...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Anthropometric and genetic plots on Saharans and Sahelians
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by qoucela: [QB] Hi there, Unfortunately, I've been so busy recently find myself unable to continue hours long discussions on the web. Thanks much for letting me know how to find out where to use the UBB code here, I think I need to be using HTML though. Will try to change it on my profile. Hopefully, will have time to look into it soon. I have to respectfully disagree about your use of the term Imazighen since the Romans and Byzantines used the term Mezikes for the same people they termed "Ethiopians". For them the "Mazikes" were one of the Ethiopian groups. From what I have read that term has only recently been adopted by certain coastal Berbers, like the Kabyle, for nationalist purposes. By the way the earliest Meshwesh or Mazaa-uaza and Temehou are portraye as dark colored while the later seem to be fair-skinned showing the Egyptians may haved use the terms general for the tribes that came to live to teh West of them. See Bates the Eastern Libyans. These people only appear in Egyptian tomb paintings in or after the 12th dynasty. Anyway, I'm afraid my point about the Tuareg has been missed because of certain general lack of knowledge of ancient history of Africa and the ancient Near East Levant - not so much by you as by some others I've been speaking to and, I'm guessing what evidence I do provide on this blog is not going to be of much use for now. Many of the Tuareg clan names can be traced back to Roman times including Kel Cadenit, Magherawa, Kel Zigguratu, Ifuren and Iforas, Wasuri, Ahaggar, Imakitan, Imazuragh, Kel Uraghen etc. In fact, as I tried to explain previously their clan names appear connected to names of peoples on both sides of the Nile anciently and across Sinai peninsula. The Ihaggaren Tuareg are said to have named the "hills of Hagar" the region of Hoggar or Ahaggar. The Tuareg ancestors in the time of the Romans were considered to belong to the tall people camel-owning people occupying the entirety of the coastal Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts (Ketama, Khitim, Macetae, Biblical Hittites). It is the Tuareg and related African people the tall Afar-Danakil who are associated with owning camels and who if we are to believe archeology brought the camel into Africa from Arabia. When one understands that the Bedja (Medjayu)were living in Sinai even as late as the 20th century and agrees that these were likely the same as the people now suspected to have been called Midianites (or Madiau in Josephus), one should not be surprised to find such other names as the sons of Keturah ( Ketu south node of the moon) or Hagar (Rahu north node of the moon) - said to be the same person in Muslim and Judaic writings - and Madiau (Bedja), Afar or Iforas (Epher or Afra, Pharusii), the Kel Inneg Tuareg and Danakil or Anag of the Bedja), Ephah (Yafaai), and other related peoples of Hagar and Keturah today all among the dark-skinned groups in the Red Sea area on both sides. I am in the process of writing a paper on this so I won't elaborate any more here. I believe as the ancients that the Tuareg are an eastern branch of the Bedja. Would like to add again though that becoming familiar with population genetics of Africa quite a few years ago had led me to believe that one might be able to determine biological relationships, but not necessarily the remote geographical origins of people, especially at this stage in its development. This is why you see scholars such as Strouhal interviewed on the Discovery channel still claiming that North Africa and the Sahara many thousands of years ago were occupied early on by both "whites" from the Near East and "black Africans" and other supposedly educational TV programs, claiming pharoanic Egyptians were essentially a non-black population while Nubia was black African - the land of the so called black Pharaohs. I should have known it was coming. When I first began in the 1980s to look at population studies done to determine the origin of "the Berbers", I noticed these studies were usually being done on peoples that should never have been considered related to the original Berber-speakers- Tuareg or Kel Tamashek (Imazighen, Imoshagh) - in the first place. Because geneticists that were specializing in research on their ascertained Berbers(Kabyle, Shawia, and several northern Algerian and Moroccan tribes) were for the most part lacking historical, archeological and linguistic expertise of North Africa, they could only come to such conclusions as "the Berbers are largely of Eurasian and southern Mediterranean affiliation" and to such theories that fair-skinned Berbers must be essentially Caucasoid and have come arrived back in Africa over ten thousand years ago to help in the developent of the Saharan holocene. In fact, studies on physical anthropology had proven that most populations around the ancient Mediterranean and throughout the Near East involved in the neolithic agricultural revolution, including both the entire area of the Mediterranean, north and south, were greatly differentiated osteologically from modern day populations. As different as black and white. This is why Sergi and others developed the terms "brown Mediterranean type" or "hamitic" "southern Mediterranean type". Unlike "Hamites", the modern fair-skinned Berbers, Euro-Mediterraneans and people of the Levant tend to be mesocranic and even brachycephalic as in the case of the Levant and southern Italy - unlike the ancient coastal North Africans and mostancient Mediterraneans previous to 1000 B.C. Tuareg on the other hand are often ultra-dolicocephalic and have many features in common with the Nilotes and Ethiopians. Many Western and Central Africans also show more mesocranic connections, no doubt due to their being evolved from mixtures between the ancient dolicochocephals, mesocranic and brachycephals once occupying the Nile region and Sahara region. I understand a lot of scholars don't like to rely on cranial cephalic assessments any more, and when one looks at what was discovered by such early physical anthropologists as Sergi, Mellarte (Chatal Huyuk), Haddon, Grafton Elliot Smith and Coon one can easily understand why. For example, how could the Canaan of the Phoenicians be predominantly dolichocephalic and yet modern day populations of the same location considerably brachycephalic. Nationalism gets in the way. The fact is the Phoenicians have long disappeared from the Levant. The ancient Levant, except for parts of Israel Palestine/Lashich etc. also until around 900 BC (probably due to some drastic change of population) became largely occupied by a stockier built, brachycephalic people ancestral to today's "Middle Eastern" population of that region. Also, last time I dared to look, as far as I know, the so-called population genetics studies had led to conclusions that modern Egyptians evolved from ancient Egyptians, when in fact, the earlier genetic studies based on presence of genetic traits show that the homogeneity that was present in ancient Egypt stopped dead around the time of the Ptolemaic Greek intrusion into Egypt. Therefore, ancient Egyptians, although having contributed to modern populations in Egypt should not be considered a heterogeneous people like todays Egyptian who is a product of a long evolution of amalgamating Eurasian and African peoples. Also, please do not give up your ancient Fulani heritage which included a strong connection with Birzeit YaPhlet populations of the Near East (see Palmer's Bornu Sahara and Sudan on the Warith Fulata and Barzu Fulitani of Syrian provenance) just because some European has come along 3000 years later, conceiving studies to benefit himself and decided his direct ancestors were there in your stead. [QUOTE]Originally posted by alTakruri: [qb] Nice to have you onboard. I've read, studied, and quoted you from two of your works in Dr. Van Sertima's journals. A while back I raised issues here (and on the old sister forum) as to the relations and impact of the north Mediterraneans/Aegeans on the original indigenous littoral and further inland North African populations. I posit, based on certain Minoan depictions of what I assume to be the indigenous eastern Libyans, that north Meds/Aegeans were culturally absorbed by but physically altered primarily the littoral North African populations (most notably those west of Tunisie). The Meshwesh invasion of eastern Libya and ancient Egypt is another thing I base my supposition on. Certain "Sea Peoples" also have [i]esh[/i] suffixed ethnonyms. None of these peoples names, though all appearing in AEL documents, seem to bear AEL lexical value. I hold that the Imazighen only go back to the Meshwesh, have little to no relationship to the THHNW known to the AE's, and only became known as TMHHW by way of generalization. I'll bump up the threads delving into these points for your input and analysis. ==================== You may want to familiarize yourself with UBB code in order to best format your replies. You can go here http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=ubb_code_page for a helpful tutorial. The bolding of your writings in other members responses is an automatic UBB function to aid identifying whose text was written by who. It can be defeated but that's up to the replying individual to chose to do or not to do. Hi-liting text helps emphasize the point being made (or debated. And make no mistake, the main thrust here is debate not discussion). It's a rough and tumble crew here, but stick around for a while. Teach yourself basic population genetics. It's the powerfullest tool we have in modern Africana studies. I came here with a standard Africana background, much like your own, and after applying population genetics made strides in linking once baffling components of ethnography into a more sensable and stronger chain. I own Bates and Palmer, and while they're good for cultural, linguistic, literary, etc., understanding nothing can reveal population origins the way genetics does. What those old scholars can do for us is help interpret some of the movement indicated by the genetics. We're moving on into the 21st century we can't remain shackled outside progress by late 19th and early 20th century methodologies. [QUOTE]Originally posted by qoucela: [qb] I'm not sure who is bolding parts of my text where I have not placed it in bold, but I wish you would stop doing it. I have had my work modified in publications before and inaccurately plagiarized and I am not much fond of it. [/qb][/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE] [/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