Black Hannibal?

[Condottiere 40K]

Delenda est Carthago.
- Cheney the Censor

[ArmoredCore]

Actually we don't know for a fact that "black Africans have alway been in the Sahara". As sumskilz mentioned, it's unlikely the desert had any significant populations during the Ice Ages. And while the Palaeolithic populations may be considered "black Africans", as sumskilz pointed out, there is no evidence that any modern populations are descended from them to a significant degree.

Also from what I understand the "Neolithic expansion" of early farmers from the Middle East into Europe and North Africa seems to precede the Sahara's "wet phase". It's hardly surprising that a culture that practiced agriculture was able to displace the thinly peopled tribes of Hunter-Gatherers that preceded them. After all, we know that the same thing happened in Europe as well.

There is no evidence that white Eurasians migrated into the Sahara desert and introduced cattle pastoralism there, which is the oldest example of pastoralism in Africa going back 7,000 years.
Wandering Eurasian migrants along the coast of North Africa is one thing, but the idea that they went in and crossed the Sahara and replaced ALL indigenous black Africans there 10,000 years ago is so absurdly hilarious I cant stop laughing.

Again size of North Africa:

Cattle pastoralism is an important trait of African cultures. Ethnographic studies describe the central role played by domestic cattle within many societies, highlighting its social and ideological value well beyond its mere function as ‘walking larder’. Historical depth of this African legacy has been repeatedly assessed in an archaeological perspective, mostly emphasizing a continental vision. Nevertheless, in-depth site-specific studies, with a few exceptions, are lacking. Despite the long tradition of a multi-disciplinary approach to the analysis of pastoral systems in Africa, rarely do early and middle Holocene archaeological contexts feature in the same area the combination of settlement, ceremonial and rock art features so as to be multi-dimensionally explored: the Messak plateau in the Libyan central Sahara represents an outstanding exception. Known for its rich Pleistocene occupation and abundant Holocene rock art, the region, through our research, has also shown to preserve the material evidence of a complex ritual dated to the Middle Pastoral (6080–5120 BP or 5200–3800 BC). This was centred on the frequent deposition in stone monuments of disarticulated animal remains, mostly cattle. Animal burials are known also from other African contexts, but regional extent of the phenomenon, state of preservation of monuments, and associated rock art make the Messak case unique. GIS analysis, excavation data, radiocarbon dating, zooarchaeological and isotopic (Sr, C, O) analyses of animal remains, and botanical information are used to explore this highly formalized ritual and the lifeways of a pastoral community in the Holocene Sahara.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3577651/

For archaeologists, the story of how Near Eastern hunters and gatherers became farmers has become as familiar as a bedtime fable. Beginning as early as 11,000 B.C., people settled into villages and began cultivating wild grasses like rye, emmer wheat and barley. Over time, the genetic makeup of the plants changed, so they needed to be sown and tended in order to grow.
Cows, goats and sheep were domesticated over the next few thousand years, and then ceramics were developed to store food. This new way of life quickly swept across Europe and much of Asia. Soon, almost everyone was farming.
Continue reading the main story

But not in Africa. As Dr. Katharina Neumann, an archaeobotanist at the J.W. Goethe University in Frankfurt, noted in the book ''Food, Fuel and Fields -- Progress in African Archaeobotany,'' published last year, archaeologists at several sites across sub-Saharan Africa have not found evidence of domesticated grains before 2000 B.C., suggesting that until then, people collected wild grains and did not plant their own.
While the first undisputed remains of domesticated cattle appear in the African archaeological record about 5900 B.C. at a site in Chad, other studies suggest that cattle were domesticated in the same region as early as 9,000 years ago.
A study of African cattle published in the journal Science in 2002 suggested that cattle were domesticated independently in Africa, rather than being imported from the Near East, as they were across most of Europe and Asia.
Dr. Close said the first pastoralists in Africa, who traveled with domesticated cattle, had probably captured wild animals at first to provide insurance as the Sahara, then partly covered in grassland, began to dry. They moved south to savannas to find moister conditions. These ''cattle-assisted hunter gatherers,'' as she called them, took milk, blood and meat from their animals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/sc...ming.html?_r=0

https://books.google.com/books?id=Yn...sahara&f=false

Assertions like there were no black Africans in North Africa during the holocene are absurdly ludicrous.
Along the coasts is one thing, ALL of North Africa is something else.

But even along the coasts of North Africa there is evidence for black Africans during that time.

[ArmoredCore]

DP

[+Marius+]

How the hell did the discussion went as backwards in time as the holocene?

North and South America were racially changed in a matter of a few centuries, and there was a huge Ocean between it and Europe.

What hope could North Africa have against massive migrations from the north during/after the Ice age when the sea gap was closer than it ever was since the sea levels were lower;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Europe_map.png


?

I know dudes that could swim that distance.

[athanaric]

What I am saying is that terms like "Caucasians" are misleading and irrelevant when talking about human populations in Africa.

Well yeah, since Caucasians live in the Caucasus and nowhere else (except those who commit terror attacks abroad).

Black Africans being the oldest living population on earth are the most diverse humans on the planet.

Inaccurate, see sumskilz's explanations.

Therefore, so called "Caucasian" features have existed among black Africans across ALL of Africa since before there was a human in the Caucasus.

And later on you go on to say they all look the same. So much for consistency.

Last I checked the genetic map says all humans originate in Sub Saharan Africa. Therefore it is impossible for "sub saharan" Africans to be "more recent" arrivals to Africa.

Sub-Saharans wouldn't need to, since they evolved in situ.

Berber is a language and culture not a race.

It's widely considered an ethnicity.

Berber languages and culture originated 100% within Africa in the Sahara and Upper Nile Valley.

That's an axiom, not an argument.

It was not introduced to North Africa by NON African settlers.

That's an incantation, ...

There are all kinds of Berbers, some who are black and some who are not.

Yes, as a result of thousands of years of evolution, and mixing with blacks, Arabs, and Europeans.

You yourself are shifting the goal posts if you are claiming that Berbers are descended from Phoenician

I didn't. You need to read properly. Carthaginians were Phoenician, not Berbers.

and non African settlers, which they are not, which is the point other folks are making on this thread. Berber language and culture is 100% African and practiced by a wide range of Africans with various features.... and you are right they are not Phoenicians.

And not "black", either.

According to "us" means nothing. The first populations to speak a Berber language were black Africans IN the Sahara and black Africans have been in the Sahara continuously for many thousands of years and never disappeared.

Science says otherwise, see above.

No history I ever read said that black people vanished from North Africa prior to the arrival of any Phoenicians. That sounds like some made up nonsense.

If there were any left by the arrival of the Berbers, they'd have been assimilated by the latter, and long before any Phoenician set foot in Africa.

Your argument is fantasy world nonsense.

That's rich, coming from you.

Obviously if you think that human feature diversity in Africa starts with Eurasians you are spouting lies. Humans have been in Africa for 200,000 years. So how on earth are "Eurasians" the basis for any feature diversity in Africa when Eurasians are nothing but light skinned African migrants in the first place? You are backwards. This is what I mean by fantasy world history. Eurasians are not the "original" populations of North Africa and certainly not the basis of any ancient human diversity therein. The only parts of North Africa that are dominated by "Eurasians" are the coasts which is to be expected. Otherwise, the interior of North Africa and the Sahara has always been populated by black Africans, or as the Greeks and Romans called them "Ethiopians". North African history does not start with "Eurasian" migrants. That is simply nonsense historical fantasy revisionism.

You really insist on getting everything backwards.

This is what North Africans generally look like, aside from those coastal populations who are very light, like the ancient Eastern and Western Ethiopians of the Greeks and Romans:

That's a grotesque lie. Nobody living in Europe (where there are many North African immigrants), the Middle East, or Africa is going to fall for it. You must be thinking TWC were an American-only forum - maybe they'd buy your fantastic stories? A bunch of Mauritanian people are not at all representative of Tunisia or Egypt.
Unfortunately there aren't many North Africans on this board, otherwise they could tell you what their countries look like IRL.

And if I put a room full of black Africans from across the continent in a room with Africans in America you would not be able to tell who was "former slave" from West Africa from the rest in most cases.

I would.

Black Africans across Africa all generally look the same

No they don't. Haven't seen many actual Africans have you?

even though there is tremendous diversity in black African populations.

As on every continent...

Also, the Cretans used a distinct colour to depict actual black people.

[sumskilz]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3577651/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/sc...ming.html?_r=0

https://books.google.com/books?id=Yn...sahara&f=false

Assertions like there were no black Africans in North Africa during the holocene are absurdly ludicrous.
Along the coasts is one thing, ALL of North Africa is something else.

But even along the coasts of North Africa there is evidence for black Africans during that time.

Those sources don't support your argument. "African" in that context just means people who live in Africa, not sub-Saharan in the population genetics sense. The journal article even refers to the people as Tenerians who were morphologically Mediterranean-like and mentions that the possible independent domestication of cattle in Africa is controversial. It was believed possible when that article was written, but proven wrong since: Ancient African cattle first domesticated in Middle East, study reveals

EDIT: Like I said, even modern Tuareg in sub-Saharan Africa have half back-migrant ancestry in contrast to their non-Berber speaking neighbors (same is true of Beja people):

The Tuareg presently live in the Sahara and the Sahel. Their ancestors are commonly believed to be the Garamantes of the Libyan Fezzan, ever since it was suggested by authors of antiquity. Biological evidence, based on classical genetic markers, however, indicates kinship with the Beja of Eastern Sudan. Our study of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and Y chromosome SNPs of three different southern Tuareg groups from Mali, Burkina Faso and the Republic of Niger reveals a West Eurasian-North African composition of their gene pool. The data show that certain genetic lineages could not have been introduced into this population earlier than ∼9000 years ago whereas local expansions establish a minimal date at around 3000 years ago. Some of the mtDNA haplogroups observed in the Tuareg population were involved in the post-Last Glacial Maximum human expansion from Iberian refugia towards both Europe and North Africa. Interestingly, no Near Eastern mtDNA lineages connected with the Neolithic expansion have been observed in our population sample. On the other hand, the Y chromosome SNPs data show that the paternal lineages can very probably be traced to the Near Eastern Neolithic demic expansion towards North Africa, a period that is otherwise concordant with the above-mentioned mtDNA expansion. The time frame for the migration of the Tuareg towards the African Sahel belt overlaps that of early Holocene climatic changes across the Sahara (from the optimal greening ∼10 000 YBP to the extant aridity beginning at ∼6000 YBP) and the migrations of other African nomadic peoples in the area...

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. Arredi et al 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...

Curiously, TTan also presents the highest frequency (33.3%) of West Eurasian R1b lineages

Linking the sub-Saharan and West Eurasian gene pools: maternal and paternal heritage of the Tuareg nomads from the African Sahel

Now regarding the Tuareg of Fezzan:

The Tuaregs are a semi-nomadic pastoralist people of northwest Africa. Their origins are still a matter of debate due to the scarcity of genetic and historical data. Here we report the first data on the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genetic characterization of a Tuareg sample from Fezzan (Libyan Sahara). A total of 129 individuals from two villages in the Acacus region were genetically analysed. Both the hypervariable regions and the coding region of mtDNA were investigated. Phylogeographic investigation was carried out in order to reconstruct human migratory shifts in central Sahara, and to shed light on the origin of the Libyan Tuaregs. Our results clearly show low genetic diversity in the sample, possibly due to genetic drift and founder effect associated with the separation of Libyan Tuaregs from an ancestral population. Furthermore, the maternal genetic pool of the Libyan Tuaregs is characterized by a major "European" component shared with the Berbers that could be traced to the Iberian Peninsula, as well as a minor 'south Saharan' contribution possibly linked to both Eastern African and Near Eastern populations.

First Genetic Insight into Libyan Tuaregs: A Maternal Perspective

[Kyriakos]

Another point, if one goes by Nietzsche re roman view on this (not always a good idea ), had the Barcid family (including Hannibal) actually been black (as in sub-saharan) one has to suppose the romans would present that info given they are the ones who focused on who is black and who isn't (their term for black is the so-called 'n word', and it exists in derogatory phrases of early Rome anyway). "Hic n... est" being a good example there.

[LinusLinothorax]

Sumskilz & co, you realize that you are completely wasting your time and that talking to a wall would give you better results? You will never change his opinion, because he doesn't allows to.

[Cyclops]

Pretty clear Hannibal had a near Eastern ancestry and while he may well have been dark skinned he was not an example the classic "negroid" type such as the actor chosen to portray him in the video.

That said if the actor does his job well I have no problem with it, there have been worse instances of miscasting. This abomination springs to kind:



Six foot four, eyes of blue, it must be Genghis Khan! "The best thing in life is to lick your enemies, see them skedaddle, and hear their womenfolk hollerin'"

Its worth remembering the Romans distinguished Africa (a province within the area controlled by the Carthaginians) as a portion of Libya (the continent we know as Africa). As far as I know the Romans and Hellenes distinguished Libyans and Egyptians from the "negroid" black skinned kinky haired people we think of as black Africans.

For example Herodotus mentions the distinguishing feature of "Ethiopians" and the "short men" living to the south of Egypt as black skin, in distinction to the Libyans who encounter them.

That said there was no doubt a sub-Saharan element in Egypt (I'm pretty sure the DNA evidence supports some mixing, although jot as much as some would claim) and North Africa. Its just unlikely to have reached into the gene pool of an arrogant Semitic aristocrat.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The script was funnier in that movie than even the actors they cast to portray them.

[Condottiere 40K]

And then they all died for historical blasphemy.

[Roma_Victrix]

Pretty clear Hannibal had a near Eastern ancestry and while he may well have been dark skinned he was not an example the classic "negroid" type such as the actor chosen to portray him in the video.

That said if the actor does his job well I have no problem with it, there have been worse instances of miscasting. This abomination springs to kind:



Six foot four, eyes of blue, it must be Genghis Khan! "The best thing in life is to lick your enemies, see them skedaddle, and hear their womenfolk hollerin'"

Its worth remembering the Romans distinguished Africa (a province within the area controlled by the Carthaginians) as a portion of Libya (the continent we know as Africa). As far as I know the Romans and Hellenes distinguished Libyans and Egyptians from the "negroid" black skinned kinky haired people we think of as black Africans.

For example Herodotus mentions the distinguishing feature of "Ethiopians" and the "short men" living to the south of Egypt as black skin, in distinction to the Libyans who encounter them.

That said there was no doubt a sub-Saharan element in Egypt (I'm pretty sure the DNA evidence supports some mixing, although jot as much as some would claim) and North Africa. Its just unlikely to have reached into the gene pool of an arrogant Semitic aristocrat.

Cyclops deserves some sort of TWC award for this post.

Honestly, it's as ridiculous to cast Hannibal as a black guy as it is to cast Genghis Khan (1162 - 1227) as a white guy. It would be equally ridiculous to have an Asian or European actor play the role of Mansa Musa I of Mali (1280 – 1337), that profoundly wealthy sub-Saharan black African king of the Mali Empire. This isn't rocket science, people. It's about basic genetics and common sense, the latter of which Afrocentrists are really short on these days.

[ArmoredCore]

Well yeah, since Caucasians live in the Caucasus and nowhere else (except those who commit terror attacks abroad).


Inaccurate, see sumskilz's explanations.

There is nothing there to see, this is not a "scholarly reference". No serious scholar claims that no blacks were in North Africa as a result of Eurasian invaders sweeping across North Africa and into the Sahara 10,000 years ago and beating the Africans there, then wiping them out to create a new race called "North African White Eurasians". This is so absurdly silly to be laughable. Migrations from Eurasia into Northern Africa happened gradually over time and eventually built up a momentum during Roman times and after. This nonsense of claiming 'all of North Africa' had no black Africans after 10KYA is simply absurdly silly rhetoric that has no basis in fact all to prove that ONE historical figure couldn't have been black.

And later on you go on to say they all look the same. So much for consistency.

Yeah they all have black skin so in that respect they look similar.

Sub-Saharans wouldn't need to, since they evolved in

No, they evolved IN AFRICA from the first humans who were themselves born in "sub Saharan" Africa.
And for over 160,000 years black Africans have roamed all parts of Africa evolving various types of features but still maintaining black skin.
Therefore there was never any other "type" of African for most African history other than black African.
Nothing about the Sahara desert would turn black Africans into white "Eurasians" and white Eurasians aren't "indigenous Africans".

The rest of the statements you make not even backed up by any scholarship, which does not mean "see Sumskillz" dataz.

It's widely considered an ethnicity.


That's an axiom, not an argument.


That's an incantation, ...


Yes, as a result of thousands of years of evolution, and mixing with blacks, Arabs, and Europeans.


I didn't. You need to read properly. Carthaginians were Phoenician, not Berbers.


And not "black", either.



Science says otherwise, see above.


If there were any left by the arrival of the Berbers, they'd have been assimilated by the latter, and long before any Phoenician set foot in Africa.



That's rich, coming from you.


You really insist on getting everything backwards.


That's a grotesque lie. Nobody living in Europe (where there are many North African immigrants), the Middle East, or Africa is going to fall for it. You must be thinking TWC were an American-only forum - maybe they'd buy your fantastic stories? A bunch of Mauritanian people are not at all representative of Tunisia or Egypt.
Unfortunately there aren't many North Africans on this board, otherwise they could tell you what their countries look like IRL.

Modern Europeans and Middle Easterners are not the same people as those so-called "Eurasian" migrants of 10KYA.
And bottom line, human history is 200,000 years old and most of that history exists SOLELY in Africa.
The most key migrations of humans are the migrations of BLACK AFRICANS out of Africa to settle the rest of the planet.
And there were multiple waves of migrations over tens of thousands of years, some of which crossed the Sahara and into Europe.
Trying to sit up here and claim Eurasian migrations as the basis of and origin of African settlement in North Africa is not only a lie but pathetic.
If you want to celebrate the history of Europe and Asia then go to Europe and Asia. North Africa is not an extension of Eurasia and most certainly was not 10,000 years ago. That is basic geography.

Those sources don't support your argument. "African" in that context just means people who live in Africa, not sub-Saharan in the population genetics sense. The journal article even refers to the people as Tenerians who were morphologically Mediterranean-like and mentions that the possible independent domestication of cattle in Africa is controversial. It was believed possible when that article was written, but proven wrong since: Ancient African cattle first domesticated in Middle East, study reveals

EDIT: Like I said, even modern Tuareg in sub-Saharan Africa have half back-migrant ancestry in contrast to their non-Berber speaking neighbors (same is true of Beja people):

Linking the sub-Saharan and West Eurasian gene pools: maternal and paternal heritage of the Tuareg nomads from the African Sahel

Now regarding the Tuareg of Fezzan:

First Genetic Insight into Libyan Tuaregs: A Maternal Perspective

The Tuaregs are the descendents of ancient Nomadic black African populations that have always been in the Sahara and Sahel for tens of thousands of years. Whenever the Sahara turned wet, these people moved North and across the Sahara and eventually into Europe. The idea that black Africans who were super mobile and able to migrate everywhere else on the planet after 100,000 years of evolution suddenly stopped being dynamic and mobile when the last wet phase came is absurd nonsense. And your own post makes my point for me. The Tuareg are but one example of black Africans who have always been in the Sahara and Sahel belt extending West to East across Africa and these people have always moved in and out of the Sahara depending on climactic conditions. ALL scholars agree on this. These are the "refugum" of the humans who had to vacate the Sahara when it turned arid and those refugum were always populated by black Africans. This is why the earliest sites of human habitation in the Sahara are found in these areas like the Hoggar Mountains, Messak Settafet the Fezzan and other parts of the central Sahara showing clearly that these areas have ALWAYS been populated by black SAHARAN Africans. Not to mention that folks like the Bedja and so-called "Nubians" are black African populations who have always existed in North Africa and the Tuareg and other early Berber speakers descended from these groups. These people are NOT Sub Saharan Africans. They live NORTH of Ethiopia, which is in "Sub Saharan" Africa. These people are black Saharan North Africans and just shows you don't have a clue what you are talking about. These black Saharan North Africans are the Ethiopians referred to by the Greeks and Romans. The Beja and Tuaregs inhabit an area that was once a tributary of the Nile that led to lakes within the Sahara, thereby providing support for these African populations. When these areas went dry they moved either to the Nile Valley or to the Oases in the Central Sahara. This is based on current scholarship. None of that scholarship says these people were "Eurasian back migrants". You take one site in the extreme North West of the continent and then try to suggest that these people simply ran across thousands of miles of deserts and beat the Africans who had always been there to the Sahara. Stop kidding. That isn't really even funny.

In reality, there was never a "single event" where a massive wave of Eurasian migrants swept across the 2 million or so square miles of North Africa, which is many many times larger than Europe and replaced all the black Africans there. This is simply fantasy world history. Eurasian admixture took place gradually and is generally most present along the coasts and decreases as you go South into the interior of the Sahara and North Africa proper. And to that point the fact that the descendants of those black Africans who always inhabited North Africa are still there just proves my point no matter if some may have some "admixture". Which means that during the 10,000 years of Eurasian migration you had population with various degrees of mixture, which is reflected in the historical records of blacks and others in North Africa.

[Twi_Man_Ghost]

Aethiopians was preserved for people further south, like the Kushites, Garamantians etc.

Yeah, I saw this and another reply of yours about the Garamantes which included a picture of locals from the Fezzan with the intent of answering how the Garamantes would've looked. Whereas, even though being new here I can tell you're no delusional Afrocentric, I wonder if you may not be well informed about them.

This is how archaeologist and historian David J. Mattingly described the Garamantes in his book Tripolitania (1995)

Basically, I don't know how "black" they would've been on average, but from that excerpt and Herodotus' separating them from Ethiopians, I doubt "black would describe the avereage Garamante. But maybe more current data has proven otherwise?

[Cyclops]

...These black Saharan North Africans are the Ethiopians referred to by the Greeks and Romans.

I'm pretty sure Herodotus places Ethiopia on the Red Sea well south of Egypt, and the short black skinned Africans in or south of modern Sudan, past the

Which means that during the 10,000 years of Eurasian migration you had population with various degrees of mixture, which is reflected in the historical records of blacks and others in North Africa.

Yes that's quite true. however a Punic aristocrat was likely as Levantine as anyone in Carthage.

[sumskilz]

There is nothing there to see, this is not a "scholarly reference". No serious scholar claims that no blacks were in North Africa as a result of Eurasian invaders sweeping across North Africa and into the Sahara 10,000 years ago and beating the Africans there, then wiping them out to create a new race called "North African White Eurasians". This is so absurdly silly to be laughable. Migrations from Eurasia into Northern Africa happened gradually over time and eventually built up a momentum during Roman times and after. This nonsense of claiming 'all of North Africa' had no black Africans after 10KYA is simply absurdly silly rhetoric that has no basis in fact all to prove that ONE historical figure couldn't have been black.

I posted two genetic studies on lack of continuity between modern and paleolithic North Africans, those are scholarly articles.

Modern Europeans and Middle Easterners are not the same people as those so-called "Eurasian" migrants of 10KYA.

Yes, all the people of 10,000 years ago are dead. However Modern Middle-Easterners and Europeans happen to be descended primarily from people who lived in the Middle-East 10,000 years ago.

Trying to sit up here and claim Eurasian migrations as the basis of and origin of African settlement in North Africa is not only a lie but pathetic.

I think most people who read this thread will have a different impression of what is pathetic, probably best not to cast aspersions.

The Tuaregs are the descendents of ancient Nomadic black African populations that have always been in the Sahara and Sahel for tens of thousands of years. Whenever the Sahara turned wet, these people moved North and across the Sahara and eventually into Europe. The idea that black Africans who were super mobile and able to migrate everywhere else on the planet after 100,000 years of evolution suddenly stopped being dynamic and mobile when the last wet phase came is absurd nonsense. And your own post makes my point for me. The Tuareg are but one example of black Africans who have always been in the Sahara and Sahel belt extending West to East across Africa and these people have always moved in and out of the Sahara depending on climactic conditions. ALL scholars agree on this. These are the "refugum" of the humans who had to vacate the Sahara when it turned arid and those refugum were always populated by black Africans. This is why the earliest sites of human habitation in the Sahara are found in these areas like the Hoggar Mountains, Messak Settafet the Fezzan and other parts of the central Sahara showing clearly that these areas have ALWAYS been populated by black SAHARAN Africans. Not to mention that folks like the Bedja and so-called "Nubians" are black African populations who have always existed in North Africa and the Tuareg and other early Berber speakers descended from these groups. These people are NOT Sub Saharan Africans. They live NORTH of Ethiopia, which is in "Sub Saharan" Africa. These people are black Saharan North Africans and just shows you don't have a clue what you are talking about. These black Saharan North Africans are the Ethiopians referred to by the Greeks and Romans. The Beja and Tuaregs inhabit an area that was once a tributary of the Nile that led to lakes within the Sahara, thereby providing support for these African populations. When these areas went dry they moved either to the Nile Valley or to the Oases in the Central Sahara. This is based on current scholarship. None of that scholarship says these people were "Eurasian back migrants". You take one site in the extreme North West of the continent and then try to suggest that these people simply ran across thousands of miles of deserts and beat the Africans who had always been there to the Sahara. Stop kidding. That isn't really even funny.

In reality, there was never a "single event" where a massive wave of Eurasian migrants swept across the 2 million or so square miles of North Africa, which is many many times larger than Europe and replaced all the black Africans there. This is simply fantasy world history. Eurasian admixture took place gradually and is generally most present along the coasts and decreases as you go South into the interior of the Sahara and North Africa proper. And to that point the fact that the descendants of those black Africans who always inhabited North Africa are still there just proves my point no matter if some may have some "admixture". Which means that during the 10,000 years of Eurasian migration you had population with various degrees of mixture, which is reflected in the historical records of blacks and others in North Africa.

In light the genetic studies I posted, you may as well be arguing that God created the Tuareg in the Sahara 5,000 years ago when he created the rest of the earth.

The Tuareg are a branch of Berber ethnolinguistic group whose southern most extensions became up to 50% sub-Saharan through female mediated gene flow. Y-chromsomal clades ancestral to their predominate E clades have been found in ancient Natufian DNA, not to mention the presence of R1b among them.

But by all means continue, you seem to be winning many converts.

About the mtDNA H1 in Tuareg, I have yet another study:

The Tuareg of the Fezzan region (Libya) are characterized by an extremely high frequency (61%) of haplogroup H1, a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup that is common in all Western European populations. To define how and when H1 spread from Europe to North Africa up to the Central Sahara, in Fezzan, we investigated the complete mitochondrial genomes of eleven Libyan Tuareg belonging to H1. Coalescence time estimates suggest an arrival of the European H1 mtDNAs at about 8,000–9,000 years ago, while phylogenetic analyses reveal three novel H1 branches, termed H1v, H1w and H1x, which appear to be specific for North African populations, but whose frequencies can be extremely different even in relatively close Tuareg villages. Overall, these findings support the scenario of an arrival of haplogroup H1 in North Africa from Iberia at the beginning of the Holocene, as a consequence of the improvement in climate conditions after the Younger Dryas cold snap, followed by in situ formation of local H1 sub-haplogroups. This process of autochthonous differentiation continues in the Libyan Tuareg who, probably due to isolation and recent founder events, are characterized by village-specific maternal mtDNA lineages.

Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia

[Charerg]

I think it might be worthwhile to post a few pictures from sumskilz's earlier thread on the subject:

Here is a visualization of that:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

North African Berber-like early back-migration:



Recent Middle Eastern admixture (Late Neolithic to the present):



West African/Bantu expansion:

You can read sumskilz's original thread for a more detailed explanation.

But the point is that the Berber-like early migrants did become the "dominant ethnicity" within North Africa. Note that in some areas like Egypt "recent Middle Eastern admixture" has since largely replaced them, or partially replaced them (as the maps here show the situation in present day Africa).

No, they evolved IN AFRICA from the first humans who were themselves born in "sub Saharan" Africa.
And for over 160,000 years black Africans have roamed all parts of Africa evolving various types of features but still maintaining black skin.
Therefore there was never any other "type" of African for most African history other than black African.
Nothing about the Sahara desert would turn black Africans into white "Eurasians" and white Eurasians aren't "indigenous Africans".

Well, I'll grant I'm not an expert on the early history of Homo Sapiens, but as I understand it, it is thought that the species evolved in a relatively limited area, not necessarily the entire Africa. As I recall, the oldest skeletons are from Ethiopia. At any rate, "roamed all parts of Africa evolving various types of features but still maintaining black skin" seems a bit silly statement given how poorly known the early history of our species is. For all we know, South Africa, for example, could have been occupied by a different species of humans.

As for the Berbers, since they were in North Africa ca. 10 000 years ago, and have been there since, I'd argue that 10 000 years in a particular continent is a long enough period that they can be considered "native Africans".

Modern Europeans and Middle Easterners are not the same people as those so-called "Eurasian" migrants of 10KYA.
And bottom line, human history is 200,000 years old and most of that history exists SOLELY in Africa.
The most key migrations of humans are the migrations of BLACK AFRICANS out of Africa to settle the rest of the planet.
And there were multiple waves of migrations over tens of thousands of years, some of which crossed the Sahara and into Europe.
Trying to sit up here and claim Eurasian migrations as the basis of and origin of African settlement in North Africa is not only a lie but pathetic.
If you want to celebrate the history of Europe and Asia then go to Europe and Asia. North Africa is not an extension of Eurasia and most certainly was not 10,000 years ago. That is basic geography.

Well, perhaps a bit of re-cap of human history is in order:
- 200k years ago: first fossil remains that are considered modern humans (in Ethiopia)
- 130k years ago: the last warm period ends, the Ice Age kicks in and the Sahara becomes extremely dry
- 75k years ago: modern humans cross the Bad el Mandib connecting Ethiopia to Yemen
- 50k years ago: modern humans reach South Asia
- 40k years ago: modern humans replace the Neanderthals in Europe

So, in fact there may have been only one (succesful) migration out of Africa, although we don't know this for certain. It's also worth noting that Europe was "colonized" relatively late, some 35 000 years after the migration out of Africa. Also, we can be fairly certain that the Cro-Magnon who settled Europe did not "cross the Sahara". As pointed out previously, the planet was drier during the Ice Ages and the Sahara was both drier and larger. As far as I know, most scholars believe they arrived from the east (possibly from Anatolia).

As for the statement regarding geography....Europe, Asia and Africa may essentially be considered (almost) a single landmass. There are only a few relatively small seas between the continents, and the Sahara is a greater barrier than the Mediterranean. In any case, the distribution of human populations doesn't follow arbitrary boundaries between continents.

Edit:
Actually, according to wiki, the first modern humans (Cro-Magnon) probably entered Europe across the Bosphorus and along the Danubian corridor. It is thought that these peoples (coming from Central Asia) were better adapted to live in the steppe tundra of the Ice Ages than the Neanderthals (who had previously occupied Europe, and were probably the reason why modern humans didn't expand there earlier).

[LinusLinothorax]

Yeah, I saw this and another reply of yours about the Garamantes which included a picture of locals from the Fezzan with the intent of answering how the Garamantes would've looked. Whereas, even though being new here I can tell you're no delusional Afrocentric, I wonder if you may not be well informed about them.

Except that I have spent and I am still spending hours of research into Garamantia and that I am currently writing an essay about it, Garamantian skeletals have been divided into four classes:

I) Euro-African Type (More or less pure northern Berbers)
II) Euro-African Type II (Slightly mixed Berbers)
III) Eurafrican Type (Heavy interbreeding between Berbers and "Negroids")
IV) African Type (Predominantly "negroid" type)

Investigated were 20 skeletons:

Type I = 6/20
Type II = 5/20
Type III = 6/20
Type IV = 3/20

So even if the initial study is pretty outdated (Its from the 50's) we certainly know that Garamantians were largely mixed, even if some remained more or less pure Berber. An example of a rather pure Berber can be found on this carving from the first millenium BC, found in Zinkhera, close to Garama:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Meanwhile, it had been assumed that the "negroid" Africans were brought to the Garamantian kingdom via the slave-trade which especially prospored during the first half of the first millenium AD. The Garamantian hunting expeditions btw also brought other Sub-Saharan things into the Garamantian kingdom, like, for example, cotton.

[sumskilz]

Except that I have spent and I am still spending hours of research into Garamantia and that I am currently writing an essay about it, Garamantian skeletals have been divided into four classes:

I) Euro-African Type (More or less pure northern Berber)
II) Euro-African Type II (Slightly mixed Berbers)
III) Eurafrican Type (Heavy interbreeding between Berberbs and "Negroids")
IV) African Type (Predominantly "negroid" type)

Investigated were 20 skeletons:

Type I = 6/20
Type II = 5/20
Type III = 6/20
Type IV = 3/20

So even if the initial study is pretty outdated (Its from the 50's) we certainly know that Garamantians were largely mixed, even if some remained more or less pure Berber. An example of a rather pure Berber can be found on this carving from the first millenium BC, found in Zinkhera, close to Garama:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Meanwhile, it had been assumed that the "negroid" Africans were brought to the Garamantian kingdom via the slave-trade which especially prospored during the first half of the first millenium AD. The Garamantian hunting expeditions btw also brought other Sub-Saharan things into the Garamantian kingdom, like, for example, cotton.

Have you come across this yet? The human skeletal sample from Fewet

Their results seems to support Sergi's and the genetic results, mainly that the population became more sub-Saharan-like over time, with that change likely being female mediated.

[LinusLinothorax]

Have you come across this yet? The human skeletal sample from Fewet

Their results seems to support Sergi's and the genetic results, mainly that the population became more sub-Saharan-like over time, with that change likely being female mediated.

I knew about this site, but not that there were anthropological investigations on skeletal material. Thanks!