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.
Well, I can add something here. The Normans (Norsemen, "men from the north") were most definitely not Moorish as stated above. They came out of tenth century Denmark, Iceland and Norway. That has been well established.
"Anybody can see all you're doing is copy and pasting DNA studies and you're not proving to me how the Berbers were NOT majority black, but instead your giving me links that are not even credible!"
False it is obvious you don't understand the science of genetics. You rely on your Afrocentric Lies! Genetics is science which is verifiable I have posted good links it is obvious you are used to addressing an audience of imbeciles and thieves. The so-called history you post relies on the honesty of the historians which have written them just like the Koran and much of the Bible which I consider trash mostly unverifiable useless nonsense.
The only tool to answer what the ancestry of the Moors were is genetics period! Not your false history which you have convinced yourself is true. In regards to why I have not responded to your history the answer is plain and simple it isn't worthy of a response.
Regarding the story of the "young Moorish beauty" married to the Portuguese nobleman nuances in the Portuguese language don't translate well into English the word is "mourisca" which I am familiar with from reading Portuguese slave records. The word was used in slave records to describe an Iberian woman formerly of Muslim faith.
None of your posts on Portugal prove that the Moors were black which they weren't the DNA of the current population proves that. Once again your theory is completely destroyed by the simple fact that paternal lineages with origins in Sub-Saharan Africa are almost completely absent and the vast majority of the maternal lineages of Sub-Saharan origin are as a result of slave trade which started after the 15th century.
I did notice you did not respond to the Tuareg genetic study.
EXACTLY! You keep beating around the bush and cant rebuttal any of my historic facts because unlike yours I have actual modern and historic documents that can be studied and confirmed by actual scholars. Once again you cant argue my evidence, but instead you call very credible historians trash because they're not saying what you want to hear which proves you do bias research that only suits your agenda, and also proves you're the delusional one. None of my sources are bias I have black, white and Arab sources and I didn't give you nearly 10% of what I have! I told you, you will get embarrassed
EXACTLY! You keep beating around the bush and cant rebuttal any of my historic facts because unlike yours I have actual modern and historic documents that can be studied and confirmed by actual scholars. Once again you cant argue my evidence, but instead you call very credible historians trash because they're not saying what you want to hear which proves you do bias research that only suits your agenda, and also proves you're the delusional one. None of my sources are bias I have black, white and Arab sources and I didn't give you nearly 10% of what I have! I told you, you will get embarrassed
The historical souces you have posted were refuted by science(genetic studies) therefore they are incorrect that is my position. Your sources are inferior to science you have memorized information that is incorrect. I haven't beat around bush I have answered whether the Moors were black or not. The current science indicates they were not.
I do realize that some individuals due to their religious beliefs or idealogies do not accept what the genetic population studies are revealing.
Once again you keep denying authentic historical evidence because it doesn't say what you WANT to believe! Your genetic crap didn't prove me anything about the true identity of the Moors your giving me studies mixed in with your opinions and claiming them to be "scientific facts," when all you're doing is taking anything you can find and throwing it against me even when it makes no sense at all. I read everything you posted and not once did you prove me that the Moors were NOT black, but you only gave me the DNA of modern Moroccans and not the ancient Moors, and anybody with a standard amount of intelligence can see this. You're an ignorant person trying to sound/look smart.
Anthropologist, Dana Reynolds traced the African roots of the original North African peoples through a dozen Greek and Byzantine (neo-Roman writers) from the first to the sixth century A.D. "They describe the Berber population of Northern Africa as dark-skinned [modern Europeans call dark brown skin color, as black-skinned] and woolly-haired." Among these writers who wrote about the Berbers were Martial, Silius Italicus, Corippus and Procopius.
Saint Augustine was a dark-skinned Berber and many of the later Roman emperors would have trouble getting citizenship in some of today’s European states. -Professor Mikuláš Lobkowicz, the former rector of the Munich university and current director of the Institute of Central and East European Studies in Eichstätt.
Once again you keep denying authentic historical evidence because it doesn't say what you WANT to believe! Your genetic crap didn't prove me anything about the true identity of the Moors your giving me studies mixed in with your opinions and claiming them to be "scientific facts," the Moors were NOT black, but ywhen all you're doing is taking anything you can find and throwing it against me even when it makes no sense at all. I read everything you posted and not once did you prove me that ou only gave me the DNA of modern Moroccans and not the ancient Moors, and anybody with a standard amount of intelligence can see this. You're an ignorant person trying to sound/look smart.
Anthropologist, Dana Reynolds traced the African roots of the original North African peoples through a dozen Greek and Byzantine (neo-Roman writers) from the first to the sixth century A.D. "They describe the Berber population of Northern Africa as dark-skinned [modern Europeans call dark brown skin color, as black-skinned] and woolly-haired." Among these writers who wrote about the Berbers were Martial, Silius Italicus, Corippus and Procopius.
Saint Augustine was a dark-skinned Berber and many of the later Roman emperors would have trouble getting citizenship in some of today’s European states. -Professor Mikuláš Lobkowicz, the former rector of the Munich university and current director of the Institute of Central and East European Studies in Eichstätt.
You have not provided any genetic studies to indicate that the Moors were Negroid you have absolutely nothing thus far. Still waiting for anything useful so far nothing you have posted proves the Moors were black, whereas those familiar with genetics can see that I have made a strong argument and that the current science indicates that the Moors were not black(negroid).
I will let the posters decide who is the one with a predetmined belief system is you did set I.S.L.A.M. as your status 21 days ago. Perhaps it is disturbing to you that genetic studies do not agree with the Quranic account of creation as science indicates Homo Sapiens Sapiens and the chimpanzee diverged from a common ancestor 5-6 million years ago.
You reveal just how weak your argument is by making statements such as "Your an ignorant person trying to sound smart". Clearly your ego is feeling small at this moment or you would not be so focused on me. I take it as a compliment.
Saint Augustine being a dark-skin Berber doesn't indicate he was negroid even the orignal European hunter gatherers were swarthy. Clearly they weren't negroid.
Again dark skin is not the same as negroid. Good try.
You have not provided any genetic studies to indicate that the Moors were Negroid you have absolutely nothing thus far. Still waiting for anything useful so far nothing you have posted proves the Moors were black, whereas those familiar with genetics can see that I have made a strong argument and that the current science indicates that the Moors were not black(negroid).
I will let the posters decide who is the one with a predetmined belief system is you did set I.S.L.A.M. as your status 21 days ago. Perhaps it is disturbing to you that genetic studies do not agree with the Quranic account of creation as science indicates Homo Sapiens Sapiens and the chimpanzee diverged from a common ancestor 5-6 million years ago.
You reveal just how weak your argument is by making statements such as "Your an ignorant person trying to sound smart". Clearly your ego is feeling small at this moment or you would not be so focused on me. I take it as a compliment.
Saint Augustine being a dark-skin Berber doesn't indicate he was negroid even the orignal European hunter gatherers were swarthy. Clearly they weren't negroid.
Again dark skin is not the same as negroid. Good try.
This post represents what seems to be an evolution of opinion. First people in this thread denied that moors were "black". Now that it has been adequately proven that they had black skin like other black Africans, you are now saying yes they were black but they were not "negroid". I am not sure what that means.
Last edited by mansamusa; 02-18-2016 at 09:03 AM..
1.A laughable claim clearly a LIE 50% of their maternal lineages mtDNA originate outside of sub-Saharan Africa and are quite diverse. Take a look at the last column labeled haplogroup Table 2.
What do we have here the majority of the paternal lineages found in the Tuareg are clearly mostly the result of back migration.:think:
"Interestingly, for the Y chromosome, the dominant haplogroup in North Africa as well as the Tuareg is E1b1b1b. This haplogroup was associated with Neolithic diffusion in North Africa,"
Y chromosome pool in Tuareg
From the 20 branches of the Y chromosome tree, which could be discriminated by the analyses performed, only 7 were observed in our Tuareg population sample (Supplementary Material SM7). Again, from this perspective of Y chromosome diversity, TTan is closer to sub-Saharan populations than the other two Tuareg populations, presenting 5.6% of the old AB lineages and 44.4% of E1b1a, whereas TGor and TGos have, respectively, 16.7 and 9.1% of E1b1a. Curiously, TTan also presents the highest frequency (33.3%) of West Eurasian R1b lineages whereas TGor presents only 5.6% of lineage K* (xO,P), and TGos presents none. There were no instances of the Eurasian J haplogroup in the Tuareg, which is otherwise frequent in North Africa (an average of 20%; see Arredi et al45), and attains the highest frequency in the Middle East (around 50%; see Semino et al)46.
The dominant haplogroup in TGor (77.8%) and TGos (81.8%) is E1b1b1b, which has a much lower frequency in TTan (11.1%). This haplogroup reaches a mean frequency of 42% in North Africa, decreasing in frequency from 76% in Morocco to ~10% in Egypt.45 Arredi et al45 dated this haplogroup in North Africa from 2800 to 9800 YBP, associating its expansion with the Neolithic demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East.
In case you missed it here it is again.
'The dominant haplogroup in TGor (77.8%) and TGos (81.8%) is E1b1b1b, which has a much lower frequency in TTan (11.1%). This haplogroup reaches a mean frequency of 42% in North Africa, decreasing in frequency from 76% in Morocco to ~10% in Egypt.45 Arredi et al45 dated this haplogroup in North Africa from 2800 to 9800 YBP, associating its expansion with the Neolithic demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East.'
Populations from the Near East(Eurasia) were present in north Africa much earlier than 5,000 YBP. You clearly don't read enough DNA studies and update your knowledge base on the subject. I think that you have a very poor understanding of the current science in addition to relying on outdated information.
2. Absolute misinformation the maghrebi dna component found in north Africans has been in north Africa >12,000 YBP and is the result of back migration from the middle east.
It is clear now who the delusional one is, that would be your sir.
I would like to see your attempt at debunking this DNA study.
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:
Quote:
In terms of Africa one interesting case regards the Afroasiatic language
phylum or family. The spread of domesticated wheat, barley, goats and sheep into
northern Africa from southwest Asia (the Near East) and its relation to the
Afroasiatic language family is a good example. A minority argue that
Afro-asiatic is Asian in origin (which requires opposing standard linguistics
evidence), the majority that it is African. Either position on origins
influences any subsequent interpretations. Unfortunately both models are not
usually presented in published work; an imbalanced picture is presented. Most
genetic studies and/or interpretations have proceeded from models in which
either ancestral Afroasiatic or a later branch, e.g. Berber (Arredi et al. 2004)
are posited to have come from the Near East with the spread of food production,
without the consideration of alternatives which is problematic when not simply
wrong. Generally population migration versus cultural diffusion is given the
primary responsibility as the mechanism of change. Here is explored the
ramifications of taking into account the views of mainstream linguists, as well
of archaeology, in the examination of the genetic data. The issue the
construction of the most credible narrative, that is balanced and
fair........
What happens when genetic and linguistic data are considered in terms of the
African origins model? The recent spread of Arabic has to be ignored
and the presence of Semitic languages in Ethiopia--based on the standard
linguistic interpretations. The Y chromosome data are used because they
are the most complete for the greatest number of members of the family.
The core distribution of the family runs from eastern Africa north to Egypt and
west along the Mediterranean littoral. The subfamilies spoken or once spoken
here are Cu****ic (Kenya, Tanzania, Somali, Ethiopia, and Sudan), ancient
Egyptian in the Egyptian Nile Valley, and Berber spoken in Siwa Oasis of Egypt
and west to Morocco, and south into Mali and Mauretania. Collating the
data from various studies indicate that the TaqI 49 a,f haplotype V is the
predominant variant in this region overall; it has notably lower frequencies in
the Near East (Table I). This is exactly what would be expected for an
African model of origins—assuming that the language family was initially and
primarily spread by the migration of humans, and not by cultural
diffusion. Furthermore genetic studies that were not concerned with
language confirm this. For example Underhill et al state that the M35 lineage
was carried into the Near East from Africa in the “Mesolithic”; this M35 in
Africa corresponds to the TaqI 49 a,f V. It is far more likely
that pre-proto-Semitic speakers went into the Near East at this time where
Semitic languages have long since dominated, but the predominant haplotypes in
most Semitic speaking populations are variants VII and VIII in the TaqI 49 a,f
system (al-Zahery), which are equivalent to M89 associated lineages. The
most parsimonious explanation is that ancestral Semitic was adopted by those
bearing haplotypes VII and VIII. (Incidentally it is not argued here that
there has not been some two-way migration between Africa and Asia, but in this
instance the predominant migration was from Africa; the underived M35 lineage is
found primarily in East Africa, and most of the variation in derived and related
clades are in Africa.) HISTORY AND GENETICS IN AFRICA: A NEED FOR BETTER COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TEAMS
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.
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.
were the Moors black?
