...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Berbers are primarily not African ?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] The reasons it's not Iberian are * Iberian industry/culture is Magdalenian and Azilian * Magrheb industry/culture is Maurusian. * Magdalenian/Azilian vs Maurusian = nothing alike. Valid comparisons for analyses * DNA is DNA (genetics) * Skeletons are skeletons (physical anthropology) * Industry/Culture is industry/culture (archaeology) You may consider them all "fruit" but you're comparing "apples to oranges" as the saying goes when you posit that DNA equals bones. Skeletons are not DNA. Rhetorical argument: Higher cultured Iberians would have schooled lower cultured Maghrebis not have succumbed to their more primitive level (as I see it). Far outnumbering autochthone DNA, Taforalt's "Eurasian" DNA if it was from 12k foreign "invaders" their invading cultural industry should have predominated, no? I guess they were content to sink to the level of the handful of natives they found or imported and enslaved. That is an inherent racism in the theory of Iberian people originating Maurusian culture. It's so convoluted only a Eurocentric could embrace it. I don't know what the answer is to Eurasian H V & JT in Taforalt but it's millennia younger than native homegrown African U6 M1 & L3, a fact. Timeframe: 20k Maurusian origins are with local U6 and M1 and so-called sub-Saharan L3 not with 12k Iberia. [/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