|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 1, 2003 14:01:49 GMT -5
"It doesn't imply that any were Caucasoid." It says that only three of the sites were most Negroid. It is not "especially clear" that the rest are, suggesting that there is non-Negroid admixture. It is unreasonable that they were partly Caucasian? The abstract does not suggest non-Negroid mixture. You're totally misunderstanding it. Let me repost the quote: When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed.If there was non-Negroid mixture from Caucasians it would have had to have been a substantial Caucasoid presence there to produce such a population. However, linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence refute such a hypothesis. There is simply no evidence of a Caucasoid presence at the time in question to produce such a mixed population. When the author said "this is especially clear" he was putting special emphasis on those SPECIFIC populations in those areas. It in no way implies that the other sites are "less clear." The other racxial type that dominated east Africa in antiquity were the San. No other racial types were present in east Africa that either preceded or were contemporary with Nilotics and San.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 1, 2003 15:50:34 GMT -5
To understand the abstract, I need to understand the article. It is curious that the abstract doesn't name any site in East Africa that I know to have been associated with Mediterranids.
Is the Capsian toolkit still present in East African sites? Is Semitic spoken in East Africa?
If the Capsian toolkit is present in East Africa, then it is at least an import from Mediterranids, unless it appeared in East Africa first. If Semitic is spoken there, then that is a possible link between East Africa and Semitic-speaking Caucasoids.
Why do you keep saying that Nilotids are Ethiopids?
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 1, 2003 16:05:29 GMT -5
To understand the abstract, I need to understand the article. It is curious that the abstract doesn't name any site in East Africa that I know to have been associated with Mediterranids. Is the Capsian toolkit still present in East African sites? Is Semitic spoken in East Africa? If the Capsian toolkit is present in East Africa, then it is at least an import from Mediterranids, unless it appeared in East Africa first. If Semitic is spoken there, then that is a possible link between East Africa and Semitic-speaking Caucasoids. Why do you keep saying that Nilotids are Ethiopids? Ethiopid is not a race. Semitic languages were and are spoken in East Africa (Ethiopia) and predate the arrival of any "Semitic speaking Caucasoids." At present, Semitic langauges are thought to have arrived with south Arabians in 1000 BCE or later, but mew research is now overturning that idea. There is no general consensus or agreement as to where the original Semitic speaking cradleland is located. What is known is that Afro-Asiatic, the language family that Semitic belongs to originated in East Africa. There is no evidence of a Capsian toolkit or any penetration of Caucasoids into east Africa before aksumite times. The genetic and historical evidence refute this notion.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Dec 1, 2003 16:10:54 GMT -5
Ethiopid is not a race. Semitic languages were and are spoken in East Africa (Ethiopia) and predate the arrival of any "Semitic speaking Caucasoids." At present, Semitic langauges are thought to have arrived with south Arabians in 1000 BCE or later, but mew research is now overturning that idea. There is no general consensus or agreement as to where the original Semitic speaking cradleland is located. What is known is that Afro-Asiatic, the language family that Semitic belongs to originated in East Africa. There is no evidence of a Capsian toolkit or any penetration of Caucasoids into east Africa before aksumite times. The genetic and historical evidence refute this notion. Um, could you please post evidence that Semitic languages did not arise in the Middle East? It sounds like a load of BS.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 1, 2003 17:02:46 GMT -5
Um, could you please post evidence that Semitic languages did not arise in the Middle East? It sounds like a load of BS. The Ethiopian Semitic languages did not arise in the ME but in Africa itself. What I'm saying is that Arabians did not transport this language family into Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Dec 1, 2003 17:30:20 GMT -5
Er...who did, then? Are you saying a language spontaneously appeared in East Africa, that just happened to neatly correspond with totally unrelated languages in the Middle East?
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 1, 2003 22:20:42 GMT -5
Ethiopid is not a race. Semitic languages were and are spoken in East Africa (Ethiopia) and predate the arrival of any "Semitic speaking Caucasoids." At present, Semitic langauges are thought to have arrived with south Arabians in 1000 BCE or later, but mew research is now overturning that idea. There is no general consensus or agreement as to where the original Semitic speaking cradleland is located. What is known is that Afro-Asiatic, the language family that Semitic belongs to originated in East Africa. There is no evidence of a Capsian toolkit or any penetration of Caucasoids into east Africa before aksumite times. The genetic and historical evidence refute this notion. If Ethiopid is the same as Nilotid, why have they been traditionally seperate from Nilotids? Wether East Africa or West Asia is the homeland of Semitic might depend on wether Semitic branched off Afro-Asiatic first, or is deep within Afro-Asiatic. Can anyone help with this subject? What toolkit was used i east Africa and where did it come from if it is unrelated to Capsian?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 1, 2003 22:36:16 GMT -5
Science 2003; 300: 597-603
"There are two principal competing hypotheses for the origin of Afro-Asiatic. One, based on reconstruction of early vocabulary for cultural and environmental referents, places the homeland in the Levant during the earliest Neolithic (the late Natufian culture, 9500 B.C.) (32, 70, 71), with a subsequent two-pronged spread by 5000 B.C. that is well documented archaeologically: mixed farming across the Nile into Egypt and North Africa, giving rise to the Egyptian and Berber branches of Afro-Asiatic languages, and sheep- and goat-based pastoralism from western Arabia across the Red Sea into Ethiopia and Sudan, giving rise to the Cushitic, Omotic, and Chadic branches (Semitic spread into Ethiopia much later). That Southwest Asian origin would now be masked by language replacement in the homeland, including the spread of the Semitic branch of Afro-Asiatic languages (including Akkadian or Babylonian, Aramaic, and Arabic) in historic times. The other hypothesis, reflecting Afro-Asiatic language subgrouping but with no clear archaeological support, favors a homeland in northeastern Africa (72, 73). That African origin would imply a preagricultural spread for Afro-Asiatic, perhaps with population movement into a wetter early Holocene Sahara. "
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 1, 2003 22:59:50 GMT -5
Science 2003; 300: 597-603 "There are two principal competing hypotheses for the origin of Afro-Asiatic. One, based on reconstruction of early vocabulary for cultural and environmental referents, places the homeland in the Levant during the earliest Neolithic (the late Natufian culture, 9500 B.C.) (32, 70, 71), with a subsequent two-pronged spread by 5000 B.C. that is well documented archaeologically: mixed farming across the Nile into Egypt and North Africa, giving rise to the Egyptian and Berber branches of Afro-Asiatic languages, and sheep- and goat-based pastoralism from western Arabia across the Red Sea into Ethiopia and Sudan, giving rise to the Cush*tic, Omotic, and Chadic branches (Semitic spread into Ethiopia much later). That Southwest Asian origin would now be masked by language replacement in the homeland, including the spread of the Semitic branch of Afro-Asiatic languages (including Akkadian or Babylonian, Aramaic, and Arabic) in historic times. The other hypothesis, reflecting Afro-Asiatic language subgrouping but with no clear archaeological support, favors a homeland in northeastern Africa (72, 73). That African origin would imply a preagricultural spread for Afro-Asiatic, perhaps with population movement into a wetter early Holocene Sahara. " Thank you. I would not be surprised if the Caucasians of the Sahara were speaking Afro-Asiatic languages, but the first suggestion does not say where Semitic is placed, (other than that it had to move into Asia, if Afro-Asiatic originated anywhere in Africa). Is Semitic with Cushitic, Omotic and Chadic, with Berber and Egyptian, or did it seperate first?
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 3, 2003 0:51:42 GMT -5
Thank you. I would not be surprised if the Caucasians of the Sahara were speaking Afro-Asiatic languages, but the first suggestion does not say where Semitic is placed, (other than that it had to move into Asia, if Afro-Asiatic originated anywhere in Africa). Is Semitic with Cushitic, Omotic and Chadic, with Berber and Egyptian, or did it seperate first? First of all, there were no Caucasians in the Sahara who spread any language, let alone any Caucasians there period! The first language that split of was Omotic, a language totally unrelated to any language GENETICALLY in thje Middle East. The hypothesis Dienekes posted does not correspond to the linguitsic evidence. There is no parent ancestral language to be found in the Middle East that is the descendant of Omotic, Cushitic, Ancient Egyptian, or Berber. Neither did these languages split of from one another save for Cushitic spliting from Omotic. Chadic alone has 300 languages in its branch and I doubt if Middle easterners diffused 300 divergent languages under a language Branch. Not only that it appears to have no closest ancestor in neither Berber or Cushitic, its two closest neighbors. What the authors are trying to do is correlate Languages with the spread of farming. Linguistic evidence does not support this hypotheis. And quit putting Caucasians in the Sahara when there were none. Ethiopians have always been regarded as blacks and not as separate from Nilotics. There is no such thing as a Ethiopid race. Genetically and racially these peoples group with sub-Saharan Africans.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 3, 2003 1:51:53 GMT -5
If Semitic is Afro-Asiatic, then it is related genetically to some languages of the Middle East wether or not Afro-Asiatic languages first appeared in Africa or Asia. And wether or not Afro-Asiatic emerged in Africa or Asia, it is either Nostratic or close to Nostratic. Are you implying that there is no Afro-Asiatic family?
You are wrong that Ethiopians have always been regarded as Negroids. For an example see Deniker. When have Nilotids and Ethiopids ever been classified as the same?
Why do you think that there were no whites in the Sahara? How do you explain the Berbers?
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 3, 2003 11:59:46 GMT -5
If Semitic is Afro-Asiatic, then it is related genetically to some languages of the Middle East wether or not Afro-Asiatic languages first appeared in Africa or Asia. And wether or not Afro-Asiatic emerged in Africa or Asia, it is either Nostratic or close to Nostratic. Are you implying that there is no Afro-Asiatic family? You are wrong that Ethiopians have always been regarded as Negroids. For an example see Deniker. When have Nilotids and Ethiopids ever been classified as the same? Why do you think that there were no whites in the Sahara? How do you explain the Berbers? Ethiopians have always been regarded as blacks and their DNA confirms this. They have only very slight west Asian mixture. Their DNA is the same as other black Africans so whatever race Deniker wants to call them doesn't matter. Ethiopians represent a subtype of Negroid. There is no true Negro race. And for the last time, there is no racial classification as Ethiopids. Ethiopians are black African. Berbers are costal type Africans and not all are "white." The Sanhadja and Tuaregs are just a few that comes to mind. Coastal Berbers like the light tpyes are native to the coast. The Saharans were always black like they still are. The Garamantes of the Fezzan are a prime example. Caucassians didn't spread no Afro-Asiatic languages into Africa. Afro-Asiatic dpes not corresond to Nostratic.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 3, 2003 13:24:01 GMT -5
You said that Ethiopians have alwaays been regarded as black. So Deniker's classification does matter because it shows that the Ethiopians have always been called black.
I know that many Berbers in the south of the Sahara have Negroid admixture, but did this black component introduce the Berber language group?
Afro-Asiatic may or may not be inside Nostratic. But if it isn't then it is still closer to Nostratic than to Congo-Saharan. I think that the two most logical explanations for this are that the language family was first spoken in Africa or Asia, by Caucasoids.
"Ethiopians represent a subtype of Negroid. There is no true Negro race. And for the last time, there is no racial classification as Ethiopids. Ethiopians are black African."
I think that you are confused here because if there is no negro race, then "Ethiopians" cannot be a subtype of it, and Ethiopid is the name of the subrace.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 4, 2003 3:59:57 GMT -5
So whats the problem here? Deniker's classification doesn't matter. Ethiopians are black Africans and have always been. There is no Ethiopid race of men. What you fail to understand is that Berber is more of a linguitsic term than a racial term. Tuaregs are genetically nearly the same as the Beja people of Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and southern Egypt, yet bejas speak a Cushitic language and are overwhelmingly Negroid. First, there is no language family called "Congo-Saharan." You have Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan. You're using terms that do not exist in the realms of linguistics to link them to race, which is not possible in all cases(and definitely not in this case). Afro-Asiatic isn't closer to any Nostratic and Nostratic isn't an accept family but a hypothesis. Genetic data do not support the hypothesis of a group of Caucasian Nostratic speaking people spreading Afro-Asiatic into Africa. I posted that abstract along with Duro numerous times. You misunderstood my words so let me simplify them for you. There is no such thing as a "True Negro" or Congoid race. Black Africans do not fit one true specific uniform race type in order to qualify as Negroid. That is, one does not have to fit the extreme definition of Negroid to be included in the Negroid macrorace. Look at this guy's picture. he is a Tutsi, a black central African Bantu speaking group. Observe his racial features. he has no caucasoid mixture. www.rwanda1.com/government/president/kagame.jpgMore examples: Thus there is no Congoid race of people or one specific extreme type that constitutes "true Negroes."
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 4, 2003 5:21:12 GMT -5
I know that Berber is a group of languages, but I am asking which racial type spoke Berber first? Northern Berbers or Southern Berbers?
Congo-Saharan is a group of languages Gregersen based on similarities between Congo-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan. Apart from a few Khoisan languages and those black Africans bordering Caucasians who speak Afro-Asiatic languages, all known languages spoken south of the Sahara are within C-S.
Negroid or Congoid (Homo sapiens afer) is the term for the subspecies found from south of the Sahara to the the Zambesi. Within this group there are Paleocongid, Sudanid, Nilotid, Bantid and Ethiopid. They are all part of the same Negroid subspecies of man.
The question is wether Ethiopids are a group defined by admixture with the neighbouring Caucasoid subspecies.
|
|