While this image appears to disprove Egypt's African roots, it does not. I hold that people like that are Egyptian..
Look at this man is he "Arab"...I think not, he is a native Egyptian.
We have to remember that Egypt was a Nation of many tribes united under one flag, so not one Phenotype was present..We have Dark, Light, and in between in Egypt.
There was a comment made that the Dark brown occurs only in the Armana..
Tomb of Amenemheb
Farther to the right of the Subterranean Chambers of Sennofer is No. 85, the Tomb of Amenemheb, an officer in the service of Tuthmosis III.
While this image appears to disprove Egypt's African roots, it does not. I hold that people like that are Egyptian..
If you look closely, you can see the original brown paint fading off the figure of Nefertari. You can still see traces of paint around the cheeks and arms.
Here the paint is better preserved.
quote:
Look at this man is he "Arab"...I think not, he is a native Egyptian.
Nobody denies that the man above is a native Egyptian. The problem is Egypt has been invaded by many foreigners especially since the fall of dynastic civilization. You cannot expect all modern Egyptians to look exactly like their ancient ancestors.
quote:We have to remember that Egypt was a Nation of many tribes united under one flag, so not one Phenotype was present..We have Dark, Light, and in between in Egypt.
Of course, but all these ancient tribes were African not like today where most of the phenotypic diversity comes from foreign ancestry as well.
quote:There was a comment made that the Dark brown occurs only in the Armana..
I don't know who made that comment, but of course that is a lie. Dark brown (black) has always been the standard color. Even females outside of the Amarna period were painted that color every now and then and not only the 'yellow' convention.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
If you look closely, you can see the original brown paint fading off the figure of Nefertari. You can still see traces of paint around the cheeks and arms.
Here the paint is better preserved.
I concur, Seems to me even Nefertit is not "Pale Pink" as the new troll, Skeptic, seems to imply..good stuff D.J BTW I got some good images of Egyptian women coming up.
Nobody denies that the man above is a native Egyptian. The problem is Egypt has been invaded by many foreigners especially since the fall of dynastic civilization. You cannot expect all modern Egyptians to look exactly like their ancient ancestors. D.J that man is a Fallahin so he probably has less mixture plus I think he is upper Egyptian too, unlike other Northern Lower Egyptian Fallahin he has less chances of being Mixed..
All of these people plus the man Earlier rep. A. Egypt.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Bumperoo!!!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Wally suggested this was not an indigenous Egyptian because his arm is hairy
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Wally suggested this was not an indigenous Egyptian because his arm is hairy
Who is Wally to pass Judgement, that man is an Upper Egyptian Fellahin, has Medium Brown skin etc. Looks Egyptian to me, again not all Egyptians were Charcoal colored.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Idiot Boy, on what do you base that opinion?
"Charcoal colored" My, you DO sound like a White Boy. I picked up on that more than once.
Where did you say you were from again?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
What do you base your opinion that that man's type was not present in A. Egypt. Im sure he is Tropically Adapted and clusters with Ethiopians and Nubians over Eurasians.
What does the man above have that was not present in Egypt?? Please post..
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The original poster asked the following question:
quote: Egyptians and Art: Does the Dark Brown only occur in the Armana
To which the simple answer is given: No.
No amount of posting of images of modern Egyptians has anything to do with it.
Egyptians portrayed themselves as dark brown from the old kingdom through the Amarna period into the late period.
For example, tomb of Merenptah from the 19th dynasty:
First off the point of this tread was to prove that the Egyptians painted themselves Dark Brown from the Old Kingdom not just in the Armana, second why are you all so scared of Modern Egyptians?? You have seen Egyptian Remains and Art work as well as me if not longer and know damn Well Modern Egyptians like the Fallahin I posted could Eaisily be found in A. Egypt.
If Eurocentrics are wrong for calling Egypt Caucasian then Afrocentrics are wrong for Denying that Egyptians like the Fellahin I posted were not present in Egypt as far back as the old Kingdom.
Again the Egyptians form a group with Nubians first and East Africans second. My Contention is that Egyptians Majority looked like this..
With Egyptians like this in the North and Delta
And that there was a North to South Incline Variation of Skin color.
Is there a problem with this, In my opinion the Southern Type was Dominant until other Asiatic groups settled in the North. I also contend that the Culture of Egypt was Native and arrived Via the South and More Southerly regions.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
To put it simple, NO
We have pics of AE which were painted in Dark Brown throughout OK, NK etc.
What we need to understand is that Modern Egypt has plent of Eurasian genes in lower Egypt.
The Fellahin, Saidi, etc are prime examples of Modern Egyptians that retained there original Color. As we see in Upper Egypt a more pristine example of what AE looked like.
No one can deny Modern Egyptians there heritage. What we Know though is that Egypt is linked with socalled "Nubians" and East Africans mainly.
Ignore Frauds obsession with posting the Exact same statues he posted before as If it gives any info to what color the man was in his life.
Features on statues that have narrow features is no different then many East Africans.
Peace
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
1) dark brown _____________________________________________
2) brown
_____________________________________________
3) medium brown
_______________________________________________
4) reddish brown
________________________________________________
5) light brown
_____________________________________________
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: First off the point of this tread was to prove that the Egyptians painted themselves Dark Brown from the Old Kingdom not just in the Armana,
If that is the case then why is the next statement necessary?
quote:second why are you all so scared of Modern Egyptians??
Therefore if you said this thread is about paint color in ancient art, why are you running and jumping to a discussion about modern Egyptians?
quote: You have seen Egyptian Remains and Art work as well as me if not longer and know damn Well Modern Egyptians like the Fallahin I posted could Eaisily be found in A. Egypt.
If Eurocentrics are wrong for calling Egypt Caucasian then Afrocentrics are wrong for Denying that Egyptians like the Fellahin I posted were not present in Egypt as far back as the old Kingdom.
Again the Egyptians form a group with Nubians first and East Africans second. My Contention is that Egyptians Majority looked like this..
All the straw man arguments in the world wont change the fact that Eurocentrics, Fellahin, Caucasoids and any other terms related to the populations of the Nile have anything to do with ancient Egyptian art from over 2-5,000 years ago.
If you want to at least pretend not to be trolling, why not start by providing some evidence to back up your argument? Where is the Egyptian art?
Who said that Amarna was the only time Egyptians portrayed themselves as brown in the first place?
LOL.
quote: With Egyptians like this in the North and Delta
I don't recall this thread being a discussion of Egyptians in the delta.
quote: And that there was a North to South Incline Variation of Skin color.
Is there a problem with this, In my opinion the Southern Type was Dominant until other Asiatic groups settled in the North. I also contend that the Culture of Egypt was Native and arrived Via the South and More Southerly regions.
Well the problem is that it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread YOU started. The thread topic is "Does dark brown only occur in Amarna Art".
The answer is no. Ancient Egyptians portrayed themselves as medium to dark brown from Old Kingdom to the late period. Even the Ptolemaic dynasties carried on this tradition.
Those are facts based on analysis and observation of art not discussions of clines, modern population distributions or anything else unrelated to looking at the actual art and time period in question.
Posted by Gigantic (Member # 17311) on :
JCMJ, Niggers are scared of modern Egyptians because they are the genuine descendants of AE, and that Black Africans have nothing to do with AE; they are different from the Niggers below the Sahara. If anything, they have an affinity with the mediterraenean and western peoples, and consider Niggers inferior Africans. This is why Niggers are Afraid of modern Egyptians. Overall, Niggers believe MEs threaten their [false] claim to AE.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Frustrated racial slurs aside, nobody denies that most modern Egyptians are descended from the ancients. The question is how much?
We know that Egypt suffered many foreign invasions and mass immigrations since the fall of dynastic times.
^ The above map shows a sample among 'Arab' Egyptians of northern Egypt from around highly populated areas like the capitol Cairo. Notice the high frequency of African lineages among them. No doubt as one goes further south into rural areas inhabited by non-Arab Fellahin the frequency of African lineages becomes higher and those of Eurasian lineages becomes lower.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Busted: You're seeing only "black"!
Because that is what these people were! BLACK.
Only a psycho would call all of these pictures of chocolate dark peoples 'white'.
quote:The reasons they cluster together, is because of the shared Eurasian DNA, that is all!!
Nubians Are About 60% Eurasian genetically!
East Africans, are about 40-50% Eurasian!
LMAO You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again and in other threads. Any proof of these claims? Funny how you in one instance you are quick to distinguish the Egyptians from the "negro" Nubians but in other instances such as this you claim the Nubians to be 60% "caucasian". So which is it?! Why don't you make up your messed up mind?! LOL Posted by Gigantic (Member # 17311) on :
Are you for real? The question should be how much Sub saharan Negroes are descended from AE? After all, its these coons in the west that are going around claiming AEian heritage? Can you give me a number? RFLOL! Of course you can't! because it is NULL RFLOL!!!
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Frustrated racial slurs aside, nobody denies that most modern Egyptians are descended from the ancients. The question is how much?
We know that Egypt suffered many foreign invasions and mass immigrations since the fall of dynastic times.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Gigantic, So why not explain the spread of the haplogroups in modern Egypt? E3b has its densest espression in Tanzania. So if it is found in Egypt its source must be from East Africa. J is easily explained by the colonial invasions by Arabs during after the 6th century. And R, I and H are obviously migrants from Europe during the colonial era(Britain, France, Turkey, etc.). We can also Europe stakes its intellectual heritage in Greece, whose haplogroups include a sizable E3b chunk. Ancient Greece is worshipped in the West by its intellectuals--in all areas yet there is very little genetic connection between Greece and the heartland of Europe.
And by the way, I don't know anybody who says that the rest of Africans are descended from the AEs. The facts rather are that all of indigenous Africa is in the main[note the exceptions such as R1 in Cameroon and its hinterlands] offshoots of some parent clade E.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
if the brown is not dark enough for your liking just say:
"the paint is faded"
"works" every time
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Wrong again, dillhole. In many of the portraits where the paint is faded, you can actually see where the original paint is left. But why am I arguing with a nitwit who refuses to see TRUTH even if it is right in front of its face.
quote:Originally posted by GiganticAss: Are you for real? The question should be how much Sub saharan Negroes are descended from AE? After all, its these coons in the west that are going around claiming AEian heritage? Can you give me a number? RFLOL! Of course you can't! because it is NULL RFLOL!!!
The question is are YOU for intelligence? Apparently not, since you don't realize that blacks in the West never claim descent from Egypt only that they are related to Egypt as it IS African and the AEians WERE black.
On the other hand you have nothing to say about whites in the West who talk about the Greeks and Romans like they were their ancestors even though they descend from "barbarian" Northwest Europe, and look down on the actual Greek and Roman descendants as "Ginnies" etc.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Therefore if you said this thread is about paint color in ancient art, why are you running and jumping to a discussion about modern Egyptians?
First off lets make it clear, this is MY TREAD, as a result what I WANT TO DISCUSS is allowed, so take your ass off or don't post on my thread if you have a problem.
Second, read my first post to understand what I meant when I posted the Fallahin man, read before you speak.
All the straw man arguments in the world wont change the fact that Eurocentrics, Fellahin, Caucasoids and any other terms related to the populations of the Nile have anything to do with ancient Egyptian art from over 2-5,000 years ago. Who said anything about Eurocentrics and Caucasoids, please post where I said this. This rant is nothing but a Strawman and lacks a basic subject, as I don't even know what you are ranting about.
If you want to at least pretend not to be trolling, why not start by providing some evidence to back up your argument? Where is the Egyptian art? How am I trolling, and I already provided info ON the premise of this thread, Strawman..dismissed.
Who said that Amarna was the only time Egyptians portrayed themselves as brown in the first place?
LOL.
Skeptic claimed this, I made this to debunk him. You come here like a fool trying to be big man on campus, yet don't even know who I am talking to. You're a joke Kid.
I don't recall this thread being a discussion of Egyptians in the delta. Man STFU already with this strawman Bullshit, I created this thread and the reference to the Delta Egyptians was well within the argument of this thread. Maybe what it is you must be scared to post some artifacts of Delta Egyptians.
Well the problem is that it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread YOU started. The thread topic is "Does dark brown only occur in Amarna Art".
The answer is no. Ancient Egyptians portrayed themselves as medium to dark brown from Old Kingdom to the late period. Even the Ptolemaic dynasties carried on this tradition.
Finally after all that long winded Spamming.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Therefore if you said this thread is about paint color in ancient art, why are you running and jumping to a discussion about modern Egyptians?
First off lets make it clear, this is MY TREAD, as a result what I WANT TO DISCUSS is allowed, so take your ass off or don't post on my thread if you have a problem.
Second, read my first post to understand what I meant when I posted the Fallahin man, read before you speak.
All the straw man arguments in the world wont change the fact that Eurocentrics, Fellahin, Caucasoids and any other terms related to the populations of the Nile have anything to do with ancient Egyptian art from over 2-5,000 years ago. Who said anything about Eurocentrics and Caucasoids, please post where I said this. This rant is nothing but a Strawman and lacks a basic subject, as I don't even know what you are ranting about.
If you want to at least pretend not to be trolling, why not start by providing some evidence to back up your argument? Where is the Egyptian art? How am I trolling, and I already provided info ON the premise of this thread, Strawman..dismissed.
Who said that Amarna was the only time Egyptians portrayed themselves as brown in the first place?
LOL.
Skeptic claimed this, I made this to debunk him. You come here like a fool trying to be big man on campus, yet don't even know who I am talking to. You're a joke Kid.
I don't recall this thread being a discussion of Egyptians in the delta. Man STFU already with this strawman Bullshit, I created this thread and the reference to the Delta Egyptians was well within the argument of this thread. Maybe what it is you must be scared to post some artifacts of Delta Egyptians.
Well the problem is that it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread YOU started. The thread topic is "Does dark brown only occur in Amarna Art".
The answer is no. Ancient Egyptians portrayed themselves as medium to dark brown from Old Kingdom to the late period. Even the Ptolemaic dynasties carried on this tradition.
Finally after all that long winded Spamming.
So after the meaningless diversion into modern populations and the TREADS that came off the track of your own thread you agree that what I said was correct to begin with.
Thanks.
That was my point.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Are you talking about these "NUBIANS"?? Busted_Fraud
quote:p.s. The Nubians Themselves Cluster With Eurasians and Not Black Africans!
Look at you hypocrite!! One minute they are example of "Negroes" and the next thing you do is turned into Eurasian clusters Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Are you talking about these "NUBIANS"?? Busted_Fraud
quote:p.s. The Nubians Themselves Cluster With Eurasians and Not Black Africans!
Look at you hypocrite!! One minute they are example of "Negroes" and the next thing you do is turned into Eurasian clusters
LMAO, thats the Fradulent Busted Tranny for you...LMAO
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Frustrated racial slurs aside, nobody denies that most modern Egyptians are descended from the ancients. The question is how much?
We know that Egypt suffered many foreign invasions and mass immigrations since the fall of dynastic times.
^ The above map shows a sample among 'Arab' Egyptians of northern Egypt from around highly populated areas like the capitol Cairo. Notice the high frequency of African lineages among them. No doubt as one goes further south into rural areas inhabited by non-Arab Fellahin the frequency of African lineages becomes higher and those of Eurasian lineages becomes lower.
Why don't you all actually read those studies, instead of nitpicking select graphics and appropriating your distorted renditions to what was actually stated in the study. That figure comes from the paper The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations. In that paper it is made perfectly clear that the J haplogroups found amongst the Egyptians dates to roughly between 11.1K years and 16.4K years ago, i.e. It was already there prior to the emergence of Dynastic Egypt! And contrary to what you believe, the Upper Egyptians actually have more South West Asian admixture than the Lower Egyptians; See the chart below taken from A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa :
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
Oh, and as an addendem to that, I posted a study done exclusively on the Upper Egyptians that I notice none of you want to touch (I wonder why?):
Local comparisons between Upper Egyptians were carried out with other ethnic groups in Egypt, based on frequency and molecular data. No differences were observed in comparison with a general Caucasian population from Cairo in any of the nine loci compared or with Egyptian Christians from Cairo…Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others. (Genetic variation of 15 autosomal STR loci in Upper (Southern) Egyptians, Omran et al 2008.) Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
The question is are YOU for intelligence? Apparently not, since you don't realize that blacks in the West never claim descent from Egypt only that they are related to Egypt as it IS African and the AEians WERE black.
D.J you must have not seen or heard of Ashra Kwesi, Sara Suten Seti, Ray Hagins..etc. These folks def. claim to be Egyptians...Kwesi/SaraSutenSeti calls the Egyptians "The Ancestors"...
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Skeptic
Since you are making claims in multiple threads, I will post this hear for you to read and learn. First about the Ethiopians being 50-60% eurasian that is false. Read this:
the Oromo show an incidence (62.8%) of E3b (M35), higher than the Amhara. - Ethiopian and Khosian Share Deepest clades of of Y-Chromosome Semino-sforza, Underhill et. al. It is worth noting that the frequency of group VI chromosomes in the Ethiopian Jews (just one chromosome out of 22) is similar to that reported for the p12f2 chromosomes in the Oromo from Ethiopia (3.8%) and is considerably lower than the frequency reported for the Amhara of the same region (33%). These data, together with those reported elsewhere (Ritte et al. 1993a, 1993b; Hammer et al. 2000) suggest that the Ethiopian Jews acquired their religion without substantial genetic admixture from Middle Eastern peoples and that they can be considered an ethnic group with essentially a continental African genetic composition. - Fulvio Cruciani,1 Piero Santolamazza,1 Peidong Shen, et al.
As you can see for yourself, the Oromo who are the largest Group in Ethiopia have as little as 3.8% eurasian genes. Moving on:
Now moving on to M1:
Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans
Mait Metspalu1 , Toomas Kivisild1 , Ene Metspalu1 , Jüri Parik1 , Georgi Hudjashov1 , Katrin Kaldma1 , Piia Serk1 , Monika Karmin1 , Doron M Behar2 , M Thomas P Gilbert6 , Phillip Endicott7 , Sarabjit Mastana4 Surinder S Papiha5 , Karl Skorecki2 Antonio Torroni3 and Richard Villems1
1Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Tartu University, Tartu, Estonia 2Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute, Technion and Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel 3Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy 4Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom 5Department of Human Genetics, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom 6Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA 7Henry Wellcome Ancient Biomolecules Centre, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS,United Kingdom
“Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. That, plus the presence of M1 without accompanying L lineages in the Caucasus [32] and [our unpublished data], leaves the question about the origin of haplogroup M still open.”
In this study we see that M1 was probably "formed" in East Africa. Moving on
Lets take a look at your study that you states shows Upper Egyptians of having more mixture then lower Egyptians :
A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa Arredi et al 2004
"Under the hypothesis of a neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate a LOCAL contribution to the North African Neolithic transition or an earlier migration into the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion back into Africa."
Moving on again to E3b and how it is just as African as E3a:
The present-day Egyptian E3b-M35 distribution most likely results from a juxtaposition of various demic episodes. Since the E3b-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages. These include E3b1-M78, a haplogroup especially common in Ethiopia (23%), and, perhaps, E3b2- M123 (2%), which is present as well (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002). The data suggest that two later expansions may have followed: one eastward along the Levantine corridor into the Near East and the other toward northwestern Africa. - Luis (2004)
^This map shows the distribution of E3b Hap Group and shows how much it is in Egypt.
Read this about Ethiopians and Somalis: "The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non- African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies.. that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe.” (-- Tishkoff 2000, ‘Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism..’)
No matter how you word it, Ethiopians are not as "Mixed" as you claim. Moving on:
Read this about Egyptians and Nubians:
NUBIA AND EGYPT- Nubians and Egyptians were so close in various eras that they were virtually indistinguishable
“The ancient Egyptians referred to a region, located south of the third cataract the Nile River, in which Nubians dwelt as Kush.. Within such context, this phrase is not a racial slur. Throughout the history of ancient Egypt there were numerous, well documented instances that celebrate Nubian-Egyptian marriages. A study of these documents, particularly those dated to both the Egyptian New Kingdom (after 1550 B.C.E.) and to Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI (about 720-640 BCE), reveals that neither spouse nor any of the children of such unions suffered discrimination at the hands of the ancient Egyptians. Indeed such marriages were never an obstacle to social, economic, or political status, provided the individuals concerned conformed to generally accepted Egyptian social standards. Furthermore, at times, certain Nubian practices, such as tattooing for women, and the unisex fashion of wearing earrings, were wholeheartedly embraced by the ancient Egyptians." (Bianchi, 2004: p. 4)
'It is an extremely difficult task to attempt to describe the Nubians during the course of Egypt's New Kingdom, because their presence appears to have virtually evaporated from the archaeological record.. The result has been described as a wholesale Nubian assimilation into Egyptian society. This assimilation was so complete that it masked all Nubian ethnic identities insofar as archaeological remains are concerned beneath the impenetrable veneer of Egypt's material; culture.. In the Kushite Period, when Nubians ruled as Pharaohs in their own right, the material culture of Dynasty XXV (about 750-655 B.C.E.) was decidedly Egyptian in character.. Nubia's entire landscape up to the region of the Third Cataract was dotted with temples indistinguishable in style and decoration from contemporary temples erected in Egypt. The same observation obtains for the smaller number of typically Egyptian tombs in which these elite Nubian princes were interred.(Bianchi, 2004, p. 99-100)
Robert Bianchi ( 2004). Daily Life of the Nubians. Greenwood Publishing Group
Read this Map that shows Upper Egypt more African then Lower Egypt
Figure 12. A map illustrating the frequency and distribution of the Subclades of Haplogroup E in Eurasia and Northeast Africa. The total frequency of Haplogroup E is shown as the blue portion of the smaller pie charts, while the larger pie chart shows the fraction of each subclade contributing to the total frequency. For Egypt, two charts are shown, which are derived from two different studies of Haplogroup E subclades in this region. See Table 3 for a detailed account of these frequency and distribution of Subclade E. Paragroup E* represents M40+ status or other E-defining SNPs, but lacking further subclade marker identification. Likewise, paragroup E1b1b1* represents M35+ status, but lacking further subclade identification.This subclade is most frequently reported as the paragroup E1b1b1* or M35* to distinguish it from the observations of the descendant subclades (e.g. E1b1b1a, M78 or E1b1b1b, M81 or E1b1b1c, M123). The TMRCA for M35* subclade is estimated at 27-29kya. The E1b1b1*/M35* subclade can be found in both western and eastern regions of Africa, but clearly has much higher frequency in East Africa (25-50%). This trend is opposite to E1b1a M2 frequency and distribution. The limit of E1b1a/M2 in Northeast Africa was suggested to be result of close knit cultures of Cushitic language groups, which harbor a large fraction of the E1b1b1/M35 lineage, thus giving an explanation for low E1b1a/M2 and high E1b1b1/M35 frequencies in Northeast Africa.The M35 predecessors, P2 and M215 are also thought to have an East Africa origin based on STR variation. M35* and M78 have been found in Europe and the Middle East and may have participated in the demic diffusion of agriculture during the Neolithic Era. M35* is found in East Africa (e.g. Ethiopia) and is absent in Oman and Egypt, so the M35 descendants in Oman are likely to have more recent origins as evidenced by the presence of the subsequent SNP variations and the E1b1b1/M35 descendant subclades (E1b1b1a, M78 or E1b1b1b, M81 or E1b1b1c, M123). The STR variation in Egypt is greater than Oman, pointing to an older establishment of M35 in Egypt and supporting the notion that the Levantine corridor through Egypt was the route for the spread of M35 lineages in the Middle East. The timing for this migration coincides with the Mesolithic Era. It is found in present day countries of Lebanon (16%), Turkey (11%), Iraq (11%) and surrounding regions. An interesting note is that the extent of E1b1b1* (M35*) to the South is near the proposed migration of the M2 subclade through Kenya and that Tanzania has a mixed contribution of both the ‘West M2’ and ‘East M35*’ subclades. This mixture has a unique chronology in that the introduction of M2 by the Bantu is a recent admixture episode in comparison to a Stone Age origin for the M35* subclade.In Europe, the E1b1b1*/M35* subclade is more prevalent in the Ashkenazi Jewish population (20%) than the non-Jewish population (6%), possibly indicating a founding role for the E1b1b1*/M35* subclade for the Ashkenazi Jews in Europe. n.b. recent studies have identified a new SNP, M293 that account for many of the M35* paragroup. This new subclade, designated E1b1b1f, appears to have a concentration around Tanzania (43%), the country that harbored the highest reported frequency of M35* (37%). The E1b1b1f/M293 subclade has a TMRCA estimated at 10kya and is associated with a more recent migration (~2kya) and spread of pastoralism (livestock herding) southward to South Africa. Along with the E1b1a/M2/Bantu, this provides another instance of demic diffusion of new technologies in Africa.Frequency and distribution of the Subclades of Haplogroup E E1b1b1a/M78 Subclade in Eurasia and Northeast Africa:
Read this study also It also links Nubians and Egyptians:
Haplogroup E-M78, however, is more widely distributed and is thought to have an origin in eastern African. More recently, this haplogroup has been carefully dissected and was found to depict several well-established subclades with defined geographical clustering (Cruciani et al., 2006, 2007). Although this haplogroup is common to most Sudanese populations, it has exceptionally high frequency among populations like those of western Sudan (particularly Darfur) and the Beja in eastern Sudan... Although the PC plot places the Beja and Amhara from Ethiopia in one sub-cluster based on shared frequencies of the haplogroup J1, the distribution of M78 subclades (Table 2) indicates that the Beja are perhaps related as well to the Oromo on the basis of the considerable frequencies of E-V32 among Oromo in comparison to Amhara (Cruciani et al., 2007)...
These findings affirm the historical contact between Ethiopia and eastern Sudan (1998), and the fact that these populations speak languages of the Afroasiatic family tree reinforces the strong correlation between linguistic and genetic diversity." (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997).
"Genetic continuum of the Nubians with their kin in southern Egypt is indicated by comparable frequencies of E-V12 the predominant M78 subclade among southern Egyptians."
"The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology." Source:
(Hisham Y. Hassan 1, Peter A. Underhill 2, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza 2, Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1.(2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history. Am J Phys Anthropology, 2008.)
This is all I will post for now. I hope you read and understand what is being said.
Peace
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Skeptic
Read this about J lineage in Africa.
A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA variation In North Africa
Reading from the study of Nebel et al, we see that Hap J was found dating to the Arab invasion and not from the Neolithic.
The primary male lineage among modern NW Africans is the African haplogroup E lineage. The other major NW African male haplogroup J1-M267 reflects "recent gene flow caused by the migration of Arabian tribes in the first millennium of the Common Era(700-800 A.D)." according to Nebel et al.
Of course Nebel et al. has clearly demonstrated that Haplogroup J in North Africa MAINLY date from the Arab invasion and NOT the neolithic period. Hence the East to West Neolithic migration Arredi et al. mentions is really the expansion of saharan cattle herders/ceramic makers from the Sudanese Nile Valley into the Central sahara during the Early Holocene. As the sahara dessicated, the central saharans migrated into the Maghreb, West Africa and back to the Nile.
Nebel et al 2000,2001
Peace
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
@KING
quote:First about the Ethiopians being 50-60% eurasian that is false
No it’s not false at all. You can ask any mainstream anthropologist or population geneticist and they will tell you the exact same thing. The only people who dispute that fact are the Afrocentrists.
quote:the Oromo show an incidence (62.8%) of E3b (M35), higher than the Amhara. - Ethiopian and Khosian Share Deepest clades of of Y-Chromosome Semino-sforza, Underhill et. al
Um, and this proves what exactly (you have completely taken that quote out of context)? Also from that study:
Within extant African populations, both linguistic (Greenberg 1963) and genetic (Hiernaux 1975; Excoffier et al. 1987; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, pp. 169–171) evidence indicates that most sub-Saharan populations are more closely related to each other, whereas Pygmy, Khoisan, and eastern African populations are the most differentiated.
To better understand the relationships between Ethiopians and the other African populations, we have now screened 126 Ethiopian (78 Oromo and 48 Amhara) and 139 Senegalese DNAs of our collection, for the diagnostic markers of the major haplogroups of the Y-chromosome genealogy (Underhill et al. 2001). The results obtained using a hierarchical approach are illustrated in figure 1, in which the Ethiopian and Khoisan samples examined by Underhill et al. (2000) are also included. Groups I and II are essentially restricted to Africans and appear to be the most divergent clades within the tree. They show a patchy distribution, with high frequencies among isolated hunter-gatherer groups and in some peoples of Ethiopia and Sudan. Such a distribution was interpreted as the survival of some ancient lineages through more recent population events (Underhill et al. 2001). In particular, Group I, observed in 43.6% of the Khoisan (usually considered to be descendants of an early African population), is present in all of the Ethiopian samples: its frequency is 10.3% in the Oromo sample and 14.6% in the Amhara sample of the present study, and is 13.6% in the ethnically undefined sample reported by Underhill et al. (2000). In contrast, it was not found in the Senegalese.
Noteworthy is the particularly high frequency of haplotype 18, defined by M78, which also characterizes most of the European YAP+ chromosomes (O.S., unpublished data), and the absence of the haplotype 20, identified by the M81 mutation, which is the most frequent M35 lineage in North Africa (Bosch et al. 2001). In a comparison of the different groups of Ethiopians, the Oromo show an incidence (62.8%) of the M35 cluster higher than that in the Amhara (35.4%, P.005); the Amhara value is similar to the frequency (31.8%) found in the Ethiopian sample of Underhill et al. (2000). A consistent proportion (17.0%) of Y chromosomes belonging to the M75 cluster (haplotype 22) is a distinctive feature of the latter sample. In contrast, almost all Senegalese (98.6%) are YAP+, and the majority of them (81.3%) fall into the M2 subclade, but only one of them shows the M191 mutation (haplotype 12) (Underhill et al. 2001). This mutation accounts for ~40% of the M2 members, who are mainly Pygmies (Underhill et al. 2000). Group III is less frequent in the Khoisan (28.2%), who share with Ethiopians only the M35 haplotype 19 (10.3%). Conversely, the M2 component, which occurs at a frequency of 17.9% in the Khoisan, is virtually absent in the Ethiopians.
It is reported (Levine 1974) that the Amhara experienced a strong influence from Middle Eastern populations, in which the 12f2 8-kb allele has a very high frequency and probably originated (Santachiara-Benerecetti et al. 1993; Semino et al. 1996; Quintana-Murci et al. 2001). This is further supported by the opposite distribution of the M35 subclade (35.4% for the Amhara, vs. 62.8% for the Oromo [P<.005] and 31.8% for the other Ethiopian data). Group VI also includes two Senegalese who, however, are currently defined only by the M89 mutation (haplotype 27) and lack any other known mutation characterizing the M89 subgroups.
The finding of M70 is intriguing, since it has so far been observed to be widely scattered in several continents at a low frequency (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000). The M173 and related lineages are common and widespread in European and in western and central Asian populations (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Bosch et al. 2001; Wells et al. 2001); the observation of one M173 in Ethiopia could, therefore, represent a recent admixture event.
In conclusion, the present study underscores the complexity and substructure of the Ethiopian Y-chromosome gene pool. First, the presence of different Y-chromosome haplotypes belonging to African-specific Group I in all groups of Ethiopians and in the Khoisan (at frequencies of ~13% and 44%, respectively) confirms that these populations share an ancestral paternity, as was previously suggested by the 49a,f data (Passarino et al. 1998), and it indicates that Group I was part of the proto-African Y-chromosome gene pool. The virtual absence of this clade in the other African ethnic groups suggests that they could derive from a more recent ancestral population that went through a long period of differentiation before expansion. In addition, Group II, the next closest to the NRY genealogy root and typically an African group, is shared by Ethiopians and the Khoisan but to a lesser degree. In the case of Group II, the split responsible for the differences observed between Ethiopian and Khoisan haplotypes is also old. Second, most of the Ethiopian Y chromosomes, the rest of the Khoisan Y chromosomes, and the majority of the Senegalese Y chromosomes belong to Group III, which is also mainly African but whose precursor is believed to be involved in the first migration out of Africa (Underhill et al. 2001). Third, the remainder of the Ethiopian Y chromosomes (Groups VI, VIII, and IX) may be explained by back migrations from Asia.
I also find it quite odd that you would quote from Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, since it’s quite clear to anyone who has actually read his work that he in no way shape or form agrees with any of the crap espoused by Afrocentrists:
The simplest conclusion is that most Ethiopians come from an admixture in which a slightly smaller fraction, of Caucasoid origin, may have come in part from northeast Africa and in part from Arabia, but ultimately mostly from the Middle East, considering that Neolithic Middle Eastern migrants must have contributed in an important way to North African genes. Originally languages may have been Cushitic and have been replaced by Semitic languages [Amharic is presently the language of Ethiopia] in the north of Ethiopia under the influence of South Arabia. (“The History and Geography of Human Genes” Cavalli-Sforza, et al., page 174)
In summary, the information available on individual groups in Ethiopia and North Africa is fairly limited but sufficient to show that they are all separate from sub-Saharan Africans and that North Africans and East Africans (Ethiopian and neighbors) are also clearly separate. (Cavalli-Sforza et al., HGHG, page 174)
quote:As you can see for yourself, the Oromo who are the largest Group in Ethiopia have as little as 3.8% eurasian genes
Uh, no. What I can see is that you’re a complete moron who can’t comprehend any of the things that you are reading in those studies.
quote:Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. That, plus the presence of M1 without accompanying L lineages in the Caucasus [32] and [our unpublished data], leaves the question about the origin of haplogroup M still open
This is what the entire conclusion from that study states:
Since the initial peopling of South and West Asia by anatomically modern humans,when this region may well have provided the initial settlers who colonized much of the rest ofEurasia, the gene flow in and out of India of the maternally transmitted mtDNA has been surprisingly limited. Specifically, our analysis of the mtDNA haplogroups, which are shared betweenIndian and Iranian populations and exhibit coalescence ages corresponding to around the earlyUpper Paleolithic, indicates that they are present in India largely as Indian-specific sub-lineages. Incontrast, other ancient Indian-specific variants of M and R are very rare outside the sub-continent The quest for finding the origin of haplogroup M and a plausible scenario for the peopling of Eurasia. Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroupM in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in SouthwestAsia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 inAfrica as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3].Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N(indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent withthe African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand,one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplo-group M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phy-logeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly inassociation with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – afinding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribu-tion of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that havesimilar time depths. That, plus the presence of M1 without accompanying L lineages in the Caucasus [32] and [ourunpublished data], leaves the question about the origin of haplogroup M still open.
It’s perfectly clear to anyone who has any understanding of simple reading comprehension, that the study has left the origins of M1 still unanswered. Moreover that study is outdated – many moons ago I drew reference to a more recent study indicating a Eurasian origin for M1, and yet you’re still here repeating the same old crap. But then again I suppose there really is no convincing a nutter:
This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.
quote:Lets take a look at your study that you states shows Upper Egyptians of having more mixture then lower Egyptians :
A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa Arredi et al 2004
"Under the hypothesis of a neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate a LOCAL contribution to the North African Neolithic transition or an earlier migration into the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion back into Africa."
It’s really quite apparent to me that you all really don’t understand any of the things that you’re quoting at all. Read that entire study in context – It doesn’t support any of the Afrocentrist theories regarding North or Horn Africans. The very abstract of the paper alone should have clued you into that fact:
We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations. North African Y-chromosomal diversity is geographically structured and fits the pattern expected under an isolation-by-distance model. Autocorrelation analyses reveal an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion. This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic–speaking pastoralists from the Middle East.
quote:Moving on again to E3b and how it is just as African as E3a:
The present-day Egyptian E3b-M35 distribution most likely results from a juxtaposition of various demic episodes. Since the E3b-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages. These include E3b1-M78, a haplogroup especially common in Ethiopia (23%), and, perhaps, E3b2- M123 (2%), which is present as well (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002). The data suggest that two later expansions may have followed: one eastward along the Levantine corridor into the Near East and the other toward northwestern Africa. - Luis (2004)
Population geneticists do not consider E1b1b and it’s derivatives to be “black African” haplotypes:
I should probably clarify that I was not attempting in my article to contradict Semino or Cruciani regarding the ultimate origins of haplogroup E3b in Africa. I was merely pointing out that to continue to think and write about haplogroup E3b and, in particular, certain sub-clades of E3b as African in origin was simplistic and potentially misleading. It is rather like saying that haplogroup R1b is Middle Eastern/Transcaucasian merely because the haplogroup originated in Anatolia tens of thousands of years ago. And it was clear to me even many years ago when I wrote the article that some clades of E3b did not arise in Africa, but elsewhere in the world. Thus, to refer to clades like E-M78 as "African" because the UEP that defines the parental haplogroup originated in Africa gives the wrong impression about the origins, history and distribution of many of the sub-clades, some of which may occur in greater population frequency than the original parental haplogroup itself. (Ellen Coffman 31 October 2008)
By labeling E3b “African,” we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole. (November 2008 Ellen Coffman)
"E3b was introduced into Europe from the Near East by immigrant farmers,” "The man who gave rise to marker M35 [E3b] was born around 20,000 years ago in the Middle East. His descendants were among the first farmers and helped spread agriculture from the Middle East into the Mediterranean region. (“Atlas of the Human Journey>Genetic Markers>M35” The Genographic Project 2008)
quote:Read this about Ethiopians and Somalis: "The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non- African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies.. that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe.” (-- Tishkoff 2000, ‘Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism..’)
Tishkoff also had this to say in a more recent paper:
The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African—that is, the Ethiopian and Somali—populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations. (S. A. Tishkoff et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet., 67:901-925, 2000)
It’s clear that Tishkoff separated African groups even if they never left Africa. Therefore the term “indigenous African” does not apply strictly to negroids only and that they should not necessarily be grouped with them in an anthropological, genetic or racial sense.
Also of interest are the contraindications of Lovell et al:
Certainly our data are not incompatible with the argument from Tishkoff et al. (1996) that an element of the contemporary Ethiopian population may be descendants of the ancestral population that spawned the migration out of Africa. We also argue, however, that in addition to this early bottleneck event, later periods of admixture have played a major role in shaping the gene pool of Ethiopia, and its populations display both Eurasian and Sub-Saharan genetic influences. (Lovell et al)
quote:No matter how you word it, Ethiopians are not as "Mixed" as you claim
Yes, they are mixed. And the “African” haplogroups found amongst them are not found in any appreciable quantities amongst Negroids.
quote:NUBIA AND EGYPT- Nubians and Egyptians were so close in various eras that they were virtually indistinguishable
“The ancient Egyptians referred to a region, located south of the third cataract the Nile River, in which Nubians dwelt as Kush.. Within such context, this phrase is not a racial slur. Throughout the history of ancient Egypt there were numerous, well documented instances that celebrate Nubian-Egyptian marriages. A study of these documents, particularly those dated to both the Egyptian New Kingdom (after 1550 B.C.E.) and to Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI (about 720-640 BCE), reveals that neither spouse nor any of the children of such unions suffered discrimination at the hands of the ancient Egyptians. Indeed such marriages were never an obstacle to social, economic, or political status, provided the individuals concerned conformed to generally accepted Egyptian social standards. Furthermore, at times, certain Nubian practices, such as tattooing for women, and the unisex fashion of wearing earrings, were wholeheartedly embraced by the ancient Egyptians." (Bianchi, 2004: p. 4)
quote:'It is an extremely difficult task to attempt to describe the Nubians during the course of Egypt's New Kingdom, because their presence appears to have virtually evaporated from the archaeological record.. The result has been described as a wholesale Nubian assimilation into Egyptian society. This assimilation was so complete that it masked all Nubian ethnic identities insofar as archaeological remains are concerned beneath the impenetrable veneer of Egypt's material; culture.. In the Kushite Period, when Nubians ruled as Pharaohs in their own right, the material culture of Dynasty XXV (about 750-655 B.C.E.) was decidedly Egyptian in character.. Nubia's entire landscape up to the region of the Third Cataract was dotted with temples indistinguishable in style and decoration from contemporary temples erected in Egypt. The same observation obtains for the smaller number of typically Egyptian tombs in which these elite Nubian princes were interred.(Bianchi, 2004, p. 99-100)
Robert Bianchi ( 2004). Daily Life of the Nubians. Greenwood Publishing Group
Absolutely none of this says anything about the race of the Ancient Egyptians.
quote:Read this Map that shows Upper Egypt more African then Lower Egypt
This officially proves to me that you cannot comprehend any of the things that you are reading and that you really ought to leave the interpretation of genomic data to those of us who are actually in the know. That map does not prove that Upper Egyptians are “more African” than Lower Egyptians, it merely shows that there is a greater diversity of the subhaplotypes of E1b1b amongst the Upper Egyptians! Do you not notice that on that map they are only showing the distributions of the derivatives of E1b1b in Africa and in Eurasia?! The map that I have provided by contrast shows not only the distribution of E1b1b but also those belonging to several other haplogroups – and when you look at the haplogroup profiles on that map that I have provided you can clearly see that there is far more Middle Eastern admixture amongst the Upper Egyptians in contrast to the Lower Egyptians.
quote:Figure 12. A map illustrating the frequency and distribution of the Subclades of Haplogroup E in Eurasia and Northeast Africa. The total frequency of Haplogroup E is shown as the blue portion of the smaller pie charts, while the larger pie chart shows the fraction of each subclade contributing to the total frequency. For Egypt, two charts are shown, which are derived from two different studies of Haplogroup E subclades in this region. See Table 3 for a detailed account of these frequency and distribution of Subclade E. Paragroup E* represents M40+ status or other E-defining SNPs, but lacking further subclade marker identification. Likewise, paragroup E1b1b1* represents M35+ status, but lacking further subclade identification.This subclade is most frequently reported as the paragroup E1b1b1* or M35* to distinguish it from the observations of the descendant subclades (e.g. E1b1b1a, M78 or E1b1b1b, M81 or E1b1b1c, M123). The TMRCA for M35* subclade is estimated at 27-29kya. The E1b1b1*/M35* subclade can be found in both western and eastern regions of Africa, but clearly has much higher frequency in East Africa (25-50%). This trend is opposite to E1b1a M2 frequency and distribution. The limit of E1b1a/M2 in Northeast Africa was suggested to be result of close knit cultures of Cushitic language groups, which harbor a large fraction of the E1b1b1/M35 lineage, thus giving an explanation for low E1b1a/M2 and high E1b1b1/M35 frequencies in Northeast Africa.The M35 predecessors, P2 and M215 are also thought to have an East Africa origin based on STR variation. M35* and M78 have been found in Europe and the Middle East and may have participated in the demic diffusion of agriculture during the Neolithic Era. M35* is found in East Africa (e.g. Ethiopia) and is absent in Oman and Egypt, so the M35 descendants in Oman are likely to have more recent origins as evidenced by the presence of the subsequent SNP variations and the E1b1b1/M35 descendant subclades (E1b1b1a, M78 or E1b1b1b, M81 or E1b1b1c, M123). The STR variation in Egypt is greater than Oman, pointing to an older establishment of M35 in Egypt and supporting the notion that the Levantine corridor through Egypt was the route for the spread of M35 lineages in the Middle East. The timing for this migration coincides with the Mesolithic Era. It is found in present day countries of Lebanon (16%), Turkey (11%), Iraq (11%) and surrounding regions. An interesting note is that the extent of E1b1b1* (M35*) to the South is near the proposed migration of the M2 subclade through Kenya and that Tanzania has a mixed contribution of both the ‘West M2’ and ‘East M35*’ subclades. This mixture has a unique chronology in that the introduction of M2 by the Bantu is a recent admixture episode in comparison to a Stone Age origin for the M35* subclade.In Europe, the E1b1b1*/M35* subclade is more prevalent in the Ashkenazi Jewish population (20%) than the non-Jewish population (6%), possibly indicating a founding role for the E1b1b1*/M35* subclade for the Ashkenazi Jews in Europe. n.b. recent studies have identified a new SNP, M293 that account for many of the M35* paragroup. This new subclade, designated E1b1b1f, appears to have a concentration around Tanzania (43%), the country that harbored the highest reported frequency of M35* (37%). The E1b1b1f/M293 subclade has a TMRCA estimated at 10kya and is associated with a more recent migration (~2kya) and spread of pastoralism (livestock herding) southward to South Africa. Along with the E1b1a/M2/Bantu, this provides another instance of demic diffusion of new technologies in Africa.Frequency and distribution of the Subclades of Haplogroup E E1b1b1a/M78 Subclade in Eurasia and Northeast Africa
Absolutely none of this discredits any of the things that I have been saying for weeks now.
quote:Read this study also It also links Nubians and Egyptians:
Haplogroup E-M78, however, is more widely distributed and is thought to have an origin in eastern African. More recently, this haplogroup has been carefully dissected and was found to depict several well-established subclades with defined geographical clustering (Cruciani et al., 2006, 2007). Although this haplogroup is common to most Sudanese populations, it has exceptionally high frequency among populations like those of western Sudan (particularly Darfur) and the Beja in eastern Sudan... Although the PC plot places the Beja and Amhara from Ethiopia in one sub-cluster based on shared frequencies of the haplogroup J1, the distribution of M78 subclades (Table 2) indicates that the Beja are perhaps related as well to the Oromo on the basis of the considerable frequencies of E-V32 among Oromo in comparison to Amhara (Cruciani et al., 2007)...
These findings affirm the historical contact between Ethiopia and eastern Sudan (1998), and the fact that these populations speak languages of the Afroasiatic family tree reinforces the strong correlation between linguistic and genetic diversity." (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997).
"Genetic continuum of the Nubians with their kin in southern Egypt is indicated by comparable frequencies of E-V12 the predominant M78 subclade among southern Egyptians."
"The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology." Source:
(Hisham Y. Hassan 1, Peter A. Underhill 2, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza 2, Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1.(2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history. Am J Phys Anthropology, 2008.)
Sharing a “link” with the Nubians, does not mean that the Egyptians and Nubians were identical. And I also really just cannot understand why it is that Afrocentrists insist on using the Nubians as a proxy for black, when it is perfectly clear to anyone who is knowledgeable about the anthropological data that they were not. Cruciani et al in their 2007 paper did not pose an East African origin for E-M78, rather instead they posed a Northeast African origin (for which they made perfectly clear in Table 1 of the paper that they were referring specifically to Egypt and Libya):
In conclusion, the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to northeastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity are strongly suggestive of a northeastern rather than an eastern African origin of E-M78. Northeastern Africa thus seems to be the place from where E-M78 chromosomes started to disperse to other African regions and outside Africa.
quote:This is all I will post for now. I hope you read and understand what is being said
No, what I think you need to do is to read and understand what is being said in the few studies I listed above as well as the entire laundry list of those that I linked to three weeks ago. The idea that the AE were black Africans has been discredited ages ago – just let it go; You have no history in Egypt.
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: Skeptic
Read this about J lineage in Africa.
A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA variation In North Africa
Reading from the study of Nebel et al, we see that Hap J was found dating to the Arab invasion and not from the Neolithic.
The primary male lineage among modern NW Africans is the African haplogroup E lineage. The other major NW African male haplogroup J1-M267 reflects "recent gene flow caused by the migration of Arabian tribes in the first millennium of the Common Era(700-800 A.D)." according to Nebel et al.
Of course Nebel et al. has clearly demonstrated that Haplogroup J in North Africa MAINLY date from the Arab invasion and NOT the neolithic period. Hence the East to West Neolithic migration Arredi et al. mentions is really the expansion of saharan cattle herders/ceramic makers from the Sudanese Nile Valley into the Central sahara during the Early Holocene. As the sahara dessicated, the central saharans migrated into the Maghreb, West Africa and back to the Nile.
Nebel et al 2000,2001
Peace
There is no study by "Nebel et al." Neither of those quotes appear in the paper "A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA variation In North Africa," and after I did a Google search for either of them I only got references to this forum. The mere fact that Afrocentrists have to lie and fake data just goes to show that you're all full of sh*t. You can curry it however you want, the genetic data clearly shows that the J haplogroups found amongst the Egyptians (and all North Africans for that matter) predates the Dynastic Period. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
the Nebel study was called:
The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East,
A. Nebel et al. (2001),
Americal Journal of Human Genetics 69(5):1095-112.
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: the Nebel study was called:
The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East,
A. Nebel et al. (2001),
Americal Journal of Human Genetics 69(5):1095-112.
I had a look at that paper, but I couldn't find a single reference in it to either Egypt or haplogroup J.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Skeptic
Be easy with the Insults. No need for them, They don't make your points anymore valid. Read from this:
the more-recent migrations were mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, as is seen in the Arab-specific Eu 10 chromosomes that include the modal haplotypes observed in Palestinians and Bedouin. These haplotypes and their one-step microsatellite neighbors constitute a substantial portion of the total Palestinian (29%) and Bedouin (37.5%) Y chromosome pools and were not found in any of the non-Arab populations in the present study. The peripheral position of the modal haplotypes, with few links in the network (fig. 5), suggests that the Arab-specific chromosomes are a result of recent gene flow. Historical records describe tribal migrations from Arabia to the southern Levant in the Byzantine period, migrations that reached their climax with the Muslim conquest 633–640 a.d.; Patrich 1995). Indeed, Arab-specific haplotypes have been observed at significant frequencies in Muslim Arabs from Sena (56%) and the Hadramaut (16%) in the Yemen (Thomas et al. 2000). Thus, although Y chromosome data of Arabian populations are limited, it seems very likely that populations from the Arabian Peninsula were the source of these chromosomes. The genetic closeness, in classical protein markers, of Bedouin to Yemenis and Saudis (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994) supports an Arabian origin of the Bedouin. The alternative explanation for the distribution of the Arab-specific haplotypes (i.e., random genetic drift) is unlikely. It is difficult to imagine that the different populations in the Yemen and the southern Levant, in which Arab-specific chromosomes have been detected at moderate-to-high frequencies, would have drifted in the same direction.
Also Please post from the study where they claim that Oromo have more then 3-5% eurasian genes.
Also about your other study:Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa
"Due to the scarcity of M lineages in the Near East and its richness in India, this region was proposed as the most probable origin of the M1 ancestor. However, recent studies based on Indian mtDNA sequences have not found any positive evidence that M1 originated in India." Gonzales et al 2007
"Although two mtDNA lineages with an African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups, macrohaplogroup L (including haplogroups L0-L6) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa." Tishkoff and Kivisild 2006
If you want to learn more about M1 then read this thread:
Peace
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
While this image appears to disprove Egypt's African roots, it does not. I hold that people like that are Egyptian..
If you look closely, you can see the original brown paint fading off the figure of Nefertari. You can still see traces of paint around the cheeks and arms.
Here the paint is better preserved.
quote:
Look at this man is he "Arab"...I think not, he is a native Egyptian.
Nobody denies that the man above is a native Egyptian. The problem is Egypt has been invaded by many foreigners especially since the fall of dynastic civilization. You cannot expect all modern Egyptians to look exactly like their ancient ancestors.
quote:We have to remember that Egypt was a Nation of many tribes united under one flag, so not one Phenotype was present..We have Dark, Light, and in between in Egypt.
Of course, but all these ancient tribes were African not like today where most of the phenotypic diversity comes from foreign ancestry as well.
quote:There was a comment made that the Dark brown occurs only in the Armana..
I don't know who made that comment, but of course that is a lie. Dark brown (black) has always been the standard color. Even females outside of the Amarna period were painted that color every now and then and not only the 'yellow' convention.
I agree.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic: @KING
quote:First about the Ethiopians being 50-60% eurasian that is false
No it’s not false at all. You can ask any mainstream anthropologist or population geneticist and they will tell you the exact same thing. The only people who dispute that fact are the Afrocentrists.
quote:the Oromo show an incidence (62.8%) of E3b (M35), higher than the Amhara. - Ethiopian and Khosian Share Deepest clades of of Y-Chromosome Semino-sforza, Underhill et. al
Um, and this proves what exactly (you have completely taken that quote out of context)? Also from that study:
Now I get it - Negroes are basically half Eurafricans who mixed with black Caucasoids. Duh!?
Why couldn't we figure that out before. Boy I guess skeptic is really on the ball.
Oromo (Galla) rebels of Ethiopia
Fulani woman
Beja men
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The original poster asked the following question:
quote: Egyptians and Art: Does the Dark Brown only occur in the Armana
To which the simple answer is given: No.
No amount of posting of images of modern Egyptians has anything to do with it.
Egyptians portrayed themselves as dark brown from the old kingdom through the Amarna period into the late period.
For example, tomb of Merenptah from the 19th dynasty:
First off the point of this tread was to prove that the Egyptians painted themselves Dark Brown from the Old Kingdom not just in the Armana, second why are you all so scared of Modern Egyptians?? You have seen Egyptian Remains and Art work as well as me if not longer and know damn Well Modern Egyptians like the Fallahin I posted could Eaisily be found in A. Egypt.
If Eurocentrics are wrong for calling Egypt Caucasian then Afrocentrics are wrong for Denying that Egyptians like the Fellahin I posted were not present in Egypt as far back as the old Kingdom.
Again the Egyptians form a group with Nubians first and East Africans second. My Contention is that Egyptians Majority looked like this..
With Egyptians like this in the North and Delta
And that there was a North to South Incline Variation of Skin color.
Is there a problem with this, In my opinion the Southern Type was Dominant until other Asiatic groups settled in the North. I also contend that the Culture of Egypt was Native and arrived Via the South and More Southerly regions.
Where is the evidence of a north-south incline in ancient Egypt Jari or is this Lyin_ss I'm reading? Please give me some.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic: Why don't you all actually read those studies, instead of nitpicking select graphics and appropriating your distorted renditions to what was actually stated in the study. That figure comes from the paper The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations. In that paper it is made perfectly clear that the J haplogroups found amongst the Egyptians dates to roughly between 11.1K years and 16.4K years ago, i.e. It was already there prior to the emergence of Dynastic Egypt!
The non-Berber Egyptian sample in that study is explicitly labeled "Arab"---that is, it represents Arab immigrants rather than native Egyptians. Haplogroup J may have indeed expanded within that particular group 16.4-11.1 millennia ago, but that doesn't mean the group hasn't moved in the last few thousands years.
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
@KING
quote:the more-recent migrations were mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, as is seen in the Arab-specific Eu 10 chromosomes that include the modal haplotypes observed in Palestinians and Bedouin. These haplotypes and their one-step microsatellite neighbors constitute a substantial portion of the total Palestinian (29%) and Bedouin (37.5%) Y chromosome pools and were not found in any of the non-Arab populations in the present study. The peripheral position of the modal haplotypes, with few links in the network (fig. 5), suggests that the Arab-specific chromosomes are a result of recent gene flow. Historical records describe tribal migrations from Arabia to the southern Levant in the Byzantine period, migrations that reached their climax with the Muslim conquest 633–640 a.d.; Patrich 1995). Indeed, Arab-specific haplotypes have been observed at significant frequencies in Muslim Arabs from Sena (56%) and the Hadramaut (16%) in the Yemen (Thomas et al. 2000). Thus, although Y chromosome data of Arabian populations are limited, it seems very likely that populations from the Arabian Peninsula were the source of these chromosomes. The genetic closeness, in classical protein markers, of Bedouin to Yemenis and Saudis (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994) supports an Arabian origin of the Bedouin. The alternative explanation for the distribution of the Arab-specific haplotypes (i.e., random genetic drift) is unlikely. It is difficult to imagine that the different populations in the Yemen and the southern Levant, in which Arab-specific chromosomes have been detected at moderate-to-high frequencies, would have drifted in the same direction
King, that study does not have anything to do with the Egyptians or even North Africans for that matter, it has to do with Jews! This is that entire passage in context:
We propose that the Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements. The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews (Nebel et al. 2000). According to our working model, the more-recent migrations were mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, as is seen in the Arab-specific Eu 10 chromosomes that include the modal haplotypes observed in Palestinians and Bedouin. These haplotypes and their one-step microsatellite neighbors constitute a substantial portion of the total Palestinian (29%) and Bedouin (37.5%) Y chromosome pools and were not found in any of the non-Arab populations in the present study. The peripheral position of the modal haplotypes, with few links in the network (fig. 5), suggests that the Arab-specific chromosomes are a result of recent gene flow. Historical records describe tribal migrations from Arabia to the southern Levant in the Byzantine period, migrations that reached their climax with the Muslim conquest 633–640 A.D.; Patrich 1995). Indeed, Arab-specific haplotypes have been observed at significant frequencies in Muslim Arabs from Sena (56%) and the Hadramaut (16%) in the Yemen (Thomas et al. 2000). Thus, although Y chromosome data of Arabian populations are limited, it seems very likely that populations from the Arabian Peninsula were the source of these chromosomes. The genetic closeness, in classical protein markers, of Bedouin to Yemenis and Saudis (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994) supports an Arabian origin of the Bedouin. The alternative explanation for the distribution of the Arab-specific haplotypes (i.e., random genetic drift) is unlikely. It is difficult to imagine that the different populations in the Yemen and the southern Levant, in which Arab-specific chromosomes have been detected at moderate-to-high frequencies, would have drifted in the same direction.
As you can clearly read from that above abstract, the population movements were from the Arabian Peninsula to Palestine; not from the Middle East into Egypt and North Africa! The only significant mention of North Africa in that study appears in the very first paragraph of the introduction, and it actually reinforces what I have been saying:
The Middle East played a crucial role in early human history. Its strategic location at the crossroads of three continents facilitated the movements of peoples and the spread of novel technologies and ideas. At the beginning of the Neolithic period (∼10,500 years ago), the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East was one of the few centers in which the transition from hunting-gathering to permanent settlement and farming took place (Bar-Yosef 1995). Previous genetic studies suggested that demic diffusion of Neolithic farmers, rather than cultural transmission, was responsible for the dispersal of domesticates and technological innovations from the Middle East to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia (Cavalli- Sforza et al. 1994; Richards et al. 2000; Semino et al. 2000; Quintana-Murci et al. 2001).
quote:Also Please post from the study where they claim that Oromo have more then 3-5% eurasian genes
I really just cannot seem to understand why it is that you all seem to lack basic understanding. I have posted studies on the Oromo three week ago, but I’ll post them again and hopefully this time it will register:
Ethiopia is central to population genetic studies investigating the out of Africa expansion of modern humans, as shown by Y chromosome and mtDNA studies. To address the level of genetic differentiation within Ethiopia, and its relationship to Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia, we studied an 8kb segment of the X-chromosome from 72 chromosomes from the Amhara, Oromo and Ethiopian Jews, and compared these results with 804 chromosomes from Middle Eastern, African, Asian and European populations, and 22 newly typed Saharawi. Within Ethiopia the two largest ethnic groups, the Amhara and Oromo, were not found to be statistically distinct, based on an exact test of haplotype frequencies. The Ethiopian Jews appear as an admixed population, possibly of Jewish origin, though the data remain equivocal. There is evidence of a close relationship between Ethiopian and Yemenite Jews, likely a result of indirect gene flow. Within an African and Eurasian context, the distribution of alleles of a variable Tn repeat, and the spread of haplotypes containing Africa-specific alleles, provide evidence of a genetic continuity from Sub-Saharan Africa to the Near East, and furthermore suggest that a bottleneck occurred in Ethiopia associated with an out of Africa expansion. Ethiopian genetic heterogeneity, as evidenced by principal component analysis of haplotype frequencies, most likely resulted from periods of subsequent admixture. While these results are from the analysis of one locus, we feel that in association with data from other marker systems they add a complementary perspective on the history of Ethiopia.(Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia, Lovell et al)
Though present-day Ethiopia is a land of great ethnic diversity, the majority of Ethiopians speak different Semitic, Cushitic, and Omotic languages that belong to the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum. Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general. (Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004)
Oromo and Amhara only showed minor differences in spite of their different origins and histories. HLA class II allele and haplotype frequencies in Ethiopian Amhara and Oromo populations. (“HLA class II allele and haplotype frequencies in Ethiopian Amhara and Oromo populations” 1998)
The present composition of the Ethiopian population is the result of a complex and extensive intermixing of different peoples of North African, Near and Middle Eastern, and south-Saharan origin. The two main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara, descended from Arabian conquerors, and the Oromo, the most important group among the Cushitic people. ... The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position. (De Stefano et al., Ann Hum Biology 2002)
There has also been research done on the autosomal DNA of Ethiopians by Wilson et al:
We genotyped 16 chromosome 1 microsatellites from the ABI prism panel 1 (an average of 17 cM apart) and 23 X-linked microsatellites (≥2 cM apart)9 in each of eight populations: South African Bantu speakers (46), Amharic- and Oromo-speaking Ethiopians from Shewa and Wollo provinces collected in Addis Ababa (48), Ashkenazi Jews (48), Armenians (48), Norwegian speakers from Oslo (47), Chinese from Sichuan in southwestern China (39), Papua New Guineans from Madang (48) and Afro- Caribbeans collected in London (30).
Note that in this study they used samples from both Oromos and Amharas, and not just on the Amhara as Afrocentrists fallaciously believe. This was the result of that study:
The apportionment of individuals (the average per-individual proportion of ancestry) from each of the eight populations into the four STRUCTURE-defined clusters (Table 2) broadly corresponds to four geographical areas: Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. (Wilson et al, Population genetic structure of variable drug response, 2001) Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic: Why don't you all actually read those studies, instead of nitpicking select graphics and appropriating your distorted renditions to what was actually stated in the study. That figure comes from the paper The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations. In that paper it is made perfectly clear that the J haplogroups found amongst the Egyptians dates to roughly between 11.1K years and 16.4K years ago, i.e. It was already there prior to the emergence of Dynastic Egypt!
The non-Berber Egyptian sample in that study is explicitly labeled "Arab"---that is, it represents Arab immigrants rather than native Egyptians. Haplogroup J may have indeed expanded within that particular group 16.4-11.1 millennia ago, but that doesn't mean the group hasn't moved in the last few thousands years.
Why wouldn't the Egyptians be of similar stock to the Berbers? They're both on the same latitude and if you were coming from Asia you would have to pass through Egypt to get to Libya
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
CONTINUED
quote:Also about your other study: Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa
"Due to the scarcity of M lineages in the Near East and its richness in India, this region was proposed as the most probable origin of the M1 ancestor. However, recent studies based on Indian mtDNA sequences have not found any positive evidence that M1 originated in India." Gonzales et al 2007
Did you fall and hit head when you were younger?! I really just cannot understand why it is that you have complete lack of understanding. The very title of that paper alone should give you an idea that what your trying to argue (an African origin for M1) is complete bullshit! Just because they found evidence that M1 didn’t originate in India, doesn’t mean that it originated in Africa – in the conclusion of that study, which I specifically posted, it’s made perfectly clear that it originated in Asia. I posted all these quotes from that study three weeks ago, but I’ll post them again:
Phylogeographic parallelism between M1 and U6 haplogroups There are striking similarities between the geographical dispersals and radiation ages observed here for M1 lineages and those previously published for the North African U6 haplogroup [40]. It was proposed that U6a first spread was in Northwest Africa around 30,000 ya. Coalescence ages for M1 also fit into this period and the oldest clade M1c has an evident northwestern Africa distribution; however it had to have a wide geographic range as some M1c lineages are today still present in Jordanians (Figs. 1 and 2). It is curious that this prehistoric Near Eastern colonization was also pointed out by the uniqueness of the U6a haplotypes detected in that area. A posterior East to West African expansion around 17,000 ya was indicated by the U6a1 relative diversity and distribution. Again, age, relative East to West diversities and geographic range accurately correspond with the M1a1 expansion detected here. More recent local spread of lineages U6b and U6c also parallel the M1b and M1c1 distributions. Furthermore, these similarities also hold outside Africa. U6 lineages in the Iberian Peninsula have been considered traces of northward expansions from Africa. Based on the uneven distribution of U6a and U6b lineages in Iberia, with the former predominating in southern and the latter in northern areas, it was proposed that U6b in Iberia represents a signal of a prehistoric North African immigration whereas the presence of U6a could be better attributed to the long lasting historic Arab/Berber occupation [40]. Again, this pattern is accurately repeated by the M1c and M1a distribution in the Iberian Peninsula, the northwest African M1 being more abundant in northern areas (56%) and the East African M1a in southern areas (85%) although, due to the small sample size, difference does not reach a significant level (p = 0.07). Additional support to the hypothesis of a prehistoric introduction are the recently detected presence of a Northwest African M1c lineage in a Basque cemetery dated to the 6th–7th centuries AD, prior to the Moorish occupation [42], and the ancestral phylogenetic position of another Basque M1d sequence (Fig. 1) that does not match any African sequence. Finally, two autochthonous U6 lineages (U6b1 and U6c1) traced the origin of the Canary Islands prehispanic aborigines to Northwest Africa [43]. Although exclusive M1 lineages have not been detected in the Canary Islands, it is worth mentioning that those sampled belong to the Northwest African area [44]. Outside Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, as with U6, M1 has been mainly detected in other Mediterranean areas with main incidences in islands such as Sicily. It is customary to attribute these incidences to the above mentioned Arab/Berber historic occupations. However, taking into account the major Jewish assignation for all the M1a haplotypes detected in Europe, the possibility of a Jewish maternal ascendance for at least some of these lineages should not be rejected. Note that the two M1 lineages sampled in the Balearic isles were of Jewish adscription [45]. Also, there were well documented Jewish settlements in Sicily since early Roman times [46] and, coincidentally, half of the M1 lineages sampled in that island [47,48] belong to the M1a cluster. Finally, the Atlantic archipelagos of Canaries and Madeira, where the rigor of the Spanish Inquisition was stronger, only have M1c representatives. In contrast, in the Azores Islands, that were used as a refuge by Sephardim Jews expelled from the Iberian Peninsula, half of the M1 sequences detected are of M1a assignation [49,50]. These possible Jewish contributions might be also extended to the U6 lineages of eastern origin because all U6 haplotypes detected in Ashkenazim and other Jewish groups, excepting one that is a basal U6a (16172–16219–16278), belong to the eastern Africa clade U6a1 [36,26]. An additional proof of the striking parallelism between M1 and U6 lineages is the fact that, as for M1, no U6 representatives were sampled in Moroccan Jews in spite of the high frequency of this clade in the Moroccan and Berber host populations [36].
Most probable origin of M1 ancestors Mitochondrial M lineages in Ethiopia were first detected by RFLP analyses [51]. To explain its presence in that area the authors suggested two possibilities: 1) the marker was acquired by Ethiopians through interchanges with Asians or 2) it was present in the ancient Ethiopian population and was carried to Asia by groups who migrated out of Africa. Later, the second hypothesis was favored and a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa was suggested, dating the split between Asian and African M branches older than 50,000 ya [22]. Although not completely discarding this last scenario other authors considered that the disjunctive was unsettled. The vast diversity of haplogroup M in Asia compared to Africa pointed to the possibility that M1 is a branch that traces a backflow from Asia to Africa [7,23]. Due to the scarcity of M lineages in the Near East and its richness in India, this region was proposed as the most probable origin of the M1 ancestor [7,52]. However, recent studies based on Indian mtDNA sequences [24,25] have not found any positive evidence that M1 originated in India. Nevertheless, the inclusion of M1 complete mtDNA lineages in the construction of the macrohaplogroup M phylogeny clearly established that the antiquity of Indian lineages, as M2, as compared to Ethiopian M1 lineages support an Asian origin of macrohaplogroup M [24]. Furthermore, the comparison within Africa of eastern and western M1 sequences left the origin of M1 in Africa uncertain [21]. On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent. Even more, as the coalescence ages of the northwestern M1c clade is older than the eastern M1a clade, we think that the most ancient dispersals of M1 occurred in northwestern Africa, reaching also the Iberian Peninsula, instead of Ethiopia. The detection of an ancestral M1c sequence in Jordanians could be explained by two alternative hypotheses: 1) that the Near East was the most probable origin of the primitive M1 dispersals, West into Africa and East to Central Asia. This supposition would explain the presence of basic M1 lineages, instead of the most common M1a derivates, as far as the Tibet. The actual scarcity of these types in eastern areas could be explained by posterior migrations that erased these primitive lineages. The absence of these ancestral M1c lineages in Ethiopia would point to the Sinai Peninsula as the most probable gate of entrance of this backflow to Africa. 2) That M1 is an autochthonous North African clade that had its earliest spread in northwestern areas marginally reaching the Near East and beyond. This would explain the shortage of basic M1 lineages in the Near East but would leave the Asiatic origin of the M1 ancestor undetermined. In any case, both alternatives envisaged M in Africa as an offshoot of the Asiatic M trunk. The striking phylogeographic parallelism between U6 and M1 haplogroups adds additional support to these hypotheses. It is possible to correlate the dispersion ages of the different M1 clades with their contemporary climatic, archaeological, paleoanthropological and linguistic information. For instance, the first M1 backflow to Africa, dated around 30,000 ya, is coincidental with a harsh glacial period which suggests that this human retreat to Africa could be forced by climatic conditions. The low sea level in the Gibraltar Strait at that time could also facilitate the Iberian Peninsula colonization. The northwestern African M1c and the probable north central M1b expansions are coincidental with the Iberomaurusian and Capsian industries. The anomalous evolution of M1a2 lineages left the coalescence ages of the eastern Africa M1a expansion uncertain, but as suggested for the sister U6a1 radiation; these movements could be correlated in time with an African origin and expansion of Afroasiatic languages [40]. Finally, from a maternal genetic perspective it seems that Neolithic occupation of the Sahara had both eastern and western influences. Most probably other mtDNA lineages participated in this human back flow to Africa. It has been suggested that the North African X1 branch of the Euroasiatic haplogroup X could be one of them [63]. Whilst this paper was under review, a new paper also dealing with U6 and M1 haplogroups was published [53]. Haplogroup topologies and phylogeographic conclusions proposed by Olivieri et al. [53] are highly coincidental with those proposed by us in our previous paper on U6 [40] and in the present paper, dealing with M1. Regrettably, there are differences in nomenclature for M1. Whereas our M1 phylogeny adhered to that proposed previously by other authors [21], Olivieri et al. [53] chose to apply their own. Nevertheless, the diagnostic positions for the different M1 subhaplogroups allowed us to establish subhaplogroup homologies between the two works. Clearly their M1b subgroup (defined by transition 13111) corresponds to our M1c subgroup; their M1a2 subgroup (defined by transition 15884) corresponds to our M1b subgroup. Finally, their M1a1 subgroup (defined by transitions at 3705, 12346 and 16359) corresponds to our M1a subgroup. In addition to the reinforcing overlap of ideas, it is worthwhile mentioning the high coincidence for the coalescence ages of M1 and the majority of its subhaplogroups, when the same substitution rate [8] is used. Olivieri et al. [53] calculated a coalescence time estimate of 36.8 ± 7.1 ky for the entire haplogroup M1 that matches our estimate of 35.2 ± 7.1 ky. Our coalescence time for M1c (25.7 ± 6.6 ky) also overlaps with Olivieri et al. [53] haplogroup M1b (23.4 ± 5.6 ky). Likewise, the coalescence age calculated for our M1a subhaplogroup (22.6 ± 8.1 ky) is in the range of the Olivieri et al. [53] estimation for their M1a1 subhaplogroup (20.6 ± 3.4 ky). The only discrepancy is about the coalescence time estimate between our M1b subhaplogroup (13.7 ± 4.8 ky) that is younger than that calculated by Olivieri et al. [53] for their homologous M1a2 (24.0 ± 5.7 ky). As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Oliveri et al [53] on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate that ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-KI43 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 ± 5.0 ky is obtained. Although with overlapping errors, these results, together with the relative ancestral positions of each subgroup in the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 1), would suggest that the northwestern M1c clade radiation was older than those for the ubiquitous M1b and the eastern M1a clades, as also proposed by Olivieri et al. [53].
Conclusion This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of northeastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.
quote:"Although two mtDNA lineages with an African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups, macrohaplogroup L (including haplogroups L0-L6) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa." Tishkoff and Kivisild 2006
That study by Tishkoff et al is outdated. At the time when that paper was published the Asiatic origin of M1 was not yet confirmed – all of the most recent papers uphold an Asiatic origin for this haplogroup:
Focusing on North Africa, several mtDNA studies have shown that, in spite of an important Sub-Saharan African contribution, the vast majority of the lineages detected in this region belong to, or have common roots with, Eurasian haplogroups [15-23]. Some of these haplogroups, including the X1 [12], U6 [11,13] and M1 [13,14], although of West Asian origin, have Paleolithic coalescence ages in North Africa. Others seem to be of more recent acquisition as a result of European (U5, V [24-26]) or Middle Eastern influences (R0a, J1b, U3 [17,27-29]). In agreement with classical markers and mtDNA, in an early analysis of Northwest African populations using paternal Y-chromosome variation, it was proposed that the main haplogroups defined by the M78 and M81 binary markers could be the paternal counterparts of the classical and maternal Paleolithic components [30]. However, more recent studies in which those and other markers were further subdivided suggested a predominantly Neolithic origin for the Y-chromosomal DNA variation in North Africa [20,22-34]. (Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup H structure in North Africa, Cabrera et al, 2009)
Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Their arrival temporally overlaps with the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and was most likely the result of the same change in climate conditions that allowed humans to enter the Levant, opening the way to the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the "out of Africa" exit, but from the Mediterranean area; and the North African Dabban and European Aurignacian industries derived from a common Levantine source. (The mtDNA Legacy of the Levantine Early Upper Palaeolithic in Africa, Olivieri et al, 2007)
Alternatively, the amplified fragments were analyzed by sequencing. For Eurasian haplogroups (H, HV, preHV, J, T, R, U, K, I, N, X and M) diagnostic positions were recompiled from Richards et al. For African haplogroups, L0, L1, and L3 from Chen et al. and for L2, L4, and L5 from Kivisil et al. (The role of mitochondrial haplogroups in glaucoma: a study in an Arab population, Morales et al, 2008)
Recently, complete mtDNA sequencing of U6 and M1 haplotypes allowed to shed light on the phylogeny of these two lineages (Olivieri et al. 2006, Gonzalez et al. 2007). Both of them are predominantly North African clades that originated in Southwest Asia and spread together to North Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago.( Holocene human peopling of Libyan Sahara: molecular analysis of maternal lineages in ancient and extant populations of Fezzan, Rickards et al, 2008)
It is noteworthy that DEYAP* has been detected at low frequency in Africa . Again, this hypothesis has its mtDNA counterpart as it is well documented that, in the Palaeolithic, at least three clades (X1, U6, M1) derived respectively from the three main Eurasian macrohaplogroups (N, R, M) came back to North Africa from Asia. (Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions, Abu-Amero et al, 2009)
More recent studies of subclade M1 in North Africa and the Levant have led to a different explanation for the geographic distribution of this critical genetic marker. Some researchers now propose that M1 arose in Southwest Asia and moved back into Africa sometime between 45,000 and 40,000 years ago (Olivieri et al. 2006). González et al. (2007) also report the most ancient M1 lineages in North Africa and the Near East, not East Africa, suggesting an Asiatic origin for this lineage. Other analyses within the last decade examining yDNA markers have produced additional evidence of Upper Pleistocene back migrations into Africa (Altheide and Hammer 1997; Hammer et al. 1998; Cruciani et al. 2002). In light of these studies, it is necessary to look outside of Africa to find the point of divergence from the common ancestral trunk – the locus of expansion (New Light on Human Prehistory around the Persian Gulf Oasis, Jeffrey I. Rose, 2010)
Thus, it estimates the coalescence time of the mtDNA tree overall at ~160,000 kya, L3 (the clade that evolved within Africa and gave rise to the three major non-African haplogroups—sometimes termed ‘‘macrohaplogroups’’— M, N, and R) at 65 kya, and M, N, and R themselves at 40–50 kya. (Correcting for Purifying Selection: An Improved Human Mitochondrial Molecular Clock, Soares et al, 2009)
quote:If you want to learn more about M1 then read this thread:
There is absolutely nothing on this site that any of you can teach me in regards to either history or population genetics. None of you here have any formal training in the fields that you all claim to be proficient in - and on top of that, the views espoused here are not that of mainstream academia. You have already shown in this thread that you in no way shape or form have any understanding of the DNA studies that you are quoting, so I’ll pass on the invite to view that thread and instead rely on what actual geneticists have to say on these matters.
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic: Why don't you all actually read those studies, instead of nitpicking select graphics and appropriating your distorted renditions to what was actually stated in the study. That figure comes from the paper The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations. In that paper it is made perfectly clear that the J haplogroups found amongst the Egyptians dates to roughly between 11.1K years and 16.4K years ago, i.e. It was already there prior to the emergence of Dynastic Egypt!
The non-Berber Egyptian sample in that study is explicitly labeled "Arab"---that is, it represents Arab immigrants rather than native Egyptians. Haplogroup J may have indeed expanded within that particular group 16.4-11.1 millennia ago, but that doesn't mean the group hasn't moved in the last few thousands years.
This character is "Nuts". Why would they go to Egypt and select only "Nomadic Arabs"?
When you're in country, one would want to select the average native Egyptian. So much for the low level comprehension of these Afro_Dummies!
My thoughts exactly. That response from “Truthcentric” was really nothing more that a desperate attempt to maintain some form of credibility. They can scream it down how much they want and decry it as “fake” the DNA evidence clearly shows that the J haplogroups in North Africa is over 10k years old. Recent studies on the remains in the Dakhleh Oasis has shown, that contrary to what Afrocentrists believe, there has actually been far more migration into Egypt from Sub-Saharan Africa (attributable to the Arab Slave Trade) than from the Near East over the last 2000 years – What this says is that if anything the Egyptians of today are actually a bit darker than they were in the past. And Truthcentric, “Arab” is not a race, it is a language and a cultural identity. In Egypt today, the Muslims (who make up 91% of the population) self identify as “Arab” while the Coptic minority does not.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Second time I gave him the link, actually, but being the dishonest shitcocker he is, he ignored it.
quote:And Truthcentric, “Arab” is not a race, it is a language and a cultural identity. In Egypt today, the Muslims (who make up 91% of the population) self identify as “Arab” while the Coptic minority does not.
Yes, but there have definitely been migrations of Arab tribes into Egypt since the Arab conquest. How do you think Egyptian Bedouin got into Egypt in the first place?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic: And contrary to what you believe, the Upper Egyptians actually have more South West Asian admixture than the Lower Egyptians
Notice how more African Y-Chromosome haplogroups are found in the Upper Egyptian population than the Lower Egyptian population.
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
Second time I gave him the link, actually, but being the dishonest shitcocker he is, he ignored it
There was absolutely nothing nonsensical in any of the quotes that I posted at all. That Gonzales study does not prove that M1 is African – it actually debunks that crap. As far as I can tell, the guy who runs that blog is no anthropologist; and I know that just from the very fact that all of the claims that he makes runs against that of the mainstream.
quote:Yes, but there have definitely been migrations of Arab tribes into Egypt since the Arab conquest. How do you think Egyptian Bedouin got into Egypt in the first place
Uh, tubby – that bullshit claim has long been discredited by modern day genetics. If you have a study showing that there was a mass displacement of the Egyptian population then please post it here. You either put up or shut up – which is it?
Notice how more African Y-Chromosome haplogroups are found in the Upper Egyptian population than the Lower Egyptian population
It’s quite apparent to me that your brain obviously is working properly – if you don't have Down’s syndrome then my guess is that at the very least you must be suffering from some sort of Autism spectrum disorder. Keita notes that Lucotte and Mercier found the following in their paper “Brief Communication: Y-Chromosome Haplotypes in Egypt”:
The most common variants found in different studies of Egypt collectively are, in descending frequency, V, XI, IV, VII, VIII, XV, and XII (Table 2A). The first three of these are of greatest interest due to their frequencies. Haplotype V, sometimes called “Arabic” (Lucotte and Mercier 2003a) declines from lower Egypt (north) at 51.9%, to upper Egypt (24.2%), and to lower Nubia (south) at 17.4%.
If you have actually read (and most importantly understood) that paper and many others published by Lucotte, you would in fact know that “haplotype V” corresponds to E1b1b! In that very Keita paper that you linked to he had this to say with regards to Lucotte and Mercier labeling haplotype V as “Arabic”:
It is important to address the appellation of “Arabic” for haplotype V, due to names being interpreted as indicators of origins, and the inconsistencies found in the literature. This variant is found in very high frequencies in supra-Saharan countries and Mauretania (collective average 55.0%), and in Ethiopia (average 45.8%) (Table 2A). In specific groups its highest prevalence is in samples from Moroccan Amazigh (Berbers) (68.9%) and Ethiopian Falasha (60.5%). Its frequency is considerably less in the Near East, and decreases from west (Lebanon, 16.7%) to east (Iraq, 7.2%) (Table 2A). The label “Arabic” for V is therefore misleading because it suggests a Near Eastern origin. In fact this variant has been called “African” (Lucotte et al. 1993:839, Lucotte et al. 1996:469), and “Berberian” (Lucotte et al. 2001:887).
Just give it up already! The modern day Egyptians are representative of their ancient ancestors - and most of them aren't "black" by any definition of the word! Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense! Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Are we back to the non-African origin of M1 bullshyt again? Myth of Sisyphus indeed.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense!
what about all that tropically adapted stuff? Zakrewski and so on that's "mainstream"
he's only 1/4 white and features look completely West African Skin tone pretty light, like some Egyptians
Khoisan man looking quite light, probably 101% African
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
it isnt a fact at all about m1 sceptic. so stop talking crap. theres still some debate,
"And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has "
and whats your conclusion? the men work in the fields and the women stay inside. duhh primary school thinking lol.most show brown and dark brown if you look at it through most of the history.
bones from the 19th dynasty a few thousand years after the first dynasty what does that prove? there were some asiatic peoples in egypt so what.
have you got the dna evidence with Dakhleh Oasis where can i find it.
and show me evidence of white egyptians from predynastic to at least the 3rd dynasty any evidence sceptic.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Skeptic
Really Skeptic you are clinging to the idea that M1 is Asian, yet the very same study you posted states that Ancestral M1 has not been found. So you have to be weary when it comes to M1 Read this example from Explorer: Originally posted by Explorer
Ana M. Gonzalez et al. published a paper on M1 expansions, 9 July 2007, and a few things about it immediately jumped at me; I lay these out shortly following the abstract below, which is there to put potential viewers of this page on "the same page" so to speak, as far as the synopsis of the paper is concerned:
Abstract:
Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa
Ana M Gonzalez , Jose M Larruga , Khaled K Abu-Amero , Yufei Shi , Jose Pestano and Vicente M Cabrera
The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.
Background The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out.
Results The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.
Conclusions This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.
-Abstract ends-
MY Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al.
*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:
From my assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:
A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1. A total of 154 for Africans. A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes. And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents. The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.
*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:
The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.
Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.
So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa., the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.
*Furthermore,
The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b, but rather, either place M1c at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:
As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.
*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:
The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.
*The limitations inherent in solely relying on hypervariable segment motifs:
The status quo hasn't changed, not withstanding the hype about the supposed older expansion timeframes from M1c derivatives, predominant in Northwest Africa, according to their study. The authors rely heavily on the hypervariable region of the mtDNA, which even they themselves don't seem to put much faith on, as demonstrated by their noting of the need to proceed cautiously, given that random parallel mutations are known to occur across distinct macro-haplogroups and sub-clades. They also note how hypervariable nature of the control region, can lead to misleading calculations from erratic mutations, as demonstrated by the M1a2 they put forth, leading them to omit them in their lineage coalescence analysis.
*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through this study, is this:
The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:
We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.
These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.
Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T.
Furthermore,...
The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:
The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.
The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.
We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:
Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…
Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited.
With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:
haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.
Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000
mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations
"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."
The relevant representation in this recap diagram:
^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive [as exemplified in the above extract] in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.
**^To put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:
Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs, don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian proto-M1 lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.
Getting to the gist:
Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago
And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago
The studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.
De Stefano et al., Ann Hum Biol, 2002
Also look at this Graph that debunks Wilson, Tishkoff etc:
As for your other studies, They were Debunked already read the graphs I posted^^
Also Ethiopia has been found to be 'intermediate', primarily because non-African gene pools are a subset of an East African population, and to a lesser extent, secondary to bi-directional gene flow between the African Horn and its neighbours. In other words, it is a region genetically composite of deep-rooted lineages that are rare outside of the African continent and more downstream mutations that are common in both Africa and elsewhere - hence, the intermediate location.
I hope you see that Ethiopia is not intermediate because of race, but because they OOA is a subset of them.Read Graph to find out more:
Thats all for now Read up on these things Skeptic.
Peace
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
nice post king sceptic is just angry because
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by viola75: nice post king sceptic is just angry because
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
LOL..@ the Slav needs to claim Egypt to make up for his pathetic history as Saquiliba Slaves and trying to steal Macedonian Greek history.
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense!
what about all that tropically adapted stuff? Zakrewski and so on that's "mainstream"
he's only 1/4 white and features look completely West African Skin tone pretty light, like some Egyptians
Khoisan man looking quite light, probably 101% African
Lioness, despite what Afrocentrists will tell you, limb lengths have absolutely nothing to do with race as even anthropologist C. Loring Brace noted in his 1993 paper on the AE:
It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid”.(Clines and clusters versus “Race:” a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile, Brace et al, 1993)
In Zakrewski’s study of AE body proportion she was quoting directly from Robins and Shute 1986; this was what they found with regards to AE body proportions:
ROBINS (1983) and ROBINS & SHUTE (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained for ancient Egyptian male skeletons if TROTTER & GLESER formulae for negro subjects are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south. It does, however, suggest that their physical proportions were more similar to those of modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal limb segments that were long compared with the proximal segments. (Predynastic egyptian stature and physical proportions, Robins and Shute, 1986)
Note that “more similar” does not mean identical, as even a 2008 paper found:
Trotter and Gleser’s (Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 10 [(1952)] 469-514; Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 [(1958)] 79-123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 [(1986)] 313-324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 [(2006)] 374-384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9-4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains. (Stature Estimation in Ancient Egyptians : A New Technique Based on Anatomical Reconstruction of Stature, Raxter et al, 2008)
And contrary to what Afrocentrists believe the modern day Egyptians have the exact same tropical body plans as the AE. See link:
Regarding those two pics that you posted, those men look absolutely nothing like the Egyptians. The texture of their hair is completely off, and their noses are wide and flat. The Egyptians fit the definition of a Caucasian perfectly while those men fit the definition of a Negroid (thought with Caucasian admixture) and Capoid respectively:
Caucasian - Of or being a human racial classification distinguished especially by very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India.
Negroid - Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as brown to black pigmentation and often tightly curled hair and including peoples indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa.
Capoid - golden brown rather than sepia colored skin, peppercorn hair rather than wooly hair, and Epicanthic eye folds
And on top of all of that the DNA evidence shows that the Egyptians (ancient and modern) are not closely affiliated with either of those men in those pics.
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
@ viola75
quote:it isnt a fact at all about m1 sceptic. so stop talking crap. theres still some debate
A debate amongst whom? Afrocentrists? I’ve posted references to some of the latest studies done on the matter and they all support an Asiatic origin for M1. There has not been a single study published over the last three years that claims an African origin.
quote:and whats your conclusion? the men work in the fields and the women stay inside. duhh primary school thinking lol.most show brown and dark brown if you look at it through most of the history
What I think you need to do is to actually go to a museum and see what AE art looks like. I’ve been to museums all around the world as well as to Egypt several times – the art clearly shows that they were Mediterranean Caucasians and not Negros:
quote:bones from the 19th dynasty a few thousand years after the first dynasty what does that prove? there were some asiatic peoples in egypt so what.] [and show me evidence of white egyptians from predynastic to at least the 3rd dynasty any evidence sceptic
Why don’t you actually read peer reviewed anthropological and DNA studies done by actual researcher instead of relying on all that bullshit posted by non-specialists on Afrocentrist websites? Or better yet why don’t you actually speak to Egyptologists (they are far more knowledgeable about Egyptian historiography, including its peopling, than all of the morons on this forum combined)? I’ve posted several studies regarding the ancient and modern Egyptians on both this thread and one I engaged in here . They all show population continuity from the Early Dynastic Period all the way up to the modern day era. If you genuinely seek the truth then I recommend that you read through all those posts that I have made – I’m not repeating myself for a newcomer.
quote:have you got the dna evidence with Dakhleh Oasis where can i find it
Previous genetic studies of Egyptian, Nubian, and Sudanese populations allowed for distinguishing between two mtDNA types: the so called “southern” (Sub-Saharan) and “northern” (Eurasian) (for details see: Chen et al. 1995; Krings et al. 1999). To obtain the frequencies of these mtDNA types, amplification of the HVRI region and three RFLP markers was conducted. The authors succeeded in analysing RFLP markers in 34 samples and HVRI sequences in 18 of the samples. Both populations, ancient and contemporary, fit the north-south clinal distribution of “southern” and “northern” mtDNA types (Graver et al. 2001). However, significant differences were found between these populations. Based on an increased frequency of HpaI 3592 (+) haplotypes in the contemporary Dakhlehian population, the authors suggested that, since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis. (“Research on ancient DNA in the Near East” Mateusz Baca, Martyna Molak 2008) Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
@ KING
Before I even begin to address any of the crap that you most recently posted, let me just say that it’s really quite telling that our little exchange has shrunk from a discussion of the ethnic makeup of the Egyptians (ancient and modern) and claims of a possible population displacement post Dynastic Egypt to one solely on the origins of M1 and the racial identity of Ethiopians. Though it’s not a surprise really, because thus far you’ve had all your arguments shot down and thats why instead of trying to string together a coherent rebuttal, you’ve resorted to copy and pasting rubbish that I have long since discredited. You are not interested in facts – you’ve already made up your mind in regards to your pseudo-historical beliefs and you’re not receptive to views that run counter to those beliefs.
quote:Really Skeptic you are clinging to the idea that M1 is Asian, yet the very same study you posted states that Ancestral M1 has not been found. So you have to be weary when it comes to M1 Read this example from Explorer: Originally posted by Explorer
Ana M. Gonzalez et al. published a paper on M1 expansions, 9 July 2007, and a few things about it immediately jumped at me; I lay these out shortly following the abstract below, which is there to put potential viewers of this page on "the same page" so to speak, as far as the synopsis of the paper is concerned:
Abstract:
Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa
Ana M Gonzalez , Jose M Larruga , Khaled K Abu-Amero , Yufei Shi , Jose Pestano and Vicente M Cabrera
The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.
Background The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out.
Results The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.
Conclusions This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.
-Abstract ends-
MY Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al.
*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:
From my assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:
A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1. A total of 154 for Africans. A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes. And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents. The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.
*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:
The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.
Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.
So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa., the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.
*Furthermore,
The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b, but rather, either place M1c at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:
As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.
*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:
The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.
*The limitations inherent in solely relying on hypervariable segment motifs:
The status quo hasn't changed, not withstanding the hype about the supposed older expansion timeframes from M1c derivatives, predominant in Northwest Africa, according to their study. The authors rely heavily on the hypervariable region of the mtDNA, which even they themselves don't seem to put much faith on, as demonstrated by their noting of the need to proceed cautiously, given that random parallel mutations are known to occur across distinct macro-haplogroups and sub-clades. They also note how hypervariable nature of the control region, can lead to misleading calculations from erratic mutations, as demonstrated by the M1a2 they put forth, leading them to omit them in their lineage coalescence analysis.
*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through this study, is this:
The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:
We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.
These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.
Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T.
Furthermore,...
The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:
The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.
The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.
We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:
Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…
Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited.
With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:
haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.
Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000
mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations
"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."
The relevant representation in this recap diagram:
^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive [as exemplified in the above extract] in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.
**^To put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:
Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs, don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian proto-M1 lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.
Getting to the gist:
Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago
And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago
The studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula
I’m going to say this for one last time and after this I’m not repeating myself on this matter again – that study by Gonzales et al does not conclude that the ancestor of M1 has not been found, instead it specifically states that they have found evidence that M1 or its ancestor originated in Asia! As far as I know, the guy who runs the “Exploring Africa” blog is neither an anthropologist nor a geneticist – so any disputes that he has with this study is completely irrelevant! If he is in fact a trained specialist, then let him publish his theories in a peer-reviewed journal, then post a link to that study here. Until then, he has neither the authority nor the qualification to critique that paper. Now I have posted several studies that have been published since Gonzales et al 2007 that uphold an Asiatic origin for M1, which I noticed you have all but conveniently skimmed over. No mainstream population geneticist continues to argue for an African origin for M1, you only find those arguments in the old papers. There has not been one study published since Gonzales et al 2007 that claims an African origin (just give that some thought), the only ones who continue to drum that up are the Afrocentrists.
quote:De Stefano et al., Ann Hum Biol, 2002
Also look at this Graph that debunks Wilson, Tishkoff etc
How precious! All of a sudden Tishkoff needs to be “debunked” yet on the very first page of this thread, you purposefully misquoted her to help further your agenda. Those graphs that you have posted have not debunked anything. All those claims of “stacked decks” and the overrepresentation of the Amhara over the more “pure” Oromo have been addressed on the first page of this thread (I clearly pointed out to you that Wilson et al used both Amhara and Oromo; and also the fact that the Amhara and Oromo only showed minor differences in their haplogroup profiles). Ethiopians cluster midrange between Caucasians and Negroes, they are not closer to blacks as your second chart means to imply, as genetics has in fact shown that the San are entirely distinct from Negroids (in addition to the study below I have also posted another one by Luigi Luca Cavalli Sforza on page one of this thread):
quote:As for your other studies, They were Debunked already read the graphs I posted
You have not debunked a single thing that I have posted thus far – you’re not fooling anyone with that sh*t except yourself (well except for maybe the other Afros on this site that is). Do you see how I have addressed all of your contentions thus far? I quoted each of your claims/studies and directly underneath it I posted a study that directly discredits it. I would love to see you do the same – if the evidence truly is on your side you should have no problem at all.
quote:Also Ethiopia has been found to be 'intermediate', primarily because non-African gene pools are a subset of an East African population, and to a lesser extent, secondary to bi-directional gene flow between the African Horn and its neighbours. In other words, it is a region genetically composite of deep-rooted lineages that are rare outside of the African continent and more downstream mutations that are common in both Africa and elsewhere - hence, the intermediate location.
I hope you see that Ethiopia is not intermediate because of race, but because they OOA is a subset of them.Read Graph to find out more
I want to see you produce for me a peer reviewed study done by an actual geneticist that buttresses this claim. The only one that you have provided thus far that comes close to approximating the claims made in this quote is that study done by Tishkoff et al which I have already addressed on page one of this thread. Moreover I posed this question to the posters on this forum three weeks ago regarding the claim that Ethiopians have little if any admixture (not true mind you): How exactly does this discredit the fact that in terms of their haplogroup profiles they are completely distinct from blacks? And in closing I’d really like to know just why it is exactly that we’re discussing Ethiopians and not the Egyptians? Because contrary to what Afrocentrists believe the former were not the latter – in my very first post on this thread (the one showing that Upper Egyptians have more Middle Eastern ancestry than Lower Egyptians) you can clearly see that in the chart that I posted, the haplogroup profiles of both the Upper and Lower Egyptians is distinct from that of Ethiopians (the only haplogroup that they share in any appreciable quantities is E3b*(xE3b2)).
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
quote:Originally posted by viola75: nice post king sceptic is just angry because
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
That study is outdated, and was much pilloried when it was first published. The mere fact that you would quote that paper just goes to show how completely illiterate you clowns are. The following is a response published by three of the world’s most renowned population geneticists:
Even though the controversial withdrawal of a paper on the genetic relatedness of Palestinians and Jews by the journal Human Immunology (see Nature 414, 382; 2001) is a minor episode compared with the tragedies caused by ethnic/religious conflicts over past decades, the issues involved are worth revisiting. The stated purpose of the paper by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. was to “examine the genetic relationships between the Palestinians and their neighbours (particularly the Jews) in order to: (1) discover the Palestinian origins, and (2) explain the historic basis of the present … conflict between Palestinians and other Muslim countries with Israelite Jews”. They conclude: “Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin of the long-lasting Jewish–Palestinian hostility is the fight for land in ancient times.” It is difficult to believe that knowledge of genes may help to explain the present conflict. Although population genetics can address issues of relatedness of populations, mating patterns, migrations and so on, obviously it cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people. Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons. Even a cursory look at the paper’s diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. The limitations are made evident by the authors’ extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute. We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.
Add to that the fact that in every other study ever done since the publication of that study Macedonians and Greeks cluster with Europeans:
In the present study we analyzed for the first time HLA class I and class II polymorphisms defined by high-resolution typing methods in the Bulgarian population. Comparisons with other populations of common historical background were performed. Most HLA-A, -B, -DRB alleles and haplotypes observed in the Bulgarian population are also common in Europe. Alleles and haplotypes considered as Mediterranean are relatively frequent in the Bulgarian population. Observation of Oriental alleles confirms the contribution of Asians to the genetic diversity of Bulgarians. The use of high-resolution typing methods allowed to identify allele variants rare for Europeans that were correlated to specific population groups. Phylogenetic and correspondence analyses showed that Bulgarians are more closely related to Macedonians, Greeks, and Romanians than to other European populations and Middle Eastern people living near the Mediterranean. The HLA-A,-B,-DRB1 allele and haplotype diversity defined by high-resolution DNA methods confirm that the Bulgarian population is characterized by features of southern European anthropological type with some influence of additional ethnic groups. Implementation of high-resolution typing methods allows a significantly wider spectrum of HLA variation to be detected, including rare alleles and haplotypes, and further clarifies the origin of Bulgarians.
The Macedonian population is of special interest for HLA anthropological study in the light of unanswered questions regarding its origin and relationship with other populations, especially the neighbouring Balkanians. Two studies have been performed to examine HLA molecular polymorphism in the Macedonian population, so far. The present study is the first to be performed in Macedonia using high-resolution sequence-based method for direct HLA typing. The study included 158 unrelated healthy volunteers of Macedonian origin and nationality, having a Christian Orthodox religion. After the simultaneous amplification of exon-2 on both HLA-DRB1 alleles, DNA sequencing was used for genotype assignment. In the 158 samples analysed, all 316 alleles were typed and a total of 29 different DRB1 alleles were detected, with DRB1*1601 being the most frequent allele (14.9%), followed by DRB1*1104 (13.9%). A phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of the high-resolution data deriving from other populations revealed the clustering of Macedonians together with other Balkan populations (Greeks, Croats, Turks and Romanians) and Sardinians, close to another “European” cluster consisting of the Italian, French, Danish, Polish and Spanish populations. The included African populations grouped on the opposite side of the tree. Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by viola75: nice post king sceptic is just angry because
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
LOL..@ the Slav needs to claim Egypt to make up for his pathetic history as Saquiliba Slaves and trying to steal Macedonian Greek history.
LOL! I don't have to make up for anything. My people have a very rich and extensive history, which is alot more than I have to say for you and your ilk. Your ancestors didn't produce a single substantial civilization worth anymore than a passing mention (and you know it), which is exactly why Western Blacks are so desperate to latch onto AE. The history of the black is, has been and always will be a history of slavery and subjugation at the hands of Eurasian peoples. Tragic! Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Skeptic
Thats not true at all. My arguements have not been shutdown by you at all. I am also very receptive to arguements that speak TRUTH. I went to M1 because that is where you took the arguement when you deicided to say Ethiopians were more eurasian than African. If I took the topic to Ethiopians then I apologize. I want to talk about Egypt but as we know, Ethiopia and somalia are two countries linked with Egypt from time immoral.
Skeptic please be serious, WHERE in Asia was it found. Saying it's found in Asia and not giving the place where it was found is just nonsense M1 has not been shown to of been found in Asia at all since they never name a country like yourself.
To each one teach one. I also noticed how you just blew off the arguement that was made by Explorer which is an valid Arguement.
Peace
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Skeptic
Some of the most foolish nonsense has been provided by you. How are Ethiopians distinct from Blacks when they ARE BLACK.
Like I said People must realize that Ethiopians and the rest of the world are linked because that is where ALL people came from. They came from East African peoples. I don't know how basic I can make this. Majority of genes in Ethiopians are indeginous and any Back migration would of been people that looked no different then the Ethiopians themselves.
Ask yourself this Skeptic, If Ethiopians are as mixed as you say, why is the color of Ethiopians as dark as majority of Africans. If these lightskinned invaders really lived in Ethiopia why did they not leave more of an impact on the Ethiopians like body plan, Color etc Look at berbers who we know are mixed, The majority of them in North Africa are light skinned because they are mixed unlike the ethiopians. Think on that before you post.
Peace
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
nonsense you bring to us outdated rubbish like. caucasian negroid capoid
the images you showed are thousands of years after the first dynasty which only proves there were non africans in egypt , again so what theirs blacks like me in england? by the way those pictures you showed are mixedrace people s whats your point
ancient greeks do have E1b1b in them so stop lying.
how desperate to try and put ethiopians in white history thats just sad sad sad pathetic,
what rich and extensive history? what like , massacreing people,legalised paedophilia, Gay sex, 90 percent people in the civilization slaves, no womens rights, only good for breeding, thats sounds great would love to have lived there.
the reason we blacks concentrate on egypt is because we know the other civilizations in africa are black, and europeans admit to that and no more try to steal them, but you europeans because egypt is the grand daddy of western civilization ,just cant seem to let it go,
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Skeptic
I am still waiting on the study that states by % that Oromo have as much admixture as the Amhara.
You have yet to post that study that states this.
Peace
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
@ KING
quote:Thats not true at all. My arguements have not been shutdown by you at all. I am also very receptive to arguements that speak TRUTH. I went to M1 because that is where you took the arguement when you deicided to say Ethiopians were more eurasian than African. If I took the topic to Ethiopians then I apologize. I want to talk about Egypt but as we know, Ethiopia and somalia are two countries linked with Egypt from time immoral
Arguments I have made which as of yet you have not addressed:
1) The J haplogroups found amongst the Egyptians dates to roughly between 11.1k and 16.4k years ago.
2) The Upper Egyptians have more Middle Eastern ancestry that the Lower Egyptians.
3) The study that I have posted done on the autosomal DNA of the Upper Egyptians:
Local comparisons between Upper Egyptians were carried out with other ethnic groups in Egypt, based on frequency and molecular data. No differences were observed in comparison with a general Caucasian population from Cairo in any of the nine loci compared or with Egyptian Christians from Cairo...Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others. (Genetic variation of 15 autosomal STR loci in Upper (Southern) Egyptians, Omran et al 2008.)
4) You have not provided me with a quote from a mainstream geneticist stating that Ethiopians are located centrally between SSA and Caucasians solely due to the fact that they lie on the OOA route. The mainstream view is that it is due both to the fact previously stated and also due to later admixture from Eurasia.
5) I have pointed out the fact that E1b1b and it's derivatives a not considered "black African." You have not given me an explanation as to why Afrocentrists continue to insist that they are.
6) DNA research shows that contrary to what Afrocentrists believe there were more migrations from SSA into Egypt that from Eurasia into Egypt. You have not even touched this point.
7) I pointed out the fact that E-M78 originated in North and not East Africa as you were postulating. Why did you not address this fact?
8) You claimed that a study from "Nebel et al" proved mass migrations from the Near East into Egypt, but the study that you provided had nothing to do with Egypt at all but actually reinforced my point. Why have you not addressed this?
9) I provided several studies published from 2007 to 2010 that continuously reinforce the Asiatic origin of M1. Why then is it exactly that you continue to insist on an African origin when there hasn't been a study in the literature in years postulating such an origin?
10) I've pointed out the fact that Ethiopians differ in their overall haplotype profiles from the Egyptians. Why then is it that you insist that the Egyptians were Ethiopians?
quote:Skeptic please be serious, WHERE in Asia was it found. Saying it's found in Asia and not giving the place where it was found is just nonsense M1 has not been shown to of been found in Asia at all since they never name a country like yourself
M1 originated in Southwest Asia. If you actually read that entire laundry list of studies published over the past three years that I provided at the top of page two, you would in fact have known this. The mere fact that you're asking me this question implies to me that you are obviously not reading any of the studies that I am posting.
quote:To each one teach one. I also noticed how you just blew off the arguement that was made by Explorer which is an valid Arguement
"Explorer" is neither an anthropologist nor a geneticist. If what he is claiming is factual then you should have no problem locating an actual peer-reviewed study that supports his views.
quote:Some of the most foolish nonsense has been provided by you. How are Ethiopians distinct from Blacks when they ARE BLACK.
Like I said People must realize that Ethiopians and the rest of the world are linked because that is where ALL people came from. They came from East African peoples. I don't know how basic I can make this. Majority of genes in Ethiopians are indeginous and any Back migration would of been people that looked no different then the Ethiopians themselves.
Ask yourself this Skeptic, If Ethiopians are as mixed as you say, why is the color of Ethiopians as dark as majority of Africans. If these lightskinned invaders really lived in Ethiopia why did they not leave more of an impact on the Ethiopians like body plan, Color etc Look at berbers who we know are mixed, The majority of them in North Africa are light skinned because they are mixed unlike the ethiopians. Think on that before you post
All sorts of Afrocentrist bullshit! Their DNA doesn't lie! Everything that I have posted thus far is supported by modern day genetics. Skin color has nothing to do with race (in the genetic sense). Melanesians have the exact same skin color as black Africans yet in terms of their underlying genetic structure, they are the most distant group of people from blacks. On this very page I pointed out to you a study by C. Loring Brace where he noted that skin color, like limb lengths, is merely a result of adaptation to climatic variation:
It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid".(Clines and clusters versus "Race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile, Brace et al, 1993)
quote:I am still waiting on the study that states by % that Oromo have as much admixture as the Amhara.
You have yet to post that study that states this
Can you read?! On the very first page of this thread I provided you with several studies showing this:
Though present-day Ethiopia is a land of great ethnic diversity, the majority of Ethiopians speak different Semitic, Cushitic, and Omotic languages that belong to the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum. Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general. (Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004)
Oromo and Amhara only showed minor differences in spite of their different origins and histories. HLA class II allele and haplotype frequencies in Ethiopian Amhara and Oromo populations. (HLA class II allele and haplotype frequencies in Ethiopian Amhara and Oromo populations 1998)
The present composition of the Ethiopian population is the result of a complex and extensive intermixing of different peoples of North African, Near and Middle Eastern, and south-Saharan origin. The two main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara, descended from Arabian conquerors, and the Oromo, the most important group among the Cushitic people. ... The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position. (De Stefano et al., Ann Hum Biology 2002)
There has also been research done on the autosomal DNA (gives the exact percentage breakdown of ancestry) of Ethiopians by Wilson et al:
We genotyped 16 chromosome 1 microsatellites from the ABI prism panel 1 (an average of 17 cM apart) and 23 X-linked microsatellites 9 in each of eight populations: South African Bantu speakers (46), Amharic- and Oromo-speaking Ethiopians from Shewa and Wollo provinces collected in Addis Ababa (48), Ashkenazi Jews (48), Armenians (48), Norwegian speakers from Oslo (47), Chinese from Sichuan in southwestern China (39), Papua New Guineans from Madang (48) and Afro- Caribbeans collected in London (30).
Note that in this study they used samples from both Oromos and Amharas, and not just on the Amhara as Afrocentrists fallaciously believe (i.e. there were no "stacked decks"). This was the result of that study:
The apportionment of individuals (the average per-individual proportion of ancestry) from each of the eight populations into the four STRUCTURE-defined clusters (Table 2) broadly corresponds to four geographical areas: Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a "Black" cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. (Wilson et al, Population genetic structure of variable drug response, 2001)
To sum it all up, although they differ in their origins, the Oromo and the Amhara differ little in terms of their underlying genetic structure.
Posted by Skeptic (Member # 17827) on :
@ viola75
quote:here is peer reviewed studies you cant refute:
C. Loring Brace’s 2005 paper in no way contraindicates his 1993 paper, in both of them the Egyptians cluster with Caucasians:
When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component.(The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Brace et al, 2005)
quote:for all your talk the earliest ancient egyptians look like this and you cannot refute this.
Their DNA doesn’t lie; they were Mediterranean and not Black Africans.
quote:the images you showed are thousands of years after the first dynasty which only proves there were non africans in egypt , again so what theirs blacks like me in england? by the way those pictures you showed are mixedrace people s whats your point
I provided you a link to an older thread where I made several pertinent points. The anthropological evidence clearly shows population continuity up to the modern day era.
quote:ancient greeks do have E1b1b in them so stop lying
The DNA studies refuting that bullshit claim are right here on this thread – take it or leave it. Either way it won’t change the fact.
quote:what rich and extensive history? what like , massacreing people,legalised paedophilia, Gay sex, 90 percent people in the civilization slaves, no womens rights, only good for breeding, thats sounds great would love to have lived there
LOL! I’m detecting a bit of penis envy from you! "Black history" pales in comparison to white history, and thats a fact.
quote:the reason we blacks concentrate on egypt is because we know the other civilizations in africa are black, and europeans admit to that and no more try to steal them, but you europeans because egypt is the grand daddy of western civilization ,just cant seem to let it go
No you concentrate on Egypt because you know there was absolutely nothing of value south of the Sahara. And Greece was the fount of Western Civilization, not Egypt.
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
"Some of the studies on that page are outdated, and the majority of then actually support everything that I have been saying thus far"
"C. Loring Brace’s 2005 paper in no way contraindicates his 1993 paper, in both of them the Egyptians cluster with Caucasians:"
caucasian is a defunct term, are dravidians and masai white
"Their DNA doesn’t lie; they were Mediterranean and not Black Africans"
a lot of MODERN egyptians and ethiopians will have non african dna which proves the point some of the moderns arent related to the ancient egyptians,show me the dna on ancient egyptians. the only one i found was. One successful study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Paabo and Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, a minority of which originated in sub-Saharan Africa. but dont know where to get the study.
"I provided you a link to an older thread where I made several pertinent points. The anthropological evidence clearly shows population continuity up to the modern day era"
not really the predynastic egyptians cluster closer with
"The DNA studies refuting that bullshit claim are right here on this thread – take it or leave it. Either way it won’t change the fact"
ancient greeks do have E1b1b
"LOL! I’m detecting a bit of penis envy from you! "Black history" pales in comparison to white history, and thats a fact"
not pre 1500s, only after europeans went around the world on there psychotic missions to steal and bring some people to the brink of extinction. all europeans civilizations are from the same source EGYPT,greece,etruscan,roman,moors,christian church where as africans east west south north were mainly isolated so they had to use their own genius.
"No you concentrate on Egypt because you know there was absolutely nothing of value south of the Sahara. And Greece was the fount of Western Civilization, not Egypt. "
greece was more in common with middle eastern and african history then white cultures in europe lol,notice how you separate africa, that dosent wash im afraid. no they were more technologically and culturely advanced then northern europe. why do white people like you concentrate on an african civilization, you dont see us here trying to prove white civilizations were black.
Where in southwest Asia?? It could not of been India because acestral M1 was never found there. So I ask again easily point to the study that states which COUNTRY and people it is linked with. Saying it's found in Southwest Asia is not proof that M1 was found there because even Gonzales says it was not found in India.
As for your ideas about Upper Egypt, read this study:
The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14748828
As for your study on Cairo being "Caucasian" Exactly.
Genetic variation of 15 autosomal STR loci in Upper (Southern) Egyptians, Omran et al 2008.
Read this from Zarahan:
Modern Egypt as had a lot of influx from Arabized populations- no surprise that there would be some proximity to them. The primary Middle Eastern link is with populations in Israel, quite close to EGYPT. What is strange though is that the authors, who talk about the "general Caucasian population from Cairo" (whatever that is- it curiously is not defined), do not sample OTHER areas close to Egypt. Their "North African" sample is not nearby Libya, or the Sudan, or Chad but distant Algeria. Curiously, they also EXCLUDE other populations near to Egypt like Nubians and Ethiopians, even though previous studies link these with the Egyptians. It would have been a perfect example to verify or refute these studies. They carefully steered away however, for distant Algeria. They strangely don't even include Nubians, even though study after study shows the Nubians matching more closely with Egyptians than most others..
As for the "white Mediterranean" claim it is complete nonsense, and is undermined by the very same study offered as "evidence." The 'Euopean" sample includes two populations with Mediterranean coastlines, France and Italy. This puts the Mediterranean claim to the test. It fails dismally. Africans, as represented by Algeria, are closer than the Mediterranized Europeans, as are the Israeli area samples. So much for "white mediterraneans.." lol
As you say, none of this though says anything about the ancients, which are the people at issue. So this "new study" dismally fails,
And if ancient Middle easterners are considered, early Middle Easterners looked like Africans. So if we want to go back in time, the first link of "Middle Easterners" is with Africans. The Israel area would also incorporate elements of the Natufians would it not?
And strangely in this study, while the nearby Israel area provides the closest 'Middle Eastern" match, the authors conveniently exclude NEARBY AFRICAN AREAS like Nubia, the Sudan or even close geographic areas like Chad or Libya. Their "North African" sample is drawn from distant Algeria.
Also Read this from Luis 2004 newer study of Modern Egypt:
Y-Microsatellite Diversity The microsatellite results for Egyptian and Omani samples are given in table 3. The variance, continuous expansion, and median BATWING values of the Egyptian M35 lineages are considerably larger than those of Oman. This is also true for K2-M70. However, for either the collective J-12f2 or J*-12f2, the disparity is not so large. The expansion times of collective E3b-M35 lineages of the Egyptian sample are substantially older than those of the J-12f2, whereas, in Oman, the order is reversed. - Luis (2004)
Read more from Luis et al.The present-day Egyptian E3b-M35 distribution most likely results from a juxtaposition of various demic episodes. Since the E3b-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages. These include E3b1-M78, a haplogroup especially common in Ethiopia (23%), and, perhaps, E3b2- M123 (2%), which is present as well (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002). The data suggest that two later expansions may have followed: one eastward along the Levantine corridor into the Near East and the other toward northwestern Africa. - Luis (2004)
Read This Abstract from this study:
An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
K. Goddea, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
aDepartment of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
bDepartment of Science, South College, 3904 Lonas Dr, Knoxville, TN 37909, USA
Received 31 July 2008; accepted 10 August 2009. Available online 19 September 2009.
Abstract
Many authors have speculated on Nubian biological evolution. Because of the contact Nubians had with other peoples, migration and/or invasion (biological diffusion) were originally thought to be the biological mechanism for skeletal changes in Nubians. Later, a new hypothesis was put forth, the in situ hypothesis. The new hypothesis postulated that Nubians evolved in situ, without much genetic influence from foreign populations. This study examined 12 Egyptian and Nubian groups in an effort to explore the relationship between the two populations and to test the in situ hypothesis. Data from nine cranial nonmetric traits were assessed for an estimate of biological distance, using Mahalanobis D2 with a tetrachoric matrix. The distance scores were then input into principal coordinates analysis (PCO) to depict the relationships between the two populations. PCO detected 60% of the variation in the first two principal coordinates. A plot of the distance scores revealed only one cluster; the Nubian and Egyptian groups clustered together. The grouping of the Nubians and Egyptians indicates there may have been some sort of gene flow between these groups of Nubians and Egyptians. However, common adaptation to similar environments may also be responsible for this pattern. Although the predominant results in this study appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis, the in situ hypothesis was not completely negated.
Read this from Yurco:
"The ancient Badarians were quite representative of ancient Egyptians as a whole and showed clear links with tropical Africans to the south. They have been sometimes excluded in studies of the ancient Egyptian population, which shows continuity in its history, not mass influxes of foreigners until the late periods. "
"Certainly there was some foreign admixture [in Egypt], but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times ... [the] Badarian people, who developed the earliest Predynastic Egyptian culture, already exhibited the mix of North African and Sub-Saharan physical traits that have typified Egyptians ever since (Hassan 1985; Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990.. et al.,)...
The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions.." (Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review," 1996 -in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, Black Athena Revisited, 1996, The University of North Carolina Press, p. 62-100)
Read this study also Skeptic "The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color, hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another. Variability is also found in "sub-Saharan" Africa, to which the word "Africa" is sometimes erroneously restricted. There is a problem with definitions. Sometimes Africa is defined using cultural factors, like language, that exclude developments that clearly arose in Africa. For example, sometimes even the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) is excluded because of geography and language and the fact that some of its peoples have narrow noses and faces.
The Sahara and the Sudan seem to have provided a major source for the genesis of Egyptian civilization contributing many of its unique elements.
"a critical factor in the rise of social complexity and the subsequent emergence of the Egyptian state in Upper Egypt (Hoffman 1979; Hassan 198 . If so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they may have provided Egypt with many of those features that still distinguish it from its neighbors to the east."
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 97-123 (199 , "Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory," Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild.
Keep on Reading:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa..
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
Hope these studies wake you up from your dreaming of Egypt being non Black African.
Peace
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horsefucker: I’m going to say this for one last time and after this I’m not repeating myself on this matter again – that study by Gonzales et al does not conclude that the ancestor of M1 has not been found, instead it specifically states that they have found evidence that M1 or its ancestor originated in Asia! As far as I know, the guy who runs the “Exploring Africa” blog is neither an anthropologist nor a geneticist – so any disputes that he has with this study is completely irrelevant! If he is in fact a trained specialist, then let him publish his theories in a peer-reviewed journal, then post a link to that study here. Until then, he has neither the authority nor the qualification to critique that paper.
TRANSLATION: You can't refute what Explorer had to say, so you resort to attacks on his credibility. Newsflash, there is nothing wrong with educated laymen like Explorer critiquing faulty science. Saying otherwise is like saying one has to be Steven Spielberg to review a movie or that one has to be Michelangelo to critique a piece of art!
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Horsefucker: [QB]I’m going to say this for one last time and after this I’m not repeating myself on this matter again – that study by Gonzales et al does not conclude that the ancestor of M1 has not been found, instead it specifically states that they have found evidence that M1 or its ancestor originated in Asia! As far as I know, the guy who runs the “Exploring Africa” blog is neither an anthropologist nor a geneticist – so any disputes that he has with this study is completely irrelevant! If he is in fact a trained specialist, then let him publish his theories in a peer-reviewed journal, then post a link to that study here. Until then, he has neither the authority nor the qualification to critique that paper.
TRANSLATION: You can't refute what Explorer had to say, so you resort to attacks on his credibility. Newsflash, there is nothing wrong with educated laymen like Explorer critiquing faulty science. Saying otherwise is like saying one has to be Steven Spielberg to review a movie or that one has to be Michelangelo to critique a piece of art!
LMAO, the proper term for that is Ad-Homenem.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horsefucker: Uh, tubby – that bullshit claim has long been discredited by modern day genetics. If you have a study showing that there was a mass displacement of the Egyptian population then please post it here. You either put up or shut up – which is it?
You smelly-assed moron who lacks basic reading comprehension skills, I wasn't saying the Arabs displaced the natives. I only claimed that Arabs immigrated into Egypt. The Luis study could therefore have sampled a group descended from Arab immigrants instead of more typical Egyptians.
quote:It’s quite apparent to me that your brain obviously is working properly – if you don't have Down’s syndrome then my guess is that at the very least you must be suffering from some sort of Autism spectrum disorder.
I do have Asperger's Syndrome, but I'd rather have that than be a dishonest white supremacist imbecile like you. Whether or not Haplogroup V is Arab or African in origin is irrelevant---the Keita paper clearly shows that other haplogroups associated with Eurasians are less common in Upper Egyptians than Lower Egyptians.
Oh, and I notice that in another of your recent posts, you repeat the claim that modern Egyptians are just as tropically adapted as ancient Egyptians, even though I earlier showed you that the Egyptians in the study you cite were predynastic (this was also the same study you lied about when you said it didn't sample Mediterranean Europeans). You either have poor memory, no concept of honesty, or both.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
not all Caucasians are snow white Is not this something, whites come in a range of colors but blacks must come in one phenotype and are located in one area on the globe, the hypocrisy is amazing.
Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! This Bullshit is debunked: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000009;p=8#000395
Along with the Bullshit that the Brown color of Egyptians only occurs in the Armana.
What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense! Yeah we have it too and it proves the Egyptians, Culture, Population etc stems form Southerly populations, in particular East Africa over the Med.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by viola75: nice post king sceptic is just angry because
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
LOL..@ the Slav needs to claim Egypt to make up for his pathetic history as Saquiliba Slaves and trying to steal Macedonian Greek history.
LOL! I don't have to make up for anything. My people have a very rich and extensive history, which is alot more than I have to say for you and your ilk. Your ancestors didn't produce a single substantial civilization worth anymore than a passing mention (and you know it), which is exactly why Western Blacks are so desperate to latch onto AE. The history of the black is, has been and always will be a history of slavery and subjugation at the hands of Eurasian peoples. Tragic!
Going back so called Black Africans have a rich history, and if you have the nerve to Lump all "Eurasiatic" peoples in one group I can lump all African civilizations in one Group. I am well familiar with the history of all people not just Africans and a Slav like you has no room to talk about Slavery, after all your people were so common as slaves in the Islamic world that SLAVE comes from you..Slav/Slave. If it were not for the Ottoman Turks you would have retained that position. which is why Slavs like you are trying to claim Macedonia today.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
quote:and whats your conclusion? the men work in the fields and the women stay inside. duhh primary school thinking lol.most show brown and dark brown if you look at it through most of the history
What I think you need to do is to actually go to a museum and see what AE art looks like. I’ve been to museums all around the world as well as to Egypt several times – the art clearly shows that they were Mediterranean Caucasians and not Negros:
quote:bones from the 19th dynasty a few thousand years after the first dynasty what does that prove? there were some asiatic peoples in egypt so what.] [and show me evidence of white egyptians from predynastic to at least the 3rd dynasty any evidence sceptic
Why don’t you actually read peer reviewed anthropological and DNA studies done by actual researcher instead of relying on all that bullshit posted by non-specialists on Afrocentrist websites? Or better yet why don’t you actually speak to Egyptologists (they are far more knowledgeable about Egyptian historiography, including its peopling, than all of the morons on this forum combined)? I’ve posted several studies regarding the ancient and modern Egyptians on both this thread and one I engaged in here . They all show population continuity from the Early Dynastic Period all the way up to the modern day era. If you genuinely seek the truth then I recommend that you read through all those posts that I have made – I’m not repeating myself for a newcomer.
quote:have you got the dna evidence with Dakhleh Oasis where can i find it
Previous genetic studies of Egyptian, Nubian, and Sudanese populations allowed for distinguishing between two mtDNA types: the so called “southern” (Sub-Saharan) and “northern” (Eurasian) (for details see: Chen et al. 1995; Krings et al. 1999). To obtain the frequencies of these mtDNA types, amplification of the HVRI region and three RFLP markers was conducted. The authors succeeded in analysing RFLP markers in 34 samples and HVRI sequences in 18 of the samples. Both populations, ancient and contemporary, fit the north-south clinal distribution of “southern” and “northern” mtDNA types (Graver et al. 2001). However, significant differences were found between these populations. Based on an increased frequency of HpaI 3592 (+) haplotypes in the contemporary Dakhlehian population, the authors suggested that, since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis. (“Research on ancient DNA in the Near East” Mateusz Baca, Martyna Molak 2008)
LMAO, More Cherry picking by Skeptic and his Meds Delusions..
and Vice Versa..
I will personally destroy this B.S claim.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Lioness, despite what Afrocentrists will tell you, limb lengths have absolutely nothing to do with race as even anthropologist C. Loring Brace noted in his 1993 paper on the AE:
LMAO, Fool you realize your quote of C. Loring Brace actually debunks your whole premise and your belief in Negroid and Caucasian. So if you are going to quote him you need to be consistent.
Here is your own quote:
It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid”. (Clines and clusters versus “Race:” a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile, Brace et al, 1993)
And again even this quote agrees with us that Egyptians were Tropical rather than cold adapted and thus have nothing to do with the Mediterranean and the populations located there.
Second, General Anthropology proves Limb Length is used to determine, Tropical and Cold adaptions only renegade race believers like you ignore this fact.
Anthropologists have long recognized the existence among modern humans of geographical variations in body form that parallel climatic gradients, part of more general zoological phenomena commonly referred to as Bergmann's or Allen's “Rules”. These observations have rarely been applied to earlier hominids, in part because fossil skeletons usually are so incomplete that it is difficult to reconstruct body morphology accurately. However, within the past two decades two early hominids have been discovered that preserve enough of the skeleton to allow confident assessment of their body size and shape. Comparison of these specimens—the Australopithecus afarensis A.L. 288-1 (“Lucy”) and the Homo erectus KNM-WT 15000—with others that are less complete make it evident that the evolution of Homo erectus was accompanied by not only a marked increase in body size, but also a similarly dramatic increase in the linearity of body form. That is, relative to their heights, small australopithecines had very broad bodies, whereas large early Homo had narrow bodies. This difference in body form cannot be explained on the basis of obstetric or biomechanical factors, but is consistent with thermoregulatory constraints on body shape. Specifically, to maintain the same ratio of body surface area to body mass, which is an important thermoregulatory mechanism, increases in height should be accompanied by no change in body breadth, which is exactly what is seen in comparisons of A.L. 288-1 and KNM-WT 15000. Conversely, Neandertals living in colder climates had much wider bodies, which are adaptive for heat retention. Differences in limb length proportions between fossil hominids are also consistent with thermoregulatory principles and the geographic variation observed among modern humans. Climatic adaptation during hominid evolution may have wide-ranging implications, not only with regard to interpreting body morphology, but also in relation to ecological scenarios, population movements, and the evolution of the brain.
More
Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenetic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess “tropical” body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer’s “Afro-European Sapiens” model.
LMAO Dude you are a Fucking dunce for real, you next Quote even refutes your claim, thus you bold what you want and not in full context. If you quote this be consistant as it debunks your Mediteranian Egypt nonsense(I.E Egyptians Looking like Whites compared to blacks).
ROBINS (1983) and ROBINS & SHUTE (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained for ancient Egyptian male skeletons if TROTTER & GLESER formulae for negro subjects are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south. It does, however, suggest that their physical proportions were more similar to those of modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal limb segments that were long compared with the proximal segments. (Predynastic egyptian stature and physical proportions, Robins and Shute, 1986)
This also proves that there is no such thing as a Negro, the Egyptians were obviously black or what we would call black by their limb proportions but they distinguished themselves from Darker populations just as others do all OVER Africa. Second the BULLSHIT lie that Egyptians distinguished themselves from ALL Southerners will be dealt with.
Note that “more similar” does not mean identical, as even a 2008 paper found
No one says A.A are Identical, but the fact remains the Egyptians are similar to other African populations and Genetically, Linguistically, Culturally, Physically, and Relgiously Egyptians are similar to More Southerly Africans in particular "Nubians" over Eurpeans and Eurasians.
and on top of all of that the DNA evidence shows that the Egyptians (ancient and modern) are not closely affiliated with either of those men in those pics.
Just like Genetically, and Culturally the closest to the Egyptians come from and reside the South.. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Why is 'Skeptic' so skeptical of FACTS yet a believer in bullsh|t??
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I do have Asperger's Syndrome, but I'd rather have that than be a dishonest white supremacist imbecile like you. Whether or not Haplogroup V is Arab or African in origin is irrelevant---the Keita paper clearly shows that other haplogroups associated with Eurasians are less common in Upper Egyptians than Lower Egyptians.
Oh, and I notice that in another of your recent posts, you repeat the claim that modern Egyptians are just as tropically adapted as ancient Egyptians, even though I earlier showed you that the Egyptians in the study you cite were predynastic (this was also the same study you lied about when you said it didn't sample Mediterranean Europeans). You either have poor memory, no concept of honesty, or both.
Brandon, you have no need to explain your personal conditions to trolls who suffer an even worse condition known as STUPIDITY. That is a syndrome NOTHING, no amount of therapy or psychiatry can help. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
It's quite faint but you can clearly make out very minute traces of paint on her ankle, breast, and armpit.
quote:
Traces of original paint can be seen on the woman's chin and I can't tell if the faded tips of her hair to blonde was an original part of the depiction or if the paint faded later.
You see, I've noticed that alot perhaps ALL of these pics featuring unusually pale Egyptian women merely have their paint faded off. Now whether this is due to natural erosion OR vandalism is another issue. It could be the latter because so often the males in the same paintings have their color intact.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Now whether this is due to natural erosion OR vandalism is another issue. It could be the latter because so often the males in the same paintings have their color intact.
Why would someone want to vandalize the women in the art but not the men?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
You can tell people that are not black like Djehuti but try black go overboard in an attempt to over compensate and wind up tripping on a banana peel
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ As usual your comments make no sense. First of all, it doesn't matter that I'm not black. What matters is the TRUTH. That Egyptians were Africans and yes were indeed black, yet such a truth has been denied and/or concealed for far too long. Second, the only one tripping around banana peels is YOU. All you do is slip and trip in this forum like a clumsy dummy.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Why would someone want to vandalize the women in the art but not the men?
Of course vandalism was done to male figures too, but I would think it is easier on female depictions because they are usually depicted in lighter color. Also, I think because women are usually the object of beauty, they are more focused on in looks than men.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster:
quote: No one can deny Modern Egyptians there heritage. What we Know though is that Egypt is linked with socalled "Nubians" and East Africans mainly.
You're seeing only "black"!
The reasons they cluster together, is because of the shared Eurasian DNA, that is all!!
Nubians Are About 60% Eurasian genetically!
East Africans, are about 40-50% Eurasian!
you know that non-sense and incorrect right?right.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Why would someone want to vandalize the women in the art but not the men?
Of course vandalism was done to male figures too, but I would think it is easier on female depictions because they are usually depicted in lighter color. Also, I think because women are usually the object of beauty, they are more focused on in looks than men.
translation: he made it up
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
1) dark brown _____________________________________________
2) brown
_____________________________________________
3) medium brown
_______________________________________________
4) reddish brown
________________________________________________
5) light brown
_____________________________________________
All theses color complexions can be found in Africa, by ingenious peoples.
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense!
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by viola75: nice post king sceptic is just angry because
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
LOL..@ the Slav needs to claim Egypt to make up for his pathetic history as Saquiliba Slaves and trying to steal Macedonian Greek history.
LOL! I don't have to make up for anything. My people have a very rich and extensive history, which is alot more than I have to say for you and your ilk. Your ancestors didn't produce a single substantial civilization worth anymore than a passing mention (and you know it), which is exactly why Western Blacks are so desperate to latch onto AE. The history of the black is, has been and always will be a history of slavery and subjugation at the hands of Eurasian peoples. Tragic!
The Mamluk sultanate (1250–1517) emerged from the weakening of the Ayyubid realm in Egypt and Syria (1250–60). Ayyubid sultans depended on slave (Arabic: mamluk, literally "owned," or slave) soldiers for military organization, yet mamluks of Qipchaq Turkic origin eventually overthrew the last Ayyubid sultan in Egypt, al-Malik al-Ashraf (r. 1249–50) and established their own rule. Their unusual political system did not rely entirely on family succession to the throne—slaves were also recruited into the governing class. Hence the name of the sultanate later given by historians. Following the defeat of Mongol armies at the Battle of cAyn Jalut (1260), the Mamluks inherited the last Ayyubid strongholds in the eastern Mediterranean. Within a short period of time, the Mamluks created the greatest Islamic empire of the later Middle Ages, which included control of the holy cities Mecca and Medina.The Mamluk capital, Cairo, became the economic, cultural, and artistic center of the Arab Islamic world...
The Mamluk-Mongol wars yielded large numbers of women and children slaves who were sold at the various slave markets in Syria and Egypt (Baybars al-Dawadar, Zubdat al-Fikrah, 9: 268), especially during the reign of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad (Zubdat, 9:384) prior to the detente. It was also during this period that the Genoese merchants took an active role in this trade and sought to secure large numbers of Tatar children to be sold in the Crimea. This prompted Tuqtuq Khan of the Qipchaqs to raid the slave markets in the Crimea in an attempt to stiffle the trade. The trade does not seem to have abated in the least (Zubdat, 9: 460).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense!
And on the other hand!!!!!!
Project Guttenberg full text of: A HISTORY OF EGYPT FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PERSIAN CONQUEST
BY JAMES HENRY BREASTED, II, 760-1, 773. 2 II, 761.
Inscription
"the Asiatics of all countries came with bowed head, doing obeisance to the fame of his majesty."
book text:
"Thutmose's war-galleys moored in the harbour of the town; but at this time not merely the iceaUh of Asia was unloaded from the ships; the Asiatics themselves, bound one to another in long lines, were led down the gang planks to begin a life of slave- labour for the Pharaoh (Fig. 119). They wore long matted beards, an abomination to the Egyptians ; their hair hung in heavy black masses upon their shoulders, and they were clad in gaily coloured woolen stuffs, such as the Egyptian, spotless in his white linen robe, would never put on his body.
Their arms were pinioned behind them at the elbows or crossed over their heads and lashed together ; or, again, their hands were thrust through odd pointed ovals of wood, which served as hand-cuffs. The women carried their children slung in a fold of the mantle over their shoulders. With their strange speech and uncouth postures the poor wretches were the subject of jibe and merriment on the part of the multitude ; while the artists of the time could never forbear caricaturing them. Many of them found their way into the houses of the Pharaoh's favorites, and his generals were liberally rewarded with gifts of such slaves; but the larger number were immediately employed on the temple estates, the Pharaoh's domains, or in the construction of his great monuments and buildings."
Karnak in Thebes
The outer walls of the Hypostyle Hall are covered with scenes of battle. Again, Seti I is to the north and Ramesses II is to the south. The scenes have long since lost their color that was painted and the outlines of the scenes have been blurred by the centuries of wind and sun
It is unsure whether the scenes of battle are based on historical fact or of ritual significance. It is thought that when the battle details are very precise, real events are most likely involved. Seti's battles take place in Lebanon, southern Palestine and Syria.
The Nomes (Provinces) of Ancient Egypt
Jea-0124 Title: Great Temple of Ramses II, Abu Simbel Date: ca. 1254 BCE Description: relief detail at entrance: a row of Syrian prisoners Vendor: Saskia, Ltd.
"Relief depicting captives of war, Temple of Amun, Karnak,
The Battle of Kadesh is one of the most well known military campaigns of history because it is the earliest battle that can be reliably reconstructed in detail from various records on both sides of the conflict. Fought between Ramesses II, one of Egypt's best known pharaohs, and the Hittites under Muwatallish (along with a number of allies), this battle over control of Syrian territory has received considerable attention by many analysts over the years.
We know were that South is. And how they went back to that place of origin. Considered the long history of the Nabta Playa. Dating back to 11.000 bc.
CLEAR EVIDENCE IS IN RELIGIOUS PRACTICES and the way cattle's are being hold. THERE IS NO MORE DOUBT!
Then a king will come from the South, Ameny, the justified, my name, Son of a woman of Ta-Seti, child of Upper Egypt, He will take the white crown, he willjoin the Two Mighty Ones (the two crowns)
Asiatics will fall to his sword, Libyans will fall to his flame, Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might, As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him,
One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler, To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt..
Oh yeah, Upper Egypt was in fact NiloSaharan. And lower Egypt was in habited by Horners or a related group to the Horners.
The whole region was inhabited by these tribes including the Levant, dating back to prehistoric times and relatively ancient times. The corridor down, reaching Yemen, was ALL inhabited by these tribes. These tribes also moved into Western Asia. These tribes are still present over there, in this day and time.
"Simple put". The Middle-East is basically a mixture of Africans and Asians! From the early days on.
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster:
Before There Were Greeks, Arabs, There Were "Pure Ancient Egyptians".
Early Dynasty High Priest!
Dirk 888, what happened to the theory. The colors are symbolic?
Head of Amenhotep III, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III, ca. 1390–1352 b.c.
The facial features of this statue strongly resemble other representations of Tutankhamun from his famous tomb, in the Valley of the Kings. This seventeen-foot, four-inch-tall statue of king Tutankhamun was excavated by the Oriental Institute at Medinet Habu in 1930.
Joseph and Mary Grimshaw Egyptian Gallery
Oriental Institute - University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois, USA
Funerary figurine of Ramesses IV New Kingdom, reign of Ramesses IV, 20th Dynasty (1153-1147 BC)
Painted wood, sculpture in the round H.: 32.5 cm N 438
Egyptian Antiquities
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: What do you base your opinion that that man's type was not present in A. Egypt. Im sure he is Tropically Adapted and clusters with Ethiopians and Nubians over Eurasians.
What does the man above have that was not present in Egypt?? Please post..
[IMG][/IMG]
Jarhead = Night of The Living Dummy!
p.s. The Nubians Themselves Cluster With Eurasians and Not Black Africans!
? Really?
Or is it just the other way around?
Vignette on Khonsu's inner coffin lid, New Kingdom, reign of Ramesses II, ca. 1279–1213 B.C.
Egyptian; From the tomb of Sennedjem, Deir el-Medina, western Thebes
Gessoed and painted wood H. of Khonsu 6 in.(15.3 cm) Funds from various donors, 1886 (86.1.2a)
Khabekhent's funerary servant and ushabti chest New Kingdom, 19th Dynasty, reign of Ramesses II, c. 1279-1213 BC
Upper Egypt, Deir el-Medina, tomb of Sennedjem (TT 1)
Painted limestone (figurine), stuccoed and painted wood (chest)
H.: 18.9 cm; W.: 6.3 cm; D.: 3.8 cm (figurine) H.: 30 cm; W.: 17.8 cm; D.: 18.3 cm (chest)
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
Those Middle Eastern you speak of who carried the E3B were eventually sub Sahara farmers, originating from Central Africa. There is a study on this by Brace.
Also, it surprises me you claim that E3B is not African in it's origin. When everyone knows that is has it's root is in East Africa!
Further more,
An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
K. Goddea, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
aDepartment of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
bDepartment of Science, South College, 3904 Lonas Dr, Knoxville, TN 37909, USA
Received 31 July 2008; accepted 10 August 2009. Available online 19 September 2009.
Abstract
Many authors have speculated on Nubian biological evolution. Because of the contact Nubians had with other peoples, migration and/or invasion (biological diffusion) were originally thought to be the biological mechanism for skeletal changes in Nubians. Later, a new hypothesis was put forth, the in situ hypothesis. The new hypothesis postulated that Nubians evolved in situ, without much genetic influence from foreign populations. This study examined 12 Egyptian and Nubian groups in an effort to explore the relationship between the two populations and to test the in situ hypothesis. Data from nine cranial nonmetric traits were assessed for an estimate of biological distance, using Mahalanobis D2 with a tetrachoric matrix. The distance scores were then input into principal coordinates analysis (PCO) to depict the relationships between the two populations. PCO detected 60% of the variation in the first two principal coordinates. A plot of the distance scores revealed only one cluster; the Nubian and Egyptian groups clustered together. The grouping of the Nubians and Egyptians indicates there may have been some sort of gene flow between these groups of Nubians and Egyptians. However, common adaptation to similar environments may also be responsible for this pattern. Although the predominant results in this study appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis, the in situ hypothesis was not completely negated.
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
Afrasian (Afroasiatic language family)
By Bernd Heine, Derek Nurse. Cambridge University Press
Revelation of the racist fabrications by this group of handlers, or more specifically Western museum directors, is reported in the current issue of Archaeology Magazine 54 (September-October 2001, p. 27). This report is associated with an article by Peter Lacovara et al. Archaeology reported that in the absence of scholarship the directors of the Niagara Falls Museum in Ontario, Canada “fabricated pedigrees” for many of their Egyptian mummies in the mid-nineteenth century. The most imaginative of these fake pedigrees, or false identities, was created for a bearded male mummy of the Roman period. The museum officials invented the following elaborate story for him which is a complete myth:“General Ossipumphnoferu the General in Chief of Thotmes III.... He was a man of military skill, also a famous magician. He was 60 years old when he died. The scar on his forehead was caused by an enraged elephant while defending the king from his onslaughts. A palace was erected for the general near that of the king.” The museum officials took their scandalous activity even further, as for many years the “general” was displayed in the coffin of Iawttayesheret, a high-ranking woman from the 25th dynasty, which was 700 years before his time! It is incredible that the directors of a public museum would take an unidentified Roman period mummy, with a European facial appearance, put him in a woman’s coffin from 700 years earlier, and then create a bogus identity for him as a famous general during a period which was another 700 years earlier than the coffin he was buried in! Eventhough this mummy and other artifacts at the museum were not studied comprehensively by an Egyptologist, this is yet another case which documents that Western museum directors would go to any lengths in the 19th and early 20th century to falsify evidence.
Currently, there is no doubt that this list of conspirators includes local Egyptian government workers, who are carrying out many acts of destruction on a regular basis. These men either work for the Egyptian government on “conservation” projects, or for various European or North American archeological teams. On several occasions in the 1980s and 1990s, these unsupervised minimally-skilled government workers have been caught on video tape plastering over temple images and inscriptions! In fact, it is impossible to visit the Karnak Temple in Luxor and not see the recent defacement, and it is suspicious that with rare exception Egyptologists are silent about this matter.
quote: No one can deny Modern Egyptians there heritage. What we Know though is that Egypt is linked with socalled "Nubians" and East Africans mainly.
You're seeing only "black"!
The reasons they cluster together, is because of the shared Eurasian DNA, that is all!!
Nubians Are About 60% Eurasian genetically!
East Africans, are about 40-50% Eurasian!
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Are you talking about these "NUBIANS"?? Busted_Fraud
quote:p.s. The Nubians Themselves Cluster With Eurasians and Not Black Africans!
Look at you hypocrite!! One minute they are example of "Negroes" and the next thing you do is turned into Eurasian clusters
They are dark skinned caucasians. Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature
"We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites... Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical... Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks...brachial indices are definitely more ‘African’... There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formula may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains." ("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf,(Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-5
In Egypt, the earliest evidence of humans can be recognized only from tools found scattered over an ancient surface, sometimes with hearths nearby. In Wadi Kubbaniya, a dried-up streambed cutting through the Western Desert to the floodplain northwest of Aswan in Upper Egypt, some interesting sites of the kind described above have been recorded. A cluster of Late Paleolithic camps was located in two different topographic zones: on the tops of dunes and the floor of the wadi (streambed) where it enters the valley. Although no signs of houses were found, diverse and sophisticated stone implements for hunting, fishing, and collecting and processing plants were discovered around hearths. Most tools were bladelets made from a local stone called chert that is widely used in tool fabrication. The bones of wild cattle, hartebeest, many types of fish and birds, as well as the occasional hippopotamus have been identified in the occupation layers. Charred remains of plants that the inhabitants consumed, especially tubers, have also been found.
It appears from the zoological and botanical remains at the various sites in this wadi that the two environmental zones were exploited at different times. We know that the dune sites were occupied when the Nile River flooded the wadi because large numbers of fish and migratory bird bones were found at this location. When the water receded, people then moved down onto the silt left behind on the wadi floor and the floodplain, probably following large animals that looked for water there in the dry season. Paleolithic peoples lived at Wadi Kubbaniya for about 2,000 years, exploiting the different environments as the seasons changed. Other ancient camps have been discovered along the Nile from Sudan to the Mediterranean, yielding similar tools and food remains. These sites demonstrate that the early inhabitants of the Nile valley and its nearby deserts had learned how to exploit local environments, developing economic strategies that were maintained in later cultural traditions of pharaonic Egypt.
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)...... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of neriod origin."
History in the Interpretation of the Pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt: A Consideration of Multiple Lines of Evidence,
"ABSTRACT
The possible factors involved in the generation of p49a,f TaqI Y-chromosome spatial diversity in Egypt were explored. The object was to consider explanations beyond those that emphasize gene flow mediated via military campaigns within the Nile corridor during the dynastic period. Current patterns of the most common variants (V, XI, and IV) have been suggested to be primarily related to Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom political actions in Nubia, including occasional settler colonization, and the conquest of Egypt by Kush (in upper Nubia, northern Sudan), thus initiating the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. However, a synthesis of evidence from archaeology, historical linguistics, texts, distribution of haplotypes outside Egypt, and some demographic considerations lends greater support to the establishment, before the Middle Kingdom, of the observed distributions of the most prevalent haplotypes V, XI, and IV. It is suggested that the pattern of diversity for these variants in the Egyptian Nile Valley was largely the product of population events that occurred in the late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene through the First Dynasty, and was sustained by continuous smaller-scale bidirectional migrations/interactions. The higher frequency of V in Ethiopia than in Nubia or upper (southern) Egypt has to be taken into account in any discussion of variation in the Nile Valley. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 17:"
Haplotypes and percentages
Region (n) IV V XI VII VIII XI XV Lower Egypt (162) 1.2 51.9 11.7 8.6 10.5 3.7 6.8 Upper Egypt (66) 27.3 24.2 28.8 4.6 3.0 0.0 6.1 Lower Nubia (46) 39.1 17.4 30.4 2.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 1From Lucotte and Mercier (2002).
This here is a bit off topic, yet very interesting!
Origins of dental crowding and malocclusions: an anthropological perspective.
Rose JC, Roblee RD.
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009 Jun;30(5):292-300.
The study of ancient Egyptian skeletons from Amarna, Egypt reveals extensive tooth wear but very little dental crowding, unlike in modern Americans. In the early 20th century, Percy Raymond Begg focused his research on extreme tooth wear coincident with traditional diets to justify teeth removal during orthodontic treatment. Anthropologists studying skeletons that were excavated along the Nile Valley in Egypt and the Sudan have demonstrated reductions in tooth size and changes in the face, including decreased robustness associated with the development of agriculture, but without any increase in the frequency of dental crowding and malocclusion. For thousands of years, facial and dental reduction stayed in step, more or less. These analyses suggest it was not the reduction in tooth wear that increased crowding and malocclusion, but rather the tremendous reduction in the forces of mastication, which produced this extreme tooth wear and the subsequent reduced jaw involvement. Thus, as modern food preparation techniques spread throughout the world during the 19th century, so did dental crowding. This research provides support for the development of orthodontic therapies that increase jaw dimensions rather than the use of tooth removal to relieve crowding.
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
Somewhat older, yet interesting as well. Specially for the time being, so!
Journal of Human Evolution Volume 1, Issue 3, May 1972, Pages 247-257
The medical biology of the early Egyptian populations from Asswan, Assyut and Gebelenstar, open
Merton Ian Satinoffa, b, c, 1
a) Sub-Department of the History of Medicine, University College, London, England
b) Department of Morbid Anatomy London, England
c) Institute of Orthopaedics, London, England Received 18 April 1969. Available online 24 March 2006.
Abstract
A survey on the palaeopathology of the ancient Egyptian skeletal collection at the Institute of Anthropology at the University of Turin is described. A series of 1300 skulls and 650 skeletons of dynastic period and 59 skeletons of Pre-dynastic period was examined. The source of the osteo-archeological material, consisting of male and female skeletons of adults and children, excavated from sites at Assyut, Gebelen and Asswan is outlined. The exceptionally well preserved state and documentation of the material in the collection is noted. The method of investigation is reported. The results of the survey are described. The frequent difficulties of diagnosis presented particularly by lesions of inflammatory and neoplastic diseases in ancient bones are emphasized and the necessity of establishing more precise patterns of skeletal manifestations and well defined criteria of diagnosis is stressed.
The use of X-ray examination proved to be of great value especially in the study of malocclusions of teeth and certain cranial anomalies of unknown aetiology, namely “bilateral symmetrical depressions of the parietal bones” and “cribra orbitalia and cribra cranii”; further detailed studies and research into these ill understood conditions are much needed.
The singular example of malignant disease in the Turin collection is described in a skeleton of the Ptolemaic period excavated at Assyut; the differential diagnosis of the multiple lesions of the malignant tumour is discussed. Emphasis is laid on the congenital abnormalities, important because of their genetic and biological significance in comparative studies with data from other early populations and, in consequence, because these hereditary anomalies might throw light on the spread and prevalence of marker genes in antiquity.
Although the statistics of this survey of such a relatively small and isolated sample should be considered with caution, the importance of the epidemiological approach to human palaeopathology in the right context is stressed; that is the comparative study of disease processes in different ancient populations. Correspondingly in the comparison of the medical biology of early populations, an attempt should be made to collect not only all the palaeopathological data and demographic analyses of ancient populations, but also to correlate these findings with certain environmental data and documented stratification reports supplied by the archaeologists and the historians. In this way, when all this comparative statistical data can be incorporated with other epidemiological surveys it may be possible to investigate the origin and geographical migration of certain diseases through time.
star, openThis paper formed one of the contributions to a Symposium on Population Biology of the Early Egyptians organized by B. A. Chiarelli (Institute of Anthropology, University of Turin) and D. R. Brothwell (British Museum of Natural History, London). The Symposium was held at the Montaldo Castle (Turin) from April 16th to 18th 1969.
1 Formerly at The Nuffield Department of Pathology, Gibson Laboratories, Radcliffe Infirmary, The University of Oxford, England
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
This is the root of ancient Egypt. Not somewhere in "lala land"! Ancient Egypt was not the height, but the ending of the civilization! Don't get it twisted!
Nubia's Oldest House?
Some of the most important evidence of early man in Nubia was discovered recently by an expedition of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, under the direction of Dr. Kryzstof Grzymski, on the east bank of the Nile, about 70 miles (116 km) south of Dongola, Sudan. During the early 1990's, this team discovered several sites containing hundreds of Paleolithic hand axes. At one site, however, the team identified an apparent stone tool workshop, where thousands of sandstone hand axes and flakes lay on the ground around a row of large stones set in a line, suggesting the remains of a shelter. This seems to be the earliest "habitation" site yet discovered in the Nile Valley and may be up to 70,000 years old.
What the Nubian environment was like throughout these distant times, we cannot know with certainty, but it must have changed many times. For many thousands of years it was probably far different than what it is today. Between about 50,000 to 25,000 years ago, the hand axe gradually disappeared and was replaced with numerous distinctive chipped stone industries that varied from region to region, suggesting the presence in Nubia of many different peoples or tribal groups dwelling in close proximity to each other. When we first encounter skeletal remains in Nubia, they are those of modern man: homo sapiens.
Nubia's Oldest Battle?
From about 25,000 to 8,000 years ago, the environment gradually evolved to its present state. From this phase several very early settlement sites have been identified at the Second Cataract, near the Egypt-Sudan border. These appear to have been used seasonally by people leading a semi-nomadic existence. The people hunted, fished, and ground wild grain. The first cemeteries also appear, suggesting that people may have been living at least partly sedentary lives. One cemetery site at Jebel Sahaba, near Wadi Halfa, Sudan, contained a number of bodies that had suffered violent deaths and were buried in a mass grave. This suggests that people, even 10,000 years ago, had begun to compete with each other for resources and were willing to kill each other to control them.
Three scale models—of the Mesolithic hut of el-Barga (7500 B.C.), the proto-urban agglomeration of the Pre-Kerma (3000 B.C.) and the ancient city of Kerma (2500-1500 B.C.)—give a glimpse of the world of the living. They show the evolution of settlements for each of the key periods in Nubian history. Huts indicate the birth of a sedentary way of life, the agglomeration confirms the settling of populations on a territory and the capital of the Kingdom of Kerma marks the culmination of the complexification of Nubian architecture with its ever more monumental constructions. The three models were created in Switzerland by Hugo Lienhard and were installed in the museum in January 2009.
"Nubian culture is one of the oldest and richest in Africa and dates back before Egyptian civilisation although this later overtook it."
"The original environment of the Nubian is to be on the shore of the Nile. It is the source of life itself - but also our myths and traditions."
"Tens of thousands of Nubians were moved from their ancestral homeland along the Nile - in southern Egypt and northern Sudan - because of the dam."
"In the desert, Nubians are kept away from all their intangible heritage connected to the Nile. The living culture will disappear soon if they do not go back home."
"Evidence of the oldest recognizable monarchy in human history, preceding the rise of the earliest Egyptian kings by several generations, has been discovered in artifacts from ancient Nubia in Africa."
“The new findings suggest that the ancient Nubians may have reached this stage of political development as long ago as 3300 B.C., several generations before the earliest documented Egyptian king.”
“Dr. Williams said there were accounts in later Egyptian writings of the Egyptians attacking Ta-Seti some time around 3000 B.C. This is just about the time, according to the archaeological record, when a major cultural transformation began in that part of Nubia. Little is known of what was happening in this region between 3000 B.C. and 2300 B.C. when inhabitants were unquestionably governed by separate chiefdoms.”
Early Egyptian civilization an extension of Upper Sudan per mainstream encyclopedia of Pre-Colonial Africa
Quote:
"The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant.(Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek,California (1997), pp. 465-472)
Modern studies show diversity in how people look is heavily based on distance from sub-Saharan Africa, not merely climate. In genetically diverse Africa, broad-nosed people live on the cool or cold mountain slopes of East Africa or the hot, dry Sahara, and narrow-nosed peoples like many Fulani like in the wet tropics of West Africa. Yellowish-skinned San tribes live in the hot zones of Southern Africa.
"The relative importance of ancient demography and climate in determining worldwide patterns of human within-population phenotypic diversity is still open to debate. Several morphometric traits have been argued to be under selection by climatic factors, but it is unclear whether climate affects the global decline in morphological diversity with increasing geographical distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Using a large database of male and female skull measurements, we apply an explicit framework to quantify the relative role of climate and distance from Africa. We show that distance from sub-Saharan Africa is the sole determinant of human within-population phenotypic diversity, while climate plays no role. By selecting the most informative set of traits, it was possible to explain over half of the worldwide variation in phenotypic diversity. These results mirror those previously obtained for genetic markers and show that 'bones and molecules' are in perfect agreement for humans." (Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans.(2008) by: Lia Betti, François Balloux, William Amos, Tsunehiko Hanihara, Andrea Manica, Proceedings B: Biological Sciences, 2008/12/02)
More to come, stay tuned!
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
Ancient humans 'followed rains'
The Eastern Sahara covers an area the size of Western Europe
Prehistoric humans roamed the world's largest desert for some 5,000 years, archaeologists have revealed.
The Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Chad was home to nomadic people who followed rains that turned the desert into grassland.
When the landscape dried up about 7,000 years ago, there was a mass exodus to the Nile and other parts of Africa.
The close link between human settlement and climate has lessons for today, researchers report in Science.
"Even modern day conflicts such as Dafur are caused by environmental degradation as it has been in the past," Dr Stefan Kropelin of the University of Cologne, Germany, told the BBC News website.
"The basic struggle for food, water and pasture is still a big problem in the Sahara zone. This process started thousands of years ago and has a long tradition.
Jigsaw puzzle
The Eastern Sahara, which covers more than 2 million sq km, an area the size of Western Europe, is now almost uninhabited by people or animals, providing a unique window into the past.
Rock art from the "swimmers cave" in remote southwest Egypt. Image: Science
The settlers left their mark with art
Dr Kropelin and colleague Dr Rudolph Kuper pieced together the 10,000-year jigsaw of human migration and settlement; studying more than 100 archaeological sites over the course of 30 years.
In the largest study of its kind, they built up a detailed picture of human evolution in the world's largest desert. They found that far from the inhospitable climate of today, the area was once semi-humid.
Between about 14,000 and 13,000 years ago, the area was very dry. But a drastic switch in environmental conditions some 10,500 years ago brought rain and monsoon-like conditions.
Nomadic human settlers moved in from the south, taking up residence beside rivers and lakes. They were hunter-gatherers at first, living off plants and wild game.
Eventually they became more settled, domesticating cattle for the first time, and making intricate pottery.
Neolithic farmers Humid conditions prevailed until about 6,000 years ago, when the Sahara abruptly dried out. There was then a gradual exodus of people to the Nile Valley and other parts of the African continent.
"The Nile Valley was almost devoid of settlement until about exactly the time that the Egyptian Sahara was so dry people could not live there anymore," Dr Kropelin told the BBC News website.
The domestication of cattle was invented in the Sahara in the humid phase and was then slowly pushed over the rest of Africa Dr Stefan Kropelin of the University of Cologne
"People preferred to live on savannah land. Only when this wasn't possible they migrated towards southern Sudan and the Nile.
"They brought all their know-how to the rest of the continent - the domestication of cattle was invented in the Sahara in the humid phase and was then slowly pushed over the rest of Africa.
"This Neolithic way of life, which still is a way of life in a sense; preservation of food for the dry season and many other such cultural elements, was introduced to central and southern Africa from the Sahara."
Motor of evolution' Dr Kuper said the distribution of people and languages, which is so politically important today, has its roots in the desiccation of the Sahara. The switch in environmental conditions acted as a "motor of Africa's evolution," he said. "It happened during these 5,000 years of the savannah that people changed from hunter-gathers to cattle keepers," he said. "This important step in human history has been made for the first time in the African Sahara."
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic:
As I enclose!
The Sahara Desert covers over 3.5 million square miles and has only 2.5 million inhabitants - roughly 1 person per square mile (0.4 sq km)- which is one of the lowest population densities on earth. Wherever abundant food and water sources occur, one will find relatively large masses of people and wildlife. On the whole, the Sahara is one of the harshest environments known to man.
Many researchers have gone into the Sahara looking for clues as to how long ago humans began inhabiting the desert. According to archeologists, the Sahara was much more densely populated thousands of years ago when the desert's climate was not as harsh as it is today. Fossils, rock art, stone artifacts, bone harpoons, shells and many other items have been found in areas which today are considered too hot and dry to inhabit. This suggests that these areas were quite habitable thousands of years ago, but that the climate of the Sahara has since changed drastically. The artifacts found were located near remains of giraffe, elephant, buffalo, antelopes, rhinoceros, and warthog, as well as the remains of fish, crocodiles, hippopotamuses and other aquatic animals which suggests that thousands of years ago water was quite abundant in the Sahara.
Physical Features
The Sahara's topographical features include shallow basins, large oasis depressions, serirs or regs (gravel-covered plains), plateaus, mountains, sand sheets, dunes and sand seas (ergs). The highest part of the desert is at the summit of Mount Koussi, which is 11,204 feet (3,415 m) high. However, the lowest point of the Sahara is 436 feet (133 m) below sea level: in the Qattera Depression in Egypt.
Over 25 percent of the Sahara's surface is covered by sand sheets and dunes. The most common types of dunes include tied dunes, blowout dunes, barchan and transverse dunes, longitudinal seirfs, and complex sand seas. Within the Sahara are several pyramidal dunes that reach over 500 feet in height while the draa, a mountainous sand ridge, reaches over 1,000 feet. Researchers have for many years tried to figure out how these dunes were formed, but the case remains unsolved.
The Sahara itself is at least as large as the whole of Europe, if not much bigger. And the sub Sahara itself has a lot more variation in the landscape, be it flora and or fauna! Causing more variation within the phenotype of these inhabitance! Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
provide evidence that anyone has ever read more than 1/8th of a 9th Element multi-post
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ How about you provide evidence for 1-10th of your claims, fool?! What, are you mad cuz 9th Element doused you in factual evidence? Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Skeptic: Why don't you all actually read those studies, instead of nitpicking select graphics and appropriating your distorted renditions to what was actually stated in the study. That figure comes from the paper The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations. In that paper it is made perfectly clear that the J haplogroups found amongst the Egyptians dates to roughly between 11.1K years and 16.4K years ago, i.e. It was already there prior to the emergence of Dynastic Egypt!
The non-Berber Egyptian sample in that study is explicitly labeled "Arab"---that is, it represents Arab immigrants rather than native Egyptians. Haplogroup J may have indeed expanded within that particular group 16.4-11.1 millennia ago, but that doesn't mean the group hasn't moved in the last few thousands years.
Why wouldn't the Egyptians be of similar stock to the Berbers? They're both on the same latitude and if you were coming from Asia you would have to pass through Egypt to get to Libya
Good question -
The Berbers were originally composed of peoples related to the modern East African Cushites adn Fulani, and then the modern Nilo-Saharan speakers lived among them such as the Tida Garawan or Ghu'ara or Gor'an.
The latter were most likely related closely to the ancient Egyptians and other small gracile Nubian peoples.
Berber is the name of a linguistic group today and many who speak Berber are only partially related to ancient Africans. Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote: ^ How about you provide evidence for 1-10th of your claims, fool?! What, are you mad cuz 9th Element doused you in factual evidence?
^^Indeed..
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
Actually dark brown should be fairly prevalant in Egyptian art. The red paint that the Egyptians used was composed partly of iron oxide. Even after the red paint had faded, any traces of iron oxide{rust} left would have been brown in color.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The iron oxide explains the reddish color but NOT the brown. Thus most paintings, particularly of men that are faded tend to be redder in appearance than they originally were and not as dark or brown!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The iron oxide explains the reddish color but NOT the brown.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
