True Origins

Get your knowledge here...


Post Reply
Forum Home > African History/Information and research > Eurocentric Mythbusters: Maghreb Predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years?

big mike M
Site Owner
Posts: 46

Eurocentric Mythbusters!


Okay...One should be very weary of any claims of 'Eurasian' presence in prehistoric Africa especially one so early. Euroclowns have long had the agenda to white-wash Africa, particularly North Africa(and to an extent Horn of Africa) to claim the indigenous inhabitants as part of their "Caucasian" race and especially the ancient Egyptians and their civilization! 30,000 years ago, modern humans had just settled Europe yet the Euroclowns are saying the same type of 'Eurasians' or a branch among them made their way from the 'Near East' into North Africa.


First off there were people in the Maghreb well before 30k years...100k years to be precise..During that time Eurasia wasn't even POPULATED!

"Last year, while a Penn team of archaeologists, led by Harold Dibble, was working in Morocco,members uncovered a treasure beyond anything they'd imagined - a skeleton of a child from 108,000 years ago.

They don't know what killed him at about age 8, but his remains are believed to be one of the most complete ever found of this period.

The skeleton promises to open a window into a pivotal time in human evolution when Neanderthals still ruled Europe, and Africans were inventing art and symbolic thought.

One of Dibble's students was the first to notice a piece of bone the size of a quarter, said Dibble, who is a curator at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. To everyone's surprise, the bone was part of a remarkably complete skull and upper body of a child that died 108,000 years ago, as shown by various dating techniques.

The work was funded by National Geographic, whose cable channel will present a special program based on the finding, titled The World's Oldest Child.

From analyzing the teeth, Dibble's team estimated he or she was 6 to 8 years old. Dibble bestowed the name Bouchra, meaning good news in Arabic. It's a feminine name, but he has since decided it's more likely to have been a boy.

In that earlier time, 108,000 years ago, modern Homo sapiens - people who looked like us - had emerged in Africa and begun to spread to the Middle East. Neanderthals populated parts of Eurasia. Africa was thought to be a patchwork of so-called modern Homo sapiens and somewhat different-looking "archaic humans."

The Moroccan site, called Smuggler's Cave, was home to a group of people who ate rabbits, gazelles, and seafood, and made some of the world's earliest art in the form of shell beads, Dibble said.

The only earlier evidence for art is the use of ochre pigments in southern Africa, he said. Neanderthal people by that period had begun to bury their dead, but left no evidence for any form of symbolic communication or art.

The child had bigger teeth than a person would have today - a trait that's also seen in some of the first modern humans to venture out of Africa. "They looked like us but not exactly like us," Dibble said. Archaic people had somewhat different features - including a brow ridge or lack of a chin. But they may have been ancestral to us since these populations were capable of interbreeding."


Also the Aterian Culture in the Maghreb is dated 80,000-40,000 BC!



The "Aterian" stone tool style or industry from North Africa is named for the first or "type" site where these distinctive hunting weapons and food processing tools were described: Bir el-Atir in Algeria.


The "Aterian" stone tool technology and cultural group was originally thought to date to the period from 40,000 to 20,000 years before the present. However, more recent scientific technologies have been used to re-examine the stone tools and have pushed back the time horizon for this technology of stone tool making to a much older range: from 85,000 to 40,000 years of age.


The manufacturing process for these tools is derived from the earlier "Mousterian" methods for working stone, using prepared and shaped cores from which were struck off large flakes which were then often unifacially trimmed into the desired tool shapes.


This older stone working process was long used by archaic types of humans, such as Neanderthals and Heidelbergensis. However, all of the human remains associated with "Aterian" tools and sites have been "early modern" humans."


So clearly there were already Africans in the Maghreb LONG BEFORE 30k years. Hg A arose in Northwest Africa and some Berbers of Morocco STILL CARRY A.

Not only that, but when asking these Eurocentrics of actual excavation site or fossil records of these supposed Eurasian during 30k years in the Maghreb, those same Eurocentrics can't provide you with one....

But there is evidence of ancient Africans!!!:P

PLoS One. 2008 Aug 14;3(8):e2995.


Lakeside cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 years of holocene population and environmental change.


Sereno PC et al.







Approximately two hundred human burials were discovered on the edge of a paleolake in Niger that provide a uniquely preserved record of human occupation in the Sahara during the Holocene ( approximately 8000 B.C.E. to the present). Called Gobero, this suite of closely spaced sites chronicles the rapid pace of biosocial change in the southern Sahara in response to severe climatic fluctuation.


Two main occupational phases are identified that correspond with humid intervals in the early and mid-Holocene, based on 78 direct AMS radiocarbon dates on human remains, fauna and artifacts, as well as 9 OSL dates on paleodune sand. The older occupants have craniofacial dimensions that demonstrate similarities with mid-Holocene occupants of the southern Sahara and Late Pleistocene to early Holocene inhabitants of the Maghreb. Their hyperflexed burials compose the earliest cemetery in the Sahara dating to approximately 7500 B.C.E. These early occupants abandon the area under arid conditions and, when humid conditions return approximately 4600 B.C.E., are replaced by a more gracile people with elaborated grave goods including animal bone and ivory ornaments.


The principal significance of Gobero lies in its extraordinary human, faunal, and archaeological record, from which we conclude the following: The early Holocene occupants at Gobero (7700-6200 B.C.E.) were largely sedentary hunter-fisher-gatherers with lakeside funerary sites that include the earliest recorded cemetery in the Sahara. Principal components analysis of craniometric variables closely allies the early Holocene occupants at Gobero with a skeletally robust, trans-Saharan assemblage of Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene human populations from the Maghreb and southern Sahara.Gobero was abandoned during a period of severe aridification possibly as long as one millennium (6200-5200 B.C.E).More gracile humans arrived in the mid-Holocene (5200-2500 B.C.E.) employing a diversified subsistence economy based on clams, fish, and savanna vertebrates as well as some cattle husbandry. Population replacement after a harsh arid hiatus is the most likely explanation for the occupational sequence at Gobero.We are just beginning to understand the anatomical and cultural diversity that existed within the Sahara during the Holocene.


Also virtually all the remains in the time period of 30 kya show obvious African or "negroid" features as evidenced by Nazlet Khater Man, the oldest modern human remains of Egypt(North Africa)8)

Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. The morphological features of the Nazlet Khater skeleton were analysed by Thoma (1984). The 35,000 year old skeleton was examined using multivariate statistical procedures. In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modern specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant. ---Thoma A., Morphology and Affinities of the Nazlet Khater Man; Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 13, 1984

Nazlet Khater falls closer to the Late Palaeolithic Nubian samples . . . If an ancestral descendant relationship existed between Nazlet Khater and the Late Palaeolithic Nubian specimens, then regional continuity persisted among the Upper/Late Pleistocene populations of the Upper Nile region. The Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population which is a descendant of a larger sub-Saharan stock, which extended as far north as present day upper Egypt sometime during the Last Interglacial period, or the early part of the Last Glacial period. In such a scenario, the Nazlet Khater belongs to a relict population which retained some of the morphological features [form & structure] that were present among Middle Stone Age populations, but no longer present in other contemporaneous sub-Saharan and North African populations. ---The Position of the Nazlet Khater Specimen Among Prehistoric and Modern African and Levantine Populations, Ron Pinhasi, Departent of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, U.K., Patrick Semal, Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Belgium; Journal of Human Evolution (2000) vol. 39, 269–288.

^^^^^Of course the above info only tells us morphological evidence, but what about genetics? The Eurocentrics like to point to mtDNA hg U6 as 'Eurasian' even though it has its highest frequency and diversity in North Africa and not without. But notice that U6 is postulated to have arisen in the 'Near East' i.e. Southwest Asia which is right next to Africa. U6 in turn is derived from hg U which arose 50,000 years ago around the time of the first or first few waves of expansions out of Africa. Since Southwest Asia is right next to Africa, exactly how 'Eurasian' were these people then?? Even if one considers Southwest Asia as strictly Asian even though a large portion of the region is geologically an extension of the African continent, how could the people in that region be distinct from their immediate ancestors in Africa only several miles next door?? :roll:

Keita put it best with this statement:

The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.-- Keita, In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. John Benjamins. (2008)

So not only were these early populations in the 'Near East' right next to Africa--their ancestral home--but there was continuous movement back and forth between the two regions. So this pretty much eradicates the whole division between African and 'Eurasian' in this early period. The irony is that such so-called Eurasian clades are not just those of mtDNA but also Y-chromosomal and they are not only found in North Africa but in 'Sub-Sahara' as well. Y-DNA hg R1* is present among West Africans yet you never hear the Euroloons try to claim these people as Eurasian descended Caucasian companions!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Also more importantly...U6 did not only enter the Magherb during that time, but 'Sub Saharan' African hg L3!!!!!!!:lol:

^^^This is more than enough to debunk the claim of the Maghreb being PREDOMINITALY Eurasian for 30k years. But I'm going to continue on...:)

And also U6 is not only found in the Maghreb but also east Africa, mostly Kenya and some ISOLATED parts of West Africa. Are those people too Eurasian?:P




December 12, 2012 at 11:17 AM Flag Quote & Reply

big mike M
Site Owner
Posts: 46


1. ...Again We all know movement occurred in the broad zone of northern Africa and the LEvant, but to label them "Caucasoid" or "Eurasian" is dubious on 5 counts:The so-called ""Eurasians" at that time resembled tropical Africans. Any hopes of "wandering Caucasoids" are dead in the water from the get go.


Note:That this is NOT my full belief, but others have said this...

2. Second too often claims about "North Africa" conveniently forget to mention that they refer primarily to the Medit coast. However, "North Africa" as shown in standard, credible geography texts take in large slices of the Sudan, parts of Chad etc etc. Airbrushing these areas away conveniently out of North Africa is typical sleight of hand of the EuroDeceivers.

Sampling of alleged "North Africa" ----------------------------




December 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM Flag Quote & Reply

big mike M
Site Owner
Posts: 46


3. Third, Frigi, Keita and others show substantial "sub-Saharan" gene presence in North Africa, again contradicting all to convenient "Eurasian" claims.

4. This is going to cause a lot of anger... lol! :D But...U6 can be classified as African hg based on frequency, applying the same standard used elsewhere- that uses frequency. Someone maybe has updated data on this.


Again keletal analyses of "Middle Eastern" populations 30kya show few having tropical limb proportions. Nazlet Khater and SKhul don't show any clustering with "Caucasoids." on crania either If anything, the resemblance is to Africans, who are the most iverse anyway with narrow noses, etc etc. And a stocky body mass does not necessarily denote the presence of "wandering Caucasoids." Body mass can change based on nutrition-as Pinhasi shows below. Small scale movement from Iberia and the Levant was taking place early on but whether these can be classified as "Caucasoid" or "Eurasian" 30kya is dubious.


There was movement, we all know, but if these alleged "wandering Caucasoids" were in place so long, how come their cold-adapted limb proportions don't show up much in the "Middle East" as Holliday, SMith et al show below?




December 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM Flag Quote & Reply

big mike M
Site Owner
Posts: 46





December 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM Flag Quote & Reply

big mike M
Site Owner
Posts: 46


Now back to Hg U6...Again   proto-U6 has not been located in the Near East or anywhere. Second, it is not even found among eastern Berber speakers like the Siwa so this puts a hole in the 'Near Eastern' expansion. Third, how the original carriers look like is irrelevant to how their descendants look like. Genes for phenotype have no correlation to the actual uniparental signature. Again what do you think Near Eastern people 30 kya looked like? Do you think they were white red-heads?? LOL Lastly the actual estimated age of U6 in general is dated to 50 kya. You do realize that this coincides when humans first left Africa to colonize Eurasia, right?! How do you think these peoples looked like? Rather yet, since the Near East is right next door to Africa.


Keita basically backs me up in this video...



Hg L3 is directly related to Hg M and N.


And N is directly related to U6.


Creating the following pattern,






They also say the U6 is closely related to M1





M, M1

 Also one should take note that N haplogroup PREDATES Human family tree branching out. The Human family tree branched out around 60,000-50,000 BC. N arose 71,000 BC. N could have very well arose in African origin people.


We also have Berber ethnic groups who differ drastically in sequence to not even carrying this Hg U6 at all. So if U6 entered 30Kya via the Iberia as a basal Hg for all Berbers? And lets not forget forget hg R0 which is a sister clade of U--both deriving from R-- which is also present in north and east Africa. There is also X which is a sister clade of R and is also present in northeast Africa, and then N1 which is found in east Africa. All these clades in Africa date to before the Holocene and represent hunter-gatherer groups who moved back and forth between African and Southwest Asia.


Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa

Erwan Pennarun, Toomas Kivisild et al.



We report here 24 M1 and 33 U6 new complete mtDNA

sequences that allow us to refine the existing

phylogeny of these haplogroups. The resulting

phylogenetic information was used to genotype a

further 131 M1 and 91 U6 samples to determine the

geographic spread of their sub-clades. No southwest

Asian specific clades for M1 or U6 were discovered. U6

and M1 frequencies in North Africa, the Middle East and

Europe do not follow similar patterns, and their sub-

clade divisions do not appear to be compatible with...



Also...This should be interesting. 8)

High atop a dusty plateau on the Arabian Peninsula, archaeologist Jeffrey Rose picked up a rock, saw something surprising, and started asking questions that could change history. His unusual discoveries in southern Oman help shape new theories about when early humans may have exited Africa, who those pioneers were, and what route they took on the first stage of their journey to every corner of the Earth.


In the late 1990s geneticists identified mitochondrial DNA signatures suggesting that the first humans to leave Africa may have traveled through Ethiopia to Yemen and Oman. Scientists theorized they were beachcombers who followed the coastline. Rose arrived in the area, eager to test the theory that Arabia was the gateway out of Africa by searching for archaeological evidence. "We surveyed for years," he recalls. "Stone Age artifacts littered the landscape; virtually any place I stopped the car, I found a Paleolithic site. But none of it showed a connection to Africa; and along the coast we found no evidence of humans at all."


He and his international team of scientists returned to Oman in 2010, and on the final day of their surveying season, at the last site on their list, "we hit the jackpot." The find was a very specific stone tool technology used by the "Nubian Complex," nomadic hunters from Africa's Nile Valley. Nubian technology is a unique method of making spear points that was previously only known from North Africa. Rose's team ultimately discovered over a hundred workshop sites where these artifacts were manufactured en masse. "It was scientific euphoria," he describes.


The Nubian origin and inland location of the discovery were equally unexpected. "We had never considered the link to Africa would come from the Nile Valley, and that their route would be through the middle of the Arabian Peninsula rather than along the coast," Rose notes. "But that's what the scientific process is all about. If you haven't proven yourself wrong, you haven't made any progress. In hindsight, the Nubian connection makes perfect sense. The Nile Valley and Oman's Dhofar region are both limestone plateaus, heavily affected by perennial rivers. It's logical that people moved from an environment they knew to another one that mirrored it. At the time when I'm suggesting they expanded out of Africa, southern Arabia was fertile grassland. The Indian Ocean monsoon system activated rivers, and as sand dunes trapped water, it became a land of a thousand lakes. It was a paradise for early humans, whose livelihood depended upon hunting on the open savanna."


Accurately dating Rose's Nubian discovery was made possible by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) technology, which can determine the last time a single buried grain of sand was exposed to light by measuring the amount of energy trapped inside of it. The technique revealed the tools to be 106,000 years old, exactly the same time the Nubian Complex flourished in Africa. This also means Rose's theory places the first exit from Africa much earlier than previously believed. "Geneticists have shown that the modern human family tree began to branch out 60,000 years ago. I'm not questioning when it happened, but where. I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa."


Rose's passion for the past extends beyond fieldwork to how science can be shared with the public. "A few years ago, I was going through an incredibly dramatic wadi (valley) in Oman, hours off the beaten track, and I thought, wouldn't it be great if we could share this place with other people, I bet they'd love to see this." He began shooting short videos every few days and chronicling his work via Twitter updates and website posts. "You can't put into words how unique the landscape here is. Arabia feels like this romantic lost world filled with mysterious ruins; it's a living museum of artifacts. Everyone on Earth had ancestors who passed through this place; why wouldn't you want to show it to people?"


"I'm like a kid in a candy store, there's so much to learn; and now we have so many ways to disseminate information—the Internet, blogs, myriad TV channels, documentaries—it's all making science more interesting, digestible, and relevant to the public," he says. "There's no reason for archaeology and history to be stuffy. How could you not want to know how you got here? It's been said that there's more diversity within a group of 55 chimpanzees than in the entire human population. I think if we help people conceptualize how tiny the genetic distance is between them, it might even help bridge some of the tensions in our world today."


Trying to explain what keeps him based in a desert truck stop, digging through sand, and lugging 100-pound loads of rocks in 100-degree heat, Rose says, "It's like an itch you absolutely have to scratch. An answer you have to find. Who lived here? What were they doing? Are these the people who went on to colonize the entire world? Now that we know it was the Nubians who spread from Africa, I want to know why them in particular? What was it about their technology and culture that enabled them to expand so successfully? And what happened next? That's one of the defining characteristics of our species—we've always looked to the beginning and wanted to understand how we got here. That's what it means to be human."





December 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM Flag Quote & Reply

big mike M
Site Owner
Posts: 46


Also what people should also know is the serious hypocrisy of these Eurocentrists. They love to point out lineages in North Africa which they attribute to 'Eurasians' yet the same folks are virtually silent about the presence of recent African lineages in Europe! NRY hg E1b1b is found in approximately a third of all European males and is found to have been introduced to Europe during the Neolithic, but because its found in Europe it is no longer considered African by the Euroclowns even though E has its greatest frequency and diversity in the continent both in North and Sub-Saharan Africa.

But ofcourse there are some Euroclowns who will claim that E1b1b is a 'Caucasoid' lineage from Africa not like its sibling lineage, E1b1a, which is 'Negroid'. LMFAO!!!! :lol::lol:

Anyways here is just some "extras". A lot of Euroclowns like to claim that the Ancient Egytians depicted the North African Libyans/Berbers as "caucasoid" or "pale" skinned. BUT...Here is how they actually depicted them...



And hers a nice little video... :)


WIth all the sources and research I posted...I don't beieve there is an "fixed" opinion on the Maghreb being Eurasian for 30k years. There are many loop holes and that claim. Sure U6 could have orginated in the Mideast. But really...How far is Southwest Asia from Africa? Southwest Asia was just an  "hopscotch" from Africa. Many sources that was posted stated that back and forth movements from  Africa to SWA and back to Africa. So U6 could have orginated in African oirgin people. Southwest Asia could just be an extenstion of Africa. Also there were already Africans in the Maghreb BEFORE/DURING 30k years, so the Maghbreb was NOT predomintely Eurasian.

All the remains around 30k around North Africa show Negroid characteristics and tropical body porportaions. Again that kills them being caucasoid.  And they were not only found in North Africa but Southwest Asia too. Not only that, if there were Eurasian in the Maghreb during that time, they most likelyn looked NO DIFFERENT than their African counterparts from the informatio I posted.  The Maghreb being predomintly Eurasian for 30,000 years is just pure speculations. 

Why? Again...This claim has way to many loop holes for it to be taken as FACT!




December 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.