|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 1, 2010 1:21:05 GMT -5
Recently topics hotly debated about who the ancient Saharans were..did they came from out-side the geographical area known as Africa,were they whites,were they blacks,can an incoming group make them into something else? Is the peninsular known as Arabia part of greater Africa? or is Africa part of greater Arabia..were the peoples of Africa a bunch of name-less nobodies until contacts with people out-side what is now known as Africa made them into somebody..what of the migration explosion out of the Sahara after the dry phase kicked in how far east,west north and south did they spread?...did some leave Africa altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kalonji on Apr 1, 2010 7:14:45 GMT -5
What do you thing about each individual question?
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 1, 2010 22:40:44 GMT -5
What do you thing about each individual question?
2The first inhabitants were blacks or biologically Africans.
3.That Arabia including the Levant is really part of greater Africa
4.That most of the people there now leave their arts artifacts there thousands of years ago,and dispersed through the continent east west north and south and even out side,and that is why culturally Africans seems similar to each other baring out side influence,because they came from the same cultural incubator. |
|
|
|
Post by Kalonji on Apr 2, 2010 6:50:26 GMT -5
What I'd like to know is how and when exactly did the ancestors of present day west Africans seperate from the nile valley area. How many waves were responsible etc
This another set of questions that belongs in my sticking points/question thread
Will add it later
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Apr 2, 2010 6:59:36 GMT -5
What I'd like to know is how and when exactly did the ancestors of present day west Africans seperate from the nile valley area. How many waves were responsible etc This another set of questions that belongs in my sticking points/question thread Will add it later I'm not surer when they separated, but a useful haplogroup to keep in mind when attempting to track this split would be haplogroup L2a. |
|
|
|
Post by Kalonji on Apr 2, 2010 7:09:05 GMT -5
The origin of that haplogroup is pretty old
would you say this mutation occured before or after the split?
|
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 2, 2010 9:41:23 GMT -5
Anansi, I also believe that the humans that resided in the Green Sahara, spread eastward, westward, northward, and southward, the question is; Did they continue to evolve into various phenotypes after intermingling with the earlier inhabitants of the areas where they spread.
In other words, I do not believe that the 'green sahara' is the only area of Africa inhabited by humans. There is evidence that the Northern African coastal areas were inhabited as early as 80,000 years ago. So then I suppose the question would be, did the mass migration of these 'proto-Saharan' type, absorb the inhabitants that were already present?
And further, if I may add, with regards to North Africa;
Were the original inhabitants of this area already 'evolving' into lighter skinned humans, without necessarily intermixing with 'outside groups'. In other words, did the evolution for the genes responsible for lighter skin, already beginning to take form in the northern portions of Africa?
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 2, 2010 22:46:14 GMT -5
Anansi, I also believe that the humans that resided in the Green Sahara, spread eastward, westward, northward, and southward, the question is; Did they continue to evolve into various phenotypes after intermingling with the earlier inhabitants of the areas where they spread. In other words, I do not believe that the 'green sahara' is the only area of Africa inhabited by humans. There is evidence that the Northern African coastal areas were inhabited as early as 80,000 years ago. So then I suppose the question would be, did the mass migration of these 'proto-Saharan' type, absorb the inhabitants that were already present And further, if I may add, with regards to North Africa; Were the original inhabitants of this area already 'evolving' into lighter skinned humans, without necessarily intermixing with 'outside groups'. In other words, did the evolution for the genes responsible for lighter skin, already beginning to take form in the northern portions of Africa? Hi homeylu.well of course Africans were living in all parts of Africa other than the Sahara..after-all humanity ultimately came from the east and south east but I believe as this series of documentary shows that the expansion from the dry Sahara was every bit as important to Africa and perhaps the world as the Bantu expansion some 8000yrs later I am certain many have seen this documentary but for the purpose of this thread please pay attention especially part one..this is what make Africans inter-connected culturally baring any out-side influence. |
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 3, 2010 10:40:31 GMT -5
*clapping* I'm loving this board more and more, didn't know you could insert youtube videos directly into the thread, it appears they load faster as well.
Thanks Brada, good post and terrific find, as I had not viewed these videos before, but it doesn't resolve my question about the earlier inhabitants of North Africa. (meaning coastal area) Who were those indigineous people. I can't find much research on them prior to the 'green sahara' expansion.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 9, 2010 7:37:22 GMT -5
The more I read the more it is clearly apparent there were no Atlanteans. These people should be called Saharans. It is pretty obvious now what happened. The pre-cursors of all the civilizations around the Med Sea was NOT Atlanteans but people from the Sahara. Garamantes, Iberians culture, Crete, Punt, Yam, and of course Ancient Egypt. At one time the Sahara was a lush rich plain. Where maybe thousands or millions of people gathered. At the end of the LGM the Sahara began to dry up. Some stayed, many more left some went North (Etruscan/Crete/Pelegacians later the Indo-Europeans conquered them). Some went West formed the Iberian cultures, Some went East to form Ancient Egypt. Some stayed to stick out – Garamantes. They developed technologies to “harvest” water. Tunnels and irrigation systems. Of course they eventually lost to the desert. Those who went North(R1a) and West(Iberia-R1b) probably met virgin territory. Those who escaped East (Ancient Egyptians) met other African people already living there. Those who went South and SW(E3a) also met other older Africans(A, B, C-group) living there. POINT IS. . . . .it all started from Sahara peoples. Dana is correct at one time all peoples around the Medit Sea were black people. Some(rRcialist) incorrectly call them black caucasoids When the pieces come together ie genetics, geography, archaeology, linguistics this is the ONLY scenario that fits. It all started in the green Sahara. Civilization did not start with AE but with Saharans ==== The origin of Cretan populations as determined by characterization of HLA alleles Abstract: The Cretan HLA gene profile has been compared with those of other Mediterranean populations in order to provide additional information regarding the history of their origins. The allele frequencies, genetic distances between populations, relatedness dendrograms and correspondence analyses were calculated. Our results indicate that the Indoeuropean Greeks may be considered as a Mediterranean population of a more recent origin (after 2000 B.C.), while all other studied Mediterraneans (including Cretans) belong to an older substratum which was present in the area since pre- Neolithic times. A significant Turkish gene flow has not been detected in the Greek or Cretan populations, although Greeks and Turks have two high frequency HLA-DRB-DQB haplotypes in common. It is proposed that Imazighen (Caucasoid Berbers living at present in the North African coast and
Saharan areas) are the remains of pre-Neolithic Saharan populations which
could emigrate northwards between about 8000–6000 B.C., when desert desiccation
began. They also could be part of the stock that gave rise to Sumerians,
Cretans and Iberians; this is supported by both linguistic and HLA
genetic data.Recently topics hotly debated about who the ancient Saharans were..did they came from out-side the geographical area known as Africa,were they whites,were they blacks,can an incoming group make them into something else? Is the peninsular known as Arabia part of greater Africa? or is Africa part of greater Arabia..were the peoples of Africa a bunch of name-less nobodies until contacts with people out-side what is now known as Africa made them into somebody..what of the migration explosion out of the Sahara after the dry phase kicked in how far east,west north and south did they spread?...did some leave Africa altogether. A calculated guess is. . . assimilation and/or extermination or MANY/NOT ALL of the native inhabitants. Is 600yrs enough for a people to . . .morph? NO!!! Based upon data from this study and what we know about genetics. For a given population HG CAN NOT but haplotype can. So obviously the newcomers took the women as wives. Their phenotype eventually becoming dominant. Are these the women . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 9, 2010 8:02:39 GMT -5
Nirvana!!!! Interest in the Saharans is justified.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 9, 2010 10:40:00 GMT -5
Xyman would you please clarify your thesis. Exactly what are you proposing:
1. The Mediterranean Region (MR) of North Africa was completely devoid of humanity until the arrival of the Saharans.
or
2. The MR was occupied by humans, but the Saharans brought CIVILIZATION to the region and absorbed the existing population.
or
3. The Saharans brought a civilization to the MR that existed alongside the original inhabitants of the region.
You claim that those who migrated East toward Egypt, and South probably met up with other African people, why couldn’t the same be proposed about the ones that migrated North? It is evident that this area was already occupied, even prior to the so-called “Atlantean” invasions.
What is not so evident is the physical characteristics of the original inhabitants. They would be ’indigenous’ to the area, as having occupied it prior to the migrations from the Sahara. And it is most probable that they were “Black” if you are defining “Black” solely on the color on their skin. But is also possible that these indigenous populations were already beginning the gradual evolution of a lighter skin complexion, as having occurred with the Khoisan types that resided to the extreme ‘South’ of the Sahara outside of the tropic belts, and that the mutation for this occurrence was prior to the mutation that caused Northern Europeans to ’whiten’ just 5-12,000 years ago.
In other words there probably already existed a lighter-skinned indigenous North African, and for all intents and purposes it would be erroneous to label such person ’caucasoid berber’ if they already took on these physical features PRIOR to the “Indo European” invasion. Although I do not doubt that the physical characteristic began to change even more after a successive amount of invasions by outsiders which left some effect on other indigenous populations, but if you look at some of the populations in the Atlas Mountains which I believe acted as a barrier to outside invaders, you will note a diversity of physical characteristics not found in other Saharan populations.
In other words there is no need to assume that any physical characteristic not deemed “Black” enough has to be the result of outside gene flow. Not saying that you have proposed this, its just that it has been insinuated by others.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 11, 2010 17:16:18 GMT -5
As stated. Any rational person will have to conclude what I said above. Not sure where the Saharans came from but does it matter? They were undoubtedly black and African. Did not even look at the video(the first one) until now. But it agrees with me or . . . .I agree with it. The coming Sahara desert was the trigger that dispersed Africans, to the South, and East. But again the apparent subjectivity(ie prejudice )of the producers is clear. He left out dispersal to the NORTH (Europe) and WEST(Iberia). I wonder why??? As the study I cited made clear The dispersal were to four corners of the MR. Most probably the Saharans came from East Africa (ie berbers). When the desert came they returned to the Nile region and met other Africans that remained in the Nile Valley. The Nile people were probably doing their "thang" . That is why AE seems to be a blend of the Saharans and Nile dwellers. The Nile dwellers in this case being the dominant group but ALL were black Africans. The Saharans brought some technologies also. eg mummification. The Sahara seems may have a lot of un-discovered artifacts. Keep in mind the white skin did NOT develop IN Africa not even in Southern Europe. And it was about 6-12kya is originated. Remember selective sweep occurred about 2-4Kya. There were NO white Berbers when these people started doing their thang. The time line does not fit. Some studies put the Bantu Expansion, , which entered WA starting IN the Saharan and guess when. . .4-5K BC. As I said any times we most utilize ALL discipline ie geography, archeology, genetics etc to get a clear picture what went down. The picture is now becoming clear after two years of reading. Are these the men and women .  New revelations . . .the Somalians and Ethiopians are getting more play than they deserve. The Saharans is where the "juice" was at. What Ethio-pids!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 11, 2010 17:32:28 GMT -5
BTW- You can't get any blacker than the Saharan's. Where is that UV map of the world??? LOL.
They need more UV protection than anyone else. He! He! He!
This is NOT rocket science guys.
Can't keep all the studies in my head. Give me the data and I will tell you what it means.
Am I wrong?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 11, 2010 20:02:04 GMT -5
There are relatively light skinned Saharans.
Back in the bad old days all we ever used
to see were lighter skinned "Tuareg."
|
|
