posted
Some here told me north africans don't complain when europeans play north african figures and that hollywood constantly whitewashes them. That would be true for the 60s or 70s certainly not today with this PC and cancel culture where we clearly see a trend to darkwash north africans erasing them from history as if modern NAs were simply arabs and that the previous inhabitants looked like west africans.
To illustrate this trend :
Barbarians Rising - Hannibal Barca (actor is afro-american) :
Spartacus - Œnomaüs, numidian gladiator (actor is originally from Ghana) :
Vikings - Moors in Al Andalus mostly represented by black individuals :
Othello the Moor of Venice (Shakespeare) :
Robin Hood, Azeem the moorish soldier (actor is afro-american) :
The Spanish Princess, moorish princess and guard :
Gladiator - numidian Juba (actor is originally from Benin) :
Gods of Rome (Game) - Massinissa, King of Numidia :
True Romance, One of the protagonist is making fun of sicilians for having "black" blood because of their moorish past :
and I can post more examples if needed so again where do you see this whitewashing ??
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Some here told me north africans don't complain when europeans play north african figures and that hollywood constantly whitewashes them. That would be true for the 60s or 70s certainly not today
That's 20th century the tradition continues in the 21st century
posted
yes exodus was clearly a big joke in terms of casting I don't deny it
as for king tut that's based on forensic studies, a tanned bust isn't necessarily realistic
quote:"National Geographic has unveiled three independent attempts to reconstruct the face of the boy pharaoh Tutankhamen, who died 3300 years ago. The three teams - French, US, and Egyptian - based their reconstructions on 1700 computed tomography (CT) scans of the mummy that were made by the Egyptians early this year (Science, 28 january, p. 511). The reconstructions differ on details of soft tissue, such as the end of the nose. [...] The Egyptian and French Teams worked with the CT scans knowing they belonged to Tut; the NYU team didn't know."
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: yes exodus was clearly a big joke in terms of casting I don't deny it
as for king tut that's based on forensic studies, a tanned bust isn't necessarily realistic
quote:"National Geographic has unveiled three independent attempts to reconstruct the face of the boy pharaoh Tutankhamen, who died 3300 years ago. The three teams - French, US, and Egyptian - based their reconstructions on 1700 computed tomography (CT) scans of the mummy that were made by the Egyptians early this year (Science, 28 january, p. 511). The reconstructions differ on details of soft tissue, such as the end of the nose. [...] The Egyptian and French Teams worked with the CT scans knowing they belonged to Tut; the NYU team didn't know."
You assume that wooden bust represents as tanned person but you assume that that was not his natural skin tone without proof. But it doesn't matter because they are presenting him as if this is how he would appear in everyday life
This is how it actually looks with out the dim theatrical lighting, when you actually see it in person
This corresponds to the same latitude as central Algeria. So why did they make a bust with the skin tone of of the average Western European?
They have no proof he was that light and his color in the art was a tanned color
The reason they did that was to make him look more relatable to Europeans in order to sell the magazine and also to try to disassociate him with looking Africans
This kid of stuff causes a backlash so don't complain
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
the reconstruction probably has its natural skin tone but under egypt's sun he'll probably tan and be darker of course. It's well known that since aristocrats used to spend less time outside they were lighter. I already showed you how my own skin color changes (I'm initially white like him but become darker in north africa)
even if you think he had a natural dark skin color something like modern upper egyptians it wouldn't change anything about his facial features he would still not look black
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Antalas On a previous website you made an argument for why 16th century Europeans (and onwards) would black-wash some Africans. I don't fully remember the argument you made but can you run it back?
- It's important to address for there's no good way to account for the phenotypes of a specific historical figure if we approach this from an ideological perspective.
If your ideologue revolves around a sense of purity or belonging, (the argument that Authentic north Africans must only look like you) we'll always run into problems when addressing such a nuanced topic. For example if I was to take the time to find actual quotes or historical accounts and depictions to support Hannibal's casting, you'd counter with evidence to suggest North Africans didn't look like that which'll result in diminishing returns.
I even remember when we looked at Ancient DNA from Moorish burials. Because of the ideologue you held the Muslims of north Africa found in Southern Europe had to have been enslaved due to their overwhelming SSA DNA... as you can see. there's nothing to learn here.
Which is why I ask a more interesting question: why did Europeans blacken some North Africans?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's well known that since aristocrats used to spend less time outside they were lighter.
I've also seen people type that they have gotten lighter in the winter time.
@Elmaetro I appeal to you because you're more knowledgeable on the subject,but are people really changing pigmentation in a tan like manner that isn't melanogenesis with in a relatively short timeframe?
I know environmental factors has an influence on skin color but the way I'm hearing some people speak about it,you would think they are anthropomorphic chameleon.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Antalas On a previous website you made an argument for why 16th century Europeans (and onwards) would black-wash some Africans. I don't fully remember the argument you made but can you run it back?
- It's important to address for there's no good way to account for the phenotypes of a specific historical figure if we approach this from an ideological perspective.
If your ideologue revolves around a sense of purity or belonging, (the argument that Authentic north Africans must only look like you) we'll always run into problems when addressing such a nuanced topic. For example if I was to take the time to find actual quotes or historical accounts and depictions to support Hannibal's casting, you'd counter with evidence to suggest North Africans didn't look like that which'll result in diminishing returns.
I even remember when we looked at Ancient DNA from Moorish burials. Because of the ideologue you held the Muslims of north Africa found in Southern Europe had to have been enslaved due to their overwhelming SSA DNA... as you can see. there's nothing to learn here.
Which is why I ask a more interesting question: why did Europeans blacken some North Africans?
In general it was due to several factors : with biblical influence they started to equate black = evil, a way to mark the otherness/a way to alienate but also the shock they had when many of them faced for the first time black soldiers in the moorish troops of Al Andalus since many black mercenaries were used, etc I think you get the general idea.
As for the rest of your answer, I totally agree with it but I've never denied any kind of spectrum/continuum when it comes to skin color but some members here simply can only approach the whole thing only through their dichotomous perspective of Black vs White that's obviously extreme and doesn't acknowledge the diversity that exist in the old world.
I remember you used to post that negroid looking coin and a tapistry from the XVIth century depicting Hannibal to prove that he was black...meanwhile that coin was from etruria and wasn't even carthaginian + no comment for the tapistry. As for moorish burials, that's simply common sense most of them were a mix of NA and iberian with two outliers full of SSA what would you naturally conclude if you had read books about north africa's history ? Especially that these two outliers were mixed with iberian ancestry not north african so it wasn't some kind of north african rich in SSA.
If there was let's say 15 remains full of SSA in a richly decorated mausoleum then yes that would clearly mean something.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
even if you think he had a natural dark skin color something like modern upper egyptians it wouldn't change anything about his facial features he would still not look black
How would you describe the facial features on this?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: It's well known that since aristocrats used to spend less time outside they were lighter.
I've also seen people type that they have gotten lighter in the winter time.
@Elmaetro I appeal to you because you're more knowledgeable on the subject,but are people really changing pigmentation in a tan like manner that isn't melanogenesis with in a relatively short timeframe?
I know environmental factors has an influence on skin color but the way I'm hearing some people speak about it,you would think they are anthropomorphic chameleon.
You should spend more time with white skinned folks lol It depends on the skin tone some people barely tan like my mom for example and many europeans but in my case I tan very well I become dark after a few days only
see :
That's not even 1 week under the med sun lol and btw how do you think egyptians would have depicted me ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
even if you think he had a natural dark skin color something like modern upper egyptians it wouldn't change anything about his facial features he would still not look black
How would you describe the facial features on this?
That's supposed to realistically depict a human face ? Looks almost asian lol
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Antalas I wasn't seeing that from white folks, I was reading in comment section from Black people on YouTube from Black channels that I follow and most commenters didn't imply they were mixed.
Also,it's hard to gauge you complexion and whether it's from a tan or you are just a "high yella" with a reddish brown skin.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @Antalas I wasn't seeing that from white folks, I was reading in comment section from Black people on YouTube from Black channels that I follow and most commenters didn't imply they were mixed.
Also,it's hard to gauge you complexion and whether it's from a tan or you are just a "high yella" with a reddish brown skin.
it's obviously a tan here my "normal" skin tone :
so obviously if I was in egypt I'd get that reddish type of skin tone they often depict
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's supposed to realistically depict a human face ?
you are suggesting apart from the color something about this does not look human?
no I meant that it obviously follows artistic conventions it's not supposed to depict realistically a human face
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Antalas While I haven't personally met or interacted with any North African,from what I understand,at least for the ones that are not assumed to more stereotypically African is North Africans are "yellow" folks. Not dark enough you could a legit brown or Black but dark enough to resist the harmful UV light in NA.
Whether through mixture or mutation,I know some Black folks exhibit a yellow complexion that has a red brown undertone or are quite yellow. I know the iso setting can make these yellow folks look brown or yellowish white. Also,my usege is a affectionate way of describing light skin Africans.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @Antalas While I haven't personally meet or interacted with any North African,from what I understand,at least for the ones that are not assumed to more systematically African is North Africans are "yellow" folks. Not dark enough you could a legit brown or Black but dark enough to resist the harmful UV light in NA.
Whether through mixture or mutation,I know some Black folks exhibit a yellow complexion that has a red brown undertone or are quite yellow. I know the iso setting can make these yellow folks look brown or yellowish white. Also,my usege is a affectionate way of describing light skin Africans.
that's interesting since sometimes we make jokes about some of our folks who appear "yellow" to us but I think what you perceive as yellow in our case is what people here refers as olive skinned something common along the shores of the med sea and which tan easily.
anyway I posted this to show that depicting some egyptians with a light type of skin color isn't necessarily inaccurate and we should take into account tanning.
btw I appreciate you you seem more chill and open-minded than other members lol
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: no I meant that it obviously follows artistic conventions it's not supposed to depict realistically a human face
what's not realistic about it?
You seriously don't see it ?
No, you would have to specify why in order for that comment to seem reasonable
Here, for instance the head is too long and narrow to be human. The eyes might be possible but they are borderline too close too each other. The vertical length of the nose is too long to be human There seems to be no nostril shape at all it just seems all part of a triangle shape of the nose. There are no lips. Some people might be very thin lipped but this is down to zero
Now look at that Tut mask, what's not realistic about it?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
it's not realistic the same way this greek bust isn't :
so it's about the fact that they were done following idealized canons/standards that's what I mean by not realistic (realistic movement were actually exceptional in the history of art)
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: it's not realistic the same way this greek bust isn't :
so it's about the fact that they were done following idealized canons/standards that's what I mean by not realistic (realistic movement were actually exceptional in the history of art)
^^ This is a very realistic bust. The proportions are all believable as being a human. I would only say his upper eyelids are a bit too thick but that is a small thing. Did the man really look as handsome of this and is it a good likeness? There's no way of knowing but this is a very realistic image of a human .
.
This on the other hand is not something a human could look like, the proportions are not right. No human head could be that narrow and if one was it would be an extremely rare birth defect
His eyes perhaps bit large but a apart from that plausible human, looks normal for a human
If you compare to reconstructions, they might get the skull shape right but there is a lot of guessing as to skin tone and how full or not the fleshier parts of the face were such as the lips and nose shape. Those are shrunken and cartilage structures decayed on the mummy
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes but it wasn't a realistic depiction of Pericles simply an idealized depiction of him
realistic art only comes later in greece especially during the hellenistic era
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: yes but it wasn't a realistic depiction of Pericles simply an idealized depiction of him
realistic art only comes later in greece especially during the hellenistic era
You are confusing to things
realism and idealization. These are not mutually exclusive.
In a piece of art you could make the person look 100% realistically human - but at the same time idealize their appearance by making them them (subjectively) more handsome or prettier.
Suppose an artist routinely made people look 100% human but changed them so they looked more handsome. Then someone who is already handsome comes along and they might not have to make any changes. So if we look at this Greek art how can we tell what is a good likeness and what is idealized? We can't tell because there are no photos of the people. In either case most of it is realistic in the sense of looking like a real person
It is better to use "likeness" if you mean likeness
I would say about Tutankhamun is that they don't know how full his lips were but he may have had that overbite. The skull is suggestive of that. The skin tone is guessing
And if you look at idealization, if they make somebody look more handsome or pretty it is usually done to make them look more like an average person then they were before. So the idealization is not something foreign it is how a lot of people look.
Charles II
They choose not to idealize him here but if the artist did he could have moved his jaw back into a more common position Therefore in many cases the idealization looks more like the average Spaniard then Charles II actually looked.
The average Egyptian probably did not have that overbite look like Tutankhamun seems to have had. And with both European royals and the Amarna there was inbreeding going on and that can lead to "defects" or traits that are less common in the general population
The idealization is usually in the realm of the average person in a given place. It may have specific proportions thought to be more attractive but these are just slight things within "normal". Someone who is very "ugly" are considered to be so because they are perceived to be closer to abnormal
And this is relative, it depends a lot on the place and what most people look like. The "ideal" is not a special alien look rare individual. It is something within the average range, "normal" looking
So how did the average 17th Spaniard look? Not like Charles II with his protruding Habsburg jaw (Jay Leno) The average 17th Spaniard would look like some idealized sculpture of a person that an artist may have come up with in his head a generic Spaniard rather than someone with some "quirk"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree but that's exactly what I meant for the bust, it doesn't perfectly represent tutankhamun
Also I've never understood why some afrocentrist think the golden bust look black ?? nose is perfectly caucasoid, no prognathism, lips are typically found in north africa, etc idk it doesn't give me a SSA vibe
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I agree but that's exactly what I meant for the bust, it doesn't perfectly represent tutankhamun
Also I've never understood why some afrocentrist think the golden bust look black ?? nose is perfectly caucasoid, no prognathism, lips are typically found in north africa, etc idk it doesn't give me a SSA vibe
This looks more African than European to me If Tutankhamun was uglier than this than most Egyptians probably looked closer to this face mask. "Idealized" usually means "made to look 'normal'" or best looking or quintessential version of a particular type, not the oddball version
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I remember you used to post that negroid looking coin and a tapistry from the XVIth century depicting Hannibal to prove that he was black...meanwhile that coin was from etruria and wasn't even carthaginian + no comment for the tapistry. As for moorish burials, that's simply common sense most of them were a mix of NA and iberian with two outliers full of SSA what would you naturally conclude if you had read books about north africa's history ? Especially that these two outliers were mixed with iberian ancestry not north african so it wasn't some kind of north african rich in SSA.
Trasimene? you don't find that significant?
A correction on the Iberian Outliers. They were modeled as the same admixed Iberians + gambian, so by default they share North African ancestry. The issue I had didn't lie in the overall interpretation of North African presence in Iberia. It's with your personal interpretation two unrelated individuals separated by 600 years. (Especially the earlier individual What about C.E.F-43 suggested he was enslaved X,D.). It was based on ideal not any evidence present.
quote:Thereal @Elmaetro I appeal to you because you're more knowledgeable on the subject,but are people really changing pigmentation in a tan like manner that isn't melanogenesis with in a relatively short timeframe?
I know environmental factors has an influence on skin color but the way I'm hearing some people speak about it,you would think they are anthropomorphic chameleon.
Are you speaking of single individuals or a generation or more of people?
As far as the change in complexity due to UV exposure... that's all melanogenesis. The range at which an individual can tan is based on their ancestry to where in general Africans have the greatest distribution and Europeans have the least. Some people really do over emphasize the strength of a tan but active melanogenesis is quite powerful especially if you aren't homozygous for mutated pigmentation alleles.
I do have to disagree with Antalas' above statement:
"so obviously if I was in egypt I'd get that reddish type of skin tone they often depict"
I don't think he can get that dark due to his tanned color, which is darkened in a way similar to a European. For reference see skin type 3 in figure 1. Darker Egyptians hover type 4 and 5.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas:
Trasimene?[/b] you don't find that significant?
A correction on the Iberian Outliers. They were modeled as the same admixed Iberians + gambian, so by default they share North African ancestry. The issue I had didn't lie in the overall interpretation of North African presence in Iberia. It's with your personal interpretation two unrelated individuals separated by 600 years. (Especially the earlier individual What about C.E.F-43 suggested he was enslaved X,D.). It was based on ideal not any evidence present.
The coin was minted 10 years after the battle and also depict an indian elephant + has no inscription
This might be him according to specialists :
I mean don't you find it weird that not a single carthaginian coin depict negroids ? And how can you seriously believe that hannibal looked that negroid with everything you know from genetics, anthropology, history (even though I'm not sure for this one lol), etc ?
as for the iberian outliers, this shouldn't even be discussed :
quote:As previously mentioned, two individuals dated to the 10th (I7427) and 16th (I3810) century CE plot on a very different position in the PCA (Fig. S3-4), reflecting a very different ancestry profile. We were able to model them as mixture of ancestry related to previous populations from the same region (SE_Iberia c.3-4CE) and ancestry related to present-day sub-Saharan African populations (Table S22). The high proportions of sub2158 Saharan African ancestry explain their marked shift in PCA and agree with uniparental markers with sub-Saharan African origin in both individuals."
so again I ask you what would you naturally conclude ? That free black men randomly appeared among these moors and married local iberian women ? No offense but I honestly think you should start reading books about history instead of focusing too much on genetics, you would quickly see that your theories don't really work when confronted to historical realities.
Really at this point I don't understand : you acknoledge that paleolithic north african already had a substantial eurasian component, were already caucasoid, see KEB, see two copper age samples, see guanches samples, see 1st-3rd century Ad samples and yet believe that among all of this lived fully black looking folks ? What is coastal north africa supposed to be ? Brazil 2.0 ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote: ETRURIA, Arretium (?). The Chiana Valley. Circa 208-207 BC. Æ Quartunica (18mm, 5.96 g, 6h). Head of African right; monogram to left / Indian elephant standing right, bell around neck; monogram below. HN Italy 69; SNG ANS 41 (same obv. die); SNG Copenhagen 48 var. (no monogram on obv.). VF, green patina. Well struck for issue; rare.
This enigmatic issue has been much discussed. It was Sestini in 1816 who first indicated their area of circulation in and around the Chiana (Clanis) valley and lake Trasimeno, dominated by the cities of Arezzo, Chiusi and Cortona. The traditional attribution of the issue to 217 BC, as representing the propaganda of Hannibal’s approach to Etruria, was modified by Robinson (op. cit.), who saw it as a provocative seditious type of Arretium, which was in a state of high tension with Rome in 209/8, in the hoped for arrival of Hasdrubal from Spain with reinforcements. However, the reverse depicts an Indian rather than African elephant with a bell around its neck reminiscent of the elephant/saw aes signatum issue (Crawford 9/1) of about 250-240 BC and associated with the battle of Maleventum (soon to be called Beneventum) in 275 BC when the captured elephants of Pyrrhus were brought to Rome in triumph. A similar Indian elephant is also depicted as a symbol on the Tarantine nomos issue (Vlasto 710-712), indicating the presence of Pyrrhus in the city in 282-276. The Barcid coinage of New Carthage (Villaronga CNH, pg. 65, 12-15) and that of Hannibal in Sicily (SNG Cop. 382) clearly depict African elephants belonging to the elephant corps from about 220 BC. As Maria Baglione points out in "Su alcune parallele di bronzo coniato," Atti Napoli 1975, pg.153-180, the African/elephant issue shares control marks with other cast and struck Etruscan coins of the region, she quotes Panvini Rosati in ‘ Annuario dell’accademia Etrusca di Cortona XII’, 1964, pg. 167ff., who suggests the type is to be seen as a moneyer’s badge or commemorative issue in the style of Caesar’s elephant/sacrificial implements issue of 49/48 BC (Crawford 443/1). The elephant, an attribute of Mercury/Turms, is an emblem of wisdom and is also a symbol of strength and of the overcoming of evil.
So there has been a hypothesis going around that the coin had something to do with Carthaginian forces in the area. I don't know if it depicts Hannibal himself as some people claim, but it could represent some of the native African soldiers he had in his employ (the Carthaginians made heavy use of mercenaries from around their empire).
As for the elephant looking Indian rather than African, Hannibal's personal elephant was called "the Syrian", which may suggest it was of the extinct Syrian subspecies of the Asian elephant rather than the African elephants the other Carthaginians used.
posted
I also want to add that there is no mention of aethiopian/black troops for the second punic war let alone their general lol the only time where we see carthage using black mercenaries (explicitely described as such) is in Sicily during the battle of Himera (480 BC)
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I also want to add that there is no mention of aethiopian/black troops for the second punic war let alone their general lol the only time where we see carthage using black mercenaries (explicitely described as such) is in Sicily during the battle of Himera (480 BC)
The founders of Carthage were settlers from what is now Lebanon
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Some here told me north africans don't complain when europeans play north african figures and that hollywood constantly whitewashes them.
any quotes?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I also want to add that there is no mention of aethiopian/black troops for the second punic war let alone their general lol the only time where we see carthage using black mercenaries (explicitely described as such) is in Sicily during the battle of Himera (480 BC)
The founders of Carthage were settlers from what is now Lebanon
yes but they quickly integrated north africans and after centuries probably became predominantly north african at least that's what we can see in genetic and forensic papers (that's also what many historians defended : that carthaginians were in fact punicized north africans)
Also the aristocracy wasn't endogamous like the lagids in Egypt, they used to often mix with the numidian aristocracy (sometimes the iberian and sicilian ones too)
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I also want to add that there is no mention of aethiopian/black troops for the second punic war let alone their general lol the only time where we see carthage using black mercenaries (explicitely described as such) is in Sicily during the battle of Himera (480 BC)
The founders of Carthage were settlers from what is now Lebanon
yes but they quickly integrated north africans and after centuries probably became predominantly north african at least that's what we can see in genetic and forensic papers (that's also what many historians defended : that carthaginians were in fact punicized north africans)
Also the aristocracy wasn't endogamous like the lagids in Egypt, they used to often mix with the numidian aristocracy (sometimes the iberian and sicilian ones too)
Around that time 580-650 BC there were also Greek settlements, later Romans and Germanic Vandals
But if we go before 650 or one could say before 700 or 800 BC maybe there is a big gap, maybe of 1000 years where no evidence of settlement in coastal North Africa has been found So it's hard to establish continuity of native populations being there or to what extent before Phoenicians and Greeks came in
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
greeks never settled in the maghreb, they only settled in cyrenaica next to egypt
and romans/vandals came much later
Ok, not the Maghreb, Cyrenaica
But my point still is if you look at the period before the Phoenicians for about 1000 years no evidence of settlement in coastal North Africa so it's hard to establish continuity from Iberomaurusians or other older groups
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
greeks never settled in the maghreb, they only settled in cyrenaica next to egypt
and romans/vandals came much later
Ok, not the Maghreb, Cyrenaica
But my point still is if you look at the period before the Phoenicians for about 1000 years no evidence of settlement in coastal North Africa so it's hard to establish continuity from Iberomaurusians or other older groups
it's not hard we have craniometric data and they were very similar to carthaginians which again proves carthaginians were mostly north african :
quote:Chamla (1975, 1976, using Penrose’s measure, found a “protohistorical” Algerian series (1500 BC) to be most similar to Carthaginian remains (900-200 BC) ; Bronze Age Spanish, early Grand Canary, and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian crania showed the next greatest affinities. A Carthaginian series proved to be most similar to the Algerian series, followed by late North Spanish, early Grand Canary, Bronze Age French, Etruscan, Parthian Syrian, and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian crania from Abydos. The results of the tests of individual variables used showed that there was no statistical difference for these variables between the Algerian and Carthaginian series."
S.O.Y. Keita, Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa, p. 37
we also have two north africans from the copper age who plot with modern north africans :
quote:Our Copper Age dataset includes a newly reported male (I4246) from Camino de las Yeseras (14) in central Iberia, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 calibrated years BCE, who clusters with modern and ancient North Africans in the PCA (Fig. 1C and fig. S3) and, like ~3000 BCE Moroccans (8) , can be well modeled as having ancestry from both Late Pleistocene North Africans (15) and Early Neolithic Europeans (tables S9 and S10). His genome-wide ancestry and uniparental markers (tables S1 and S4) are unique among Copper Age Iberians, including individuals from sites with many analyzed individuals such as Sima del Ángel, and point to a North African origin."
quote:The most surprising is Sardinia_Chalcolithic15940 from the site of Anghelu Ruju, for whom we obtained a radiocarbon date of 2345– 2146 cal. bc from the same bone sample that we analysed for DNA. We modelled this individual as 22.7±2.4% Anatolia_Neolithic and 77.3±2.4% Morocco_EN (P=0.321). This individual is similar in ancestry composition to the approximately contemporary Iberian individual I4246 from the site of Camino de las Yeseras, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 cal. bc, who also had North-African related ancestry as well as the same mtDNA haplogroup M1a1b1 and Y-chromosome haplogroup E1b1b1, which are both typical of North Africans25 (Supplementary Table 14). The finding of African to-European gene flow in both individuals shows that such movement was widespread across the Mediterranean long before the classical period when such gene flow became intensive and the ancestries had a larger demographic impact."
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas: [qb] ???
greeks never settled in the maghreb, they only settled in cyrenaica next to egypt
and romans/vandals came much later
Ok, not the Maghreb, Cyrenaica
But my point still is if you look at the period before the Phoenicians for about 1000 years no evidence of settlement in coastal North Africa so it's hard to establish continuity from Iberomaurusians or other older groups
it's not hard we have craniometric data and they were very similar to carthaginians which again proves carthaginians were mostly north african :
quote:Chamla (1975, 1976, using Penrose’s measure, found a “protohistorical” Algerian series (1500 BC) to be most similar to Carthaginian remains (900-200 BC) ; Bronze Age Spanish, early Grand Canary, and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian crania showed the next greatest affinities. A Carthaginian series proved to be most similar to the Algerian series, followed by late North Spanish, early Grand Canary, Bronze Age French, Etruscan, Parthian Syrian, and Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian crania from Abydos. The results of the tests of individual variables used showed that there was no statistical difference for these variables between the Algerian and Carthaginian series."
Anthropologie (Protohistoire et Antiquité) (M.-C. Chamla)
6 Les restes trouvés dans les sépultures protohistoriques sont plus ou moins contemporains de ceux trouvés en Tunisie dans les sépultures d’époque punique. L’époque punique, qui se situe entre le ixe siècle et le iie siècle av. J.-C., doit être incluse dans la protohistoire du Maghreb (Camps, 1970). La culture mégalithique, néanmoins, paraît être arrivée au Maghreb avant celle des Puniques, elle y a subsisté pendant longtemps, comme le montrent les dates obtenues d’après le mobilier et les restes osseux de certaines sépultures, après la fin de l’époque punique, jusqu’au début de l’époque romaine.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
we also have two north africans from the copper age who plot with modern north africans :
quote:Our Copper Age dataset includes a newly reported male (I4246) from Camino de las Yeseras (14) in central Iberia, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 calibrated years BCE, who clusters with modern and ancient North Africans in the PCA (Fig. 1C and fig. S3) and, like ~3000 BCE Moroccans (8) , can be well modeled as having ancestry from both Late Pleistocene North Africans (15) and Early Neolithic Europeans (tables S9 and S10). His genome-wide ancestry and uniparental markers (tables S1 and S4) are unique among Copper Age Iberians, including individuals from sites with many analyzed individuals such as Sima del Ángel, and point to a North African origin."
Ancient genomes from North Africa evidence prehistoric migrations to the Maghreb from both the Levant and Europe Rosa Fregel 2018
Here, we perform genome-wide analysis of remains from the Early Neolithic site of Ifri n’Amr (Morocco) or Moussa (IAM) (∼5,000 BCE) and the Late Neolithic site of Kelif el Boroud (Morocco) (KEB) (∼3,000 BCE)
Regarding the paternal lineages, IAM individuals carry Y chromosomes distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup, while the Y chromosome from KEB belongs to the T-M184 haplogroup; although scarce and broadly distributed today, this haplogroup has also been observed in European Neolithic individuals (16) (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 5). Both mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages (K1, J2, and T2 haplogroups and G-M201 haplogroup, respectively) for samples from TOR (Iberian Early Neolithic) are similar to those observed in Europe during Neolithic times (21).
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.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: So there has been a hypothesis going around that the coin had something to do with Carthaginian forces in the area. I don't know if it depicts Hannibal himself as some people claim, but it could represent some of the native African soldiers he had in his employ (the Carthaginians made heavy use of mercenaries from around their empire).
As for the elephant looking Indian rather than African, Hannibal's personal elephant was called "the Syrian", which may suggest it was of the extinct Syrian subspecies of the Asian elephant rather than the African elephants the other Carthaginians used. [/QB]
There is also another theory about the coin that goes beyond Hannibal and the Carthagenians
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.
quote: 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 comparison we can see a coin which has been identified as Hamilkar Barca. From Carthago Nova, Spain, 237-227 BCE. Hamilkar was Hannibals and Hasdrubals father.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The coin was minted 10 years after the battle and also depict an indian elephant + has no inscription
This might be him according to specialists :
I mean don't you find it weird that not a single carthaginian coin depict negroids ? And how can you seriously believe that hannibal looked that negroid with everything you know from genetics, anthropology, history (even though I'm not sure for this one lol), etc ?
did you not notice that I prefaced this discussion by pointing out your urge to fall back on the same studies to explain away every nuance right. I don't beleive Hanibal looked that "negroid" as most Africans don't look that "negroid," the coin was likely propaganda. But the fact that you have a clear Africanized character sharing a coin with an Asian elephant circulating in Trasimene a decade after the battle (which makes complete sense mind you) should say a lot when you consider History and a hint of logic.
But more power to the random black guy and his random Asian Elephant for making it big in Classical Italy.
quote: as for the iberian outliers, this shouldn't even be discussed :
quote:As previously mentioned, two individuals dated to the 10th (I7427) and 16th (I3810) century CE plot on a very different position in the PCA (Fig. S3-4), reflecting a very different ancestry profile. We were able to model them as mixture of ancestry related to previous populations from the same region (SE_Iberia c.3-4CE) and ancestry related to present-day sub-Saharan African populations (Table S22). The high proportions of sub2158 Saharan African ancestry explain their marked shift in PCA and agree with uniparental markers with sub-Saharan African origin in both individuals."
so again I ask you what would you naturally conclude ? That free black men randomly appeared among these moors and married local iberian women ? No offense but I honestly think you should start reading books about history instead of focusing too much on genetics, you would quickly see that your theories don't really work when confronted to historical realities.
The link I posted shown evidence of a high classed Muslim burial among many and that individual carried an African paternal Haplogroup (E-M2) and a European Maternal haplogroup (H). I have to get a lil too creative to imagine the slave fantasy to fit that narrative.
quote:Really at this point I don't understand : you acknoledge that paleolithic north african already had a substantial eurasian component, were already caucasoid, see KEB, see two copper age samples, see guanches samples, see 1st-3rd century Ad samples and yet believe that among all of this lived fully black looking folks ? What is coastal north africa supposed to be ? Brazil 2.0 ? [/QB]
Prior to this post I haven't dropped a single theory in this thread. So there isn't anything to contradict on my end, I just pointed out some data. How it was presented doesn't attach itself with your ideal so you essentially have to strawman my talking points. It isn't malicious however, it automatic and damn near subconscious which's what I'm trying to highlight. Why do you feel so attacked? XD
I simply ask you to use a little bit of logic. Your natural conclusions aren't based on the circumstances presented but on preconceived notion. What you tend to do is no different from when someone quotes a historian like Herodotus stating Egyptians were black. The way how you think legit blocked you from seeing certain contradictions in your mantra. "If they're black they can't be Berber or they must be slaves." So every bit of information you get will have to filter through that ideologue. Claims such as 2 million Africans being transported across the Sahara annually will make perfect sense to you on historical accord but an 8th century testament describing the skin of the Moors as repulsive in comparison to Syrians is meaningless. From my POV both of these accounts are quite ridiculous but If I was a ___centric one of them will hold more historical importance than the other.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: So there has been a hypothesis going around that the coin had something to do with Carthaginian forces in the area. I don't know if it depicts Hannibal himself as some people claim, but it could represent some of the native African soldiers he had in his employ (the Carthaginians made heavy use of mercenaries from around their empire).
As for the elephant looking Indian rather than African, Hannibal's personal elephant was called "the Syrian", which may suggest it was of the extinct Syrian subspecies of the Asian elephant rather than the African elephants the other Carthaginians used.
There is also another theory about the coin that goes beyond Hannibal and the Carthagenians
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.
quote: 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 comparison we can see a coin which has been identified as Hamilkar Barca. From Carthago Nova, Spain, 237-227 BCE. Hamilkar was Hannibals and Hasdrubals father.
[/QB]
Very good stuff thank you !
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: did you not notice that I prefaced this discussion by pointing out your urge to fall back on the same studies to explain away every nuance right. I don't beleive Hanibal looked that "negroid" as most Africans don't look that "negroid," the coin was likely propaganda. But the fact that you have a clear Africanized character sharing a coin with an Asian elephant circulating in Trasimene a decade after the battle (which makes complete sense mind you) should say a lot when you consider History and a hint of logic.
But more power to the random black guy and his random Asian Elephant for making it big in Classical Italy.
It can maybe makes sense for someone that has a very superficial approach on the subject but certainly not for me anyway archeopteryx just posted a very good explanation.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The link I posted shown evidence of a high classed Muslim burial among many and that individual carried an African paternal Haplogroup (E-M2) and a European Maternal haplogroup (H). I have to get a lil too creative to imagine the slave fantasy to fit that narrative.
I can't access your link can you post a good one pls and as for his paternal haplogroup you admit it couldn't come from north africa therefore can you tell me how would that be possible since I suppose you have read enough on al andalus history ... any known west african dynasty who ruled in al andalus during the Xth century ? or any known black noble ? If only you knew how racist locals and arabs were at that time...
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Prior to this post I haven't dropped a single theory in this thread. So there isn't anything to contradict on my end, I just pointed out some data. How it was presented doesn't attach itself with your ideal so you essentially have to strawman my talking points. It isn't malicious however, it automatic and damn near subconscious which's what I'm trying to highlight. Why do you feel so attacked? XD
Yes posting a coin with a clear negroid guy trying to associate him with hannibal and sharing a medieval tapistry depicting him as somewhat black is simply pointing out facts nothing more sir !
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I simply ask you to use a little bit of logic. Your natural conclusions aren't based on the circumstances presented but on preconceived notion. What you tend to do is no different from when someone quotes a historian like Herodotus stating Egyptians were black. The way how you think legit blocked you from seeing certain contradictions in your mantra. "If they're black they can't be Berber or they must be slaves." So every bit of information you get will have to filter through that ideologue. Claims such as 2 million Africans being transported across the Sahara annually will make perfect sense to you on historical accord but an 8th century testament describing the skin of the Moors as repulsive in comparison to Syrians is meaningless. From my POV both of these accounts are quite ridiculous but If I was a ___centric one of them will hold more historical importance than the other. [/QB]
Why do you suddenly tries to appear neutral or objective when you literally told me some years ago that you were afrocentric ?
What you actually perceive as "preconceived notion" is simply common sense and facts, you of course think I'm some kind of racist because I actually have a more wider approach and a far better understanding of the concerned populations. You are the one who stops his reflexion to a coin or tapistry meanwhile I know such thing doesn't make sense since I've read enough genetic, forensic and historical papers on the whole region to know that a negroid black general doesn't make any sense.
You're the kind to believe that it's possible that among a homogeneous population suddenly appears black individuals here and there. The kind to interpret these descriptions of moors at face value without paying attention to translations, nuances, political motives, etc so no I will not avoid it but I'll understand that saying syrians are lighter than berbers is actually in line with what we can witness today or will understand that since berbers were in constant conflict with umayyads everything was done to discredit them.
Moreover if you had actually paid attention I never said you can't be berber and "black", I said that you can't consider every black in North Africa as indigenous or related to berbers and you probably don't know much about racism towards blacks among berbers or the expansion of berber groups into the sahara and what it led to meanwhile I do. I clearly remember when you literally posted a black woman from the middle atlas to prove that she was an indigenous berber ....see that's your logic denying all the white skinned berbers cherrypicking a black woman and implying she represent an old pure strain of berbers.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: It can maybe makes sense for someone that has a very superficial approach on the subject but certainly not for me anyway archeopteryx just posted a very good explanation.
I can't access your link can you post a good one pls and as for his paternal haplogroup you admit it couldn't come from north africa therefore can you tell me how would that be possible since I suppose you have read enough on al andalus history ... any known west african dynasty who ruled in al andalus during the Xth century ? or any known black noble ? If only you knew how racist locals and arabs were at that time...
Yes posting a coin with a clear negroid guy trying to associate him with hannibal and sharing a medieval tapistry depicting him as somewhat black is simply pointing out facts nothing more sir !
Why do you suddenly tries to appear neutral or objective when you literally told me some years ago that you were afrocentric ?
What you actually perceive as "preconceived notion" is simply common sense and facts, you of course think I'm some kind of racist because I actually have a more wider approach and a far better understanding of the concerned populations. You are the one who stops his reflexion to a coin or tapistry meanwhile I know such thing doesn't make sense since I've read enough genetic, forensic and historical papers on the whole region to know that a negroid black general doesn't make any sense.
You're the kind to believe that it's possible that among a homogeneous population suddenly appears black individuals here and there. The kind to interpret these descriptions of moors at face value without paying attention to translations, nuances, political motives, etc so no I will not avoid it but I'll understand that saying syrians are lighter than berbers is actually in line with what we can witness today or will understand that since berbers were in constant conflict with umayyads everything was done to discredit them.
Moreover if you had actually paid attention I never said you can't be berber and "black", I said that you can't consider every black in North Africa as indigenous or related to berbers and you probably don't know much about racism towards blacks among berbers or the expansion of berber groups into the sahara and what it led to meanwhile I do. I clearly remember when you literally posted a black woman from the middle atlas to prove that she was an indigenous berber ....see that's your logic denying all the white skinned berbers cherrypicking a black woman and implying she represent an old pure strain of berbers.
- you're getting too emotional. - I never said you're racist X'D. - ^I accuse you of circular reasoning which hurts your arguments. That form of reasoning stems from your mantra and cause you to instinctively become neglectful to data which could be conflicting. - The circumstantial evidence associates the imagery with Hannibal. You denying that is part of the problem. - You think archeopteryx's explanation from the Root is accurate? (noted) - I'm asking you to use logic. Your pattern of posting is consistent with the idea that Moors can not be black by referring to them as a homogenous population when challenged with the presence of blackness. (whether genotypically or just phenotypically but Autosomally similar to other Berbers.) I actually challenged that in the past. - I never denied racism towards blacks, you made that up. - Pointing out black people in North Africa doesn't disprove or suggests that every black person in North Africa is indigenous. - I agree with your comment on the discrediting and devaluing of Berbers due to conflict. but Continuatio Hispana was chronicled by a Christian. Likely a racist Andalusian. - I posted the pdf to this article. also You think your position on I7427 - CEF-43 is common sense?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic