support what ferembach said since genetics show that Taforalt were predominantly eurasian and keep your conspiracy theories to yourself these are well respected scholars who worked with maghrebi scholars throughout all their careers.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In all of these threads you jumped and contradicted yourself saying that Berbers weren't Europeans while quoting authors saying they exactly were. You are all over the place including arguing that North Africans shouldn't be just called 'Africans' as if Africa implies Central and South Africa, even after starting a thread showing clearly that the fist use of the word Africa was in coastal North Africa. I don't even know why you keep kidding yourself believing you are proving something to somebody with your nonsense.
So now berbers are europeans ? hahahah alright post those authors who said we're europeans...North africans are literally the eurasians who plot the farthest away from europeans.
I said North Africans shouldn't be called "africans" because that's meaningless , the same way calling japanese and indians "asians" is totally meaningless since both of these people don't share anything in common except a continent.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: you even posted pictures of Berbers married to French people.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
I am talking about the fact that so many "berbers" live in France and obviously many of them are marrying French people. And the same goes or those Africans from other parts of Africa who migrate to France. And France is closer to North Africa than is to West Africa. [/QB]
mixed unions are rare and who told you I consider these mixed people to be north african ? You literally have nothing to backed up your claim about north africans being mixed with romans, greeks, "islam", etc lol and you know it.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Odyssey was written almost 500 years before Herodatus wrote his geographies. As I stated, the Odyssey was inspired partly by the evens and history as seen in the frescoes from Pylos.
More like 200-300 years before Herodotus and why are you straight up lying with pylos ?? POST ANY SOURCE SAYING ODYSSEY IS INSPIRED BY MINOAN FRESCOES FROM PYLOS.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In this context, Aethiopian simply means "burnt face" people, in other words black people. And these "Aethiopians" are included in the Odyssey due to the presence of so many obvious black skinned people in the time of Nestor as seen in the paintings from his palace.
Indeed :
basically nubian mercenaries and not your fancy and far-fetched theory of dinka-like people living along the shores of the med sea XD
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There are plenty of black Egyptians. I can't believe that you seriously think you are schooling people on the history of Africans in Africa.
The marsa alam folks are dressed like arabs not egyptians but of course you didn't know that Mr the "african"
Imazighen from Siwa aren't really similar to other berbers and their dna reflects the centuries of the trans-saharan slave trade, Siwa being one of the main market in the road to Egypt and the middle East (if needed I can post sources)
As for the Qara oasis that's far from the Nile Valley and well into the Sahara so these aren't really proper egyptians. Why don't you post how people along nile look like ?
Please post papers that look at the autosomal DNA of Siwan Berbers, I can't seem to find any.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
@SlimJim the datas I found are mostly about uniparentals but also level of heterozygoty, allele O, etc
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
And this is to the crux of your whole reason for being on this forum. First, you absolutely believe that over 10,000 years ago a group of light skinned Eurasians appeared in North Africa as a "package".
More like 25k-23k years ago a group of eurasian settled in north africa
The DNA study of Iberomaurisans shows that African populations migrating OUT of Africa were present in the ancient Levant as represented by Natufians. It does not say that the Ibereromaurisan tool industry originated in Eurasia. This is false. You keep saying it and it is still false. African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: and mixed with the local aterians which gave birth to iberomaurusians who had their own industry completely different from the previous one. That's literally what all the papers show but you keep denying them.
African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
These papers you are citing are outdated and do not represent anything but the conjecture of European scholars trying to make ancient Africans into Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: AND AGAIN STOP WITH YOUR STRAWMAN I NEVER SAID THESE EURASIANS WERE LIGHT SKINNED I LITERALLY POSTED MANY TIMES QUOTES WHICH HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THEY LACKED SUCH ALLELES.
but like I said being dark skin doesn't mean they looked black nor that they were genetically affiliated to people like you.
Again, these ancient populations in the Sahara were not "Eurasians". North Africa is not limited to Morocco and all of North Africa covers an area covering thousands of miles. You keep using Tarforalt as if it is all of North Africa when it is not and it is not true that ancient coastal Africans and Saharans were of Eurasian origin 25,000 years ago. That is the nonsense you keep spewing on this forum based on old racist European literature.
The Taforalt DNA paper says that the relationship is based on the populations of Tarforalt having a shared common ancestor with ancient Levantines. It does not say that the Taforalt populations descend from ancient Levantine migrants. And actually they have worded it in such a way to imply this but that is not ACTUALLY is saying.
And what I am saying is that Europeans are the ones behind this nonsense:
quote: Under typical conditions (i.e., aside from intermittent greening periods), the Sahara desert poses an ecogeographic barrier for human migration between North and sub-Saharan Africa (1). Sub-Saharan Africa is home to the most deeply divergent genetic lineages among present-day humans (2), and the general view is that all Eurasians mostly descend from a single group of humans that dispersed outside of sub-Saharan Africa around 50,000 to 100,000 years before the present (yr B.P.) (3). This group likely represented only a small fraction of the genetic diversity within Africa, most closely related to a Holocene East African group (4). Present-day North Africans share a majority of their ancestry with present-day Near Easterners but not with sub-Saharan Africans (5). Thus, from a genetic perspective, present-day North Africa is largely a part of Eurasia. However, the temporal depth of this genetic connection between the Near East and North Africa is poorly understood and has been estimated only indirectly from present-day mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation (6, 7).
....
Here we present genome-wide data from seven individuals, directly dated between 15,100 and 13,900 calibrated years before present (cal. yr B.P.) (table S1), from Grotte des Pigeons near Taforalt in eastern Morocco (10). These genomic data provide a critical reference point to help explain the deep genetic history of North Africa and the broader Middle East (Fig. 1). The Taforalt individuals are associated with the Later Stone Age Iberomaurusian culture, whose origin is debated. These individuals may have descended either directly from the manufacturers of the preceding Middle Stone Age technologies (Aterian or local West African bladelet technologies) or from an exogenous population with ties to the Upper Pa- leolithic technocomplexes of the Near East or Southern Europe (10, 11).
We analyzed the genetic affinities of the Taforalt individuals by performing principal components analysis and model-based clustering of worldwide data (Fig. 2). When projected onto the top principal components of African and west Eurasian populations, the Taforalt individuals form a dis- tinct cluster in an intermediate position between present-day North Africans [e.g., Amazighes (Berbers), Mozabites, and Saharawis] and East Africans (e.g., Afars, Oromos, and Somalis) (Fig. 2A). Consistently, we find that all males with sufficient nuclear DNA preservation carry Y haplogroup E1b1b1a1 (M-78; table S16). This haplogroup occurs most frequently in present-day North and East African populations (18). The closely related E1b1b1b (M-123) haplogroup has been reported for Epipaleolithic Natufians and Pre-Pottery Ne- olithic Levantines (Levant_N) (16).
The connection between Natufians and Iberomaurisans is from DNA haplogroup E1b1b, which is of African origin. That means that both Natufians and Iberomaurisans are of African origin. They twist the words in these summary articles to make it seem like the DNA is a result of Levantine migrations which is NOT what they actually found.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And this "package" or "cultural complex" was basically derived from Eurasia, including language and culture.
For language we don't have any data so I couldn't have made an opinion on it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As such these populations were not AFRICANS and distinguished themselves from Africans.
They were partially ANA therefore part african and lived in this area for at least 15 to 20k years therefore making them indigenous.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And this cultural complex is what is being identified as "Berber" in the sense of being a "race" defined by phenotype, language and culture as ultimately Eurasian in origin. And this is what you just quoted below after arguing up and down on other threads otherwise.
Wtf ?? Since when are iberomaurusians supposed to be berber ? Proto-berbers are most likely those capsians who migrated from the Nile Delta and were genetically different from modern north africans but based on their remains they weren't much different craniometrically from modern NAs and might have been some kind of Natufian/KEN_N population. Later we see the expansion of farming and coastal north africans got it from southern europeans who were similar to neolithic anatolians and these populations form the bulk of ancestry of north africans and most NAs have roughly the same proportions for each component therefore yes there is a "berber" profile ; a profile that defines most people who live in NW Africa.
Yes you can find some blacks in NA, yes you can find some europeans, yes you can find some arabs but these people do not form a substantial part of our population. So yes we do have our own phenotypes, culture and genetic profile. Stop trying to make it seems like NW africa is america.
Again, see above, the Europeans are saying that modern "North Africans" are Eurasians. I am saying that this is false because "North Africa" is not simply the coastal areas. And yes, those coastal areas substantial mixture with various populations of Eurasians. YOU are the one who is trying to deny this and that is not what these European papers are actually saying so they do not AGREE with you.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Therefore, in order for that to be true, there could not have been any migration of Saharans into Coastal North Africa during or after the last wet phase. And in addition, that also means that the Berber language could not have arisen among populations migrating out of the Sahara as well from regions South and East. All of that is exactly what your position here and what you swear us "Afrocentrics" need to be educated on.
There could have been migrations from the Sahara but we do not detect any major impact whether culturally or genetically ; moreover eurasians could have also settled in the Sahara. If you disagree then feel free to post your evidence.
Please dude. You have been shown to be wrong over and over again. E1b1b is not "Eurasian" and Saharans have always been black Africans. Why don't you prove otherwise. I can't believe you actually think you know what you are talking about.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately again, the Taforalt paper DOES NOT support any of that and is basically somthing that promotes an ideology that is the core of this Berber nationalism created by the French. And yes, Denise Frerembach was a French anthropologist along with Gabriel Camps.
It actually does support what ferembach said since genetics show that Taforalt were predominantly eurasian and keep your conspiracy theories to yourself these are well respected scholars who worked with maghrebi scholars throughout all their careers.
Again, you are wrong. See above. E1b1b1b is not Eurasian so Ferembach cannot be correct.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In all of these threads you jumped and contradicted yourself saying that Berbers weren't Europeans while quoting authors saying they exactly were. You are all over the place including arguing that North Africans shouldn't be just called 'Africans' as if Africa implies Central and South Africa, even after starting a thread showing clearly that the fist use of the word Africa was in coastal North Africa. I don't even know why you keep kidding yourself believing you are proving something to somebody with your nonsense.
So now berbers are europeans ? hahahah alright post those authors who said we're europeans...North africans are literally the eurasians who plot the farthest away from europeans.
I said North Africans shouldn't be called "africans" because that's meaningless , the same way calling japanese and indians "asians" is totally meaningless since both of these people don't share anything in common except a continent.
The point is that it is the Romans who first used the term Africa as you yourself showed in te following thread. And they specifically used it to refer to areas in and around what was ancient Carthage which is now Tunisia. So obviously you disagree with them. And at the same time you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians do not look the same, have the same traditions or speak the same language. So as usual you are spouting gibberish.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: you even posted pictures of Berbers married to French people.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
I am talking about the fact that so many "berbers" live in France and obviously many of them are marrying French people. And the same goes or those Africans from other parts of Africa who migrate to France. And France is closer to North Africa than is to West Africa.
mixed unions are rare and who told you I consider these mixed people to be north african ? You literally have nothing to backed up your claim about north africans being mixed with romans, greeks, "islam", etc lol and you know it. [/QB]
When I say "mixture" I do not mean that every single person in any group is "mixed". What I am saying is that Romans went into North Africans and produced offspring with North Africans and North Africans went into Rome and produced off-spring with Rome. That doesn't mean everybody did this or that the majority but that there was a component of the population at that time that did result from such mixture. And obviously many Berbers moving to France are going to wind up getting married to French and having mixed offspring. Over time this is how "mixture" shows up in populations and this is the part you keep denying as an overall process that has happened over the last 5,000 years. This is how you get the variation in features present in coastal North Africa today. And that mixture includes lighter skinned Africans who are not 'Eurasians' even if they are lighter skinned. "North Africans" did not show up as "mixed" Eurasians 25,000 years ago with the same features you see in present day coastal North Africa and there is no proof of this other than you repeating the outdated papers from European scholars.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
Amazigh nationalists on social media.. stop black washing North Africans
Me sitting down to watch an Egyptian movie on YT
The two gentlemen that played Hannibal and his General are obviously mixed with Caucasian.. so black is a relative term filled with semantic meaning... as are the two Egyptians who if they came to the states would be considered "black" but probably not in Egypt proper..
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Amazigh nationalists on social media.. stop black washing North Africans
Me sitting down to watch an Egyptian movie on YT
The two gentlemen that played Hannibal and his General are obviously mixed with Caucasian.. so black is a relative term filled with semantic meaning... as are the two Egyptians who if they came to the states would be considered "black" but probably not in Egypt proper..
But this has nothing to do with Egypt or lighter skinned Egyptians. This really has more to do with erasing Saharan black Africans from North African history, regardless of what Hannibal actually looked like. So they just use Hannibal and what he looked like as a proxy for their belief that "North Africans" never had any black ancestry, as if the Sahara doesn't exist.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
Was Hannibal Barca Black? 28,578 views Dec 15, 2020 In this video Dr. Rebecca Futo Kennedy answers our question as to whether or not Hannibal Barca the great Carthaginian General that made Rome tremble was black?
We discuss arguments that rage online involving the Punic Peoples, Phoenicians, Berbers and etc, when it comes to race and ethnicity in the ancient world.
We also discuss the confusion and complexity of identity in ancient North Africa since a variety of peoples and cultures have mixed through years of population movements in Antiquity.
Finally when we leave off we come to the conclusion that (1) he skin color doesn't matter, (2) we will realistically never know and (3) in the end he is a great military leader who will always be known in the history of Africa.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The DNA study of Iberomaurisans shows that African populations migrating OUT of Africa were present in the ancient Levant as represented by Natufians. It does not say that the Ibereromaurisan tool industry originated in Eurasia. This is false. You keep saying it and it is still false. African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
Wait you're saying that the first africans who left africa were natufians ? XD Are you aware They left africa tens of thousands of years before Iberomaurusians or natufians ?
Movement of population can go both ways not only from Africa to Eurasia. You seriously think that since the OOA (60k years ago) no migration of eurasians ever occured ? :
quote:Our genome-wide dense genotyping data from seven North African populations allow us to address outstanding questions regarding the origin and migration history of North Africa. We propose that present-day ancestry in North Africa is the result of at least three distinct episodes: ancient “back-to-Africa” gene flow prior to the Holocene, more recent gene flow from the Near East resulting in a longitudinal gradient, and limited but very recent migrations from sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
How do you know it's not from eurasia ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: These papers you are citing are outdated and do not represent anything but the conjecture of European scholars trying to make ancient Africans into Eurasians.
Sure that's quite easy for someone that try to discredit every info that does not support his narrative...very objective.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, these ancient populations in the Sahara were not "Eurasians". North Africa is not limited to Morocco and all of North Africa covers an area covering thousands of miles. You keep using Tarforalt as if it is all of North Africa when it is not and it is not true that ancient coastal Africans and Saharans were of Eurasian origin 25,000 years ago. That is the nonsense you keep spewing on this forum based on old racist European literature.
source ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Taforalt DNA paper says that the relationship is based on the populations of Tarforalt having a shared common ancestor with ancient Levantines. It does not say that the Taforalt populations descend from ancient Levantine migrants. And actually they have worded it in such a way to imply this but that is not ACTUALLY is saying.
They didn't have any levantine samples from 25k years ago so they could only compared them to the much later natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The connection between Natufians and Iberomaurisans is from DNA haplogroup E1b1b, which is of African origin. That means that both Natufians and Iberomaurisans are of African origin. They twist the words in these summary articles to make it seem like the DNA is a result of Levantine migrations which is NOT what they actually found.
Iberomaurusians predate natufians by at least 10k years and what does one paternal Hg have to do with autosomal ancestry ?
And no they don't twist anything that was already proposed by Lazaridis :
quote:Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed11, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians).The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt17 is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features22 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers6, a common link between the Levant and Africa.
Again this has nothing to do with the eurasian migration from 25k years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, see above, the Europeans are saying that modern "North Africans" are Eurasians. I am saying that this is false because "North Africa" is not simply the coastal areas. And yes, those coastal areas substantial mixture with various populations of Eurasians. YOU are the one who is trying to deny this and that is not what these European papers are actually saying so they do not AGREE with you.
And they're right since most of our ancestry derives from Eurasian populations let alone when it comes to culture/history but how is that surprising ? North Africa is connected by land with the middle east and located only a few km away from Europe. North Africa is not simply coastal areas but that's where most north africans live or lived.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please dude. You have been shown to be wrong over and over again. E1b1b is not "Eurasian" and Saharans have always been black Africans. Why don't you prove otherwise. I can't believe you actually think you know what you are talking about.
what does this have to do with what I wrote ? And no saharans have not always been "black africans", we do have evidence of eurasian populations migrating there many times.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you are wrong. See above. E1b1b1b is not Eurasian so Ferembach cannot be correct.
So that's all you got ? XD Again what does a paternal Hg have to do with autosomal ancestry ? Also is U6 african ? What about H1, H2, R0a, U4, T2b, JT, J1c3, etc these were all found among iberomaurusian remains.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that it is the Romans who first used the term Africa as you yourself showed in te following thread. And they specifically used it to refer to areas in and around what was ancient Carthage which is now Tunisia. So obviously you disagree with them. And at the same time you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians do not look the same, have the same traditions or speak the same language. So as usual you are spouting gibberish.
No I don't disagree with them...Wtf are you talking about ? Africa back then didn't mean the same thing as today. I'm using eurasians simply to point out that such influences/migrations came from outside Africa that's it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
When I say "mixture" I do not mean that every single person in any group is "mixed". What I am saying is that Romans went into North Africans and produced offspring with North Africans and North Africans went into Rome and produced off-spring with Rome. That doesn't mean everybody did this or that the majority but that there was a component of the population at that time that did result from such mixture. And obviously many Berbers moving to France are going to wind up getting married to French and having mixed offspring. Over time this is how "mixture" shows up in populations and this is the part you keep denying as an overall process that has happened over the last 5,000 years. This is how you get the variation in features present in coastal North Africa today. And that mixture includes lighter skinned Africans who are not 'Eurasians' even if they are lighter skinned. "North Africans" did not show up as "mixed" Eurasians 25,000 years ago with the same features you see in present day coastal North Africa and there is no proof of this other than you repeating the outdated papers from European scholars. [/QB]
yes so what ? The impact wasn't substantial so much so that it's not even detectable so a few foreign offsprings certainly won't change the genepool of millions of berbers. Same for the north africans who settled in Europe.
The eurasians from 25k years ago had features closer to mine than yours that's for sure and btw mechtoid/iberomaurusian features are still found among modern NAs and nowhere else.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Amazigh nationalists on social media.. stop black washing North Africans
Me sitting down to watch an Egyptian movie on YT
The two gentlemen that played Hannibal and his General are obviously mixed with Caucasian.. so black is a relative term filled with semantic meaning... as are the two Egyptians who if they came to the states would be considered "black" but probably not in Egypt proper..
lmao so now you admit that afro-americans can have "caucasian" ancestry ? I thought you were all about "we come in all shades and color" ...smh
anyway these egyptians look black to you and similar to the two afro-americans above ? Really americans have a very very broad definition of "black".
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
lmao so now you admit that afro-americans can have "caucasian" ancestry ? I thought you were all about "we come in all shades and color" ...smh
Caucasian is a phenotype and not a description of pigmentation and the color variation depending on how light is due to minor variation in melanin related that with or without mixture. 😁😁😁😁😁😁
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The DNA study of Iberomaurisans shows that African populations migrating OUT of Africa were present in the ancient Levant as represented by Natufians. It does not say that the Ibereromaurisan tool industry originated in Eurasia. This is false. You keep saying it and it is still false. African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
Wait you're saying that the first africans who left africa were natufians ? XD Are you aware They left africa tens of thousands of years before Iberomaurusians or natufians ?
Wait is that what I said? Why don't you check and show me.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Movement of population can go both ways not only from Africa to Eurasia. You seriously think that since the OOA (60k years ago) no migration of eurasians ever occured ? :
The point was that these papers are not saying that the ancient Iberomaurisans wee Eurasians. So your point is irrelevant to what is being discussed, which is about migrations of Africans in and across the Sahara as the basis for Taforalt.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Our genome-wide dense genotyping data from seven North African populations allow us to address outstanding questions regarding the origin and migration history of North Africa. We propose that present-day ancestry in North Africa is the result of at least three distinct episodes: ancient “back-to-Africa” gene flow prior to the Holocene, more recent gene flow from the Near East resulting in a longitudinal gradient, and limited but very recent migrations from sub-Saharan Africa.
That factoid you posted does not disprove what we are discussing. Ancient Taforalt was not a Eurasian population. That is not what these papers are saying, you keep wasting your time here trying to blow smoke up everybody's behind with this nonsense when nothing you post agrees with you.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: African tool industries in ancient Africa were not derived from Eurasia 25,000 years ago. And that is my point, these people keep twisting the facts to downplay that the Sahara has been a factor in causing migrations of Africans OUT of Africa not bringing Eurasians into Africa in ancient times. And obviously populations in ancient North Africa had ancestry in the Sahara.
How do you know it's not from eurasia ?
Because the studies you keep citing say these populations were Africans.
quote: However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.
So the point here is you keep claiming "science" for this stuff you keep repeating and you keep being shown to be wrong and you keep misrepresenting facts. Taforalt and ancient North Africans 20,000 years ago were NOT Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: These papers you are citing are outdated and do not represent anything but the conjecture of European scholars trying to make ancient Africans into Eurasians.
Sure that's quite easy for someone that try to discredit every info that does not support his narrative...very objective.
It is easy as the dates on these papers are simple enough to read and you just keep randomly posting data as if that proves you right when most of it is contradicted by the papers themselves or other more recent information.
You keep trying to propose this idea that ancient North Africans were Eurasians and not Africans and that there was no Eurasian mixture recently within the last few thousand years and you keep being shown to be wrong. These papers are absolutely not saying that.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, these ancient populations in the Sahara were not "Eurasians". North Africa is not limited to Morocco and all of North Africa covers an area covering thousands of miles. You keep using Tarforalt as if it is all of North Africa when it is not and it is not true that ancient coastal Africans and Saharans were of Eurasian origin 25,000 years ago. That is the nonsense you keep spewing on this forum based on old racist European literature.
source ?
Same one I posted in my last response to you about the DNA from Taforalt which oddly enough you keep ignoring because you know it doesn't agree with the nonsense you keep posting.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Taforalt DNA paper says that the relationship is based on the populations of Tarforalt having a shared common ancestor with ancient Levantines. It does not say that the Taforalt populations descend from ancient Levantine migrants. And actually they have worded it in such a way to imply this but that is not ACTUALLY is saying.
They didn't have any levantine samples from 25k years ago so they could only compared them to the much later natufians.
The point was that Natufians had African ancestry and that ancestry shared a common ancestor with Taforalt. Meaning they both descended from an ancient African population. So again, your argument that Taforalt represents ancient 20,000 year old Eurasian ancestry is still false.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The connection between Natufians and Iberomaurisans is from DNA haplogroup E1b1b, which is of African origin. That means that both Natufians and Iberomaurisans are of African origin. They twist the words in these summary articles to make it seem like the DNA is a result of Levantine migrations which is NOT what they actually found.
Iberomaurusians predate natufians by at least 10k years and what does one paternal Hg have to do with autosomal ancestry ?
It has to do with the fact that these two populations, Natufians and Taforalt were connected by African ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: And no they don't twist anything that was already proposed by Lazaridis :
quote:Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed11, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians).The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt17 is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features22 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers6, a common link between the Levant and Africa.
Again this has nothing to do with the eurasian migration from 25k years ago.
So it says in black and white that Taforalt and Natufians shared a common ancestor in Africa predating both Natufians and Taforalt. And that Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E. Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? Come on dude quit when you are ahead.
The papers say that the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else, then they also say they shared a common African ancestor with Natufians, but you still claim that this represents Eurasian gene flow. Again, if that was "Eurasian" ancestry, they would have called it that, but they cant so you are still wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, see above, the Europeans are saying that modern "North Africans" are Eurasians. I am saying that this is false because "North Africa" is not simply the coastal areas. And yes, those coastal areas substantial mixture with various populations of Eurasians. YOU are the one who is trying to deny this and that is not what these European papers are actually saying so they do not AGREE with you.
And they're right since most of our ancestry derives from Eurasian populations let alone when it comes to culture/history but how is that surprising ? North Africa is connected by land with the middle east and located only a few km away from Europe. North Africa is not simply coastal areas but that's where most north africans live or lived.
So they are right in that modern north Africans have more Eurasian ancestry as the result of recent mixture than Taforalt? Because that is what they are saying. Finally you get it.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please dude. You have been shown to be wrong over and over again. E1b1b is not "Eurasian" and Saharans have always been black Africans. Why don't you prove otherwise. I can't believe you actually think you know what you are talking about.
what does this have to do with what I wrote ? And no saharans have not always been "black africans", we do have evidence of eurasian populations migrating there many times.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you are wrong. See above. E1b1b1b is not Eurasian so Ferembach cannot be correct.
So that's all you got ? XD Again what does a paternal Hg have to do with autosomal ancestry ? Also is U6 african ? What about H1, H2, R0a, U4, T2b, JT, J1c3, etc these were all found among iberomaurusian remains.
OK Fine those other lineages do not change the fact that these populations had substantial African ancestry. And that those combination of lineages do not reflect the modern make up of North Africans as more "Eurasian". Again, the idea that 25,000 years ago there was a migration from Eurasia to Africa bringing language and culture as the basis for "Berbers" is false, yet you keep swearing that this is being supported by these papers when it is not.
Again, these papers don't agree with you
quote: Mitochondrial consensus sequences of the Taforalt individuals belong to the U6a (six in- dividuals) and M1b (one individual) haplogroups (15), which are mostly confined to present-day populations in North and East Africa (7). U6 and M1 have been proposed as markers for autoch- thonous Maghreb ancestry, which might have been originally introduced into this region by a back-to-Africa migration from West Asia (6, 7). The occurrence of both haplogroups in the Taforalt individuals proves their pre-Holocene presence in the Maghreb.[/QB]
The key word is "might" but you keep referring to U6, even though it is mostly found in Africa as the "smoking gun" that makes these people "EUrasians" which is highly dubious.
So again, you are wrong and just promoting false and misleading data that really isn't supported.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that it is the Romans who first used the term Africa as you yourself showed in te following thread. And they specifically used it to refer to areas in and around what was ancient Carthage which is now Tunisia. So obviously you disagree with them. And at the same time you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians do not look the same, have the same traditions or speak the same language. So as usual you are spouting gibberish.
No I don't disagree with them...Wtf are you talking about ? Africa back then didn't mean the same thing as today. I'm using eurasians simply to point out that such influences/migrations came from outside Africa that's it.
The point was the Romans referred to coastal North Africa as "Africa". Period. Again, you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians don't have the same language and culture, yet complain about the word Africa as if that is a problem. And the term African is appropriate for coastal North Africans as they were the first to be labeled with it by the Romans. As most of the terms we use in Africa today are derived from foreigners: berber from Barbarian, Africa from Romans, Libya from Greece, etc.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
When I say "mixture" I do not mean that every single person in any group is "mixed". What I am saying is that Romans went into North Africans and produced offspring with North Africans and North Africans went into Rome and produced off-spring with Rome. That doesn't mean everybody did this or that the majority but that there was a component of the population at that time that did result from such mixture. And obviously many Berbers moving to France are going to wind up getting married to French and having mixed offspring. Over time this is how "mixture" shows up in populations and this is the part you keep denying as an overall process that has happened over the last 5,000 years. This is how you get the variation in features present in coastal North Africa today. And that mixture includes lighter skinned Africans who are not 'Eurasians' even if they are lighter skinned. "North Africans" did not show up as "mixed" Eurasians 25,000 years ago with the same features you see in present day coastal North Africa and there is no proof of this other than you repeating the outdated papers from European scholars. [/QB]
yes so what ? The impact wasn't substantial so much so that it's not even detectable so a few foreign offsprings certainly won't change the genepool of millions of berbers. Same for the north africans who settled in Europe.
The eurasians from 25k years ago had features closer to mine than yours that's for sure and btw mechtoid/iberomaurusian features are still found among modern NAs and nowhere else. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Because the studies you keep citing say these populations were Africans.
They don't. They simply say that they also had "African" ancestry which is what I told you with aterians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.
yes so what ? Doesn't mean they didn't have eurasian ancestry and that paper is outdated lazaridis corrected it and here are his results :
quote: We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region6 were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’3,9,10 admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African 11,12 admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe, thereby becoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day West Eurasians.
so yes Taforalt had "african" ancestry but still was predominantly eurasian.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is easy as the dates on these papers are simple enough to read and you just keep randomly posting data as if that proves you right when most of it is contradicted by the papers themselves or other more recent information.
You never succeed at contradicting the papers I posted you just said "gibberish" or implied that european scholars were behind some conspiracy against blacks...
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point was that Natufians had African ancestry and that ancestry shared a common ancestor with Taforalt. Meaning they both descended from an ancient African population. So again, your argument that Taforalt represents ancient 20,000 year old Eurasian ancestry is still false.
Natufians simply had a low quantity of Iberomaurusian ancestry that's it. I don't see how that prevent Iberomaurusians from having eurasian ancestry but ok...
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It has to do with the fact that these two populations, Natufians and Taforalt were connected by African ancestry.
??? All modern north africans including the nordic looking ones have black/deep ancestry so what's your point ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So it says in black and white that Taforalt and Natufians shared a common ancestor in Africa predating both Natufians and Taforalt. And that Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E. Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? Come on dude quit when you are ahead.
The papers say that the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else, then they also say they shared a common African ancestor with Natufians, but you still claim that this represents Eurasian gene flow. Again, if that was "Eurasian" ancestry, they would have called it that, but they cant so you are still wrong.
You're either doing this on purpose or you're mentally retarded. The quote literally says that Natufians have IBM ancestry instead of the reverse and this guy interpret this as " the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else" and ask me without any reason "Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? " holy sh*t XD
I will not even try to correct you hahahah
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So they are right in that modern north Africans have more Eurasian ancestry as the result of recent mixture than Taforalt? Because that is what they are saying. Finally you get it.
So you admit that taforalt had eurasian ancestry but simply less ? I wonder how they got such type of ancestry and when ...
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK Fine those other lineages do not change the fact that these populations had substantial African ancestry. And that those combination of lineages do not reflect the modern make up of North Africans as more "Eurasian". Again, the idea that 25,000 years ago there was a migration from Eurasia to Africa bringing language and culture as the basis for "Berbers" is false, yet you keep swearing that this is being supported by these papers when it is not.
Who denied they had substantial african ancestry ? Who said modern north Africans are 100% taforalt-like ? Who said these 25k years eurasians brought proto-berber in the region ? Again strawman.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The key word is "might" but you keep referring to U6, even though it is mostly found in Africa as the "smoking gun" that makes these people "EUrasians" which is highly dubious.
So again, you are wrong and just promoting false and misleading data that really isn't supported.
Oldest U6 is found in Europe and I supposed all the other haplogroups I mentionned are also african ? If not how did they end up there ?
Stop being in denial :
Iberomaurusians appeared roughly 25k years ago so how did they end up with typical eurasian lineages at that time ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point was the Romans referred to coastal North Africa as "Africa". Period.
They never saw blacks as africans nor called the whole continent "africa" that was simply the name of a province. Period.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians don't have the same language and culture, yet complain about the word Africa as if that is a problem. And the term African is appropriate for coastal North Africans as they were the first to be labeled with it by the Romans. As most of the terms we use in Africa today are derived from foreigners: berber from Barbarian, Africa from Romans, Libya from Greece, etc.
"Africa" and "libya" both derives from berber words but of course you didn't know that XD
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Because the studies you keep citing say these populations were Africans.
They don't. They simply say that they also had "African" ancestry which is what I told you with aterians.
This is literally what it says:
quote: However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.
This is a consistent pattern with you of misrepresenting what these papers say. They are not saying these populations were "Eurasians". How can a population be close to SOUTH AFRICANs who are many thousands of miles away from Morocco and still be called "Eurasian". Which again shows you just keep spouting gibberish that doesn't make any sense and does not reflect any facts.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.
yes so what ? Doesn't mean they didn't have eurasian ancestry and that paper is outdated lazaridis corrected it and here are his results :
quote: We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region6 were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’3,9,10 admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African 11,12 admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe, thereby becoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day West Eurasians.
so yes Taforalt had "african" ancestry but still was predominantly eurasian.
You are still wrong. This is literally what he says in that paper, which isn't much different than what I posted. Nowhere does it say that Taforalt was "Eurasian". Nowhere does it say that Haplogroup E or U6 are "Eurasian". That is you making this inference based on a possible origin of U6 in Eurasia when U6 is mostly found today in Africa. So again, you are spouting gibberish trying to turn ancient African populations into Eurasians......
quote: Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed11, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt17 is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features22 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers6, a common link between the Levant and Africa
There he is saying that the Taforalt population descends from an African common ancestor that was the basis of African ancestry in Natufians. Which is what I said a few posts ago and you haven't shown otherwise. I don't get why you keep swearing up and down that these papers are saying otherwise when they aren't. According to you, African migrations into the Levant represent Eurasian admixture in ancient Africa. That is absurd gobbledygook based on an extreme desire to erase black Africans from North African history.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is easy as the dates on these papers are simple enough to read and you just keep randomly posting data as if that proves you right when most of it is contradicted by the papers themselves or other more recent information.
You never succeed at contradicting the papers I posted you just said "gibberish" or implied that european scholars were behind some conspiracy against blacks...
I said that Europeans have historically tried to make ancient North Africans into Eurasians which is a fact based on the numerous historical works that anybody can find online and elsewhere stating this outright. And yes, that includes many of the French scholars that created the modern field of Berber studies. You can see that yourself in Encyclopedia Bebere.
However, despite that history these recent papers are showing just the opposite of this and you trying to claim otherwise is what I am calling out.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point was that Natufians had African ancestry and that ancestry shared a common ancestor with Taforalt. Meaning they both descended from an ancient African population. So again, your argument that Taforalt represents ancient 20,000 year old Eurasian ancestry is still false.
Natufians simply had a low quantity of Iberomaurusian ancestry that's it. I don't see how that prevent Iberomaurusians from having eurasian ancestry but ok...
The paper YOU posted above says the Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E1b1b. That is not "Eurasian". You are still promoting your silly gibberish.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It has to do with the fact that these two populations, Natufians and Taforalt were connected by African ancestry.
??? All modern north africans including the nordic looking ones have black/deep ancestry so what's your point ?
Taforalt is distantly related to modern North Africans. They didn't look the same so the comparison is stupid. Ancient North Africans in Taforalt did not look like Nordics. There were no populations in Africa 25,000 years ago looking like that which is what you are seemingly implying
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So it says in black and white that Taforalt and Natufians shared a common ancestor in Africa predating both Natufians and Taforalt. And that Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E. Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? Come on dude quit when you are ahead.
The papers say that the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else, then they also say they shared a common African ancestor with Natufians, but you still claim that this represents Eurasian gene flow. Again, if that was "Eurasian" ancestry, they would have called it that, but they cant so you are still wrong.
You're either doing this on purpose or you're mentally retarded. The quote literally says that Natufians have IBM ancestry instead of the reverse and this guy interpret this as " the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else" and ask me without any reason "Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? " holy sh*t XD
I will not even try to correct you hahahah
quote:If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features22 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers6, a common link between the Levant and Africa
It literally says these people had African ancestry and they do not consider Taforalt or haplogroup E1b1b "Eurasian" ancestry. Again, you are spouting gibberish. You keep arguing that ancient populations of Taforalt were Eurasians when none of these papers are saying that.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So they are right in that modern north Africans have more Eurasian ancestry as the result of recent mixture than Taforalt? Because that is what they are saying. Finally you get it.
So you admit that taforalt had eurasian ancestry but simply less ? I wonder how they got such type of ancestry and when ...
It means that thy don't classify Taforalt as Eurasian, where as they do classify modern North Africans as Eurasians. YOUR argument is that Taforalt was a Eurasian population, not just that they had Eurasian mixture. You now have to backtrack and claim that there was "some" Eurasian ancestry, which is not the same thing at all. So now you are left trying to nit pick your way around the overwhelming African ancestry in Taforalt to argue that they were still Eurasians. And most of this so-called Eurasian ancestry is based on speculation of the origin of lineages such as U6 which could be African in origin. So again, the point is the same, these populations were Africans of primarily African origin and not the same as modern North Africans who have had substantial Eurasian mixture since then.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK Fine those other lineages do not change the fact that these populations had substantial African ancestry. And that those combination of lineages do not reflect the modern make up of North Africans as more "Eurasian". Again, the idea that 25,000 years ago there was a migration from Eurasia to Africa bringing language and culture as the basis for "Berbers" is false, yet you keep swearing that this is being supported by these papers when it is not.
Who denied they had substantial african ancestry ? Who said modern north Africans are 100% taforalt-like ? Who said these 25k years eurasians brought proto-berber in the region ? Again strawman.
Now you are outright lying if you are going to sit here and claim you are not sayig that "Berbers" go back to Taforalt and that most of their "Eurasian" ancestry comes from Taforalt. Which means that your argument has always been that this Eurasian component is the basis of Berber identity and that this is why ancient North Africans shouldn't be called black. That is literally what you have been doing on this forum since you got here. Now you are claiming that is NOT what you meant? Please. You have been going back and forth with me about the fact that Taforalt was not "Eurasian" because of that and now you had to admit otherwise you want to claim that wasn't your argument?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The key word is "might" but you keep referring to U6, even though it is mostly found in Africa as the "smoking gun" that makes these people "EUrasians" which is highly dubious.
So again, you are wrong and just promoting false and misleading data that really isn't supported.
Oldest U6 is found in Europe and I supposed all the other haplogroups I mentionned are also african ? If not how did they end up there ?
Stop being in denial :
Iberomaurusians appeared roughly 25k years ago so how did they end up with typical eurasian lineages at that time ?
The oldest U6 being found in Europe does not mean it originated in Europe. Again, your whole theory of Taforalt being "Eurasian" is based on this idea that U6 is Eurasian. Even though that Eurasian U6 is over 40,000 years old and remains have NO resemblance to modern Eurasians. So the problem here is you claiming genotype equals phenotype. U6 does not define phenotype, there are plenty of black Africans carrying U6 so it is irrelevant to phenotype. Again, your whole argument boils down to U6 is Eurasian and other lineages in Taforalt are Eurasian so they must have been light skinned and closer to Eurasians in phenotype than black Africans. That is false but that is what you keep claiming.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point was the Romans referred to coastal North Africa as "Africa". Period.
They never saw blacks as africans nor called the whole continent "africa" that was simply the name of a province. Period.
How can you say they never saw blacks as Africans? What evidence do you have for that from Roman times? Sounds like to me you are making stuff up. And even more importantly the point is you don't see a distinction in appearance between North Africans and Romans.... According to you they were both white Mediterraneans. Which is funny, but is the basis for your argument that ancient Taforalt as Eurasian and the origin of this phenotype in North Africa. And according to you there wasn't much mixture between Romans and these "Africans" even though most of the images from this period look Roman. Which gets to the point that you don't see ancient North Africans as African at all. Which is the problem and this whole game of trying to associate Taforalt with Eurasia is part of separating ancient North Africa from Africa and claiming it as Eurasian.
My point here is you keep focusing on these coastal areas like Taforalt as the basis and origin of everything in North Africa, ignoring the fact that most of the artifacts associated with the Neolithic transition in North Africa originate in the Sahara and places like Tassili Najer, the Fezzan, the Central Sahara and so forth. Then you claim that "Taforalt" is representative of all these populations as "North Africans" as ancient Eurasians. To the point you will deny the obvious influence and impact of mixture during later times along the coast after Taforalt. You haven't denied it and you keep showing that this is absolutely what you believe.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians don't have the same language and culture, yet complain about the word Africa as if that is a problem. And the term African is appropriate for coastal North Africans as they were the first to be labeled with it by the Romans. As most of the terms we use in Africa today are derived from foreigners: berber from Barbarian, Africa from Romans, Libya from Greece, etc.
"Africa" and "libya" both derives from berber words but of course you didn't know that XD
No the Roman word "Africa" is Roman not Berber.
quote: However, it is possible that ancient biographers' reports that Terence was born in Africa are an inference from his name and not independent biographical information.[8][9] This inference is based on the fact that the term was used in two different ways during the republican era. During Terence's lifetime, it was used to refer to non-Carthaginian Berbers, with the term Punicus reserved for the Carthaginians. Subsequently, after the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC, it was used to refer to anyone from the land of the Afri (that is, the ancient Roman province of Africa, mostly corresponding to today's Tunisia and its surroundings). The cognomen Afer "[North] African" may indicate that Terence hailed from ancient Libya, and was therefore of Berber descent. However, such names did not necessarily denote origin, and there were Romans who had this cognomen who were not Africans, such as Domitius Afer. Consequently, it is not known with certainty whether Terence was given the cognomen Afer as denoting his origin, or if it was solely based on later bibliographers' reports based on the terminology of their day.
According to his traditional biography, he was sold to P. Terentius Lucanus,[13] a Roman senator, who educated him and later on, impressed by Terence's abilities, freed him. Terence then took the nomen "Terentius," which is the origin of the present form.
Based on the writings of the Roman historian Suetonius, Terence was described to be of "moderate height, slender, and of dark complexion," additionally leaving a daughter who subsequently went on to marry a Roman knight.[14] Additionally, Terence was a member of the so-called Scipionic Circle.
However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/AAAS/Loosdrecht_Pleistocene_Science_2018_2583534.pdf
This is a consistent pattern with you of misrepresenting what these papers say. They are not saying these populations were "Eurasians". How can a population be close to SOUTH AFRICANs who are many thousands of miles away from Morocco and still be called "Eurasian". Which again shows you just keep spouting gibberish that doesn't make any sense and does not reflect any facts.
What don't you understand in " These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). "
That's because the deep ancestry of taforalt wasn't similar to any modern SSA type of ancestry but these affinities with all these SSA groups means the "african" ancestors of taforalt most likely participated in the ethnogenesis of most Sub-saharan groups. And like I told these "africans" were aterians :
quote: Importantly, our Taforalt individuals predate the most recent greening of the Sahara by several millennia (84). Thus, we may speculate that the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt derived from the gene pool of pre-LGM North Africans, who belong to the Middle Stone Age (MSA) cultures (10).
So like I said Aterians + eurasian settlers (Dzudzuana-like) = Iberomaurusians and these IBMs participated in the ethnogenesis of Natufians.
Also you clearly don't understand much from these papers, Iberomaurusians are nowhere near south africans/mbuti ; they are just telling you that the previous natufian/yoruba model wasn't good at all for modelling IBMs :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are still wrong. This is literally what he says in that paper, which isn't much different than what I posted. Nowhere does it say that Taforalt was "Eurasian". Nowhere does it say that Haplogroup E or U6 are "Eurasian". That is you making this inference based on a possible origin of U6 in Eurasia when U6 is mostly found today in Africa. So again, you are spouting gibberish trying to turn ancient African populations into Eurasians......
Yes they say Taforalt are part eurasian that's literally in the quote I posted and which you avoided ; I post it again :
quote: We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region6 were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’3,9,10 admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African 11,12 admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe, thereby becoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day West Eurasians.
Now let's post more datas about the eurasian origin of Iberomaurusians :
quote:The recently revised archaeological dates for the Aterian industry of North Africa emphasize that the makers of this industry do not appear to have left any imprint in the maternal lineages of present-day North Africans. The oldest arrivals amongst extant mtDNAs appear to be the U6 and M1 lineages, which date to 36.6 (24.9; 48.8) and 25.4 (17.9; 33.1) ka respectively [31]. As with U5 in Europe [11], the arrival time could be older in each case, since the haplogroups appear likely to have arisen within the southern Mediterranean region from haplogroup U and M ancestors, making dating the arrival time very imprecise. Nevertheless, the estimates seem to match best the appearance of the Upper Palaeolithic Dabban industry in Cyrenaïca, as suggested before [15, 23]. [...] For U6, by contrast, the corresponding increases in effective sizes were less marked (~3-fold and ~1.5-fold, respectively), and the signal indicates that the expansion began earlier, ~22 ka. This coincides closely with the beginning of the Iberomaurusian industry in the Maghreb. These results therefore suggest that the Iberomaurusian was initiated by an expansion of modern humans of ultimately Near Eastern, carrying mtDNA haplogroup U6, who had spread into Cyrenaïca ~35-45 ka and produced the Dabban industry. The link back to the Near East and the European Early Upper Palaeolithic (which likely has the same source) may explain the suggested skeletal similarities between the robust Iberomaurusian "Mechta-Afalou" burials and European Cro-Magnon remains, as well as the case for continuity of the bearers of the Iberomaurusian industry from Morocco with later northwest African populations suggested by the dental evidence [57].
quote:Our results showed that the mtDNA sequences of the seven specimens from AFA are classified exclusively into Eurasiatic haplogroups: H or U (three individuals), T2 (two individuals), JT (one individual), and J (one individual).Our findings are in agreement with our previous study performed on TAF population which reported a genetic structure composed mainly of Eurasiatic haplogroups (Kefi et al. 2005). Indeed, 19 among 21 individuals of TAF, are classified as Eurasiatic haplogroups (H, U, JT, V). The two remaining individuals belong to the North African haplogroup U6. The absence of haplotype belonging to Sub-Saharan haplogroups (L0–L7) would suggest that our sample of Iberomaurusians is not originating from Sub-Saharan region.
quote:A Levantine core seems to be in perpetual contact with the Nile basin, where new anthropological and technical trends are formed. They will eventually migrate westward and give rise to the Iberomaurusian and then the regional Capsian. These ethnic entities appear to be the sources of the sub-actual Amazigh populations29 , which will soon switch to breeding and agriculture along the southern Mediterranean axis.
Marcel Otte, Destinée atérienne, p. 73 (https://insap.ac.ma/?p=30386)
quote: Ancient DNA has recently been obtained from the Later Stone Age site of Taforalt in Morocco, dated ~15,000 years ago43. Interestingly, both haplogroups U6 and M1 have been observed in Taforalt. The presence in IAM of two prominent North African autochthonous lineages such as U6 and M1 supports maternal continuity in the area since Later Stone Age times and implies a Eurasian origin for Taforalt and IAM people.
quote: Finally, we analyzed two SNP variants that have been studied in relation to susceptibility for mycobacterial infections (80). A derived allele of rs4833103 in the TLR1-6-10 gene, which encodes an active functional component in the innate immune response, is associated with a possibly increased resistance to leprosy, tuberculosis and other mycobacteria (104, 105). All Taforalt individuals show the derived homozygote CC genotype. In present-day populations the derived allele state has a high frequency in Eurasians but a low frequency, or absence, in sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:This suggests that most of IAM ancestry originates from an out-of-Africa source, as IAM shares more alleles with Levantines than with any sub-Saharan Africans, including the 4,500-y-old genome from Ethiopia (14). To further test the hypothesis that IAM is more closely related to out-of-Africa populations, we determined whether we could detect Neanderthal ancestry in IAM, which is typical of non-African populations. A signal of Neanderthal ancestry has been detected in modern North African populations (26). A lack of Neanderthal ancestry in IAM would imply that the signal observed today is a product of more recent migration into North Africa from the Middle East and Europe in historical times. Compared with the Neanderthal high coverage genome sequence from Altai (27) and the low-coverage sequence from Vindija Cave (28), and using the S statistic (24), we detected a Neanderthal introgression signal into IAM, suggesting derivation from the same event shared by non-African populations (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 10).
quote:"When projected on a PCA space built using modern samples from Europe, the Middle East and North and Sub-Saharan Africa, all IAM, KEB and TOR samples cluster close to North African, Middle Eastern and European populations, respectively (Figure S6.3).
quote: To demonstrate that IAM has a Levantine origin, rather than a local origin in Africa, we tested f4(IAM, Chimp; Levantine population, African population), with the Levantine population being BedouinB, Levant_N or Natufian, and the African population being Jo’hoan North, Mbuti, Mota or Yoruba. All comparisons are positive, with high significant Z scores, indicating IAM is more related to Levantine than to African populations (Table S10.1)."
quote:The body shape of the terminal Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba population is tropical-adapted, with elongated limbs, especially in the distal segments, and is most similar to living sub-Saharan Africans and less similar to late Pleistocene and Holocene North Africans (including Egyptians and Nubians). The sample’s body shape likely reflects elevated gene flow up the Nile Valley from areas further south, but may also be due in part to the tropical hot conditions present at the site, even during glacial periods. The Jebel Sahaba sample are distinct in body shape from penecontemporary humans from Afalou-BouRhummel (Algeria) and El Wad Natufians from the southern Levant—a result consistent with the results of both Irish (2000, 2005) using dental data and Franciscus (1995, 2003) using nasal data."
quote:The Late Pleistocene material from Afalou and Taforalt in North Africa, on the other hand, had no similarity with sub-Saharan Africa. Instead, the groups from which it cannot be distinguished range from the Neolithic of Algeria and Egypt, modern Nubia, and especially modern Europe. The pattern of affiliations of the Algerian Neolithic is remarkably similar to that of the Algerian Late Pleistocene at Afalou and Taforalt and suggests long-term in situ population continuity.
Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I said that Europeans have historically tried to make ancient North Africans into Eurasians which is a fact based on the numerous historical works that anybody can find online and elsewhere stating this outright. And yes, that includes many of the French scholars that created the modern field of Berber studies. You can see that yourself in Encyclopedia Bebere.
North Africans are eurasians that's factual whether genetically, culturally, historically, anthropologically, etc And you have read ZERO stuff from these french scholars so keep your ad hominem for yourself you simply can't contradict what I post.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The paper YOU posted above says the Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E1b1b. That is not "Eurasian". You are still promoting your silly gibberish.
No the paper says Natufians most likely have Iberomaurusian ancestry (in small quantity) and hence why we find clades of E among them.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Taforalt is distantly related to modern North Africans. They didn't look the same so the comparison is stupid. Ancient North Africans in Taforalt did not look like Nordics. There were no populations in Africa 25,000 years ago looking like that which is what you are seemingly implying
The taforalt component peaks in Modern North Africans and Taforalt are genetically closer to modern north africans than afro-americans like yourself. They didn't look the same as modern north africans and any sub-saharan population but still were physically closer to eurasians than blacks like you.
The closest population to them when it comes to craniometry are the magdalenian remains of Oberkassel in Germany :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It means that thy don't classify Taforalt as Eurasian, where as they do classify modern North Africans as Eurasians. YOUR argument is that Taforalt was a Eurasian population, not just that they had Eurasian mixture. You now have to backtrack and claim that there was "some" Eurasian ancestry, which is not the same thing at all. So now you are left trying to nit pick your way around the overwhelming African ancestry in Taforalt to argue that they were still Eurasians. And most of this so-called Eurasian ancestry is based on speculation of the origin of lineages such as U6 which could be African in origin. So again, the point is the same, these populations were Africans of primarily African origin and not the same as modern North Africans who have had substantial Eurasian mixture since then.
wtf?? yes they will still be eurasians the same way modern north africans are eurasians despite having between 20-25% of SSA ancestry in average. Also stop obsessing over U6 ...there is a whole set of eurasian mtDNAs among IBMs which you constantly avoid.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now you are outright lying if you are going to sit here and claim you are not sayig that "Berbers" go back to Taforalt and that most of their "Eurasian" ancestry comes from Taforalt. Which means that your argument has always been that this Eurasian component is the basis of Berber identity and that this is why ancient North Africans shouldn't be called black. That is literally what you have been doing on this forum since you got here. Now you are claiming that is NOT what you meant? Please. You have been going back and forth with me about the fact that Taforalt was not "Eurasian" because of that and now you had to admit otherwise you want to claim that wasn't your argument?
I'm lying ? Alright feel free to post any of my answer where I say that Iberomaurusians were berbers or that berbers are 100% iberomaurusian. I said the Taforalt component peaks among berbers that's it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, your whole argument boils down to U6 is Eurasian and other lineages in Taforalt are Eurasian so they must have been light skinned and closer to Eurasians in phenotype than black Africans. That is false but that is what you keep claiming.
Light skinned ? Meanwhile in another thread I literally posted this :
quote:IAM people did not possess any of the European SNPs associated with light pigmentation, and most likely had dark skin and eyes. IAM samples contain ancestral alleles for pigmentation-associated variants present in SLC24A5 (rs1426654), SLC45A2 (rs16891982), and OCA2 (rs1800401 and 12913832) genes. On the other hand, KEB individuals exhibit some European-derived alleles that predispose individuals to lighter skin and eye color, including those on genes SLC24A5 (rs1426654) and OCA2 (rs1800401) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 11).
and again that doesn't mean they looked like you or were closer to you and yes they were closer to eurasians than black Africans that's literally proven by every forensic studies made on them :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: How can you say they never saw blacks as Africans? What evidence do you have for that from Roman times? Sounds like to me you are making stuff up. And even more importantly the point is you don't see a distinction in appearance between North Africans and Romans.... According to you they were both white Mediterraneans. Which is funny, but is the basis for your argument that ancient Taforalt as Eurasian and the origin of this phenotype in North Africa. And according to you there wasn't much mixture between Romans and these "Africans" even though most of the images from this period look Roman. Which gets to the point that you don't see ancient North Africans as African at all. Which is the problem and this whole game of trying to associate Taforalt with Eurasia is part of separating ancient North Africa from Africa and claiming it as Eurasian.
Thanks again for showing your ignorance.
quote:The ethnic marker Afer (‘African’), for example, which appears on tombstones, refers strictly to people from the region around Carthage, in modern Tunisia. The Roman term for someone of sub-Saharan origin was Aethiops – ‘Ethiopian’.
The term "Africa" has never been attributed to the whole continent by romans. And I already said many times that north africans are clearly darker than italians whether today or in ancient times. Also there is easily 5k years between IAM/IBM and romans in North africa so again stop trying to darkwash taforalt in order to claim the whole region's history as if in 5k years no movement of populations occured. Moreover I already posted datas (which you again avoided) about how romans barely mix with north africans and formed a tiny minority in North Africa so these are not my opinions.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: My point here is you keep focusing on these coastal areas like Taforalt as the basis and origin of everything in North Africa, ignoring the fact that most of the artifacts associated with the Neolithic transition in North Africa originate in the Sahara and places like Tassili Najer, the Fezzan, the Central Sahara and so forth. Then you claim that "Taforalt" is representative of all these populations as "North Africans" as ancient Eurasians. To the point you will deny the obvious influence and impact of mixture during later times along the coast after Taforalt. You haven't denied it and you keep showing that this is absolutely what you believe.
Nope neolithic tradition in Coastal NW Africa is of european origin and capsians most likely were near eastern folks which is confirmed by the origin of goats in NA and lactase persistence allele :
quote:The data presented here are consistent with a scenario in which proto-Berber-speaking ovicaprid pastoralists introduced the -13910T allele, and thereby lactose tolerance, into North Africa. This scenario implies a genetic input from migrating pastoralists from the Middle East and suggests that contemporary Berber populations share a Middle Eastern dairying origin with other Eurasian populations."
quote: The only exception to this exogenous domestication could be the cattle that appear in the Egyptian desert ten millennia ago. It is obviously difficult to determine the language spoken by the pastoralists of these herds of oxen, which were soon present throughout the eastern and central Sahara (Garcea 2004), where they may also have been the origin of a much later cereal cultivation of millet and sorghum. According to C. Ehret (1999 and 2011), they could be either speakers of a language of the Nilo-Saharan family or Chamito-Semitic populations. But in the latter case they would have only a rather distant relationship with the first Berber speakers whose first cattle would be, like their goats, sheep and pigs, originating in the Near East."
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No the Roman word "Africa" is Roman not Berber.
It derives from the ethnonym "Afri" which concern a specific libyan tribe who lived near Carthage and ultimately this word derives from the berber word "Ifri" which has the meaning of "cave"
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations Rym Kefi, 2018
The oldest U6 being found in Europe does not mean it originated in Europe. Again, your whole theory of Taforalt being "Eurasian" is based on this idea that U6 is Eurasian. Even though that Eurasian U6 is over 40,000 years old and remains have NO resemblance to modern Eurasians.
You are ignoring the fact and that the above chart also shows hap, H, R0 and other clades of U, and that the ancestor of U is R, and >
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence T. W. HOLLIDAY* 2013
the term Mechtoid to refer to robustly built skeletons from the Maghreb, most notably from the site of Mechta-el-Arbi (from whence the name comes), and also from other Iberomaurusian sites in the region such as Afalou (Afalou-Bou-Rhummel)
none of the Afalou specimens, nor of the El Wad Natufian specimens, falls within the African scatter, and all lie toward the more cold-adapted end of the scatter. As was the case with the bivariate analyses, among the prehistoric skeletons, Afalou 28 looks the most extreme in its cold-adapted morphology
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
This is literally what it says:
However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/AAAS/Loosdrecht_Pleistocene_Science_2018_2583534.pdf
This is a consistent pattern with you of misrepresenting what these papers say. They are not saying these populations were "Eurasians". How can a population be close to SOUTH AFRICANs who are many thousands of miles away from Morocco and still be called "Eurasian". Which again shows you just keep spouting gibberish that doesn't make any sense and does not reflect any facts.
What don't you understand in " These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups. None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). "
That's because the deep ancestry of taforalt wasn't similar to any modern SSA type of ancestry but these affinities with all these SSA groups means the "african" ancestors of taforalt most likely participated in the ethnogenesis of most Sub-saharan groups. And like I told these "africans" were aterians :
quote: Importantly, our Taforalt individuals predate the most recent greening of the Sahara by several millennia (84). Thus, we may speculate that the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt derived from the gene pool of pre-LGM North Africans, who belong to the Middle Stone Age (MSA) cultures (10).
Which means they were Africans. Somehow you believe that the 20,000 year old populations of African origin are ancient Eurasians. This is the point, you are digging and searching to somehow find any scrap of something to call these ancient populations Eurasian when nothing you are posting is saying they were Eurasian. The presence of some genes that could be of "Eurasian" origin does not turn these populations into Eurasians. This is my point here. Europeans have plenty of mixture throughout history with Africans because they ultimately originated in Africa. That does not make modern Europeans into Africans. Yet here you are trying to force Africans into being Eurasians because of a few lineages that may be of Eurasian origin. It is simply misrepresenting the actual data to promote an ideology. Africans are the prototype of Eurasians and not the other way around. They are not calling these populations Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: So like I said Aterians + eurasian settlers (Dzudzuana-like) = Iberomaurusians and these IBMs participated in the ethnogenesis of Natufians.
Also you clearly don't understand much from these papers, Iberomaurusians are nowhere near south africans/mbuti ; they are just telling you that the previous natufian/yoruba model wasn't good at all for modelling IBMs :
The papers are saying that they had primarily African ancestry, you don't get African ancestry from Eurasians. How daft do you have to be to make up some theory of African ancestry in Africa originating from Eurasia. That is simply a pathetic example of the gobbledygook gibberish you keep spouting which makes absolutely no sense. That is you injecting your own nonsense based on misrepresenting what the papers are actually saying. That is what makes your arguments so annoying because they are outright wrong yet you keep saying it like you are producing scientific support for this nonsense when you aren't. Ancient North Africans descend from Africans. Period. Some Eurasian genetics from over 25,000 years ago does not change them from being Africans. If that is the case then all Eurasians are Africans because 50,000 years ago all their genes came from Africa. This absurd double standard is what these nonsensical labels are promoting which leads to people like you spouting illogical statements like 'African' ancestry in Taforalt can be modeled as Eurasian ancestors migrating into Africa. How the hell is that?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are still wrong. This is literally what he says in that paper, which isn't much different than what I posted. Nowhere does it say that Taforalt was "Eurasian". Nowhere does it say that Haplogroup E or U6 are "Eurasian". That is you making this inference based on a possible origin of U6 in Eurasia when U6 is mostly found today in Africa. So again, you are spouting gibberish trying to turn ancient African populations into Eurasians......
Yes they say Taforalt are part eurasian that's literally in the quote I posted and which you avoided ; I post it again :
quote: We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region6 were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’3,9,10 admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African 11,12 admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe, thereby becoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day West Eurasians.
Which is absolutely not saying what you claim it is saying. The paper is talking about the DNA history of Eurasia not Africa for the first part and they are saying that Dzudzuana contributed to Natufian ancestry which is AFTER Taforalt. So that does NOT mean that Dzudzuana is ancestral to Taforalt, you are simply misrepresenting what the actual paper is saying. It is not saying that Dzuduana is responsible for the African ancestry in Natufians. You are so determined to turn Taforalt into Eurasians you will come up with the most convoluted nonsense to justify it and twist the papers and what they are saying to try and justify it. But a big part of the problem is that Eurasians are trying to model human DNA history by using mostly Eurasian ancient DNA which skews all data towards Europe, as if ancient Africans originated in Europe and this is the problem here. What they are saying is that Dzudzuana like ancestry is a big part of the make up of MODERN North Africans as a result of gene flow AFTER Taforalt. Nowhere in that paper are they saying that Dzudzuana is ancestral to Taforalt or Iberomaurisans in general.
This is what they actually say:
quote: The ancestry of present-day Europeans has been traced to the proximate sources of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Early European/Anatolian farmers, and steppe pastoralists16, but the ancestry of Near Eastern and North African populations has not been investigated due to lack of appropriate ancient sources. We present a unified analysis of diverse European, Near Eastern, North African populations in terms of the deepest known sources of ancestry (Fig. 3), which suggests that Dzudzuana-related ancestry makes up ∼46-88% of the ancestry of all these populations, with Dzudzuana-related ancestry more strongly found in southern populations across West Eurasia.
They are talking about MODERN North Africans not Taforalt. So this paper is NOT saying that Dzudzuana is ancestral to Taforalt, in fact it is saying just the opposite:
quote: Differential relationship of Basal ancestry to Africa.
Basal ancestry (conservative estimate) is negatively correlated with the statistic f4(X, Kostenki14, Ust’Ishim, Yoruba) which quantifies allele sharing between X and Ust’Ishim, consistent with this type of ancestry diluting the affinity of populations to this 45kya Siberian (earliest known modern human for which there are genomic data). For Taforalt and some populations from the Near East and North Africa this statistic is more negative, suggesting that they have North or Sub-Saharan-related ancestry that cannot be accounted for by any combination of the ancient West Eurasian sources whose convex hull is shown.
Basically Dzudzuana ancestry is Caucasus/Southern Russian ancestry present in modern North African populations. That ancestry is not ancestral to ancient populations in Taforalt. And what I am saying, which is supported by these papers, is this mixture happened sometime after Taforalt and ancient Taforalt does not represent Dzudzuana ancestry.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Now let's post more datas about the eurasian origin of Iberomaurusians :
quote:The recently revised archaeological dates for the Aterian industry of North Africa emphasize that the makers of this industry do not appear to have left any imprint in the maternal lineages of present-day North Africans. The oldest arrivals amongst extant mtDNAs appear to be the U6 and M1 lineages, which date to 36.6 (24.9; 48.8) and 25.4 (17.9; 33.1) ka respectively [31]. As with U5 in Europe [11], the arrival time could be older in each case, since the haplogroups appear likely to have arisen within the southern Mediterranean region from haplogroup U and M ancestors, making dating the arrival time very imprecise. Nevertheless, the estimates seem to match best the appearance of the Upper Palaeolithic Dabban industry in Cyrenaïca, as suggested before [15, 23]. [...] For U6, by contrast, the corresponding increases in effective sizes were less marked (~3-fold and ~1.5-fold, respectively), and the signal indicates that the expansion began earlier, ~22 ka. This coincides closely with the beginning of the Iberomaurusian industry in the Maghreb. These results therefore suggest that the Iberomaurusian was initiated by an expansion of modern humans of ultimately Near Eastern, carrying mtDNA haplogroup U6, who had spread into Cyrenaïca ~35-45 ka and produced the Dabban industry. The link back to the Near East and the European Early Upper Palaeolithic (which likely has the same source) may explain the suggested skeletal similarities between the robust Iberomaurusian "Mechta-Afalou" burials and European Cro-Magnon remains, as well as the case for continuity of the bearers of the Iberomaurusian industry from Morocco with later northwest African populations suggested by the dental evidence [57].
They don't know where those lineages originated and they could have originated in Africa. Again, like I said before, much of your argument rests on these two lineages being "Eurasian" from over 25,000 years ago which is not guaranteed to be true. Either way, now you are arguing that 35,000 year old Eurasians looked like modern light skinned or white Mediterraneans. Dude. 35,000 years ago all these populations looked like Africans and when you say "Basal" Eurasian going back over 30,000 years you are talking African ancestry in Europe. This is why these papers are stupid to begin with coming up with all kinds of schemes to avoid calling ancient African ancestry in Europe something other than African. And this paper does not overturn the results of the other paper that point blank states much of the Iberomaurisan DNA having African origin. So you are grasping at straws trying to turn ancient Africans into Eurasians. Forgetting the fact that over 30,000 years ago, you would have been talking about most populations being aboriginal black Africans in phenotype to begin with. So again your point is absurd and silly.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Our results showed that the mtDNA sequences of the seven specimens from AFA are classified exclusively into Eurasiatic haplogroups: H or U (three individuals), T2 (two individuals), JT (one individual), and J (one individual).Our findings are in agreement with our previous study performed on TAF population which reported a genetic structure composed mainly of Eurasiatic haplogroups (Kefi et al. 2005). Indeed, 19 among 21 individuals of TAF, are classified as Eurasiatic haplogroups (H, U, JT, V). The two remaining individuals belong to the North African haplogroup U6. The absence of haplotype belonging to Sub-Saharan haplogroups (L0–L7) would suggest that our sample of Iberomaurusians is not originating from Sub-Saharan region.
quote:A Levantine core seems to be in perpetual contact with the Nile basin, where new anthropological and technical trends are formed. They will eventually migrate westward and give rise to the Iberomaurusian and then the regional Capsian. These ethnic entities appear to be the sources of the sub-actual Amazigh populations29 , which will soon switch to breeding and agriculture along the southern Mediterranean axis.
Marcel Otte, Destinée atérienne, p. 73 (https://insap.ac.ma/?p=30386)
quote: Ancient DNA has recently been obtained from the Later Stone Age site of Taforalt in Morocco, dated ~15,000 years ago43. Interestingly, both haplogroups U6 and M1 have been observed in Taforalt. The presence in IAM of two prominent North African autochthonous lineages such as U6 and M1 supports maternal continuity in the area since Later Stone Age times and implies a Eurasian origin for Taforalt and IAM people.
quote: Finally, we analyzed two SNP variants that have been studied in relation to susceptibility for mycobacterial infections (80). A derived allele of rs4833103 in the TLR1-6-10 gene, which encodes an active functional component in the innate immune response, is associated with a possibly increased resistance to leprosy, tuberculosis and other mycobacteria (104, 105). All Taforalt individuals show the derived homozygote CC genotype. In present-day populations the derived allele state has a high frequency in Eurasians but a low frequency, or absence, in sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:This suggests that most of IAM ancestry originates from an out-of-Africa source, as IAM shares more alleles with Levantines than with any sub-Saharan Africans, including the 4,500-y-old genome from Ethiopia (14). To further test the hypothesis that IAM is more closely related to out-of-Africa populations, we determined whether we could detect Neanderthal ancestry in IAM, which is typical of non-African populations. A signal of Neanderthal ancestry has been detected in modern North African populations (26). A lack of Neanderthal ancestry in IAM would imply that the signal observed today is a product of more recent migration into North Africa from the Middle East and Europe in historical times. Compared with the Neanderthal high coverage genome sequence from Altai (27) and the low-coverage sequence from Vindija Cave (28), and using the S statistic (24), we detected a Neanderthal introgression signal into IAM, suggesting derivation from the same event shared by non-African populations (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 10).
quote:"When projected on a PCA space built using modern samples from Europe, the Middle East and North and Sub-Saharan Africa, all IAM, KEB and TOR samples cluster close to North African, Middle Eastern and European populations, respectively (Figure S6.3).
quote: To demonstrate that IAM has a Levantine origin, rather than a local origin in Africa, we tested f4(IAM, Chimp; Levantine population, African population), with the Levantine population being BedouinB, Levant_N or Natufian, and the African population being Jo’hoan North, Mbuti, Mota or Yoruba. All comparisons are positive, with high significant Z scores, indicating IAM is more related to Levantine than to African populations (Table S10.1)."
quote:The body shape of the terminal Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba population is tropical-adapted, with elongated limbs, especially in the distal segments, and is most similar to living sub-Saharan Africans and less similar to late Pleistocene and Holocene North Africans (including Egyptians and Nubians). The sample’s body shape likely reflects elevated gene flow up the Nile Valley from areas further south, but may also be due in part to the tropical hot conditions present at the site, even during glacial periods. The Jebel Sahaba sample are distinct in body shape from penecontemporary humans from Afalou-BouRhummel (Algeria) and El Wad Natufians from the southern Levant—a result consistent with the results of both Irish (2000, 2005) using dental data and Franciscus (1995, 2003) using nasal data."
quote:The Late Pleistocene material from Afalou and Taforalt in North Africa, on the other hand, had no similarity with sub-Saharan Africa. Instead, the groups from which it cannot be distinguished range from the Neolithic of Algeria and Egypt, modern Nubia, and especially modern Europe. The pattern of affiliations of the Algerian Neolithic is remarkably similar to that of the Algerian Late Pleistocene at Afalou and Taforalt and suggests long-term in situ population continuity.
Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I said that Europeans have historically tried to make ancient North Africans into Eurasians which is a fact based on the numerous historical works that anybody can find online and elsewhere stating this outright. And yes, that includes many of the French scholars that created the modern field of Berber studies. You can see that yourself in Encyclopedia Bebere.
North Africans are eurasians that's factual whether genetically, culturally, historically, anthropologically, etc And you have read ZERO stuff from these french scholars so keep your ad hominem for yourself you simply can't contradict what I post.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The paper YOU posted above says the Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E1b1b. That is not "Eurasian". You are still promoting your silly gibberish.
No the paper says Natufians most likely have Iberomaurusian ancestry (in small quantity) and hence why we find clades of E among them.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Taforalt is distantly related to modern North Africans. They didn't look the same so the comparison is stupid. Ancient North Africans in Taforalt did not look like Nordics. There were no populations in Africa 25,000 years ago looking like that which is what you are seemingly implying
The taforalt component peaks in Modern North Africans and Taforalt are genetically closer to modern north africans than afro-americans like yourself. They didn't look the same as modern north africans and any sub-saharan population but still were physically closer to eurasians than blacks like you.
The closest population to them when it comes to craniometry are the magdalenian remains of Oberkassel in Germany :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It means that thy don't classify Taforalt as Eurasian, where as they do classify modern North Africans as Eurasians. YOUR argument is that Taforalt was a Eurasian population, not just that they had Eurasian mixture. You now have to backtrack and claim that there was "some" Eurasian ancestry, which is not the same thing at all. So now you are left trying to nit pick your way around the overwhelming African ancestry in Taforalt to argue that they were still Eurasians. And most of this so-called Eurasian ancestry is based on speculation of the origin of lineages such as U6 which could be African in origin. So again, the point is the same, these populations were Africans of primarily African origin and not the same as modern North Africans who have had substantial Eurasian mixture since then.
wtf?? yes they will still be eurasians the same way modern north africans are eurasians despite having between 20-25% of SSA ancestry in average. Also stop obsessing over U6 ...there is a whole set of eurasian mtDNAs among IBMs which you constantly avoid.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now you are outright lying if you are going to sit here and claim you are not sayig that "Berbers" go back to Taforalt and that most of their "Eurasian" ancestry comes from Taforalt. Which means that your argument has always been that this Eurasian component is the basis of Berber identity and that this is why ancient North Africans shouldn't be called black. That is literally what you have been doing on this forum since you got here. Now you are claiming that is NOT what you meant? Please. You have been going back and forth with me about the fact that Taforalt was not "Eurasian" because of that and now you had to admit otherwise you want to claim that wasn't your argument?
I'm lying ? Alright feel free to post any of my answer where I say that Iberomaurusians were berbers or that berbers are 100% iberomaurusian. I said the Taforalt component peaks among berbers that's it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, your whole argument boils down to U6 is Eurasian and other lineages in Taforalt are Eurasian so they must have been light skinned and closer to Eurasians in phenotype than black Africans. That is false but that is what you keep claiming.
Light skinned ? Meanwhile in another thread I literally posted this :
quote:IAM people did not possess any of the European SNPs associated with light pigmentation, and most likely had dark skin and eyes. IAM samples contain ancestral alleles for pigmentation-associated variants present in SLC24A5 (rs1426654), SLC45A2 (rs16891982), and OCA2 (rs1800401 and 12913832) genes. On the other hand, KEB individuals exhibit some European-derived alleles that predispose individuals to lighter skin and eye color, including those on genes SLC24A5 (rs1426654) and OCA2 (rs1800401) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 11).
and again that doesn't mean they looked like you or were closer to you and yes they were closer to eurasians than black Africans that's literally proven by every forensic studies made on them :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: How can you say they never saw blacks as Africans? What evidence do you have for that from Roman times? Sounds like to me you are making stuff up. And even more importantly the point is you don't see a distinction in appearance between North Africans and Romans.... According to you they were both white Mediterraneans. Which is funny, but is the basis for your argument that ancient Taforalt as Eurasian and the origin of this phenotype in North Africa. And according to you there wasn't much mixture between Romans and these "Africans" even though most of the images from this period look Roman. Which gets to the point that you don't see ancient North Africans as African at all. Which is the problem and this whole game of trying to associate Taforalt with Eurasia is part of separating ancient North Africa from Africa and claiming it as Eurasian.
Thanks again for showing your ignorance.
quote:The ethnic marker Afer (‘African’), for example, which appears on tombstones, refers strictly to people from the region around Carthage, in modern Tunisia. The Roman term for someone of sub-Saharan origin was Aethiops – ‘Ethiopian’.
The term "Africa" has never been attributed to the whole continent by romans. And I already said many times that north africans are clearly darker than italians whether today or in ancient times. Also there is easily 5k years between IAM/IBM and romans in North africa so again stop trying to darkwash taforalt in order to claim the whole region's history as if in 5k years no movement of populations occured. Moreover I already posted datas (which you again avoided) about how romans barely mix with north africans and formed a tiny minority in North Africa so these are not my opinions.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: My point here is you keep focusing on these coastal areas like Taforalt as the basis and origin of everything in North Africa, ignoring the fact that most of the artifacts associated with the Neolithic transition in North Africa originate in the Sahara and places like Tassili Najer, the Fezzan, the Central Sahara and so forth. Then you claim that "Taforalt" is representative of all these populations as "North Africans" as ancient Eurasians. To the point you will deny the obvious influence and impact of mixture during later times along the coast after Taforalt. You haven't denied it and you keep showing that this is absolutely what you believe.
Nope neolithic tradition in Coastal NW Africa is of european origin and capsians most likely were near eastern folks which is confirmed by the origin of goats in NA and lactase persistence allele :
quote:The data presented here are consistent with a scenario in which proto-Berber-speaking ovicaprid pastoralists introduced the -13910T allele, and thereby lactose tolerance, into North Africa. This scenario implies a genetic input from migrating pastoralists from the Middle East and suggests that contemporary Berber populations share a Middle Eastern dairying origin with other Eurasian populations."
quote: The only exception to this exogenous domestication could be the cattle that appear in the Egyptian desert ten millennia ago. It is obviously difficult to determine the language spoken by the pastoralists of these herds of oxen, which were soon present throughout the eastern and central Sahara (Garcea 2004), where they may also have been the origin of a much later cereal cultivation of millet and sorghum. According to C. Ehret (1999 and 2011), they could be either speakers of a language of the Nilo-Saharan family or Chamito-Semitic populations. But in the latter case they would have only a rather distant relationship with the first Berber speakers whose first cattle would be, like their goats, sheep and pigs, originating in the Near East."
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No the Roman word "Africa" is Roman not Berber.
It derives from the ethnonym "Afri" which concern a specific libyan tribe who lived near Carthage and ultimately this word derives from the berber word "Ifri" which has the meaning of "cave"
So all the rest of this is trying to contradict the fact that the main most recent Taforalt DNA study says point blank these populations were primarily of African origin. This stuff is basically "suggesting" links to the Near East but explicitly excluding the Sahara from any of their comparisons. Again, you are trying your best to piece together whatever you can to support your argument that the ancient North Africans were Eurasians and most of that depends on U6 and M1 being of Eurasian origin going back upwards of 25,000 - 30,000 years ago. Then you try and claim that populations 25 - 30 KYA in coastal North Africa look exactly the same as modern North Africans as equally Eurasian, when all of these papers are saying something totally different. Then on top of that, all these papers are ignoring all the evidence of populations away from the coasts of North Africa which again shows you cannot use coastal populations as representative of ALL of North Africa or the Sahara. At best the only thing you are talking about is areas along the extreme coasts and even then these ancient coastal populations have strong African ancestry.
Again, you have still proven that your whole point is that ancient North Africans were not Africans and not black because they were of Eurasian origin going back 25,000 years. And more importantly according to you these populations are not due to recent mixture even though these papers are not saying that because they all admit that most modern North Africans have substantial mixture since Taforalt and the Neolithic including the paper on Dzudzuana. So what you are saying is STILL false.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
Alright thank you for showing you don't have any consistent argument to back up your statements. The guy persists with his strawman...Like I said before I've done my work now I'll avoid reacting to your post I'm just turning in circle with you.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
OK. For folks who like to pretend to know how to read as I have said numerous times these papers are not saying what some folks keep implying. Specifically they are NOT saying that Taforalt individuals or Iberomaurisans and other NorthWest coastal Africans over 20,000 years ago represent Eursian migrant populations in North Africa who are the same as modern light skinned or white North Africans......
quote: The acquisition of agricultural techniques during the so-called Neolithic revolution has been one of the major steps forward in human history. Using next-generation sequencing and ancient-DNA techniques, we directly test whether Neolithization in North Africa occurred through the transmission of ideas or by demic diffusion. We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans are composed of an endemic Maghrebi element still retained in present-day North African populations, resembling the genetic component observed in Later Stone Age communities from Morocco. However, Late Neolithic individuals from North Africa are admixed, with a North African and a European component. Our results support the idea that the Neolithization of North Africa involved both the development of Epipaleolithic communities and the migration of people from Europe.
Abstract
The extent to which prehistoric migrations of farmers influenced the genetic pool of western North Africans remains unclear. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Neolithization process may have happened through the adoption of innovations by local Epipaleolithic communities or by demic diffusion from the Eastern Mediterranean shores or Iberia. Here, we present an analysis of individuals’ genome sequences from Early and Late Neolithic sites in Morocco and from Early Neolithic individuals from southern Iberia. We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans (∼5,000 BCE) are similar to Later Stone Age individuals from the same region and possess an endemic element retained in present-day Maghrebi populations, confirming a long-term genetic continuity in the region. This scenario is consistent with Early Neolithic traditions in North Africa deriving from Epipaleolithic communities that adopted certain agricultural techniques from neighboring populations. Among Eurasian ancient populations, Early Neolithic Moroccans are distantly related to Levantine Natufian hunter-gatherers (∼9,000 BCE) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers (∼6,500 BCE). Late Neolithic (∼3,000 BCE) Moroccans, in contrast, share an Iberian component, supporting theories of trans-Gibraltar gene flow and indicating that Neolithization of North Africa involved both the movement of ideas and people. Lastly, the southern Iberian Early Neolithic samples share the same genetic composition as the Cardial Mediterranean Neolithic culture that reached Iberia ∼5,500 BCE. The cultural and genetic similarities between Iberian and North African Neolithic traditions further reinforce the model of an Iberian migration into the Maghreb.
.....
Genetic data from present-day populations (11–13) suggests that North African ancestry has contributions from four main sources: (i) an autochthonous Maghrebi component related to a back migration to Africa ∼12,000 y ago from Eurasia; (ii) a Middle Eastern component probably associated with the Arab conquest; (iii) a sub-Saharan component derived from trans-Saharan migrations; and (iv) a European component that has been linked to recent historic movements. Paleogenomic studies have begun to provide insights into North African prehistory (14–16), including the analysis of Later Stone Age samples from Morocco (17); however, no research to date has tested whether the Neolithic transition in the Maghreb was driven by local populations who adopted cultural and technological innovations or by the migration of people. Here, we perform genome-wide analysis of remains from the Early Neolithic site of Ifri n’Amr or Moussa (IAM) (∼5,000 BCE; n = 7) and the Late Neolithic site of Kelif el Boroud (KEB) (∼3,000 BCE; n = 8) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 1). To test possible migrations through the Strait of Gibraltar, we also analyzed human remains from the southern Iberian Early Neolithic site of El Toro (TOR) (∼5,000 BCE; n = 12) (Fig. 1). This Iberian Early Neolithic culture resembles certain early Maghrebi traditions (e.g., similar pottery decoration and similar bone and lithic tool productions), suggesting a North African influence (18) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 1). Including these southern Iberian samples in our analysis enabled a direct test of this hypothesis.
.....
Conclusion
Genetic analyses have revealed that the population history of modern North Africans is quite complex (11). Based on our aDNA analysis, we identify an Early Neolithic Moroccan component that is (i) restricted to North Africa in present-day populations (11); (ii) the sole ancestry in IAM samples; and (iii) similar to the one observed in Later Stone Age samples from Morocco (17). We conclude that this component, distantly related to that of Epipaleolithic communities from the Levant, represents the autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry associated with Berber populations. Our data suggests that human populations were isolated in the Maghreb since Upper Paleolithic times. Our hypothesis is in agreement with archaeological research pointing to the first stage of the Neolithic expansion in Morocco as the result of a local population that adopted some technological innovations, such as pottery production or farming, from neighboring areas.
By 3,000 BCE, a continuity in the Neolithic spread brought Mediterranean-like ancestry to the Maghreb, most likely from Iberia. Other archaeological remains, such as African elephant ivory and ostrich eggs found in Iberian sites, confirm the existence of contacts and exchange networks through both sides of the Gibraltar strait at this time. Our analyses strongly support that at least some of the European ancestry observed today in North Africa is related to prehistoric migrations, and local Berber populations were already admixed with Europeans before the Roman conquest. Furthermore, additional European/Iberian ancestry could have reached the Maghreb after KEB people; this scenario is supported by the presence of Iberian-like Bell-Beaker pottery in more recent stratigraphic layers of IAM and KEB caves. Future paleogenomic efforts in North Africa will further disentangle the complex history of migrations that forged the ancestry of the admixed populations we observe today.
The point here is they are using double talk and weasel words to suggest something that is not being said directly, namely that the magrebi component that is related to Natufians is due to 'Eurasian' ancestry from the Levant, when it isn't saying that. And most importantly, they are totally excluding any and all DNA and sites of the neolithic transition and tool industries of the Sahara and Sahel which are older (for Neolithic transition) than coastal North African neolithic sites of 5,000 BC. But they use weasel words to say the neolithic transition and adoption of pottery could have come from "neighboring" populations. Which obviously would have to be Saharans which again they explicitly omit from this DNA history and neolithic history of "North Africa". By doing this they imply that the isolation of Maghrebis makes them separate from other North Africans, without actually doing the DNA analysis on ancient Saharan wet phase remains. So all of their conclusions are based on having a sample set limited to the extreme coasts of North Africa. Not to mention the idea that the test for "pure" African ancestry starts South of the Sahara is obviously false and simply being used to further distance coastal North African DNA from other parts of North Africa, even if many of those Saharan Wet Phase populations carry similar DNA or other novel DNA strains not previously found in Africa.
quote: Until now, the origin of African haplogroup L3, from which N originated, has been dated around 60–70 ka and its expansion in Eastern Africa linked with the exit of AMH from the continent. The M and N haplogroups, which lie at the base of Eurasian mtDNA diversity, are today globally distributed outside Africa and are dated to around 50–65 ka, very close to the ancestral L3 clade. Their divergence from it is commonly considered to have occurred outside Africa or during the expansion. The Arabian Peninsula represents a possible area where this occurred and a cradle from which the new branches spread toward Eurasia and back to Africa, including N1a and R0a, both of which are found in East Africa.
The uneven geographical distribution of existing data could bias the representation of real past genetic variability: sampling gaps characterize the African continent, and several studies focus only on particular haplogroups. Moreover, the past genetic scenario is still poorly known for this large and crucial area, and the ancient mitochondrial sequences available refers only to few sites distributed in Ethiopia, Egypt, Morocco, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and South Africa and do not extend back in time more than ~15000 years.
Our research reveals that the Neolithic Saharan individuals from Takarkori present a haplotype not previously identified in Africa, that belongs to a basal branch of haplogroup N. This discovery needs to be addressed cautiously, given its potential geographical, chronological and archaeological implications (Fig. 4). As recently suggested23, the presence of an unexpected branch where other clades prevail in the population may provide an indication of ancestry, but more data are necessary. The Saharan region was interested by strong climatic oscillations. Repeated peaks of humidity and the presence of several intermittent pulses of lake activity occurred between 125 and 11 ka. Warmer and wetter environmental conditions characterized the Late Glacial Bølling/Allerød Interstadial allowing population growth and spread. The return of cooler, drier conditions during the Younger Dryas may have prompted human groups to exploit glacial refugia across this region. Interestingly the molecular date of the Takarkori sequence (12,325 BP) falls into the context of the Interstadial expansion. The analysed samples, dated to ~7000 BP, could represent a signal of a mitochondrial lineage that later disappeared because of genetic drift due to population contraction and isolation with the beginning of desertification. A possible scenario envisages an introgression from Eurasia in ancient times that carried haplotypes that have since disappeared from Africa. The timing of this migration remains difficult to define. Late Pleistocene dispersal from Western Asia into Africa around 39–52 ka is suggested by the expansion of the U6 haplogroup with a potentially corresponding archaeological signature in the MSA Dabban industry of Cyrenaica, Libya, ca. 45–40 ka. Individuals carrying a N haplogroup basal lineage could have followed the same dispersion pattern as U6: their legacy could have been survived up to ∼7000 years ago in the central Sahara thanks to the climatic conditions previously described, but replaced and disappeared in other parts of North Africa. Genomic data for seven 15,000-year-old individuals attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture in Taforalt (Morocco) suggest a connection with Epipaleolithic Natufians from Near East, while seem to exclude a possible gene flow from Upper Paleolithic Europe. Our samples postdate the Taforalt individuals by up to 8,000 years and belong to Neolithic pastoral cultures of the Middle Holocene. It is known that livestock was introduced from Southwest Asia and early pastoralist connections between Northeast Africa and Arabia are indicated by a few sites along the Red Sea with sheep/goat dated to ~8.1–7.5 ka. Thus, the spread of pastoralism from the Levant to Northeast Africa could probably represent the context for the introgression of the N haplogroup into the central Sahara, even if it is commonly associated with derivative lineages (N1)1,37. It is worth noting, however, that when geometric morphometric analysis of the skull of TK RS H1 is compared with a large published dataset it shows closer affinities with sub-Saharan contests38, such as Gobero in Niger whose occupation is dated from ~9.6–4.8 ka. Unfortunately, no genetic data are available for this region that could help understanding the possible origin of the haplotype found at Takarkori.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: as I have said numerous times these papers are not saying what some folks keep implying. Specifically they are NOT saying that Taforalt individuals or Iberomaurisans and other NorthWest coastal Africans over 20,000 years ago represent Eursian migrant populations in North Africa
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point here is they are using double talk and weasel words to suggest something that is not being said directly, namely that the magrebi component that is related to Natufians is due to 'Eurasian' ancestry from the Levant
Not exactly consistent remarks and it seems Doug can't accept the possibility that a population could be mixed Their Y DNA is considered African, E1b1b1 ________________________
On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations Rym Kefi et al., 2016
Our phylogenetic analysis showed that Iberomaurusian individuals from TAF and AFA (coastal archaeological sites in Northern Morocco and in Northern Algeria respectively) are genetically close to Berbers from the North of Morocco, Berbers from the Jerba Island in Tunisia and close to some South Western European populations: Valencia and the Balearic Islands from Spain and Sardinia from Italy (Figure 3).
Previous studies performed on current populations showed that the majority of the Eurasian haplogroups such as T, H, J are originated in Near East during the Palaeolithic. JT arose 58,000 years ago. J and T diverged 40,000 years and 30,000 years ago, respectively and started to spread from the Near East to Europe immediately after the peak of the last glaciations, 19,000 years ago (Richards et al. 2000a; Pala et al. 2012). H Sub-haplogroups (H1, H3, H5), V and U5b are the signatures of postglacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula into the European continent and North Africa (Ottoni et al. 2010). According to our results, the presence of Eurasian haplogroups (JT, J, T, H, R0a1, U) in AFA and in TAF individuals suggests that these lineages were present in North Africa at least 21,000 YBP confirming the estimated coalescence time for these haplogroups (Brandst€atter et al. 2008; Ennafaa et al 2009; Ottoni et al., 2010; Pala et al. 2012; Zheng et al. 2012) among the current North African populations studied to date, the genetic structure of the Berber population of Northern Morocco presents similarities with the population of TAF: These Berbers have the lowest rate of sub-Saharan haplogroups (3.2%) as TAF population.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: they imply that the isolation of Maghrebis makes them separate from other North Africans, without actually doing the DNA analysis on ancient Saharan wet phase remains.
Regardless of what DNA you prefer to call African and what you prefer to call Eurasian berbers in the Maghreb today resemble Iberomaurisans genetically
What Saharan wet phase remains? From what site? Regardless of such remains berbers in the Maghreb today resemble Iberomaurisans genetically
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Again, the whole point here for people who may or may not understand it, is to "racialize" the history of North Africa as being exclusively tied to white Eurasians going back 20,000 years.
There is absolutely no evidence that "North Africans" covering the entire region of North Africa over thousands of square miles were white Eurasians 25,000 years ago. The Sahara is the largest geographical part of North Africa, but in order for this racial agenda to work they have to exclude the Sahara from these discussions. So you see this in papers on ancient DNA and so forth discussing "North Africa". Historically Europeans tried to model the history of "North Africa" as primarily being based around migrations of Eurasians along the coasts of North Africa either from a European source such as Iberia, across the Mediterranean or from the Levant. As such this is why they named the ancient tool industry in what is now Morocco "Iberomaurisan", because they assumed it was the result of migratoins of Iberians into North Africa. The Taforalt paper completely contradicts this and shows clearly that this wasn't the case but that still doesn't stop these people.
In their minds "North Africa" was always culturally, racially and ethnically a monolithic population of primarily white Eurasian populations going back 25,000 years or more. And according to them they always segregated themselves from the black Africans. This theory is a racial theory modeled on the old Hamitic theory of days gone by. The only difference is that instead of using skeletons they are using DNA. And because of this theory, they will argue that Hannibal could not be black because Berbers or North Africans in general were never black.
The problem with this is that the data they use to support this is misleading at best and biased at worst. Using selective DNA lineages from over 25,000 years ago, does not prove that there were no black Africans in North Africa. And that is because without the DNA of contemporary North Africans from the same time period in the Sahara, you are only using a limited data set. Morocco is far from the Levant and if there wasn't gene flow from Europe into the Iberomaurisans, then the most logical place of origin for a large part of their DNA would be the Sahara. The fact that other lineages involved that have been identified in ancient Eurasian DNA, does not prove that these people were white Eurasians. It could be the fact that ancient populations of North Africa which are close to the Levant and Eurasia have always had these lineages as part of the history of OOA. And the only way to disentangle that history is by getting ancient DNA from across ancient sites in the Sahara and Nile Valley over 10,000 years old. But they don't really want to do that because they know that a lot of the lineages they will find among unambiguusly black ancient populations may not conform to their theories of ancient white Eurasians being the primarily settlers of North Africa over 20,000 years ago.
And obviously it goes without saying that Morocco 20,000 years ago was not the source of "berber" identity and actually contradict their argument. Because if these white Eurasians brought this language and culture with them, then there would be indisputable evidence of a Levantine/ Eurasian origin for these lineages but also the language and culture when there isn't. Which is why they have to pretend the Sahara doesn't exist as the likely place of origin not only for Berber language and culture which isn't over 8,000 years old, but also white Eurasians in "North Africa".
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, the whole point here for people who may or may not understand it, is to "racialize" the history of North Africa as being exclusively tied to white Eurasians going back 20,000 years.
so is it possible black Eurasians migrated to the Maghreb 20,000 years ago?
yes or no?
Doug, I'm sure you will avoid this question and go in circles endlessly with Antalas Because this question separates two points of view which you may have but are not clarifying because you keep attaching skin color to migration. One point of view which you may have is
A) that it doesn't matter if the people were black or white, there was no prehistoric back migration of people in Eurasia to the Maghreb.
OR
B) A prehistoric back migration of people in Eurasia to the Maghreb is possible if the people were black.
I dont think you will answer this because not answering it leaves you with more wiggle room, so proceed going in endless circles with Antalas. Antalas could be wrong but first you would have to clarify your own view to even properly argue this because you seem to hold one of these views A or B
Regardless, berbers in the Maghreb today resemble Iberomaurisans genetically
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[/QB
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
battle of zama tapestry 17th century
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
