quote:The difference is that the Egyptians of ancient times were of almost exclusively of African ancestry whereas many modern Egyptians have non-African (foreign) ancestry! Are you saying that modern Egyptians of Arab, Turkish, Greco-Roman, Levantine, and even Caucasian (Caucasus) ancestry were the same as the ancients?!
Djehuty can you give some support to back this claim that Ancient Egypt was mostly of black African people...do you have genetic evidence etc.?
Estimations of age are difficult and vary greatly, but E-M78's age has been estimated at about 18,600 years ago. This clade is thought to have originated in Northeast Africa, around Egyptand Libya (Cruciani et al. 2007).[19] The most recent estimates are as follows:
The geographic and quantitative analyses of haplogroup and microsatellite diversity is strongly suggestive of a northeastern African origin of E-M78, with a corridor for bidirectional migrations between northeastern and eastern Africa (at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago), trans-Mediterranean migrations directly from northern Africa to Europe (mainly in the last 13.0 ky), and flow from northeastern Africa to western Asia between 20.0 and 6.8 ky ago. (Cruciani et. al. 2007)
It should be noted that the migrations to Europe mentioned above are the ones which are basically localized to Iberia and Southern Italy. Concerning the far more important part of E-M78 in Europe, see below concerning sub-clade E-V13.
E1b1b1a has been further divided into subclades by Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, 2007), on the basis of the following SNP mutations, and this is the basis of the updated phylogenies found in Karafet 2008, and ISOGG, as follows...
[edit] E1b1b1a1 (E-V12)
This is the oldest sub-clade of E-M78, found mainly in Southern Egyptians (arose ca. 15.2 kya). According to Cruciani et al. (2007), this lineage likely originated in North Africa. Lineages with this SNP mutation, but without any of the known sub-clade mutations such as V32 (so "V12*"), were formerly included in Cruciani et al.'s original (2004) "delta cluster", which he had defined using DYS profiles. With the discovery of the defining SNP, Cruciani et al. (2007) reported that V-12* was found in its highest concentrations in Egypt, especially Southern Egypt. Hassan et al. (2008) report a significant presence of E-V12* in neighboring Sudan. They propose that the E-V12 and E-V22 sub-clades of E1b1b1a (E-M78) might have been brought to Sudan from their place of origin in North Africa after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000–8,000 years ago. Sudden climate change might have forced several Neolithic cultures/people to migrate northward to the Mediterranean and southward to the Sahel and the Nile Valley.[20] The E-V12* paragroup is also observed in Europe (e.g. amongst French Basques) and Eastern Anatolia (e.g. Erzurum Turks).
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Who knows and who cares? But moving on...
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi:
quote:The difference is that the Egyptians of ancient times were of almost exclusively of African ancestry whereas many modern Egyptians have non-African (foreign) ancestry! Are you saying that modern Egyptians of Arab, Turkish, Greco-Roman, Levantine, and even Caucasian (Caucasus) ancestry were the same as the ancients?!
Djehuty can you give some support to back this claim that Ancient Egypt was mostly of black African people...do you have genetic evidence etc.?
Yes I have genetic evidence, such as this map right here:
^ Notice the percentage of African E lineages among 'Arab' Egyptians of the Delta alone. Obviously the other lineages are of foreign (non-African) origin such as J which is associated with Asiatics especially 'Arab' peoples etc.
Now think about this.. If Arab Egyptians have such a significant percentage of African paternal lineage just how much do you think the non-Arab, more pristine types, like Fellahin Egyptian have??
This map shows only about say 30 percent of Egyptians have African ancestry on their paternal side? How does that make Egyptians mostly of African ancestry?
Also, do you have their maternal lineages?
Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If by chance it isn't, it certainly entered Africa during the paleolithic!
Which is proposed for 30,000 years ago, perhaps Osirion is unaware of Hofmeyr. A 30kya back migration would have brought humans still resembling African population back into Africa, there would have been NO reason for them to turn lighter or become cold adapted. They simply were not in Eurasia.
Until now, the lack of human fossils of appropriate antiquity from sub-Saharan Africa has meant that these competing genetic models of human evolution could not be tested by paleontological evidence.
The skull from Hofmeyr has changed that.The surprising similarity between a fossil skull from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction.
This is interesting do yo have the link to this study?
Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals Erik Trinkaus*
"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton,lie at or exceedtwo standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)."
"As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania in a number of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall, flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of the maxilla; and comparatively large molar crowns.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the topic of this thread. The Egyptians were indeed black and many rural non-Arab Egyptians today still are.
As for wikipedia, again this is the so-called "free" encyclopedia we are talking about where anyone regardless of expertise or not can edit or write down any info he or she wanted. The last time I checked on wiki's article on the 'race' of the ancient Egyptians, it said that the appearance of the ancient Egyptians varied and "could not simply be called black" yet a few lines down, they cited anthroplogists who claimed the Egyptians to be a continuation of populations along the Nile Valley down through Sudan and Ethiopia. So what, Sudanese and Ethiopians are not black?? LOL Thus the idiocy as well as futility of whitewashing/hogwashing!
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Keita is full of bias. The cranial features he uses in his studies do not include prominence of the nasal root, which is one of the most salient features in distinguishing Negroids from Caucasoids, and just so happens to be one of the most Caucasoid-like features of ancient Egyptians. How convenient that he left it out.
Nonsensical reasoning. You are trying to define a narrow nose as a marker of 'Caucasoid' ancestry. This is BS, and reminesent of the white "experts" who in the 1940s and 50s grouped American Indian tribesmen, with Kenyan cattle herders into a "Caucasoid" race because the peoples they selected both had narrow noses. The only way you and your ilk, like Ms. RPM/"Racial Percentage" Matilda, (from whose blog you are pulling this talking point) have a leg to stand on is if you cling to the bogus "true negro" model. But it is bogus, and noses wont save either of you.
As far back as the 1970s, Hiernaux, Gabel, Rightmire et al, show that the nasal features of the peoples of East Africa vary widely, with narrower noses being an adaptation to cold dry air, such as is found in many highland areas. In fact one of the oldest homo sapien populations found in East Africa, at Gamble's Cave Complex in Kenya, dating from 9,000 to 11,000 B.C.E. demonstrate such noses thousands of years ago, without the need for an "Caucasian" blood. Your skewed "nose theory" aint worth the snot it carries. (Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa (Encore Editions: 1975), pp. 17-204 )
Do you even know how bias [Keita] is? He even misrepresented a study to support his desired conclusions. In his 1990 or 1992 paper on ancient Egyptians, Keita wrote that pre-pre-dynastic Badarian hair was greater than > 80% Negroid" according to a Eugen Strouhal study, even though Strouhal never said anything of the sort. What Strouhal actually wrote was that the hair was "curly in 6 cases, wavy in 33 cases and straight in 10 cases ... black in 16 samples, dark brown in 11, brown in 12, light brown in 1 and grey in 11 cases."
Hold on there Ace with your repetition of talking points from Miz 'Racial percentage' Matilda's (RPM's) blog. On it, she complains that Keita used a white Scandanavian baseline for his hair comparison, and should have chosen more Mediterranean people to give greater balance. Now this is rich. Miz Racial Percentage throughout her blog hews as stringently to the "true negro" standard as she can. She brooks no "balance" in seperating out "true sub-Saharan" traits with everyone else to set up her race percentage strawmen. Now, hypocritically, she whines about not enough "balance" by Keita, when he allegedly uses her same approach.
But in fact Keita used a method consistent with Strouhal, who saw a mix of types in the samples and pronounced many of them hybrid. Keita followed Strouhal's general methodology: If they were not exclusively white, then they were negroid or hybrid. Add up those samples Ace. 6 curly, + 33 wavy + 10 straight= 49. Deduct the 10 straight- the supposed "Caucasoid" marker- and 20% is gone. That leaves 80% hybrid or negroid. Keita never claimed Strouhal said they were all black. Funny how you don't quote Kieta in full Ace. He said:
Strouhal(1971) also analyzed hair in his study of 117 Badari crania, in which he concluded that >80% were Negroid; most of these were interpreted as being hybrids.."
and the bigger quote:
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been "lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... The majority of the work describes a Negroid element, especially in the southern population and sometimes as predominating in the predynastic period (Falkenburger, 1947). Workers describing some tropical African morphological or morphometric affinities with southern predynastics and dynastics include Thompson and Randall-MacIver (1905), Thomson (19051, Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1915, 1916, Stoessiger (1927), Krogman (1937), Morant (1925,1935, 1937) (who described Upper and Lower Egyptian types without much emphasis on racial labeling), Nutter (19581, Strouhal (1968, 19711, and Angel (1972). Strouhal (1971) also analyzed hair in his study of 117 Badari crania, in which he concluded that >80% were Negroid; most of these were interpreted as being hybrids.."
Furthermore, in citing the Strouhal study as evidence that Badarians were Negroid, Keita left out Strouhal's following conclusion about Badarian skulls: "We may conclude that the share of both components [Negroid and Caucasoid] was nearly the same, with some overweight to the Europoid side."
Dude, you are really confused. Strouhal was one of several writers that Keita cited as showing proof that the ancient remains held many types that could be defined as Negroid, although sometimes classified as "Mediterranean". As noted in the full quote above, Keita never cited Strouhal as saying that the Badarians were 100% negroid. All he said was that among several writers, Strouhal like them, also found Negroid types. Like Miz Racial Percentage Matilda so often does, you are misrepresenting Keita's work.
You claim that Keita is "leaving out" evidence from Strouhal. But in fact your own quote shows that he is not. Strouhal found the Negroid and Caucasoid components were present, indeed roughly equal. Keita was discussing the presence of Negro elements, and likewise, cites Strouhal saying that the Negroid components were present. What more does he need to do? Your "talking point" and that of Ms RPM, (Racial Percentage Matilda) is laughably trivial.
Keita's choices of populations in some of his studies have been terribly biased - in his oft-cited Egyptian/North African studies from 1990 and 1992, he included a wide range of African populations but his only non-African representative was a sample from recent Britain. And if we refer back to the graphs in this thread, we can see that out of all Caucasoid samples, it is Brace's post-Neolithic Northwest Europeans and Hanihara's British samples that differ most from the Egyptians, with the sole exception of Iran, which may be positioned inaccurately because of a small sample size of 10. Why did Keita choose a Caucasoid population that is so distant from the Egyptians to represent all non-African Caucasoids? Makes you wonder.
You need to post the title and page number of the study you are referring to. But as far as comparisons, use of the British sample is valid because some older studies showed matches of similar European poplations with north Africans to varying degrees. See the "Poundbury" (Romano/English) data sample for example. He put that to the test in his comparison, and it was found wanting.
Your complaint is indeed rich. You and Matilda do not hesitate to use the "true negro" model to downplay or write off certain data that shows the diversity of the African peoples, nor do you object when as many linkages are drawn between north Afrians and Europeans. Now when Keita puts your own methods to the test, and uses the same white data samples that should have helped your "non black Egypt" case, you whine that he is being "unfair".. Come off it hypocrites.
The dubiousness of Keita's methods is evident in his 1988 paper called "An analysis of crania from Tell Duweir using multiple discriminant functions" where Keita even found the sample from Tell Duweir in Palestine to be heavily Negroid. His methods are garbage, as far as I'm concerned. Apart from the Tell Duweir paper, Keita's arguments seem almost singularly geared toward classifying the ancient Egyptians and other Africans into a big happy African family. How anyone can say he has no bias toward establishing the Africanness of ancient Egyptians is beyond me. Not to mention, he is not even a scientist!
You say Keita's methods are garbage, but offer no data or reasoned analysis as to why his multiple discriminant functions study is garbage. How so Ace? Give concrete examples, rather than blow hot air. And you say Keita is not a scientist eh? OK, well let' see what YOU got Ace. Explain your objections and provide data to back them up, oh ye "man of science."
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL You waste your time, Zarahan. 'White Nord' is long gone. Like all white racist cowards, they show up talking b.s. but once you prove them wrong with actual FACTS, they run away only to appear again some other time and say the same shyt. Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic