...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Hetheru's Corner
»
Promoting my art again (for sale on Redbubble & INPRNT)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Baalberith: [QB] [QUOTE][b]You don't even understand what you're posting ....smh : first of all aterians are a middle and upper paleolithic people and they have never been berbers or part of the berber genome at their time there were "black" populations all over the world so taking them to prove that NAs were black is a weak argument I asked for "ancient berbers" (so when history began) not extremely old populations.[/b][/QUOTE]I don't understand what i'm posting?!! Are you absurd? The Aterians are the very foundation of early North African cultures and who the Amazigh would eventually be! The Amazigh practically descends from these people! Sure they died out, like most prehistoric cultures, but they are important enough to be mentioned! Also, how is it a weak argument to use the Aterians as representatives of Ancient North Africans! I mean what's weak about using the first people to settle North Africa?!! By the way, I love how you blatantly admit that most of the World’s population in some Prehistoric periods were dark skinned via “Black” and resembled “tropical Africans”! That such relieving news! I thought I was going to have to waste time explaining this simple concept to you. I guess we can put to rest the “Eurasian Backflow” creating a “racial” demographic shift in North Africa since the people of the Levant, Anatolia, Mesopatamia, and Arabia would be what we consider “Black” back then, huh? "[b]They were clearly a Negroid people[/b], said Sir Arthur, with [b]wide faces flat-noses and long large heads[/b]." Source: 1932 NY Times “BONES OF CANNIBALS A PALESTINE RIDDLE” (Discovery of the Natufians) “..one can [b]identify Negroid traits of nose[/b] and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in [b]Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers[/b], probably from [b]Nubia via the unknown predecessors of the Badarians and Tasians[/b]...." Source: (Angel 1972. Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations.. JrnHumEvo 1:1, p307 "Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs [b]found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan[/b]." Source: Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and SouthWest Asia "From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of [b]evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations[/b]. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that [b]sub Saharan genetic lineages[/b] (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with [b]sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic[/b]…This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying [b]sub-Saharan biological elements[/b] is concordant with the [b]morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations[/b]...” Source: (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005) “In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and [b]indirectly with sub-Saharan populations[/b]; Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005), in concordance with a process of demie diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)." “[b]A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration[/b] (from Africa to the Levant and Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as [b]indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic[/b]" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). [b]This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations[/b] (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the [b]Benin sickle cell haplotype[/b].” Source: Ricaut et al 2008. Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Popion Hum Bio 80:5 535-64 “Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the [b]Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants[/b], although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the [b]Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa[/b]. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. [b]When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested[/b]. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of the academic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.” Source: A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa "Distance analysis and factor analysis, based on Q-mode correlation coefficients, were applied to 23 craniofacial measurements in 1,802 recent and prehistoric crania from major geographical areas of the Old World. The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians. 2) Recent Europeans align with East Asians, and [b]early West Asians resemble Africans[/b]. 3) The Asian population complex with regional difference between northern and southern members is manifest. 4) Clinal variations of craniofacial features can be detected in the Afro-European region on the one hand, and Australasian and East Asian region on the other hand. 5) The craniofacial variations of major geographical groups are not necessarily consistent with their geographical distribution pattern. This may be a sign that the [b]evolutionary divergence in craniofacial shape among recent populations of different geographical areas is of a highly limited degree[/b]. Taking all of these into account, a single origin for anatomically modern humans is the most parsimonious interpretation of the craniofacial variations presented in this study." Source: (Hanihara T. Comparison of craniofacial features of major human groups. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Mar;99(3):389-412.) “The early colonists of Babylonia were of the [b]same race as the inhabitants of the Upper Nile[/b].” Source: “PreHistoric Nations” (1869) "First there is the [b]Eurafrican[/b]...In ancient times, [b]this type is found in Mesopotamia and Egypt[/b] and may be compared with the Ombe Capelle skull. It is possibly [b]identical with men who lived in the high desert west of the Nile[/b] in paleolithic times.." (-Penniman, T.K. "A Note on the Inhabitants of Kish.." Source: Excavations at Kish, 1923-33 Vol 4. pp 65-72) "Another impression that arose on the first examination was that the Eridu skulls showed a marked [b]prognathism[/b] .. Keith's interesting conclusions-that the skulls of the ancient Sumerians were relatively narrow, that they were [b]dolichocephalic, a large-headed, large-brained people[/b], approaching or exceeding in these respects the longer-headed races of Europe, and that the men's noses were long and wide-is applicable to some of the 'Ubaid dead of the latter half of the third and the beginning of the second millennium B.C." Source: Cambridge Ancient Hist, Vol 1, Part I, 1970, p. 348; 358 "The body was that of a forty-year old woman with a height of about 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic 'Mechtoid' of the Fakhurian culture (see pp. 65-6), being generally [b]more gracile[/b], having [b]large teeth and thick jaws[/b] bearing some resemblance to [b]the modern 'negroid' type[/b]." Source: (Beatrix Midant-Reynes, Ian Shaw (2000). The Prehistory of Egypt. Wiley-Blackwell. pg. 82) “based on the statuaries and steles of Babylonia, [b]the Sumerians were “of dark complexion (chocolate colour), short stature, but of sturdy frame, oval face, stout nose, straight hair, full head; they typically resembled the Dravidians, not only in cranium, but almost in all the details[/b].” Source: “A Study in Hindu Social Polity” The second study concerns physical examination of Sumerian skulls. Buxton and Rice have found that of [b]26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics[/b]. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, [b]the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric[/b] and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Here is Penniman's description of the Austric type found at Sumer: "These people are of [b]medium stature, with complexion and hair like those of the Eurafrican[/b], to which race [b]they are allied with dark eyes, and oval faces, broad noses, rather feeble jaws, and slight sinewy bodies[/b]." Source: “Tracing the Origin of Ancient Sumerians” “Mr. Baldwin draws a marked distinction between the modern Mahomedan Semitic population of Arabia and their great [b]Cushite, Hamite or Ethiopian predecessors[/b]. The former, he says, “are comparatively modern in Arabia,” they have “appropriated the reputation of [b]the old race[/b],” and have unduly occupied the chief attention of modern scholars.” Source: Traditions Superstitions and Folklore, Charles Hardwick , Manchester A. Ireland and Company “The south Arabs [b]represent a residue of hamitic[/b] populations which at one time [b]occupied the whole of Arabia[/b].” Source: Pre-historic nations or inquiries Concerning Some of the Great peoples and Civilizations of Antiquity “Among these [b]Negroid features[/b] which may be counted normal in Arabs are the [b]full[/b], rather [b]everted lips, shortness[/b] and [b]width of nose[/b], certain blanks in the bearded areas of the face between the [b]lower lip and chin and on the cheeks; large, luscious, gazelle-like eyes, a dark brown complexion[/b], and a tendency for the hair to grow in ringlets. Often the features of the more Negroid Arabs are derivatives of Dravidian India rather than inheritances of Hamitic Africa. Although the Arab of today is sharply differentiated from the Negro of Africa, yet there must have been [b]a time when both were represented by a single ancestral stock[/b]; in no other way can the prevalence of certain [b]Negroid features be accounted for in the natives of Arabia[/b].” Source: Memoirs Arabs of Central Iraq; Their History, Ethnology and Physical C haracters, Anthropology Memoirs Volume 4 “There is a considerable mass of evidence to show that there was a very [b]close resemblance between the proto-Egyptians and the Arabs[/b] before either became intermingled with [b]Armenoid racial elements[/b].” Source: The Ancient Egyptians and the Origins of Civilization, p.61 2007 “In Arabia the first inhabitants were probably [b]a dark-skinned[/b], shortish population intermediate, between the [b]African Hamites[/b] and the [b]Dravidians of India[/b] and forming [b]a single African Asiatic belt with these[/b].” Source: the Handbook of the Territories which form the Theatre of Operations of the Iraq Petroleum Company Limited and its Associated Companies, First Edition, Compiled in the Companies Head office at 214 Oxford Street Some of these quotes, although outdated, are still useful and credible, especially when there are updated materials that follows by. But, that's neither here nor there. [QUOTE][b]E1b1b1b-M81 haplogroup is a berber haplogroup specific of north africa and most of modern north africans have this haplogroup ....so what's your point ? thanks for contradicting yourself.[/b][/QUOTE]My point is that this so-called “Berber” haplogroup has its origins in Eastern Africa and is associated with other “Africans”, you dunce! “Haplogroup E1b1b (formerly known as E3b) represents [b]the last major direct exodus from Africa into Europe[/b] believed to have [b]appeared first in the Horn of Africa[/b] about 26,000 years ago and [b]scattered to North Africa and the Near East[/b] during the late Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods. [b]E1b1b lineages are closely linked to the diffusion of Afro-asiatic languages[/b].” “The highest genetic diversity of haplogroup E1b1b is noted [b]in Northeast Africa region in Ethiopia and Somalia[/b], which also have the [b]monopoly of older and rarer sub-clades like M281, V6 or V92[/b].” Source: https://haplomaps.com/y-haplogroup-e/ I made no contradiction, I meant what I meant, but apparently you can’t handle the information laid before you, so you have to resort to attacks. [QUOTE][b]Again you show here your ignorance because genetically iberomaurusians are not considered as a black population[/b][/QUOTE]Wrong! The Iberomaurusians originated from “North Africa” and indirectly “Inner Eastern Africa!'' They were not Backflows or significantly more “Eurasian” than “African”! “[b]The Iberomaurusian arose independently in North Africa with no presently known cultural antecedents[/b]. Its epicenter may have been in Algeria, from where it spread westwards into Morocco and east into Libya and Cyrenaica. The earliest dates for Tamar Hat and slightly 40 younger ages from Grotte des Pigeons, Taforalt and Kehf el Hammar (36), and much younger dates from Libya and Cyrenaica are consistent with this scenario. They imply a cultural break around 25,000 cal. yBP.” “[b]It is surprising that we observe a high proportion (36.5%) of sub-Saharan African ancestry in 596 Taforalt. First, present-day North Africans do not have as high sub-Saharan African ancestry as 597 the Taforalt individuals[/b] (Fig. 2B+S12). This may be [b]attributed to more recent events, such as the 598 historical Arab expansion[/b]. Also, the periodic expansion of the [b]Saharan desert played a major role 599 in limiting gene flow between North and sub-Saharan Africa throughout time[/b]. For example, a 600 previous study of ancient Egyptian genomes shows that the genetic affinity with the Near East 601 was even stronger in the first millennium BCE in Egypt (5). Importantly, [b]our Taforalt individuals 602 predate the most recent greening of the Sahara by several millennia[/b] (84). Thus, we may speculate [b]603 that the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt derived from the gene pool of pre-LGM North 604 Africans, who belong to the Middle Stone Age[/b] (MSA) cultures (10).” Source: Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop, Krause 2018 Pay no mind to the assumption the article is making about the Ancient Egyptians, this is just a little bit of cherry picking. It’s pretty clear that the analysis done in 2017 in Abusir-El Meleq, “Northern” Middle Egypt was heavily flawed, especially since they only three mummified remains out of a total of one hundred fifty mummies. All three mummies, by the way, were dated in the late 1st Millennium BCE. Let's evaluate this. [b]Study implied that ancient Egyptians came from the Asia, and that "sub-Saharan" Africans are recent due to the Islamic slave trades[/b]: “Schuenemann et al.1 seemingly suggest, based largely on the results of an ancient Study implied that ancient Egyptians came from the Asia, and that "sub-Saharan" Africans are recent due to the Islamic slave trade: “Schuenemann et al.1 seemingly suggest, based largely on the results of an ancient DNA study of later period remains from northern Egypt, that the”ancient Egyptians” as an entity came from Asia and that modern Egyptians “received additional sub-Saharan African admixtures in recent times” after the latest period of the pharaonic era due to the “trans-Saharan slave trade and Islamic expansion..” There are alternative interpretations of the results but which were not presented as is traditionally done, with the exception of the admission that results from southern Egyptians may have been different. The alternative interpretations involve three major considerations: 1) sampling and methodology, 2) historiography and 3) definitions as they relate to populations, origins and evolution.” Tiny sample sizes: “[b]The whole genome sample size is too small (n=3) to accurately permit a discussion of all Egyptian population history from north to south[/b].” Other DNA data show substantial African affinity: “Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; [b]Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7[/b]. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a [b]41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating[/b].” [b]Arbitrary definition of some DNA haplogroups as ‘Asian’ problematic[/b]: “Conceptually what genetic markers are considered to be “African” or “Asian” .. For example, the [b]E1b1b1 (M35/78) lineage found in one Abusir el-Meleq sample is found not only in northern Africa, but is also well represented in eastern Africa[/b] and perhaps was taken to Europe across the Mediterranean before the Holocene (Trombetta, personal communication). E lineages are found in high frequency (>70%) among living Egyptians in Adaima9. The authors define all mitochondrial M1 haplogroups as “Asian” which is problematic. [b]M1 has been postulated to have emerged in Africa10, and there is no convincing evidence supporting an M1 ancestor in Asia: many M1 daughter haplogroups (M1a) are clearly African in origin and history10[/b]. The M1a1, M1a2a, M1a1i, M1a1e variants found in the Abusir el-Meleq samples1 [b]predate Islam and are abundant in SSA groups10, particularly in East Africa[/b].” [b]So called “sub-Saharan” patterns in place from the beginning in Egypt and are not merely the product of the ‘slave trade[/b].’ “Furthermore, SSA groups indicated to have [b]contributed to modern Egypt do not match the Muslim trade routes that have been well documented11[/b] as SSA groups from the great lakes and southern African regions were largely absent in the internal trading routes that went north to Egypt. [b]It is important to note that “SSA” influence may not be due to a slave trade, an overdone explanation; the green Sahara is to be considered as Egypt is actually in the eastern Sahara[/b]. SSA affinities of modern Egyptians from Abusir El-Meleq might be [b]attributed to ancient early settlers as there is a notable frequency of the “Bushmen canine”- deemed a SSA trait in Predynastic samples dating to 4,000 BC9 from Adaima, Upper Egypt[/b]. Haplogroup L0f, usually associated with southern Africans, is present in living Egyptians in Adaima9 and could represent the product of an ancient “[b]ghost population” from the Green Sahara that contributed widely[/b]. Distributions and admixtures in the African past may not match current “SSA” groups12.” [b]Definition of ‘African’ stereotypical, even as strangely, authors exclude many actual African samples near Egypt from the data[/b] “Schuenemann et al.1 seem to implicitly suggest that only SSA equals Africa and that there are no interconnections between the various regions of Africa not rooted in the slave trade, a favorite trope. It has to be noted too that in the Islamic armies that entered Egypt that there were a notable number of eastern Africans. It is not clear why there is an emphasis on ‘sub-Saharan’ when no Saharan or supra-Saharan population samples--empirical or modelled are considered; [b]furthermore, there is no one way to be “sub-Saharan.” In this study northern tropical Africans, such as lower and upper Nubians and adjacent southern Egyptians and Saharans were not included as comparison groups, as noted by the authors themselves[/b].” A peer review critique of the Abusir study. Source: https://osf.io/ecwf3/ And here's the kicker, the Geneticists acknowledge this…. "In their paper, the researchers acknowledged that “[b]all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt[/b].” Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/05/30/dna-from-ancient-egyptian-mummies-reveals-their-ancestry/?outputType=amp [QUOTE][b]and guess what ? a recent study has just proved that there is a genetic continuity since the iberomaurusian era[/b][/QUOTE]And guess what?! Your own quote says that this prehistoric genetic continuity is small in modern North Africans! “They have identified a [b]small genetic imprint[/b] of the inhabitants of the region in Palaeolithic times” Also, showing me a bar graph estimating some random guy’s DNA results isn't really telling me anything, especially since many geneticists don't take in consideration the “mixture” of what makes North Africans “North African” and they hypocritically lump geopolitical regions like the Middle East or parts of the Middle East with North Africa, while excluding regions in Africa with a significant genetic impact! Overall there's no breakdown of what makes up these ancestral populations, thus making your point moot! [QUOTE][b]none of them look black or biracial.[/b][/QUOTE][i]Riiiight....[/i] [IMG]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/jJXtYmhWr9Wo1TpYxXbARYD3n6M3ocR54CRM0G90DOCOrm-R-L5G2W8UHHAf6VRrX3sj_rKN2gP4Z-_XWIY3uaOeRgYC3NXlqzzbOZe3_bcO6Zx_PHDZzoqWfpHALCrMyKujDbo9=s320[/IMG] Portrait of an amazigh woman (Imilchil, Morocco), Kate Peters [IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/QlLigmjGk_Wh9XtUvQoRE_MR_qr_ufjoOdvpTE3LZkrwWXDeeFImh_6sVyxtlNwXMil2FKygEClLa8l65uyyjj1Ou5NoK8R6ADwIt2PC1ynFJ02qexOd0ejDAXKKeau9fg7jQG3L=s320[/IMG] Two imazighen girls during the filming of Zaïna: Rider of the Atlas (Morocco, 2005), P. Demange [IMG]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/CeTT88dyVP-9U2Y-mQQ42Bks9rlI8vA6XZs5Rd4AydMdq3EYXW71ECNHsDQnIQJjfIP5mktTFgpVi_AphbpJ__Wq60NsnXTAW1WGmDrbRHsighNoS2sN0Fg44vMfrVJ8gMrs9k4G=s320[/IMG] Imazighen men (2010, Imilchil, Morocco), Abdelhak Senna [IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/CbKfNVkgyMijvoBM4ZrW1YrUP0g_qgq2jAhmDHBjtdPHe_SEeaW8jd5bE0lTUwyCwXZsrHpcm11mDtqxJNrz4ZZwqmA1OMYMA5-Kenw17m1Mtbmhru4zTIu8k6o3SSkP92V1NcWm=s320[/IMG] Imazighen isawiyen/chaoui men from Khenguet Sidi Nadji, Biskra, Algeria, F. Castel [IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_WiACUPVhZYfer2rDCcrOOICMjShnL7ttlRQlctXKqcgpQf-8ArNXphrb9BFo9t4EWdfl2RMlIOkHr8siIBgKDcMtr_5NllJTtDTdV34JGW_ZJrKyix0zLB8vdT-78DO92QMyRWf=s320[/IMG] Amazigh man from M'Sila Algeria, Fayez Nureldine [IMG]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/c4GUVquoHuXgY4gglHAJVvx9ko10K5Jw0ZyFA_tEKhS6xZNdzGQuh8Y8YNWw-5JUUTCR2mamV0HDMa2UFsq_zIgUjcekz8UDszM2Frdfzolc7GxhpNsVrq-iCr9xLfjXv4OFCg-U=s320[/IMG] Portrait of an amazigh woman from the High Atlas, Morocco, Alan Keohane [IMG]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/Eeu0pF6H5aGDyvWyktyU3k5vOMIHUPk9We5IL6C8tSgGUwi02bCEgdQCFwi8h0IdnBeQVm-BQrzT5R_SIiVDlwJoPK-QFXN2QsdEzVE3maYnnuRE487alsKRo4m6iajTVo5K0zJl=s320[/IMG] Amazing portrait of an amazigh elder woman from Ourika Valley, Morocco, @boublouhs [IMG]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/53P8QbDNy4So3FmZD7kA6adShtmTRfwnOyn85O7RLIT5SvtpL-qGHLUgUjG5KqVqgzRRd7YkgWpAkQLkF74qvFMbJ5VMOR-88lldLIvULT7os4B2tPatGVB4NYTG3HFvSvMbMCfb=s320[/IMG] Amazing photo of a group of imazighen men from Ouazzane, Morocco, @ojrober [QUOTE][b]Now about these carthaginians ...lmao wtf is that your source is an old book from 1924 https://www.amazon.fr/races-lhistoire-PITTARD-Eugene/dp/B003WVFYUU and dolichocephalic isn't a specific negroid trait it's found all over the world..[/b][/QUOTE]Awww, how cute! Your now moving the goalposts! You dismissed the evidence above as outdated, while you yourself continue to use materials and resources that are also considered outdated! That’s adorable! “It's wrong because I say so!” Right?! You must be screaming inside, because you have to lay your eyes on the testimony of the same people who gave you the “Mediterranean” race a century ago! Your Worldview is being dismantled into pieces as we speak, when you glimpse your eyes on that cursed word and eventually is forced to read out every instance of each quote, while concluding that the Ancient remains of these North African folk, from which you probably descend, are “Negroes” of “Negroid” affiliations! That's got to give you a headache doesn't it? You were so hyped over the fact that the Ancients could have looked like you, weren't you? Also, in older anthropological analysis on Human remains, Dolichocephalic crania was seen as being a "Negroid" characteristic, despite it being a common characteristic in most of the World population. But even then, Anthropologists would decidedly labeled Eastern Africans, some West Africans and Central Africans, South Asians, Malays, Pacific Islanders, and even indigenous Americans as “Mediterranean”. Oh the irony of it all! Personally, i’m not obsessed with phenotypes. Nay quite to the contrary, I understand the dynamic and complexity of racial terminologies, unlike you! You know, it's really funny that you decided to attack me over the age and credibility of one of my sources, while blatantly ignoring all of the other quotes detailing the remains of Ancient North Africans in recent times! “The extremely large skeletal samples that come from sites such as Taforalt (Fig. 8.13) and Afalou constitute an invaluable resource for understanding the makers of Iberomaurusian artifacts, and their number is unparalleled elsewhere in Africa for the early Holocene. Frequently termed Mechta-Afalou or Mechtoid, [b]these were a skeletally robust people and definitely African in origin[/b], though attempts, such as those of Ferembach (1985), to establish similarities with much older and rarer Aterian skeletal remains are tenuous given the immense temporal separation between the two (Close and Wendorf 1990). [b]At the opposite end of the chronological spectrum, dental morphology does suggest connections with later Africans, including those responsible for the Capsian Industry (Irish 2000) and early mid-Holocene human remains from the western half of the Sahara[/b] (Dutour 1989), something that points to the Maghreb as one of the regions from which people recolonised the desert (MacDonald 1998).” “[b]Another form of body modification was much more widespread and, indeed, a distinctive feature of the Iberomaurusian skeletal sample as a whole. This was the practice of removing two or more of the upper incisors, usually around puberty and from both males and females, something that probably served as both a rite of passage and an ethnic marker (Close and Wendorf 1990), just as it does in parts of sub-Saharan Africa today[/b] (e.g., van Reenen 1987). Cranial and postcranial malformations are also apparent and may indicate pronounced endogamy at a much more localised level (Hadjouis 2002), perhaps supported by the degree of variability between different site samples noted by Irish (2000).” Source: The First Africans: African Archaeology from the Earliest Toolmakers to Most Recent Foragers (Cambridge World Archaeology) "Snowden (1970) and Desanges (1981) reference various writers’ physical descriptions of the ancient Maghreb’s inhabitants. In various writers’ physical descriptions of the ancient Maghreb’s inhabitants. In addition to the presence of fair-skinned blonds, various “Ethiopian” or “part-Ethiopian” groups are described, near the coast and on the southern slopes of the Atlas mountains. “Ethiopians,” meaning dark-skinned peoples usually having “ulotrichous” (wooly) hair, are noted in various Greek accounts and European coinage (Snowden, 1970). Hiernaux (1975) interprets the finding of “[b]subsaharan” population affinities in living Maghrebans as being solely the result of the medieval transsaharan slave trade; it is clear that this is not the case. Furthermore, the blacks of the ancient Maghreb were apparently not foreign or a caste[/b]." [QUOTE][b]Reality about carthaginians is this: [/b][/QUOTE]Reality isn't your thing my friend. Anyone with some basic knowledge of the Phoenicians would know that they had colonies across the Mediterranean, not just parts of North Africa! It's obvious that the remains of the discovered “Phonecian” boy was likely from the Phoenicians colonies in the Mediterranean Sea or possibly the Iberian Peninsula. Regardless, it doesn't change anything, as the remains of the “Phoenician” was not buried in the Phoenicians homeland, the Levant, and again the Geneticists selected a small sample of remains to represent both the Phoenician and Carthagian population, an extremely small sample! Just one! So your point is moot! [QUOTE][b]also here some coins depicting famous carthaginian figures :[/b][/QUOTE]Ok, you showed two minted coins of the Punic God, Melqart. This isn't telling me what the average Carthaginian or even the average Phoenician looked like! The Phoenicians are already known to have influenced populations across the Mediterranean, but what is less known is that they were influenced by various groups too, preferably the inhabitants of the Nile Valley (the Egyptians) and the inhabitants of the Aegean (the Greeks). The Phoenicians borrowed minted coins or commissioned the production of minted coins in their colonies and foreign lands. They adapt such coins in a wide variety of ways common in the Mediterranean, but their adaption is undoubtedly Greek in nature! To say that these coins represents the average North African is like me saying that these coins represents the average Lesbos Islander: https://www.icollector.com/GREEK-COINS-ISLAND-OF-LESBOS-Twelfth-billon-about-520-480-B-C-Bi-0-90-g-Head-of-an-African_i8744782 https://www.ebay.com/itm/LESBOS-Koinon-Mint-550BC-Authentic-Ancient-Greek-Coin-w-AFRICAN-Rare-NGC-i69110/352341396120?hash=item52092f0a98:g:nQQAAOSwAata5Sig I mean, the inhabitants of Lesbos designed coins of Blacks, does that mean that the average person on the island were Blacks?!! [QUOTE][b]How they portrayed their gods:[/b][/QUOTE]So your showing me how the locals of Ibiza, Spain portrayed their “Hellenized” Phoenician Gods? Ok! Speaking of Ibiza…. “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. [b]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[/b]. 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, [b]the results seem to suggest the presence of several individuals of North African and sub-Saharan ancestry in Punic Ibiza[/b].” Source: https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Mayurqa/article/download/122749/169902/0 Speaking of which, can you explain to me why the Greeks portrayed their three most important Gods, Hera, Aphrodite, and Hermes as Blacks, since the Phoenicians portrayed some of their Gods as Whites? Source: https://www.theroot.com/why-greek-goddesses-appear-as-black-women-on-an-ancient-1790859851 [QUOTE][b]the famous tombs of the elite[/b][/QUOTE]Do you have information about where these sarcophagus are from? Not that it matters anyway, I just want to make sure what i’m looking at. Especially because of quotes like these…. “[b]Leucosyri, to distinguish them from the people from beyond Taurus[/b], which bear also the name of Syrians, but who, compared to the cistauric populations, are to have the [b]dye browned by the heat of the sun[/b], while those do not have it, difference which gave place to the denomination of Leucosyri.” Strabo Geography 12:3: “....the populations of the one and other Cappadoce, Cappadoce Taurique and Cappadoce Pontique, even nowadays, are often called [b]Leucosyri or White Syrian[/b], by opposition apparently to other Syrians known as [b]Melanosyri or Black Syrians[/b], who can be only the Syrians established across Taurus, and, when I say Taurus, I give to this name his greater extension, I prolong the chain until Amanus.[Antioch]." Strabo Geography 16:1:2 "Long ago, after Noah, [b]Blacks inhabited our country[/b]: they went up as far as [b]Morocco[/b] until from [b]Syria[/b] came [b]the first white conquerors: they were light skinned men with grey eyes[/b]." Source: La tradition chez les Ida Aghzeinbou If you didn't know, the Greeks often differentiated the inhabitants of the Levant in terminologies like Melanosyri (Black Syrians) and Leucosyri (White Syrians). The Melanosyri were seen as the aboriginal inhabitants of the Levant, while the Leucosyri were seen as the newcomers or immigrants of the Levant. The Greeks considered the Phoenicians to be the Melanosyri. [QUOTE][b]How italians portrayed hannibal:[/b][/QUOTE]Sir, there are no visible representations of Hannibal Barca or even his kin. The infamous bust found in Capua, Italy was mistakenly taken to be Hannibal. Multiple scholars have promoted this bust as being the only depiction of the “Enemy of Rome”, but there isn't any real evidence to suggest this. People blindly believe that this bust is Hannibal, without considering the following…. “This bust was found in Capua, Italy and is promoted as being Hannibal. The primary issue is not that this isn’t an image of Hannibal (most likely). The issue is that they completely ignore ancient historical perspectives to paint the viewer a picture. Francis Pulzky, a noted iconographer says that this is not a sculpture of Hannibal but simply”…. “[b]the ideal representation of a hero[/b].” -Francis Pulzky So the bust is not Hannibal, especially if it was found in a foreign country! Now the official position of one of the primary researchers on this topic is from Colonel Hennebert, and he says: “There exists no really authentic portrait of Hannibal.” -Colonel Hennebert Source: http://afrographics.com/should-black-men-identify-with-hannibal/ [QUOTE][b]Also in ancient times the word "Aethiops" was used by greco-roman scholars to describe any black population and they never used it for north africans.[/b][/QUOTE]The Greek word "Aethiops" was a vague term applied to any “Black” population, but often with an unofficial geopolitical context! The Greeks first applied the word to the inhabitants of the Levant and parts of Asia Minor, this eventually changed when the Levant began to experience demographic change. They then applied it to parts of the Nile Valley and the Sahara, realms where the Greeks didn't have a clear geographic definition for! Overall, they often used Aethiopia to describe all of the inhabitants of Northern Africa, parts of the Middle East, and South Asia, thus the region why Libya, parts of Mesopotamia, and Arabia was considered Western Aethiopia and Southern Iran and India was considered Eastern Aethiopia. So yes, the Greeks and Romans did use the term to describe North Africans, while limiting the term to other Blacks from undefined geographical borders! Historically the borders of undefined” Aethiopia was Southern Libya and Southern Egypt. Also, for you to say that the Greeks and Romans never applied the term to North Africans, when the Nubians, an unmistakable Black African population in North Africa was described as being Aethiopian is really historically dishonest to say the least. Practically all Aethiopians mentioned by the Greeks were from North Africa, so how can you say that the Greeks and Romans never applied it to North Africans! [QUOTE][b]About moroccans I didn't find any information about your source and I'm a french speaker...[/b][/QUOTE]Well, you probably didn't even know where to begin your research. Here is an article in relation to the above quote, that speaks about 19th Anthropologists racial classification of North Africans, in the French tongue of course. Source: https://www.persee.fr/doc/cea_0008-0055_1993_num_33_129_2071 Here is where I got the quote from. Source: https://archive.org/details/sexAndRacevol.1/page/n63 [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3