Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are speaking about a medieval population, not the modern day population of Morocco. Clues or evidence as to what this Medieval population was includes such things as the descriptions of these populations by authors who were contemporaneous with them as well as art works of said persons such as paintings figurines etc.
In regards to the ancient North africans, the Romaans and Greeks describes them as black. This culminated with Isidore of Seville who in his early dictionary entitled " The Etymologies" equates "Moor" with black, decribing moors as black as night. In regards to the medieval, North Africans the Medieval Arabs who encountered them counted them among the population of blacks alongside Nubians and other black Africans, such as the Zaghawa and the black Africans of South East Africa known as Zanj. The Medieval Western Europeans who encountered the Berbers during the Islamic invasions of Souther Europe, also make it quite clear that they were black. These north Africans as has been demonstrated thoroughly throughout this threas were portrayed as blacks up to thepre-modern era.
"Morocco is inhabited by Berbers (imazighen) since at least 5,000 years ago. Some estimate the presence of Berbers to be 8000+ years old."
Berber is a modern language group spoken by people ranging in complexion from white to black. What is your point? I am saying that the racial complexion of Medieval Berbers as mentioned by either Arabs or Europeans is black.
Well I'm glad we got that settled, so can someone explain to me when a negroid human being becomes something other.
What are your asking exactly? If you assuming that I am implying some sort of rank based on negroid vs non-negroid phenotypes in populations with dark pigmentation that is the case, I'll clear it up, no that isn't what my statement indicated. I did not attribute value to having or not having negroid phenotypes.
One can find populations in Southern India with pigmenatation just as dark as anywhere on the African continent however they aren't negroid.
Also attributing dark pigmentation is often very subjective. For some people an individual with a skin pigmenation of III on the Fitzpatrick scale would be considered dark for others light.
What are your asking exactly? If you assuming that I am implying some sort of rank based on negroid vs non-negroid phenotypes in populations with dark pigmentation that is the case, I'll clear it up, no that isn't what my statement indicated. I did not attribute value to having or not having negroid phenotypes.
One can find populations in Southern India with pigmenatation just as dark as anywhere on the African continent however they aren't negroid.
Also attributing dark pigmentation is often very subjective. For some people an individual with a skin pigmenation of III on the Fitzpatrick scale would be considered dark for others light.
in other words, the Moors were black, right? Now tell us what is negroid?
in other words, the Moors were black, right? Now tell us what is negroid?
No wrong! Good try in trying to twist my words though. As I have already stated European hunter gatherers were swarthy but not negroid perhaps you find the word negroid offensive, if you wish you can substitute where I have typed negroid for (Sub-Saharan African). The phenotypes that are characteristic of Sub-Saharan Africans is what I would define as negroid which would include but not limitied to: hair texture, skin pigmentation, skull shape, and nose.
The vast majority of linguists believe that Afro-asiatic originated from East Africa. Geneticists are not archaeologists or historians or linguists. The interpretation of genetics that makes the most sense is the one which accords with known historical or archaeological fact. Here is keita explaining:
In other words, historical evidence supports the idea that the Afroasiatic emerged in Africa and that the only reason why Semitic, an Afro-asiatic branch existes in the Middle East is as a result of migrationfrom Africa into that region, not the other way around.
Keita's opinion was rendered based on old information. We now have much more updated and refined genetic information. Back migration from Eurasia contributed DNA to all parts of Africa you may want to update your knowledge base there are various genetic studies that have been posted on this topic in the Africa sub-forum.
Incorrect if I were to attribute a paternal haplogroup to Semetic languages it would by J. Again Keita in this case is operating on outdated information. Semetic languages are of West Asian origin. Update yourself on what the current genetic studies indicate.
Keita's opinion was rendered based on old information. We now have much more updated and refined genetic information. Back migration from Eurasia contributed DNA to all parts of Africa you may want to update your knowledge base there are various genetic studies that have been posted on this topic in the Africa sub-forum.
Incorrect if I were to attribute a paternal haplogroup to Semetic languages it would by J. Again Keita in this case is operating on outdated information. Semetic languages are of West Asian origin. Update yourself on what the current genetic studies indicate.
what are these new genetic studies? And as JudyU said there are not that many sane linguists who challenge the idea that Afroasiatic has an African origin.
what are these new genetic studies? And as JudyU said there are not that many sane linguists who challenge the idea that Afroasiatic has an African origin.
Simitic languages have their origins in the Middle East. A lot more research is required to ascertain what role back migrations may have played in the development of the Afroasiatic language family.
"Human migration[edit]
The Saharan pump has been used to date four waves of human migration from Africa, namely:[11][not in citation given][12]
Homo erectus (ssp. ergaster) into Southeast and East Asia, possibly twice, once with an Oldowan technology, which travelled as far as China and India to create the Chopper tradition, the second with Acheulian hand axes, only as far as the Indian Subcontinent.
Homo heidelbergensis into the Middle East and Western Europe.
Homo sapiens sapiens "Out of Africa theory" The spread of Afro-Asiatic languages (Berber and Egyptian to North Africa and Semitic to the Arabian Peninsula and Middle East).
The formation of the modern Sahara, as a result of the 5.9 kiloyear event, is also considered to be an effect of the same mechanism."
Simitic languages have their origins in the Middle East. A lot more research is required to ascertain what role back migrations may have played in the development of the Afroasiatic language family..
I am fully aware that Semitic languages are believed to have derived from the Middle East. Berber is not a semitic language though and is found no where else outside of Africa.
I have read this paper. Could you please tell me how it supports the idea of white Berbers. I don't remember reading any such implication from its results. Do you have anything else besides these genetic studies to back your opinion?
"Africa is usually seen as a source of outward migrations, but the genomes suggest a major migration into Africa by farmers from the Middle East, possibly about 3500 years ago. These farmers’ DNA reached deep into the continent, spreading even to groups considered isolated, such as the Khoisan of South Africa and the pygmies of the Congo"----This is from your paper. The time frame does not add up especially since you claim that "Morocco is inhabited by Berbers (imazighen) since at least 5,000 years ago. Some estimate the presence of Berbers to be 8000+ years old." The study makes reference to remains younger than 5000 years ago. yet you are trying ttie Berbers to some back migration of Middle Eastern Farmers that happened as recently as 3500 years ago, while claiming Berbers in Morocco can be traced back to more than 8000 years ago. . And are you aware of the cranial studies done on Middle Eastern Farmers via the discovery of the Natufians. The "Subsaharan element" in the Natufians is so obvious, it is even present in the first farmers of Macedonia who they interbred with. Even if we accept the interpretation of this new genetic data, (many people don't accept it) how does it prove anyuthing that you are saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFP
This needs to be investigated further. I think the answer lies here
"Human migration[edit]
The Saharan pump has been used to date four waves of human migration from Africa, namely:[11][not in citation given][12]
Homo erectus (ssp. ergaster) into Southeast and East Asia, possibly twice, once with an Oldowan technology, which travelled as far as China and India to create the Chopper tradition, the second with Acheulian hand axes, only as far as the Indian Subcontinent.
Homo heidelbergensis into the Middle East and Western Europe.
Homo sapiens sapiens "Out of Africa theory" The spread of Afro-Asiatic languages (Berber and Egyptian to North Africa and Semitic to the Arabian Peninsula and Middle East).
The formation of the modern Sahara, as a result of the 5.9 kiloyear event, is also considered to be an effect of the same mechanism."
What does any of this have to do with Berbers being black or white?
Last edited by mansamusa; 02-18-2016 at 10:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
