|
|
Post by thamm1 on Mar 16, 2016 5:27:56 GMT -5
The Islamic Empire utilized subsaharran African troops specifically heavy Calvary from Senegal. But the notion Moors means black is incredibly misinformed. Egyptians colonized the Mediterranean and the entire bronze age world in the Mediterranean was in realty one large interconnected society where the culture, trade and race of those involved was almost interchangeable. Archeologists like to catagorize cultures for purpose of study but in fact these groups were very connected and their economies highly dependent on one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Mar 18, 2016 0:35:57 GMT -5
The Islamic Empire utilized subsaharran African troops specifically heavy Calvary from Senegal. But the notion Moors means black is incredibly misinformed. Egyptians colonized the Mediterranean and the entire bronze age world in the Mediterranean was in realty one large interconnected society where the culture, trade and race of those involved was almost interchangeable. Archeologists like to catagorize cultures for purpose of study but in fact these groups were very connected and their economies highly dependent on one another. What is the definition of the word Moor then,please inform us. And of course they used Sub Saharan troops because the Almoravid came from there. |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Mar 18, 2016 0:50:14 GMT -5
Bantu and yoruba etc peoples have nothing to do with Egypt. North Africans aka the Mediterranean race is brown not black. Haplogroup E1b1b1a or E1b1b1b which were the "Moors". The Moors were a collection of Haplogroup E peoples ranging from Morocco to Egypt. The lustreware pottery of Al Andlus is from Egypt and the Mudejar Architecture is Derived from Morocco and Islamic Egypt. There is NO examples of this architecture in subsaharran African. We are all "Africans" however that word is of Roman origin and used to describe a north African tribe the Afri who were not negroid but Berber in apperance. The ancient egyptians were light brown to a dark tawny color. Nubians were depicted as a seperate race as were other groups. Many Pharrohs were of Lybian stock. Nigerians and Congonese peoples want to make baseless claims to the Moors and Egyptians is rather odd. What on earth is wrong with being the descedants of west Africans? Bantu is a language group,Yoruba is an ethnic group,Dna ties ancient Kemetians to them and West Africans, we have African linguist who are making some pretty good cases for a relationship between Kemetian and Bantu languages, Black ppl are various shades of Brown, the term Mediterranean don't mean squat many a Black people lived anciently in both north and the South Med. The Kemetians and so called Moors were biologically Africans and shared many characteristics cultural and others with all Africans especially those closet to them. What on earth is wrong with being a descendant of a European why seek your roots and history in Africa. |
|
|
|
Post by thamm1 on Mar 24, 2016 20:01:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thamm1 on Mar 24, 2016 20:10:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thamm1 on Mar 24, 2016 20:16:15 GMT -5
Genetic evidence The genetic proximity observed between Moroccans and Southern Europeans is due to the fact that both these groups shared a common ancestor either in the Upper Paleolithic, and in the Neolithic or alternatively during history with the invasion and the occupation during nearly seven centuries of the Iberian Peninsula by Moorish troops.[31] A genetic study published in January 2012 stated that the indigenous North-west African ancestry appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa but "divergence between Moroccan people and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya) and The Paleolithic (>40.000BC)."[32] Recent studies make clear no significant genetic differences exist between Arabic and non-Arabic speaking populations, The human leukocyte antigen HLA DNA data suggest that most Moroccans are of a Berber origin and that Arabs who invaded North Africa and Spain in the 7th century did not substantially contribute to the gene pool.[33][34] The Moorish refugees from Spain settled in the coast-towns.[35] According to a 2000 article in European Journal of Human Genetics, Moroccans from North-Western Africa were genetically closer to Iberians than to Sub-Saharan Africans of Bantu Ethnicity and Middle Easterners.[36] The different loci studied revealed close similarity between the Berbers and other north African groups, mainly with Moroccan Arabic-speakers, which is in accord with the hypothesis that the current Moroccan population has a strong Berber background.[37] Various population genetics studies along with historians such as Gabriel Camps and Charles-André Julien lend support to the idea that the bulk of the gene pool of modern Northwest Africans, irrespective of linguistic group, is derived from the Berber populations of the pre-Islamic period.[38] According to the X-Chromosome SNP analyses, the authors reported a high genetic homogeneity between berbers and Arabs in NW Africa, so they suggested that the Arabisation of this area was a cultural phenomenon, which did not imply a replacement of the ancestry population. Our results give support the hypothesis of an early settlement of NW Africa . The original berber population seem to have received a low genetic influx from the surrounding areas. Different hypothesis have been suggested to explain the genetic differentiation of the Moroccan population. An initial genetic drift could have caused differences in allele frequency distribution that have not been re-established due to a certain level of geographic isolation. The Strait of Gibraltar has been described by several authors as an important genetic barrier. Even a certain level of genetic exchange probably occurred between NW Africa and the South of the Iberian Peninsula, sharp frequency changes have been described in this area. Also the Sahara desert has been suggested as responsible of the genetic isolation of NW African populations from Sub-Saharan populations. There is no consensus about the impact of the Neolithic demic diffusion in the Mediterranean area. According to our results, a low impact of the Neolithic expansions and/or later migration events on NW African populations would have occurred. X-Chromosome SNP analyses en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_genetics |
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Mar 25, 2016 1:12:26 GMT -5
Ancient Tomb says: Most European Upper Palaeolithic skulls morphometrically do not closely resemble modern Europeans, despite the fact the DNA is showing close genetic affinity. This discrepancy is because morphological affinity is a poor indicator for the determination of ancestral-descendant relationships between the Upper Palaeolithic and Holocene because there were significant craniofacial changes during this time-period. These were not only confined to Europe, but across the globe (although they were less pronounced in other areas).
"We examined a sample of 35 European Upper Palaeolithic crania (EUP) using multivariate statistical methods and found 19 of these specimens display a closer affinity to a sample of non-European recent skulls (out of seven samples from all over the world, including Europe, ten were closest to the Australian sample, three to Mokapu (Hawaii), two to San, two to Zulu, and two to the sample from Japan)." (Van Vark et al. 2005) ------------------------------------------------------- You have merely confirmed in a part what I have said before, weakening or debunking the claims of assorted Eurocentric on 6 counts: 1)Your own example shows that the EUP crania do not cluster with modern Europeans.  YOUR QUOTE: ""We examined a sample of 35 European Upper Palaeolithic crania (EUP) using multivariate statistical methods and found 19 of these specimens display a closer affinity to a sample of non-European recent skulls (out of seven samples from all over the world, including Europe, ten were closest to the Australian sample, three to Mokapu (Hawaii), two to San, two to Zulu, and two to the sample from Japan)." (Van Vark et al. 2005) and then others have noted: "Thus on the basis of existing evidence, Eastern Europe now reveals the same pattern as Western Europe with respect to the transition from Neanderthals to modern humans. Modern humans appear to represent an intrusive population with clear affinities to earlier Homo sapiens in Africa and the Near East that replaced the local Neanderthal population.. Among the morphological contrasts between the Eastern European modern humans and their Neanderthal predecessors, the evidence for climatic adaptation in the postcranial skeleton is particularly striking. The high brachial and crural indices for the modern humans from Kostenki and Sungir are consistent with a patter of adaptation to temperate and tropical environments among modern population.. following the prediction of Allen's rule concerning the length of extremities. The overall shape and size of the body of the adult male from Kotenski XIV (small and thin) seems to conform to both Bergmann's and Allens's rules for warm climate adaptations (Gerasimova 1982, 256). The same pattern is evident among the West European Cro-Magnon sample (Trinkhaus 1981), but seems more significant in a north Russian setting like Sungir -- at a latitude comparable to that of Kodiak Island, Alaska." --John F. Hoffecker (2002) Desolate Landscapes: Ice-Age Settlement in Eastern Europe. p. 158 2) Regardless of geno profile, the PHENOTYPIC outcome STILL looks like a tropical black African.  QUOTE: The overall shape and size of the body of the adult male from Kotenski XIV (small and thin) seems to conform to both Bergmann's and Allens's rules for warm climate adaptations (Gerasimova 1982, 256). The same pattern is evident among the West European Cro-Magnon sample (Trinkhaus 1981), but seems more significant in a north Russian setting like Sungir -- at a latitude comparable to that of Kodiak Island, Alaska." --John F. Hoffecker (2002) Desolate Landscapes: Ice-Age Settlement in Eastern Europe. p. 158 3) Assorted Eurocentrics like to play the African phenotype card when it suits them- like the stereotypical "true negro" construct. OK, fine. But then how come they want to conveniently downplay the phenotype card when hard data shows that many ancient Europeans looked like Black Africans? All of a sudden they want to disavow phenotypes.. CA Diop pointed out this European hypocrisy decades ago.  When it suits their racial agendas, Eurocentrics have no problem invoking phenotypes like the "true negro".. -------------------------------- DIOP on Eurocentric hypocrisy and genotypes:"If we speak only of genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha is. But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. This black, even if on the level of his cells he is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha, when he is in South Africa he will still live in Soweto. Throughout history, it has been the phenotype which has been at issue, we mustn't lose sight of this fact. The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality. And this appearance corresponds to something which makes us say that Europe is peopled by white people, Africa is peopled by black people, and Asia is people by yellow people. It is these relationships which have played a role in history...
Now every time these relationships are not favorable to the western cultures, an effort is made to undermine the cultural consciousness of africans by telling them. ‘we don’t even know what race is’. What that means is that they do not know what a black man is; [but] they do know what a white man is… It is the phenotype which has given us so much difficulty throughout history, so it is this which must be considered in these relations." --CA Diop. 1985- Interview in Journal of African Civilizations ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Kotenski includes the "Basal Eurasian" type which incorporates some African elements on the gene side. These African elements were part of the OOA migrations and may have used different pathways to add to the gene mix- the Middle East, Medit or whatever, but it makes no difference. The gene side still has the pesky Africans, who refuse to conveniently go away.  5) You say: EUP in this study show closest morphometric affinity to modern Tolai people (0.88), who are from Papua New Guinea and look "Australoid".
Note these though studies do not support what Zaharan is saying. EUP skulls are not showing close African affinity. EUP are closer to modern Europeans than modern Africans.LOL, do the Eurocentrics realize they just shot themselves in the foot with your own "supporting" reference? You say the EUP skulls are not showing any close African affinity. But by your own diagram, Mladec specimens, which are ancient European, (Eastern Europe same as Kotenski) cluster closer to the Zulu than to everyone else. You just contradicted your own claim. Second, Tolai are black-skined tropical people. Kotenski matches them first, but then the NEXT CLOSEST MATCH is the black-skinned tropical Zulu people (.79). Your Europeans are at the far end of the scale at 1.03. LMAO. The closest match with Kotenski is dark-skinned tropical people. Oops..  ^^Note Mladec (Eastern European) is closer with Zulu ^^Note how Kotensi is more with tropical dark people than cold adapted white Norse 6) And as regards African people and "Ausraloids", Africanshave the highest diversity in the world- so they could look like black tropical New Guinea people way back when, with no problem. In any event, the cluster is with black skinned, tropical people, and Africans would be in the closest position to migrate to EUrope via the middle East or Mediterranean. The bottom line s STILL the closest match to dark, tropical people that phenotypically look like black Africans. Such people were in the Middle East, and elements were seen in the Natufians for example, well positioned for further movement to Europe, much better positioned that New Guinea people some 3000-4000 miles away across oceans. For example- there has been African migration from Africa to Europe over the Gibraltar area- less than 100 miles, compared to New Guinea which would need some 4000 miles of migration.  ^^Dark tropical Tolai people, "black" in every sense of the word, showing phenotype's importance cannot be whitewashed away.. Eurocentrics are quite happy to use phenotype when Africoid peoples can be dismissed, distorted or downplayed. Its only when the phenotype does not fit Eurocentric agendas, that the double standard emerges.. QUOTE: ------------------------------------------- African migrations via GibraltarThe geographical proximity of the Iberian Peninsula to Africa makes the Straits of Gibraltar a likely contact zone between the two continents. Early human communities are known to have existed simultaneously on both sides of the Straits, and it seems possible that interaction between these communities took place with an interchange of populations, ideas, goods, and livestock (1, 2). The hypothesis that such contacts took place, resulting in an African influence on Iberia’s prehistoric development, is thus not a recent one..."--C. Anderung, et al. 2005. Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar.. PNAS June 14, 2005 vol. 102 no. 24 8431-8435  On six counts, Eurocentric claims have been debunked, using their own "supporting" references.  - |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 22:42:39 GMT -5
EUP crania are closest morphometrically to modern Australo-Melanesians, not Africans.
As Sarich (1997) also demonstrates, EUP crania are closer to modern Europeans, than Africans:
"Another way to make the point is with the mean distances between the seventeen Caucasian-area fossils (Cro-Magnon to Taforalt) and five target populations: Norse, 0. 914; Zulu, 0.937; Tolai, 0.88; Anyang, 0.91, Santa Cruz, 0. 882." (Sarich, 1997)
0.914 (Norse=Europe) is closer than 0.937 (Zulu=Africa).
You're silly response was to only select 2 crania where Zulu are closer than Norse. Sarich however calculates the mean of 17 crania.
Since the data refutes your "EUP = Africans" claim you're now falling back on the EUP = any population at tropical latitude to include the Tolai. However, Australo-Melanesians do not resemble Africans in craniofacial measurements.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 22:47:04 GMT -5
The craniofacial measurement, GLS, glabella projection shows marked (mean) differences to the extent this feature alone can reliably distinguish African from Melanesian/Australian crania:
"one character (no. 37, glabella projection) showed a strong bimodality with respect to the African and Melanesian units - such that it alone would sort the Africans from the Melanesians with a better than 90% accuracy" (Sarich, 1997)
Like I said, Africans don't resemble Australo-Melanesians. This is one measurement, there are many more with significant mean differences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 23:25:46 GMT -5
If you're wondering why genetics shows K14 closest to modern Central Asians but morphology closest to Australo-Melanesians, its because morphological affinity is a poor indicator for the determination of ancestral-descendant relationships between the Upper Palaeolithic and Holocene because there were craniofacial changes during this time-period via the shift from hunter-gathering to agriculture. Faces became less robust, jaws smaller etc. Australo-Melanesians however retained this primitive look because they never made the shift. They're still hunter gathering today.
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Apr 2, 2016 22:06:21 GMT -5
EUP crania are closest morphometrically to modern Australo-Melanesians, not Africans. As Sarich (1997) also demonstrates, EUP crania are closer to modern Europeans, than Africans: "Another way to make the point is with the mean distances between the seventeen Caucasian-area fossils (Cro-Magnon to Taforalt) and five target populations: Norse, 0. 914; Zulu, 0.937; Tolai, 0.88; Anyang, 0.91, Santa Cruz, 0. 882." (Sarich, 1997) 0.914 (Norse=Europe) is closer than 0.937 (Zulu=Africa). You're silly response was to only select 2 crania where Zulu are closer than Norse. Sarich however calculates the mean of 17 crania. Since the data refutes your "EUP = Africans" claim you're now falling back on the EUP = any population at tropical latitude to include the Tolai. However, Australo-Melanesians do not resemble Africans in craniofacial measurements. You havent "refuted" anything, you still fail miserably. The dark-skinned tropical people that are the closest to Europe are Africans, not people shuffling through India or New Guinea. As I already demonstrated, the EUP crania are closer to dark, tropical peoples, the closest of which are in Africa. This defeats your attempts. STRIKE 1. And you were proven false when you claimed no EUP crania were close to Africans. Using your own data, per below, I again demonstrate that several European specimens actually are. You fail again. STRIKE 2.  And Austalo-Melanesians cluster more with Africans than Europeans for they are both tropical peoples. Hanihara showed this with SOME early West Asian/"Middle Easterner" samples, which for that area and era, more resembled tropical peoples than today's white Europeans. No matter how you slice it, it is the dark-skinned tropical peoples who control the scene. Sorry. STRIKE 3.  And your so-called "shift to agriculture" doesn't make a dime's worth of difference. In Africa the Badari transitioned to agriculture over time and still retained their dark, tropical characteristics. Likewise Melanesian populations of New Guinea people also made a transition to agriculture. You don't even have a grasp of basic geography, Melanesia includes numerous agricultural peoples. The hunter gatherers you reference are primarily in Australia, but the term "Austro-Melanesian" covers BOTH areas, and the sample population you specifically brought up are New Guinea people- who are established agriculturalists. And even them there is some ancient evidence of agricultural methods or early beginnings in Australia. rupertgerritsen.tripod.com/pdf/published/Evidence_for_Indigenous_Australian_Agriculture.pdfYour "agri-shift" dodge fails. Gave you an extra ball- and even then its STRIKE 4. But Number 4 wasn't even needed, That's 3 strikes. Its like baseball baby. You out...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2016 16:07:46 GMT -5
The mean distance from 17 EUP crania from Sarich's study are closer to modern Europeans (0. 914), than Africans (0.937).
Who ever denied individual EUP skulls are closest to Africans? This is just your lame straw man. There are individual EUP skulls closest to East Asians too e.g. Chancelade.
You're debunked and are left resorting to cherry-picking individual skulls. The fact is, Sarich's study falsifies what you have posted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2016 16:19:36 GMT -5
If you want to count individual skulls, then look at van vark. "19 of these specimens display a closer affinity to a sample of non-European recent skulls (out of seven samples from all over the world, including Europe, ten were closest to the Australian sample, three to Mokapu (Hawaii), two to San, two to Zulu, and two to the sample from Japan)." (Van Vark et al. 2005) 10/19 = Australian. Only 4 match African populations. So you're below claim is refuted with my second source... "EUP crania are closer to dark, tropical peoples, the closest of which are in Africa"  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2016 16:25:02 GMT -5
You're also ignoring the genetic data on the other page.
K14 is far closer to modern European populations than African populations.
|
|
|
|
Post by forty2tribes on Apr 6, 2016 18:49:37 GMT -5
The native people from Australia looks like black people. Are you going by looks?  |
|
