posted                   

As expected they were similar to modern north africans once again. And as pointed out in other studies, we see affinities with other west mediterranean populations especially iberians :


Time period : 1st-4th century A.D.

n = 42

From this area :

quote:

---

Thus, in spite of a certain heterogeneity - difficult to appreciate -, our Algerian series of Roman period presents, as a whole, affinities at the same time with the "Berber" populations of North Africa and with various other Mediterranean populations. Among these last, the Eastern Iberian populations of the same time hold undoubtedly a privileged place , according to the data which we have (tabl. III). It seems however that our series is appreciably more robust than these Spanish series. It does not possess, on the other hand, the very broad front and the high stature of certain current Berbers (Tuareg), but would be rather similar to the Kabyles, of which it offers us perhaps an approximate image of the ancestors.

---

quote:

---

However, cultural influences do not necessarily imply considerable population displacements, and racial mixtures likely to upset the anthropological structure of populations. Thus, Bousquet (1967), relying on the work of various authors, asserts that, since the Neolithic, North Africa has received "far more successive civilizations than human masses, capable of removing and replacing the prehistoric bases of its settlement.

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

1
BERBER, A “LONG-FORGOTTEN” LANGUAGE OF FRANCE
By Salem CHAKER,
Professor of Berber Language, INALCO (Paris)
(Translated by Laurie and Amar Chaker)
I. Some basic facts about the Berber language: geographical distribution, demographics, status
II. Berber speakers in France:
- Early and principally Berber immigration by North Africans (Maghribi): historic and
sociological facts
- Some numbers: a difficult evaluation but a large and diverse Berber-speaking
population, predominantly Kabyle
- A strong physical, political, cultural and academic Berber presence
- Two examples of socio-linguistic dynamics: INALCO and “Baccalaureat” Berber exam
since 1995
III. France and the Berber Language:
- A very unusual relationship, something between platonic love and hesitation, marked by
the weight of colonial history and geo-political constraints.
- Explanation of the debate on the ratification of the European Charter for Regional or
Minority Languages (1998-1999).
*
I. THE BERBER LANGUAGE: SOME BASIC FACTS
The Berber language is one of the branches of the large Hamito-Semitic linguistic
family (or "Afro-Asiatic", according to the American terminology initiated by J.
Greenberg), which includes, other than Berber, Semitic, Cushitic, ancient Egyptian, and
more distantly, the Tchadic1 group. With all that this notion implies, the Berber language
can be considered as the “aboriginal” one of North Africa because currently there is no
positive trace of an exterior origin or of the presence of a pre- or non-Berber substratum
in this region. As far back as one can go 2
, the Berber language was already installed in its
present territory. Particularly, the toponymy has not allowed us to identify, up till now,
any kind of pre-Berber linguistic sediment. Despite numerous theories suggested by
linguists since the 19th Century in favor of an external origin of the language (Middle
East or East Africa), neither prehistoric archeology nor physical anthropology could show
the movement of a population coming from elsewhere; it has even been solidly
established that man has been present in North Africa, in a continuous manner, for at
least a million years (cf. Camps 1974, 1980).


Tamazight (the Berber word for language) covers a vast geographical area: all of
North Africa, the Sahara, and a part of the West African Sahel. But the countries 2
principally concerned are, by order of demographical importance: Morocco (35 to 40% of
the total population), Algeria (25% of the population), Niger and Mali (Tuaregs).

---

Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

In particular, it is good to insist on the fact that the Chamito-Semitic kinship of Berber does not imply a "coming from the Middle East (Semitic) or from East Africa"... On the contrary, everything indicates, the prehistoric data as well as the linguistic data, a very great antiquity of Berber in North Africa (cf. Chaker 2006b)" "In consideration of the deep unity of Berber over a considerable area, one could even very legitimately put forward the hypothesis that the initial cradle of the Chamito-Semitic languages, contrary to all the classical theses, could well be North Africa, the only pole of stability and continuity in the Chamito-Semitic group, from which the branches and languages of the family would have diversified, by migration towards the south-east (Cushitic and Chadic domain), towards the east (Egyptian and Semitic domain). In any case, the hypothesis is no less legitimate than all the others put forward previously and even seems to be supported by the linguistic material, particularly grammatical, since the Berber system often appears both as prototypical and particularly transparent in the Chamito-Semitic group..."

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
You're tiresome smh again wtf are you talking about ? Where do you read all of this BS ?

Why can't you understand that showing affinities with iberians make sense since the EEF and bell beaker like ancestry of north africans came from there ? Why can't you understand that it is a historical consensus that north africa didn't receive much "italian/roman" settlers unlike for example Spain ? Why do you avoid the fact that not a single genetic paper found italian/roman influence among north africans ?


Scholars talking about early european farmers settling in north africa isn't the same as roman admixture in north africans since Iron age italians weren't simply defined by early european farmer admixture so yes you can speak about a shared mediterranean genetic heritage and at the same time seeing that north africans didn't receive italian influx during the iron age. Again take the timeframe into account and stop with your broad and inaccurate labels such as "mediterranean" or "african".

And Salem Chaker has actually a quite "berberocentrist" approach proposing interesting theories like this :

quote:

---

In particular, it is good to insist on the fact that the Chamito-Semitic kinship of Berber does not imply a "coming from the Middle East (Semitic) or from East Africa"... On the contrary, everything indicates, the prehistoric data as well as the linguistic data, a very great antiquity of Berber in North Africa (cf. Chaker 2006b)" "In consideration of the deep unity of Berber over a considerable area, one could even very legitimately put forward the hypothesis that the initial cradle of the Chamito-Semitic languages, contrary to all the classical theses, could well be North Africa, the only pole of stability and continuity in the Chamito-Semitic group, from which the branches and languages of the family would have diversified, by migration towards the south-east (Cushitic and Chadic domain), towards the east (Egyptian and Semitic domain). In any case, the hypothesis is no less legitimate than all the others put forward previously and even seems to be supported by the linguistic material, particularly grammatical, since the Berber system often appears both as prototypical and particularly transparent in the Chamito-Semitic group..."

---

https://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/314


We literally have protohistoric algerians, punics and roman era north africans who all cluster with each other and modern north africans this can't obviously be explained by "roman admixture"; this simply means genetic continuity in the region since at least the bronze age and you'll have to accept it.

---

quote:

---

Our Algerian series of Roman period presents, as a whole, affinities at the same time with the "Berber" populations of North Africa and with various other Mediterranean populations. Among these last, the Eastern Iberian populations of the same time hold undoubtedly a privileged place

---

Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Rome, Spain, Greece, Tunisia and Morocco are all Mediterranean nations are they not? Whatever "mixture" that happened would not have made a substantial impact because they already had a close affinity to begin with is my point. At leas this is what these papers are saying

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Rome was a Mediterranean civilization encompassing all of North Africa and all of Southern Europe and the Levant. So "Romans" were a cosmopolitan Mediterranean population including Spain and North Africa. Carthage was also a Mediterranean civilization. So all of these groups would have had a closer affinity than populations farther away. The main distinction they are making is between "Western" Mediterraneans, as in Iberia and Morocco and Rome as "Central" Mediterranean all while acknowledging them all as being related as "Mediterranean".

Not sure why you don't see this. [/QB]

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Rome, Spain, Greece, Tunisia and Morocco are all Mediterranean nations are they not? Whatever "mixture" that happened would not have made a substantial impact because they already had a close affinity to begin with is my point. At leas this is what these papers are saying

---

they are geographically located along the mediterranean sea so what ? That doesn't mean they are genetically similar to each other nor that they share the same cultures/history. The papers are saying that outside north africa, these skulls show affinities with series in countries like Spain not that all meditarraneans are genetically the same people. If you remember correctly in another thread I made, they concluded the same for modern algerians does that mean algerians are genetically similar to spaniards ? Does that mean algerians look exactly like spaniards ? Obviously no.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Rome was a Mediterranean civilization encompassing all of North Africa and all of Southern Europe and the Levant. So "Romans" were a cosmopolitan Mediterranean population including Spain and North Africa. Carthage was also a Mediterranean civilization. So all of these groups would have had a closer affinity than populations farther away. The main distinction they are making is between "Western" Mediterraneans, as in Iberia and Morocco and Rome as "Central" Mediterranean all while acknowledging them all as being related as "Mediterranean".

Not sure why you don't see this.

---

what does the identity of a people at x period tell us about their genetics ? Nothing. Identifying as "roman" especially during the imperial era didn't mean that person was genetically italian or similar to them. Anyway The "mediterranean" you mention is simply a reference to either geography or shared components like EEF/ANF which peaks in Southern europe but is also found in North Africa and the Levant/anatolia and overall craniometrically these populations aren't drastically different. They are not saying they are basically the same people.

---

Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
wtffff that's absolutely not what the paper suggests

since when sharing affinities with eastern iberians means berber came from there ???

Iberians and romans being mediterranean populations doesn't mean they were the same people genetically or physically.


Anyway stop deviating, the results show they didn't differ much from us 2000 years ago and that kabyles might be a good proxy unlike tuaregs

---

Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

On the “Romanization” of North Africa
General remarks on the Mediterranean opening of the Maghreb.

If the populations of North Africa are, on the whole, quite close to the Mediterranean populations, in general (see, for example, Coon, 1939, and Vallois, 1944), the reason is undoubtedly a certain community of origin, and perhaps also an adaptation to more or less similar living conditions.

Following many authors, it is also tempting to invoke, to explain this phenomenon, the importance of the relations that these different populations have maintained for millennia. Indeed, especially from — 3200, when the Sahara began to dry up — resulting in the formation of the Maghreb "island" — it seems that, thanks to navigation, Barbary became increasingly more Mediterranean.

Later, these relations were accentuated. Hence, in particular, the ancient traditions, which can be described as Mediterranean, noted by various ethnologists (Servier, 1962; Camps, 1961, 1965 and 1968; etc.).

However, cultural influences do not necessarily imply considerable displacements of populations, and racial mixtures likely to upset the anthropological structure of populations. Thus, Bousquet (1967), relying on the work of various authors, asserts that, since the Neolithic, North Africa has received "far more successive civilizations than human masses, capable of removing and replacing the prehistoric bases of its population".

---

quote:

---

Findings.

Thus, we risk finding, in our sample as a whole, a certain heterogeneity, making its exploitation somewhat tricky. Indeed, it is not impossible, according to what we have said above, that some of our subjects are made up of real "Romans", originating from Italy (or elsewhere), as we can having to deal with autochthones having no external element in their close ancestry or with more or less "Romanized" natives.

However, despite this fundamental uncertainty, and the reservations it entails as to the representativeness of such a "sample", we believe that the publication of this series can, to a certain extent, help us to reconstruct the anthropological history and the recent evolution of the populations of North Africa.

The elements we have elsewhere are, in fact, very rudimentary, since we designate for the moment by the same term "protohistoric", without being able to establish a better chronological distinction, all the individuals found in the "megalithic" burials. from Algeria (see Chamla, 1968). However, these burials can date as well from — 1300 as from later than the Roman period (some dolmens are built with stones bearing Roman inscriptions), or even be immediately prior to the Arab conquest (1). Compared to all of these Protohistorics, our series can therefore, chronologically, seem quite privileged, since it relates to a relatively well-defined period, and can constitute a sort of milestone.

---

quote:

---

Craniometric analysis of the whole

We propose, in this chapter, to gather the main craniometric data obtained. Naturally, given the relative smallness of our total series (34 skulls), and above all the uncertainty which weighs on its composition, it would be unwise to give us, from this material, an overconfident analysis of the figures, leading to conclusive conclusions. It nevertheless seems interesting to treat the whole as if it were truly representative of a determined population; this will not prevent us, if necessary, from noting certain particular tendencies, which can manifest themselves there in a more or less marginal way.

---

quote:

---

Miscellaneous comparisons.

I Populations of North Africa. — Comparisons with the ancient populations of the Maghreb are made difficult by the fact that no synthesis work has been carried out recently on them. Indeed, the important work of Chamla (1968) practically only concerned subjects found between 16 and 21 degrees of latitude, for the Neolithic, and between 21 and 28 degrees of latitude, for the Protohistoric, i.e. in sub-Saharan or Saharan regions.

[b]It seems, however, according to the data we have, that the Neolithic Maghrebians (advanced Capsians) are clearly more dolichocephalic than our subjects of the Roman period. The same remark applies to the Protohistoric Saharans.

As for the Protohistoric of non-Saharan Algeria, they seem more mesocephalic than the latter, and are very close to the subjects of our series for this character. Indeed, if we are to believe the figures relating to twenty skulls from the dolmens of Roknia, reported by Bertholon and Chantre (from Faidherbe, 1867), the cranial index of these Protohistorics would be close to 75. It seems however that their foreheads are narrower than our subjects (2).

For comparisons with current populations, we must turn preferably to those which are least likely to have been “Arabized” over the centuries. In fact, the craniological material concerning these "Berbers" is relatively rare in the collections. Thus, D. Ferembach (1957) is reduced to using only four skulls from Chaouias, to attempt a rapprochement between an ancient Palestinian and these inhabitants of the Aurès. The data collected on the living being incomparably more numerous, it is rather to them that we will refer, although the comparison between measurements taken on the bone and measurements taken on the living poses some problems (3).

We have, in particular, figures relating to various male series: Rifains by Coon (1931), Touareg and Zenata studied by Briggs (1955 a and b), Kabyles studied by Kidder, Coon and Briggs (1955)... These figures are remarkably close to each other. Our series does not seem very far from it, at least for the large cranial diameters and the cephalic index. However, the frontal diameter, although quite strong, is undoubtedly less large

(1) Tindja's skull, which has extreme values ​​for several characters and presents various "mechtoid" features, seems quite isolated. (2) M.-C. Chamla undertook the complete revision of this material from the protohistoric period. Its results will undoubtedly allow fruitful comparisons with our series, which is chronologically close. (3) According to some authors, approximately 9 mm should be added to the length of the skull, 7.5 mm to the maximum width, etc. As for the cranial index, it generally varies little.

in our series than among the Tuareg, for example. Moreover, the latter have, among other particularities, a stature certainly higher (174 cm). But if, according to Briggs (1955 a), the Tuareg of the Sahara "seem to be only primitive Berbers of the Mediterranean type, probably very pure originally", we can, to explain their current "specialization", bring in, with this author (1955 a and b), a certain interbreeding and above all an adaptation to their desert habitat. There is therefore nothing to prevent, a priori, the various groups of current Berbers descending from individuals close to those in our series... (1)

2 Other "Mediterranean" populations. — It would seem difficult to establish comparisons with a determined population of Italy, which would be supposed to represent anthropologically the colonists of the first centuries. Indeed, the "Romans" of the time had a great physical diversity, as well as the current Italians (cf. Sergi, etc.); and it would no doubt be illusory to use, as Pons does (1949) (2), a series such as that of Pompeii (Martin, 1928, after Schmidt, 1888)... —despite the existence of the famous Pannonian horsemen mentioned in relation to Tipasa—the "Roman" series from Austria published by Lebzelter (1935), and cited by Alcobe (1940).

On the other hand, the Spanish series from the Roman period posed to the authors who studied them problems so analogous to ours that it would seem inappropriate not to dwell on them (3). The Tarragona and Ampurias series are particularly important (228 skulls in total). We have included in Table III the corresponding data, collected by Pons. This author concludes, referring, it is true, to the brachycephali of Pompeii, that these series relate rather to the indigenous population of the time, and that the influence of the invaders must have been, all in all, extremely limited, biologically.

We will observe, as for us, that our series does not differ notably from these contemporary series of the east of Spain, if it is not, it seems, by a greater length of the skull (even by admitting that it includes a majority of men) (4). It seems, moreover, that she had approximately the same height (163 cm for the men; 152 cm for the women).

Pons writes about these series: "Las comparaciones con otras series acentúan la impresión de predominio racial mediterraneo"... No doubt the same observation could be made about the average of our subjects: these are essentially " Mediterranean", which means that they are close, in fact, to all the populations to which this qualifier can be attributed, from the "crania hispanica" to the Egyptians of the north.

(1) Briggs remarks that the sedentary Zenata of the Saharan oases, less exposed than the Tuareg to climatic influences, are in a way intermediate between them and the Kabyles (who have a height of less than 165 cm, on average). (2) Despite the heterogeneity that he recognizes in these invaders. (3) The importance of the Roman settlement of Spain has also preoccupied many authors (Serra-Rafols, etc.).Note that a particular section of the 4th International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (Madrid, 1954) was devoted to "Rome and its invasions". (4) On the contrary, our subjects have nothing in common with the few "Dinarico-Armenoid" individuals from the island of Ibiza, published by Alcobe.

It would not be the same, obviously, for some other populations of the Mediterranean basin: let us think, for example, to limit ourselves to remains from the Roman period, to subjects originating from Israel, studied by D. Ferembach (1960) , or those of Ibiza already mentioned.

We can also note certain chronological lags in the increase in the cephalic index of the different "Mediterranean" populations: in Greece, if we are to believe the data of Angel (1948), quoted by Bunak (1969), this index rose from 75.8 to 77.6 between the Neolithic and Roman times. In our Roman series from Algeria, we saw that it was around 75 (a value that has been maintained, for example, among the Tuareg). In Sardinia, on the contrary, it was still only 73, in the nť century of our era, and was not to reach 75 until several centuries later (Fenu and Pelosi, 1967).


Conclusion

Thus, despite a certain heterogeneity—difficult to assess—our Algerian series from the Roman period presents, as a whole, affinities both with the “Berber” populations of North Africa and with various other Mediterranean populations. Among the latter, the East Iberian populations of the same period undoubtedly hold a privileged place, according to the data we have (table III).

---

Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
That's better than your usual straw man arguments anyway what you posted simply confirms what I told you about EEF ancestry and chalcolithic migrations these are well know facts that yourself acknowledged before but again that does not mean coastal north africans are basically the same people as south europeans or other mediterraneans.

This common heritage/shared ancestry they talk about is this :



but as you can see they diverge from each other with north africans having substantial amount of iberomaurusian ancestry, west african ancestry and middle eastern ancestry (especially natufian) meanwhile levantines have a good chunk of Iran_N, CHG and Natufian so as you can see it's not black and white there is a certain amount of diversity and maybe as an american you're not used to witness this but here in europe it's quite easy to distinguish north africans from south europeans even if sometimes overlap is possible.

Now the paper does not say the set of samples has pure romans, they speculate that it might be possible that some remains are fully roman/italian and as for this hetereogeneity that was actually already highlighted for modern coastal algerians for example so that's not an argument in itself.


So now my problem with you is that you implied modern north africans look the way they do because of recent admixture event while that's obviously not the case, the "mediterranean" ancestry they talk about goes back to the late neolithic period and for the little amount of steppe ancestry that goes back to the chalcolithic era.

---

Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I don't make straw man arguments. What I wanted to do is make sure you understood my position. Which is that "North" African history does not start along the Mediterranean. Whatever the features of Mediterraneans were or are, that is not "representative" of all "North" Africans. I have said this numerous times and I guess you keep missing it. "Mediterraneans" on both sides have all been affected by mixture. Europeans themselves are saying this with EEF and their own work suggests that European were darker skinned before the Neolithic. How would that not also be true in North Africa? So it is impossible to say that these populations have stayed fixed over 10,000 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: But more to your point, I understand what you mean which is that all lighter skinned North Africans aren't simply the result of recent mixture. I get it. And on that point yes, due to clinal gradients (meaning local populations in Africa being adapted to a certain area) lighter skin would naturally evolve. HOWEVER, that is not white with blonde and brunet hair either, so while that evolution took place, that still doesn't discount mixture and migrations. Mixture happens everywhere even in populations of the same phenotype. So while yes, lighter skinned coastal Africans are 'indigenous' that does not rule out any mixture in the last 5,000 years. Keep in mind that there are over 1.5 million Berber speakers in France and there is going to be mixture as those populations assimilate into French society in future generations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: But at the bottom of all this is the idea of whether North Africans are "Africans". That is the biggest issue. When I hear there were no 'blacks' in North Africa it just sounds like they weren't Africans. To me, North Africans are Africans with and without lighter skin, who have been subject to mixture over a long period of time because of their geographical location. But that still means they are Africans with African cultural traditions with a layer of mixture on top of that. That doesn't mean population replacement. I find it funny how people can argue that Ethiopians are "mixed" but then argue that North Africans are "pure". But either way, this idea of Africans staying true to themselves as Africans is an issue all over the continent. It isn't unique to North Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: As for this paper, it isn't discussing DNA. It is only discussing cranial metrics and as such, "Mediterraneans" should cluster together. And we know that the various civilizations of the time spanned the Mediterranean so there was mixture on both sides. And this paper specifically says that the features of the mecthoids has been gradually erased from the modern populations. So that again shows these populations didn't stay the same as the 'archaics' from 10,000 years ago. They even mention the fact that these skulls are more "robust" on the African side of the Mediterranean as a distinction with the European ones. And they didn't do any specific correlation with any modern populations in North Africa because they didn't have the skulls to work with. [/QB]

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:

That makes no sense for multiple reasons,the human family carries the same genes for melanin production,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal: I don't know what's consider average North African pigmentation level but Africans further south can have mutations in melanin related to be light skin.

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
From what I understand about skin pigmentation,it's the result of the UV index and possible mutations over time.North Africa are basically mulattoes color wise,not too dark to be called black or brown but dark enough that no one would called them white,minus the ones that look phenotypically comparable to Europeans. Africans further south can mutate and be that light but on average darker than North Africans.


Yes they do. The issue is group specific mutations with regards to those melanin related genes.

---

quote:

---

Dark skin color has persisted in human populations in Africa and appears to have evolved independently among people dispersing to the southern Indian subcontinent, and to Melanesia and Australia because of its contribution toward the survival and successful reproduction of populations living under high UVR at low latitudes. Skin color and levels of UVR are highly correlated, to the extent that skin color can be almost fully modeled as an effect of autumn UVR levels alone (Chaplin 2004).

---

quote:

---

The geographical gradient of human skin color evolved under the influence of natural selection, and very similar skin colors (dark, light, and intermediate) evolved independently numerous times under similar UVR conditions. This finding means that skin color cannot be used as a marker of unique genetic or racial identity.

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

The derived rs56203814 and rsl0424065 (T) alleles associated with dark pigmentation are present only in African populations (or those of recent African descent) and are most common in East African populations with Nilo-Saharan ancestry (Fig. 1 and fig. S4). Coalescent analysis of the SGDP dataset indicates that the rsl0424065 (T) allele predates the 300 kya origin of modern humans

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
What are you talking about? I only stated they human family carries the same melanin related genes but have group specific mutations leading to lighter skin or a variation of dark skin. Also,all people are of African ancestry but are separated by time and environmental factors.

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I don't make straw man arguments. What I wanted to do is make sure you understood my position. Which is that "North" African history does not start along the Mediterranean. Whatever the features of Mediterraneans were or are, that is not "representative" of all "North" Africans. I have said this numerous times and I guess you keep missing it. "Mediterraneans" on both sides have all been affected by mixture. Europeans themselves are saying this with EEF and their own work suggests that European were darker skinned before the Neolithic. How would that not also be true in North Africa? So it is impossible to say that these populations have stayed fixed over 10,000 years.

---

I can't agree with someone that constantly bring conspiracy theories where every european scholars is trying to make anything "eurasian" or closer to them not even late XIXth european scholars were like that. It seems you just believe this because their findings do not support your narrative. Meanwhile you would see no problem with a black "scholar" like sheikh anta diop saying north africans became white because of vandals...

---

quote:

---

General remarks on the Mediterranean opening of the Maghreb.

If the populations of North Africa are, on the whole, quite close to the Mediterranean populations, in general (see, for example, Coon, 1939, and Vallois, 1944), the reason is undoubtedly a certain community of origin, and perhaps also an adaptation to more or less similar living conditions.

Following many authors, it is also tempting to invoke, to explain this phenomenon, the importance of the relations that these different populations have maintained for millennia. Indeed, especially from — 3200, when the Sahara began to dry up — resulting in the formation of the Maghreb "island" — it seems that, thanks to navigation, Barbary became increasingly more Mediterranean.

Later, these relations were accentuated. Hence, in particular, the ancient traditions, which can be described as Mediterranean, noted by various ethnologists (Servier, 1962; Camps, 1961, 1965 and 1968; etc.).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

Moreover your statements aren't in line with reality, I already get it that you want us to also take into account other north africans who live further south but like I told you this "north africa" label is conventional and demographically north africans for most of their history have always lived along the fertile mediterranean coast which makes totally sense even a child would understand why more people live there than in the desert lol That's also where most proper civilizations sprang out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

In regards to continuity, my point has always been the same : there hasn't been drastic changes in the last 4000 years if not 5000 years. As for earlier populations like Iberomaurusians, I know that their component peaks in modern north africans around 30%-50% that's absolutely not a negligeable amount of ancestry and being dark skinned doesn't mean they were drastically different from us physically. I feel like you imply being dark skinned means they looked like modern SSAs, I obviously don't agree with that nor would I see all dark skinned people as related to each other simply because of similar levels of melanin in their skin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: But more to your point, I understand what you mean which is that all lighter skinned North Africans aren't simply the result of recent mixture. I get it. And on that point yes, due to clinal gradients (meaning local populations in Africa being adapted to a certain area) lighter skin would naturally evolve. HOWEVER, that is not white with blonde and brunet hair either, so while that evolution took place, that still doesn't discount mixture and migrations. Mixture happens everywhere even in populations of the same phenotype. So while yes, lighter skinned coastal Africans are 'indigenous' that does not rule out any mixture in the last 5,000 years. Keep in mind that there are over 1.5 million Berber speakers in France and there is going to be mixture as those populations assimilate into French society in future generations.

---

Like Maestro told you before, it's not simply a question of clinal gradient/adaptation. North africans received proper "european" admixture during the late neolithic and chalcolithic and these europeans were light skinned (and btw also had SNPs for blue eyes and blond hair).

Now I'm not denying that some recent admixture event could have occured but I only detect them for specific locations or tribe. It is not a general trend and all the ancient samples (I'm not talking about prehistorical samples here) are similar to the modern ones. What I also don't like about your argument is your hypocrisy in regards to black admixture. Strangely you accept every foreign admixture except the one coming from sub-saharan africa meanwhile you know millions of black slaves were brought in North Africa. I already showed you the genetic impact of such slave trade but you ignored it...that's a bit like those crazy americans who believe that most blacks in america were not brought by the atlantic slave trade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: But at the bottom of all this is the idea of whether North Africans are "Africans". That is the biggest issue. When I hear there were no 'blacks' in North Africa it just sounds like they weren't Africans. To me, North Africans are Africans with and without lighter skin, who have been subject to mixture over a long period of time because of their geographical location. But that still means they are Africans with African cultural traditions with a layer of mixture on top of that. That doesn't mean population replacement. I find it funny how people can argue that Ethiopians are "mixed" but then argue that North Africans are "pure". But either way, this idea of Africans staying true to themselves as Africans is an issue all over the continent. It isn't unique to North Africa.

---

I already told you that this argument doesn't make any sense and it might be due to your american background where every black are put in the same bag and where people think all africans are related to each other or look the same. Africa is the continent with the highest genetic/ethnic diversity ; the khoisan is different from the senegambian, the latter is not similar to the tigray from ethiopia and this one isn't similar to the berber sheperd from the high atlas mountain. How is that difficult to understand ? Is an indian related to japanese because they both live in Asia ? So stop with this "african people" "african admixture" acknowledge the diversity pls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

When we say that ethiopians are mixed it's in contrast to populations from west or central africa who don't have as much eurasian ancestry that's why people from the Horn of Africa plot in between west africans and people from the middle east. When we say berbers are pure, it's in the sense that they didn't change much for a long time period unlike neighbouring populations who are the product of recent population movements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: As for this paper, it isn't discussing DNA. It is only discussing cranial metrics and as such, "Mediterraneans" should cluster together. And we know that the various civilizations of the time spanned the Mediterranean so there was mixture on both sides. And this paper specifically says that the features of the mecthoids has been gradually erased from the modern populations. So that again shows these populations didn't stay the same as the 'archaics' from 10,000 years ago. They even mention the fact that these skulls are more "robust" on the African side of the Mediterranean as a distinction with the European ones. And they didn't do any specific correlation with any modern populations in North Africa because they didn't have the skulls to work with.

---

It isn't discussing DNA but DNA influences your morphology that's why in many forensic papers, they note the presence of SSA traits in north african remains and that's simply because north africans have SSA admixture and they actually did compared the samples to modern populations from North Africa pay more attention to the quotes you posted.

---

Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
This is what I mean about you talking gibberish, because that isn't what I said. Mixture is everywhere in human history. There is no population on earth that is free from mixing. Anytime two humans produce a child, by definition they are mixing genes. You are simply making a strawman argument and totally not understanding what is being said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Your own document states that these people are "Mediterranean".
this has nothing to do with conspiracies. If you read the actual documents listed and referenced they all point to Berbers as part of a "Mediterranean" population. These French Berber scholars writing in the 60s were using as reference other works from European scholars and they all at the time featured racial concepts in their works because that is the history of European anthropology. These references of yours even state that point blank. You simply either cant read or are just interested in trolling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: The point I was making is that cline means "gradient" in the sense that human variation in phenotype doesn't shift abruptly from one extreme to another. Therefore there is a gradient of gradual changes in phenotype and other metric traits across populations from one part of the world to another. That is part of standard anthropology. Meditteranean populations generally will cluster together as these populations along the coasts of both sides of the sea generally inhabit similar environments. And this is without mixture. Again, that doesn't make Europeans into Africans necessarily or ancient Africans into Europeans. They both are populations adapted to similar environments. Of course we know mixture has occurred but that still doesn't change the overall point. Ancient Africans wit so-called "caucausoid" features are still Africans and reflect local adaptation and features not necessarily mixture. The distinction is that humans in Africa have been in Africa longer than anywhere else and had more time to generate such diversity in phenotype and are the prototype for all other populations in that respect. Europeans are not the prototype for African diversity.

---

Thanks for contradicting yourself, they don't shift abruptly but you don't see a problem by claiming that north africans who lived 15km away from Europe looked like this :

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: There was no such thing as "North Africa" 2,000 years ago. There was no such thing as "Africa" 2,000 years ago. These ideas are modern and originate mostly with European scholars over the last 200 years. Before that in the Medieval Era you had the Maghreb and Sudan, along with Mauretania and Ifrika during the Roman period and in the Greek Era you had Libya as a reference to the entire continent of Africa along with Ethiopia bu those are all foreign labels not indigenous to the continent. What you are saying is false. No population in Africa ever identified as "African" in ancient history and no population identified as "West African", "North African", "South African" and so forth based on some kind of geographical concept. You are simply wrong. Most Africans in history identified with a clan or culture not an entire geographic region. And many of the Berber tribes of the Medieval period were distinct cultural units in their own right and had their own individual identities. This idea of a unified pan North African identity is a recent concept and has no historical basis.

---

quote:

---

But the fossil form of "Friguia", which still designates the middle valley of the Medjerda, should remind people that the ethnic "Afer", which is at the origin of the name Africa, first designated tribes that lived on the territories of present-day Tunisia.

---

Mhamed Fantar, L'Afrique du Nord dans L'antiquité, p. 24


if you visit local ruins it's not rare to see this :




Also here you acknowledge that during the medieval era people used to differentiate NW Africa from sub-saharan africa. I thought this was a recent european invention to separate the AFRICAN berbers from their AFRICAN black brothers ? Do you at least know what Bilad as-sudan means ? Literally Land of the Blacks...

Also stop talking about things you don't have much knowledge about, there were people who used to describe themselves as "african" here an example :

quote:

---

In his writings, Augustine leaves some information as to the consciousness of his African heritage. For example, he refers to Apuleius as "the most notorious of us Africans," to Ponticianus as "a country man of ours, insofar as being African,"and to Faustus of Mileve as "an African Gentleman".

---

quote:

---

To what extent," replied Augustine, "have you been able to forget yourself, you an African writing to Africans, when you both live in Africa, to think you have to make fun of Punic names! Surely, you regret to have been born where the cradle of this language remains alive12 ". [...] It can be said, therefore, that Augustine was keenly aware of his Africanness. On the other hand, he participated in Carthage in a series of councils where, around bishop Aurelius, the autonomy of the Church of Africa was firmly defended against the already centralizing pretensions of the Roman apostolic see1

---

quote:

---

"The Berbers have always been a powerful, formidable, brave and numerous people: a true people like so many others in this world, such as the Arabs, Persians, Greeks and Romans..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Being dark skinned means being African and African in origin because Africa as a continent straddles the equator and in such an environment humans would have dark skin. Dark skin could not originate in Northern Europe or Eurasia. That is the point. All dark skinned Africans do not look the same and dark skinned humans have existed on this planet longer than any other phenotype all over the planet. Black North Africans are simply Africans. Of course all Africans don't have dark skin but even lighter skinned Africans are still Africans. My point is that this dark skin is what connects those ancient populations to Africa and not somewhere else. Meaning ancient Coastal North Africans originated in Africa and not anywhere else. I don't know what kind of ridiculous nonsense that you are trying to argue here. If the DNA says that these ancient Iberomaurisans originated in Africa then that is the point. They aren't some kind of "other". They were Africans.

---

What does "african" mean outside of geography ? Are you implying these dark skinned africans looked the same ? Had the same genetic profile ? Had the same culture/industry ? lived in similar environnements ?


If you tell me persians and japanese are both asiatic populations it doesn't give me much informations about any of them.


Moreover are you implying that coastal north africa receive the same amount of UV radiation as the "equator" ? Coastal north africa literally receive the same amount of UV radiation as southern europe :





So why would modern north africans be adapted to this mediterranean environment but not their Iberomaurusian ancestors who lived there for a longer period ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Human history in Africa is 300,000 years old. Black Africans have always been in all parts of Africa. You just keep siting here trying to argue that ancient coastal North Africans are some kind of "other" even if they had dark skin. As if to say these ancient populations weren't Africans. They were Africans and black Africans did not get to North Africa 1,500 years ago due to slavery. That is not even based on any kind of historical facts. You are still trying to distinguish Coastal North Africans as some kind of "other" even if they had dark skin (ie. black) in ancient times. That is what I am arguing against. Iberomaurisans were Africans and did not get their dark skin from slavery. That is dumb. Quibbling about what "dark skin" means is just a straw man. The english definition of black people means dark skin people originating in Africa. So now you are going to argue against English as a conspiracy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: What doesn't make sense? Are you sitting here making all this noise about ancient Africans being Africans? What the hell is it with you spending all this time and effort trying to make a distinction between coastal Africans and other Africans? This is a you problem. They were Africans. The Iberomaurisans were Africans. You keep making stupid statements that do not reflect anything I have said. You never heard me say that the Iberomaurisans were West Africans, Central Africans or East Africans. Those areas are all over 2,000 miles away from the coasts of North Africa. You are basically making more strawman arguments to try and justify an absurd position that ancient coastal North Africans were some kind of "other" and not related to other Africans. The Iberomaurisan DNA study shows that to be false, yet you sit here and argue like somehow that i believe those populations were ancient West Africans. That's not what I said and you never heard me say it so you are trolling very hard making strawmen arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Again, if the modern Berbers don't have 100% the same DNA profile as the ancient Iberomaurisans then they are not the same and we know there has been mixture since then. If there was Eurasian migrations in the Neolithic then they are mixed. I don't know what it is with you making these arguments when they contradict each other. Ethiopians overall ave more genetic continuity than some coastal North Africans yet you are sitting here calling them mixed. You are contradicting yourself and just trolling.

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
This is what I mean about you talking gibberish, because that isn't what I said. Mixture is everywhere in human history. There is no population on earth that is free from mixing. Anytime two humans produce a child, by definition they are mixing genes. You are simply making a strawman argument and totally not understanding what is being said.

---

stop being in denial, you literally complain about "europeans" in every of your post. Refute the datas and methods instead of bringing ad hominems and conspiracy theories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Your own document states that these people are "Mediterranean".
this has nothing to do with conspiracies. If you read the actual documents listed and referenced they all point to Berbers as part of a "Mediterranean" population. These French Berber scholars writing in the 60s were using as reference other works from European scholars and they all at the time featured racial concepts in their works because that is the history of European anthropology. These references of yours even state that point blank. You simply either cant read or are just interested in trolling.

---

Yes "mediterranean" the same way i'll use "european" or "asian" in other studies. Again They show craniometric similarities between north africans and west mediterraneans that's it.

You literally interpreted their datas as "it means berbers come from east iberia" and it's me who's interested in trolling ?

---

quote:

---

If the populations of North Africa are, on the whole, quite close to the Mediterranean populations, in general (see, for example, Coon, 1939, and Vallois, 1944), the reason is undoubtedly a certain community of origin, and perhaps also an adaptation to more or less similar living conditions.

Following many authors, it is also tempting to invoke, to explain this phenomenon, the importance of the relations that these different populations have maintained for millennia. Indeed, especially from — 3200, when the Sahara began to dry up — resulting in the formation of the Maghreb "island" — it seems that, thanks to navigation, Barbary became increasingly more Mediterranean.

Later, these relations were accentuated. Hence, in particular, the ancient traditions, which can be described as Mediterranean, noted by various ethnologists (Servier, 1962; Camps, 1961, 1965 and 1968; etc.).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: The point I was making is that cline means "gradient" in the sense that human variation in phenotype doesn't shift abruptly from one extreme to another. Therefore there is a gradient of gradual changes in phenotype and other metric traits across populations from one part of the world to another. That is part of standard anthropology. Meditteranean populations generally will cluster together as these populations along the coasts of both sides of the sea generally inhabit similar environments. And this is without mixture. Again, that doesn't make Europeans into Africans necessarily or ancient Africans into Europeans. They both are populations adapted to similar environments. Of course we know mixture has occurred but that still doesn't change the overall point. Ancient Africans wit so-called "caucausoid" features are still Africans and reflect local adaptation and features not necessarily mixture. The distinction is that humans in Africa have been in Africa longer than anywhere else and had more time to generate such diversity in phenotype and are the prototype for all other populations in that respect. Europeans are not the prototype for African diversity.

---

Thanks for contradicting yourself, they don't shift abruptly but you don't see a problem by claiming that north africans who lived 15km away from Europe looked like this :

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: There was no such thing as "North Africa" 2,000 years ago. There was no such thing as "Africa" 2,000 years ago. These ideas are modern and originate mostly with European scholars over the last 200 years. Before that in the Medieval Era you had the Maghreb and Sudan, along with Mauretania and Ifrika during the Roman period and in the Greek Era you had Libya as a reference to the entire continent of Africa along with Ethiopia bu those are all foreign labels not indigenous to the continent. What you are saying is false. No population in Africa ever identified as "African" in ancient history and no population identified as "West African", "North African", "South African" and so forth based on some kind of geographical concept. You are simply wrong. Most Africans in history identified with a clan or culture not an entire geographic region. And many of the Berber tribes of the Medieval period were distinct cultural units in their own right and had their own individual identities. This idea of a unified pan North African identity is a recent concept and has no historical basis.

---

actually "Africa" 2000 years ago was the name of approximately modern day tunisia

it derives from a local berber group who were known as Afri/Afer :

quote:

---

But the fossil form of "Friguia", which still designates the middle valley of the Medjerda, should remind people that the ethnic "Afer", which is at the origin of the name Africa, first designated tribes that lived on the territories of present-day Tunisia.

---

Mhamed Fantar, L'Afrique du Nord dans L'antiquité, p. 24

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:


if you visit local ruins it's not rare to see this :




Also here you acknowledge that during the medieval era people used to differentiate NW Africa from sub-saharan africa. I thought this was a recent european invention to separate the AFRICAN berbers from their AFRICAN black brothers ? Do you at least know what Bilad as-sudan means ? Literally Land of the Blacks...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

Also stop talking about things you don't have much knowledge about, there were people who used to describe themselves as "african" here an example :

quote:

---

In his writings, Augustine leaves some information as to the consciousness of his African heritage. For example, he refers to Apuleius as "the most notorious of us Africans," to Ponticianus as "a country man of ours, insofar as being African,"and to Faustus of Mileve as "an African Gentleman".

---

quote:

---

To what extent," replied Augustine, "have you been able to forget yourself, you an African writing to Africans, when you both live in Africa, to think you have to make fun of Punic names! Surely, you regret to have been born where the cradle of this language remains alive12 ". [...] It can be said, therefore, that Augustine was keenly aware of his Africanness. On the other hand, he participated in Carthage in a series of councils where, around bishop Aurelius, the autonomy of the Church of Africa was firmly defended against the already centralizing pretensions of the Roman apostolic see1

---

https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/8088

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

Anyway here you're again contradicting yourself, defending the fact they didn't identify with our modern regional labels but at the same time you defend the idea that coastal north africans felt kinship with the inhabitants of the Sahara.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

Again your conspiracy theories about a north african identity being recent is pure bs, or else we wouldn't have seen this for instance :

---

quote:

---

So now my problem with you is that you implied modern north africans look the way they do because of recent admixture event while that's obviously not the case, the "mediterranean" ancestry they talk about goes back to the late neolithic period and for the little amount of steppe ancestry that goes back to the chalcolithic era.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

"The Berbers have always been a powerful, formidable, brave and numerous people: a true people like so many others in this world, such as the Arabs, Persians, Greeks and Romans..."

---

Ibn Khaldun, Histoire des Berbères, I, p. 199-200

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Being dark skinned means being African and African in origin because Africa as a continent straddles the equator and in such an environment humans would have dark skin. Dark skin could not originate in Northern Europe or Eurasia. That is the point. All dark skinned Africans do not look the same and dark skinned humans have existed on this planet longer than any other phenotype all over the planet. Black North Africans are simply Africans. Of course all Africans don't have dark skin but even lighter skinned Africans are still Africans. My point is that this dark skin is what connects those ancient populations to Africa and not somewhere else. Meaning ancient Coastal North Africans originated in Africa and not anywhere else. I don't know what kind of ridiculous nonsense that you are trying to argue here. If the DNA says that these ancient Iberomaurisans originated in Africa then that is the point. They aren't some kind of "other". They were Africans.

---

What does "african" mean outside of geography ? Are you implying these dark skinned africans looked the same ? Had the same genetic profile ? Had the same culture/industry ? lived in similar environnements ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

If you tell me persians and japanese are both asiatic populations it doesn't give me much informations about any of them.


Moreover are you implying that coastal north africa receive the same amount of UV radiation as the "equator" ? Coastal north africa literally receive the same amount of UV radiation as southern europe :

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

So why would modern north africans be adapted to this mediterranean environment but not their Iberomaurusian ancestors who lived there for a longer period ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Human history in Africa is 300,000 years old. Black Africans have always been in all parts of Africa. You just keep siting here trying to argue that ancient coastal North Africans are some kind of "other" even if they had dark skin. As if to say these ancient populations weren't Africans. They were Africans and black Africans did not get to North Africa 1,500 years ago due to slavery. That is not even based on any kind of historical facts. You are still trying to distinguish Coastal North Africans as some kind of "other" even if they had dark skin (ie. black) in ancient times. That is what I am arguing against. Iberomaurisans were Africans and did not get their dark skin from slavery. That is dumb. Quibbling about what "dark skin" means is just a straw man. The english definition of black people means dark skin people originating in Africa. So now you are going to argue against English as a conspiracy.

---

And how am I wrong about it ? Weren't they genetically distinct ? Did they look like other africans ? Did they have the same culture as other africans ? Again nothing of what you said makes sense. Cope with reality, it's just another way for you to appropriate these people and feel some kind of kinship with them. You completely erase the african diversity in profit of a panafrican vision with your "muh black africans".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: What doesn't make sense? Are you sitting here making all this noise about ancient Africans being Africans? What the hell is it with you spending all this time and effort trying to make a distinction between coastal Africans and other Africans? This is a you problem. They were Africans. The Iberomaurisans were Africans. You keep making stupid statements that do not reflect anything I have said. You never heard me say that the Iberomaurisans were West Africans, Central Africans or East Africans. Those areas are all over 2,000 miles away from the coasts of North Africa. You are basically making more strawman arguments to try and justify an absurd position that ancient coastal North Africans were some kind of "other" and not related to other Africans. The Iberomaurisan DNA study shows that to be false, yet you sit here and argue like somehow that i believe those populations were ancient West Africans. That's not what I said and you never heard me say it so you are trolling very hard making strawmen arguments.

---

I'm telling you it doesn't make sense to label people based on geography let alone with the name of a whole continent. That's simply another vicious way for you to claim any people in Africa.

You can say they were africans as much as you want it won't change the fact they shared more in common with populations outside africa, we're dealing with continuums not with strictly defined areas and people.

---

They were Africans because they came from within Africa. It sounds like to me that you don't believe that they originated on the continent of Africa. Iberomaourisans originated on the continent of Africa. They didn't originate anywhere else is my point. It seems that you have a problem with Africa even though AGAIN you just said the word Africa originates with populations along the Mediterranean coasts...... Now you are saying that Africa only means central Africa. You don't even stay consistent to your own talking points because at the end of the day you are trying to say that these people were NOT African. That is the point and that is what I disagree with.

Look at this picture. What does it say?


Did I do that?

Your constant straw man trolling is making you look bad.

I said a few posts ago that nobody in the geographic continent had a single identity as "Afican" and you turned around and contradicted me. Now you are saying that I use the term Africa as a reference to a single historical identity. Stop wasting my time with your nonsense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Again, if the modern Berbers don't have 100% the same DNA profile as the ancient Iberomaurisans then they are not the same and we know there has been mixture since then. If there was Eurasian migrations in the Neolithic then they are mixed. I don't know what it is with you making these arguments when they contradict each other. Ethiopians overall ave more genetic continuity than some coastal North Africans yet you are sitting here calling them mixed. You are contradicting yourself and just trolling.

---

You were not similar to your paleolithic ancestors either ; moreover iberomaurusians were not berbers. If we had to follow your logic every population is mixed including sub-saharan africans.

---

Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


The point is that they said it. There is no point in denying it. And you just literally said that "Mediterranean" means "European" or "Asian". So by that logic and what you just said the following statement is pointing out European and Asian mixture:

So that means mixture does it not and/or origin in Europe and Asia? So what on earth are you arguing about? This is what I mean by gibberish. You sit here and spin in circles contradicting yourself and then claim someone else is misrepresenting what is written and what you are saying. If you replace "Mediterranean" with "Europe/Asia" as you just said that is what you get.... So it sounds like what you are saying is these people weren't Africans. So which one is it?

At this point this is just you trolling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: That is a strawman and has nothing to do with the paper that you posted in the beginning of this thread. You are simply trolling and just going all over the place. What I said in the other thread is that it proves that when the Europeans said Moor it obviously included black people. Where those Moors heads actually came from in Africa is secondary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Ifrika is the term that I was using to represent that area of Tunisa. But again, that still doesn't change the point that those terms were not used as a form of common identity or unity for populations across the continent. Like you said it is a term for a local population in that part of what is now modern day Tunisia. You haven't contradicted what I said you actually just proved it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: So you agree this term came from Rome as a reference to various populations in only a small part of the continent. Only later did it become used to refer to the whole continent and again the word didn't come directly from any natives as a form of self identity across the entire continent. You are trolling if you that this proves otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: You are trolling now. The term Africa orignated with the Romans so of course they would use it. Populations on the continent outside of Roman areas were not using it as a means of self identity. This is what I mean about you just piecing together data in a way that doesn't prove anything but you swear it does. You are talking nonsense and contradicting yourself. Romans using a word that they originated as a reference to the conquest of Carthage does not represent a common term of reference across the continent of Africa. How you sit here and make this argument is what I call gibberish as it literally has no value or merit in relationship to what I said. Just like "Berber" is a foreign term derived from "Barbarian" in various languages and was not a common term of self identity across any population in Northern parts of Africa going back thousands of years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: What does that mean other that mixture? What is it that you are arguing here? I have said numerous times that the mixture has occurred since 5,000 years ago in various parts of North Africa. The difference is that this mixture was on top of an African BASE population as represented by the Iberomaurisan. So what is it that you keep greifing about? These papers also state the same thing. Yet you are sitting here debating that there is a conspiracy when everyone is saying there was mixture over time sometime after the Iberomaurisans. What part of that do you have a problem with?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: What does that have to do with the ancient mixture that took place with Eurasians in some parts of North Africa since the Iberomaurisans? Obviously "berbers" didn't ALWAYS exist. Not sure why you even posted it. Always existed since when 100,000 years ago? Seriously? Before black Africans in North Africa? What are you even saying here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: I said geography. What do you think it means and why does the word bother you? Did I say they lived in single environments. Populations who originate in the continent of Europe are called Europeans. Does that mean Europe has a single environment and all Europeans look the same? Of course not. Asian is a reference to populations that originate in the geographic region called Asia. Does that mean all Asians look alike and live in the same environment? Of course not. You are trolling. Africa means populations originating in the geographic region called Africa. Does that mean all Africans live in the same environments? Of course not. Like I said, you have a problem with these people being African and that is the bottom line issue. This isn' a conspiracy because you are the one who constantly keep going on and on and on about this word. And it is FUNNY how you just sat here and said that the word originated among a group of berber speakers in Tunisia yet now you are contradicting yourself and saying that it doesn't apply to North Africa. This is what I mean about you and your gibberish. You are just constantly spinning in circles spewing totally contradictory talking points swearing you are making sense when you aren't. Now are you going to say that the Africa referred to in Roman times only referred to that area in Tunisia? Talking to you is an exercise in wasting time with someone only intent on trolling....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas: Iberomaurisans weren't Berbers. There was no "berber" 20,000 years ago. I said they were Africans because they originated in Africa which is a fact also supported by DNA. You don't know what you are talking about.

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
@TheReal Algeria is literally the biggest country in Africa and most of it is literally a desert

I said coastal north africa where most north africans lived whether iberomaurusians or modern north africans. Also go tell spaniards their light skin isn't adapted since they get the same values as in North Africa. Don't you know mediterraneans can tan ?

+ your link doesn't work


Here you can see that tropical countries in sub-saharan africa receive much more UV radiation than north african countries and the latter are in the mediterranean range : https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.35300

---

Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
@TheReal Algeria is literally the biggest country in Africa and most of it is literally a desert

I said coastal north africa where most north africans lived whether iberomaurusians or modern north africans. Also go tell spaniards their light skin isn't adapted since they get the same values as in North Africa. Don't you know mediterraneans can tan ?

+ your link doesn't work


Here you can see that tropical countries in sub-saharan africa receive much more UV radiation than north african countries and the latter are in the mediterranean range : https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.35300

---

The image is a yearly UV index of the capital of Algeria. Depending on the timeframe,some arenas are as high as Africa below the Sahara. Also,southern Euros carry African blood from your group and to a lesser extent SSA on top of the similar environment,so what's your point?

---

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
The image is a yearly UV index of the capital of Algeria. Depending on the timeframe,some arenas are as high as Africa below the Sahara. Also,southern Euros carry African blood from your group and to a lesser extent SSA on top of the similar environment,so what's your point? [/QB]

---

Look at the difference :

Algier :




Syracuse, Italy :






Yaounde, Cameroon :




Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso :




Now keep this in mind :

quote:

---

Within the tropics, average UVB is high with peaks at the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. Outside of the tropics, average UVB levels are lower and exhibit a single peak at the summer solstice. Average UVB in northern Eurasia and North America is extremely low and highly variable. Because eumelanin in skin is a highly effective sunscreen, the potential for cutaneous vitamin D production under lower UVB conditions is reduced by dark skin. Darkly pigmented hominins dispersing out of equatorial Africa faced conditions that significantly affected their vitamin D physiology. [...] Higher doses of UVB over longer periods of time are required for this, and these conditions are not met outside of equatorial latitudes. For people with dark skin living outside of the tropics, and especially north or south of 43, there is insufficient UVB available in the sunlight outside of the time immediately around the summer solstice to satisfy the body’s vitamin D requirement (Jablonski and Chaplin 2012). Long-term occupation of non-tropical latitudes was not possible without loss of some eumelanin pigmentation in order to prevent the serious effects of vitamin D deficiency.

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
@TheReal Algeria is literally the biggest country in Africa and most of it is literally a desert

I said coastal north africa where most north africans lived whether iberomaurusians or modern north africans. Also go tell spaniards their light skin isn't adapted since they get the same values as in North Africa. Don't you know mediterraneans can tan ?

+ your link doesn't work


Here you can see that tropical countries in sub-saharan africa receive much more UV radiation than north african countries and the latter are in the mediterranean range : https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.35300

---

The image is a yearly UV index of the capital of Algeria. Depending on the timeframe,some arenas are as high as Africa below the Sahara. Also,southern Euros carry African blood from your group and to a lesser extent SSA on top of the similar environment,so what's your point?

---

The key part of reality is that they're still lighter on average than North Africans.

Think about how it'll logically align with coastal NA and southern Euro sharing the same UV index.

Just throwing you a bone.

---

Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


The point is that they said it. There is no point in denying it. And you just literally said that "Mediterranean" means "European" or "Asian". So by that logic and what you just said the following statement is pointing out European and Asian mixture:

So that means mixture does it not and/or origin in Europe and Asia? So what on earth are you arguing about? This is what I mean by gibberish. You sit here and spin in circles contradicting yourself and then claim someone else is misrepresenting what is written and what you are saying. If you replace "Mediterranean" with "Europe/Asia" as you just said that is what you get.... So it sounds like what you are saying is these people weren't Africans. So which one is it?

At this point this is just you trolling.

---

What did I just read ? wtf...

I brought "asian" "european" so you understand that these are broad terms same as "mediterranean" they don't imply that all people under such labels are the same people. They can share similarities/affinities but are not necessarily the same populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: That is a strawman and has nothing to do with the paper that you posted in the beginning of this thread. You are simply trolling and just going all over the place. What I said in the other thread is that it proves that when the Europeans said Moor it obviously included black people. Where those Moors heads actually came from in Africa is secondary.

---

I just pointed out a contradiction in your narrative and here again you're proving what I said : That the term "moor" also included black and european muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Ifrika is the term that I was using to represent that area of Tunisa. But again, that still doesn't change the point that those terms were not used as a form of common identity or unity for populations across the continent. Like you said it is a term for a local population in that part of what is now modern day Tunisia. You haven't contradicted what I said you actually just proved it.

---

that's what you said : "There was no such thing as "Africa" 2,000 years ago. " I showed you how wrong you are that's it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: So you agree this term came from Rome as a reference to various populations in only a small part of the continent. Only later did it become used to refer to the whole continent and again the word didn't come directly from any natives as a form of self identity across the entire continent. You are trolling if you that this proves otherwise.

---

nobody said otherwise....straw man

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: You are trolling now. The term Africa orignated with the Romans so of course they would use it. Populations on the continent outside of Roman areas were not using it as a means of self identity. This is what I mean about you just piecing together data in a way that doesn't prove anything but you swear it does. You are talking nonsense and contradicting yourself. Romans using a word that they originated as a reference to the conquest of Carthage does not represent a common term of reference across the continent of Africa. How you sit here and make this argument is what I call gibberish as it literally has no value or merit in relationship to what I said. Just like "Berber" is a foreign term derived from "Barbarian" in various languages and was not a common term of self identity across any population in Northern parts of Africa going back thousands of years.

---

You said no one used to identify with such term, I showed you how wrong you are : some coastal north africans could identify as "african" and were known as such outside their region. Anyway be more accurate in your statements next time and let's avoid turning in circles.

---

quote:

---

There was no such thing as "North Africa" 2,000 years ago. There was no such thing as "Africa" 2,000 years ago. These ideas are modern and originate mostly with European scholars over the last 200 years. Before that in the Medieval Era you had the Maghreb and Sudan, along with Mauretania and Ifrika during the Roman period and in the Greek Era you had Libya as a reference to the entire continent of Africa along with Ethiopia bu those are all foreign labels not indigenous to the continent. What you are saying is false. No population in Africa ever identified as "African" in ancient history and no population identified as "West African", "North African", "South African" and so forth based on some kind of geographical concept. You are simply wrong. Most Africans in history identified with a clan or culture not an entire geographic region. And many of the Berber tribes of the Medieval period were distinct cultural units in their own right and had their own individual identities. This idea of a unified pan North African identity is a recent concept and has no historical basis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: What does that mean other that mixture? What is it that you are arguing here? I have said numerous times that the mixture has occurred since 5,000 years ago in various parts of North Africa. The difference is that this mixture was on top of an African BASE population as represented by the Iberomaurisan. So what is it that you keep greifing about? These papers also state the same thing. Yet you are sitting here debating that there is a conspiracy when everyone is saying there was mixture over time sometime after the Iberomaurisans. What part of that do you have a problem with?

---

what are you even talking about ? I think you're confused and misunderstood what I posted. Instead of being so agressive and emotional take the proper time to read my posts because you're completely off topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: What does that have to do with the ancient mixture that took place with Eurasians in some parts of North Africa since the Iberomaurisans? Obviously "berbers" didn't ALWAYS exist. Not sure why you even posted it. Always existed since when 100,000 years ago? Seriously? Before black Africans in North Africa? What are you even saying here?

---

You implied north-west africans never perceived themselves as one entity and that this was a recent european invention and that's not in line we the historical testimonies we have ...if you want I can even show you a testimony of the third century B.C. I really don't see why you bring "iberomaurusians" or "100 000 years ago" wtf...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: I said geography. What do you think it means and why does the word bother you? Did I say they lived in single environments. Populations who originate in the continent of Europe are called Europeans. Does that mean Europe has a single environment and all Europeans look the same? Of course not. Asian is a reference to populations that originate in the geographic region called Asia. Does that mean all Asians look alike and live in the same environment? Of course not. You are trolling. Africa means populations originating in the geographic region called Africa. Does that mean all Africans live in the same environments? Of course not. Like I said, you have a problem with these people being African and that is the bottom line issue. This isn' a conspiracy because you are the one who constantly keep going on and on and on about this word. And it is FUNNY how you just sat here and said that the word originated among a group of berber speakers in Tunisia yet now you are contradicting yourself and saying that it doesn't apply to North Africa. This is what I mean about you and your gibberish. You are just constantly spinning in circles spewing totally contradictory talking points swearing you are making sense when you aren't. Now are you going to say that the Africa referred to in Roman times only referred to that area in Tunisia? Talking to you is an exercise in wasting time with someone only intent on trolling....

---

and I showed you why defining the identity of a people based on geography doesn't make sense let alone based on the name of a continent. Actually it's misleading since it pushes people to believe that people under such labels are related to each other or the same folk.

Again I'm asking you what is the point of saying lebanese are asians ? Iberomaurusians are africans ? french are europeans ? It absolutely give us no consistent information on such people ; it's pointless but you're obsessed and hysterical about it because as a good afrocentrist you want to claim north africans and their civilizations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas: Iberomaurisans weren't Berbers. There was no "berber" 20,000 years ago. I said they were Africans because they originated in Africa which is a fact also supported by DNA. You don't know what you are talking about.

---

Nope DNA shows a good part of their ancestry came from outside africa but you denied it and implied the authors of the papers were racists lol

---

Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Analysis of the anthropological position of the Algerians in relation to the other populations of the Mediterranean basin shows that there are connections between them and certain populations of the western Mediterranean area, such as Corsicans, Sardindians, Spanish, and southern Italians . On the otherhand, however the anthropological distance between the Algerians and the central Italians, the Yugoslavs, and the sedentary populations of the Near East, such as Jordanians, Lebanese, and Syrians, appears to be rather great.

---

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.

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:
@DougM again stop with your staw man ffs I never implied that the whole continent was known as "africa" nor that sub-saharan africans identified as africans. You simply made a generalization and was not enough explicit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

I don't know if its due to a low IQ or dishonesty, but I'm really baffled by how you twist a simple explicit paper : their study clearly show similarities with modern berbers (except tuaregs) and berbers overall whether the ancient ones or the modern ones show affinities with neighbouring mediterranean populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

Here for example modern coastal algerians :

quote:

---

Analysis of the anthropological position of the Algerians in relation to the other populations of the Mediterranean basin shows that there are connections between them and certain populations of the western Mediterranean area, such as Corsicans, Sardindians, Spanish, and southern Italians . On the otherhand, however the anthropological distance between the Algerians and the central Italians, the Yugoslavs, and the sedentary populations of the Near East, such as Jordanians, Lebanese, and Syrians, appears to be rather great.

---

M.-C. Chamla et D. Ferembach, Anthropologie (Partie III), encyclopédie berbère


The same pattern is seen for protohistorical algerians and punics :

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.

---

S.O.Y. Keita, Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa, p. 37

as for iberomaurusians wtf are you talking about ? All the papers agree with my statement but if I post them you'll start crying and complain about how these scholars are white supremacists. Stop wasting my time.

---

Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I didn't say that you implied anything. You literally said that me calling these ancient coastal populations "Africans" meant I was calling them central Africans. You tried to justify that by saying that the Greeks and Romans segregated Africa into different parts and that using the term wasn't appropriate for ancient coastal populations. Then you went on to say that the word "Africa" was used by Romans to refer to precisely North Africans ONLY. So stop lying. Now you are trying to spin it like you didn't say that and I haven't shown how almost everything you say is contradictory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: That wasn't the point. The point was that these populations were mixed. I was the one who stated they should cluster as Mediterranean. How can you sit here and claim that I did not say that. Man you are so desperate to argue that you don't even see that some of the stuff I am saying you agree with. The only thing I disagree with is whether the mixture in coastal North Africa goes back over 20,000 years. I said it came after 5,000 years ago, you argued there was no later mixture because according to you these populations received substantial Eurasian input somewhere before that time and that somehow have stayed the same every since. And of course, according to you, because of ancient Eurasian input they didn't look like other Africans. This is why you are arguing about the word African because to you African exclusively means black and or having black African ancestry. How would ancient populations in Africa not have black African ancestry? That doesn't even make sense. And this isn't me saying that they were central Africans either, before you even try and make that straw man argument. When I say black African ancestry I am talking about populations from places like Tassili N'ajjer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you are mixing apples and oranges. Earlier you claimed that these populations weren't mixed with Europeans. Now you are. If the Iberomaurisan paper said point blank that there was no mixture with Europeans then how the hell are the same as later populations with mixture from Western Europe? Don't you see you are contradicting yourself? Your whole argument was that they weren't "recently" mixed as in after 100AD, yet you just said they had mixture with Spain and Italy. Aren't Romans Italians? So how weren't they mixed with Romans? This is why I call everything you say gibberish because you never stay consistent with any of your talking points. Rome and Carthage are both "recent" compared to the Iberoumaurisans. Therefore your argument that there was no 'recent' mixture has just been contradicted by your own references. Please stop trying to argue with me when you simply are agreeing with me.

---

Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I didn't say that you implied anything. You literally said that me calling these ancient coastal populations "Africans" meant I was calling them central Africans. You tried to justify that by saying that the Greeks and Romans segregated Africa into different parts and that using the term wasn't appropriate for ancient coastal populations. Then you went on to say that the word "Africa" was used by Romans to refer to precisely North Africans ONLY. So stop lying. Now you are trying to spin it like you didn't say that and I haven't shown how almost everything you say is contradictory.

---

You're going too far ; I simply reacted to your statement of no one used the term africa 2000 years ago nor identified as african technically these were wrong statements but yes I was already aware that it didn't mean the current "africa"

---

As usual you are stepping all over yourself with contradictions. This is what you posted at the beginning of the thread:


In that image it clearly denotes that parts of Tunisia were labeled as "Africa" in Roman times. You even went on to mention Romans using the term "Africa" in reference to these areas. I said that "Africa" was never a unifying cultural or ethnic identity among populations on the continent. But you in your asinine attempts to disconnect North Africa from the rest of Africa actually shot yourself in the foot as the word "Africa" actually originated in North Africa. Therefore you are trying to back track find some way to get around that logical contradiction. But again, these are all things that YOU posted showing how you don't even pay attention to the data you yourself are providing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: That wasn't the point. The point was that these populations were mixed. I was the one who stated they should cluster as Mediterranean. How can you sit here and claim that I did not say that. Man you are so desperate to argue that you don't even see that some of the stuff I am saying you agree with. The only thing I disagree with is whether the mixture in coastal North Africa goes back over 20,000 years. I said it came after 5,000 years ago, you argued there was no later mixture because according to you these populations received substantial Eurasian input somewhere before that time and that somehow have stayed the same every since. And of course, according to you, because of ancient Eurasian input they didn't look like other Africans. This is why you are arguing about the word African because to you African exclusively means black and or having black African ancestry. How would ancient populations in Africa not have black African ancestry? That doesn't even make sense. And this isn't me saying that they were central Africans either, before you even try and make that straw man argument. When I say black African ancestry I am talking about populations from places like Tassili N'ajjer.

---

What does that even mean ? You say "mixed" as if we were talking about people from modern puerto rico or venezuela lol with such logic 4000 BC coastal north africans, 200 AD NAs and modern NAs are all "mixed". My point is that north africans didn't change much during historical times unlike what many afro-americans defend : a black north africa where the modern ones are simply the product of arabs + white slaves... this is why I make these threads now if you want to call us african or highlight the fact that we got EEF influx during the late neolithic I don't care as long as you don't defend ridiculous afrocentrist standpoints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

Now you argument doesn't make sense, it's not because IBM didn't receive the same type of new ancestry as late neolithic north africans that they weren't "mixed" with something else. Why would it be impossible for 20k populations to mix ? As for "african" it's not because I only associated it with blackness, it's simply because it doesn't tell us much about x population the same way when my turkish friends told me they were asiatics and felt some kinship with japanese we started laughing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antalas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you are mixing apples and oranges. Earlier you claimed that these populations weren't mixed with Europeans. Now you are. If the Iberomaurisan paper said point blank that there was no mixture with Europeans then how the hell are the same as later populations with mixture from Western Europe? Don't you see you are contradicting yourself? Your whole argument was that they weren't "recently" mixed as in after 100AD, yet you just said they had mixture with Spain and Italy. Aren't Romans Italians? So how weren't they mixed with Romans? This is why I call everything you say gibberish because you never stay consistent with any of your talking points. Rome and Carthage are both "recent" compared to the Iberoumaurisans. Therefore your argument that there was no 'recent' mixture has just been contradicted by your own references. Please stop trying to argue with me when you simply are agreeing with me.

---

Again straw man ...show me exactly where I said that Iberomaurusians were similar to late neolithic moroccans or us ? Also how is saying "they had neolithic european ancestry" similar to receiving "roman" ancestry wtf ?? People who lived in 5000 BC Iberia weren't similar to 100 AD italians or spaniards...

---

Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
The presence of African individuals in Punic populations from the Island of Ibiza (Spain): contributions from physical anthropology

http://www.raco.cat/index.php/mayurqa/article/viewFile/122749/169902

---

quote:

---

The Meshwesh (often abbreviated in ancient Egyptian as Ma) was an ancient Libyan Berber tribe,[2] along with other groups like Libu and Tehenou/Tehenu.[3]

Early records of the Meshwesh date back to the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt from the reign of Amenhotep III. During the 19th and 20th dynasties (c. 1295 – 1075 BC), the Meshwesh were in almost constant conflict with the Egyptian state. During the late 21st Dynasty, increasing numbers of Meswesh Libyans began to settle in the Western Delta region of Egypt. They would ultimately take control of the country during the late 21st Dynasty first under Osorkon the Elder.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meshwesh




Relief block with the heads of three Libyans
Period: New Kingdom, Amarna Period
Dynasty: Dynasty 18
Date: ca. 1353–1323 B.C.
Geography: From Egypt, Upper Egypt; Thebes, Karnak
Medium: Sandstone, paint
Credit Line: Gift of Ernst E. Kofler, 1965
Accession Number: 65.100.1

quote:

---

The sidelocks of the people on this relief block identify the men as Libyans. They need not be prisoners but could be members of the Egyptian army or envoys at a festival. As usual with sandstone relief pieces the block was part of a temple decoration at Karnak.

---

(Metmuseum)



(British Museum, This decorative tile from a royal palace made between 1184 and 1153 BC and found in Tell el-Yahudiyah
shows a Libyan captive).


(A bronze statuette of an ancient Libyan, Louvre museum.
Oric Bates "thinks" it represents a Libyan from the Meshwesh tribe (?).
It appears that the statuette once had the usual Libyan beard.)

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged |