While this graph nicely illustrates that ancient Egyptians are more closely related to black Northeast Africans than to so-called "Caucasoids", I've also noticed that it positions modern Egyptians very close to ancient Egyptians. Now, while one would expect a mixed population to show some continuity with its ancient ancestors, couldn't this be interpreted as showing that modern Egyptians are just like the ancients?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on what is being measured. Don't know what geographical confines are represented in the relatively recent Egyptian samples, but notice that the more recent Egyptian series were compared with pooled dynastic Egyptian samples, while the predynastic samples formed a closer tie with the Nubian series. We know that change occurs in the Dynastic Egyptian samples when they are not pooled into one, with marked changes in the late Dynastic northern series, like the "E" series. Brace et al. 1993 used morpho-metric parameters like nasal aperture, "flatness" of the face and height of the face to determine relationships. This will ensure superficial relationships, as cranio-metric patterns, unlike post-cranial body proportions, overlap across different latitudes and geographical regions, even in the absence of direct genealogical ties. My guess is that the Brace (1993) style parameter was used here, judging by the use of the term "Negroid". Also note that the so-called African "Negroid" links relatively closer to the "Archaic African" series. Amongst the super-cluster that links the coastal (?) northwestern series and Canary Island series with the 'Near Eastern', Nile Valley series and southeastern European series, notice that the northwestern African and the Canary Island series form a relatively closer neighbor to the "Negroid" African series.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It depends on what is being measured. Don't know what geographical confines are represented in the relatively recent Egyptian samples, but notice that the more recent Egyptian series were compared with pooled dynastic Egyptian samples, while the predynastic samples formed a closer tie with the Nubian series. We know that change occurs in the Dynastic Egyptian samples when they are not pooled into one, with marked changes in the late Dynastic northern series, like the "E" series.
Here's another dendrogram from Kemp that doesn't pool the Egyptian samples together:
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Interesting do you have the full study of the above image?
No, I don't have the full study cited by Kemp.
I'd like to see all these samples plotted out on one of those dot-graph thingies...what do you call them?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
While this graph nicely illustrates that ancient Egyptians are more closely related to black Northeast Africans than to so-called "Caucasoids", I've also noticed that it positions modern Egyptians very close to ancient Egyptians. Now, while one would expect a mixed population to show some continuity with its ancient ancestors, couldn't this be interpreted as showing that modern Egyptians are just like the ancients?
Its depends on the sample size for the 3rd to 20th AD modern Egyptians, and the distribution among them. 1700 years is a large gap, especially enough time for a population to mix extensively. The ancients are probably more related to a 3rd century Egyptian then a modern one, they were a lot more homogeneous 1700 years ago that only makes sense
Posts: 89 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [qb] It depends on what is being measured. Don't know what geographical confines are represented in the relatively recent Egyptian samples, but notice that the more recent Egyptian series were compared with pooled dynastic Egyptian samples, while the predynastic samples formed a closer tie with the Nubian series. We know that change occurs in the Dynastic Egyptian samples when they are not pooled into one, with marked changes in the late Dynastic northern series, like the "E" series.
Here's another dendrogram from Kemp that doesn't pool the Egyptian samples together:
Okay? It proves my point that when the dynastic samples are not pooled, we can see change in patterns. And again, I think these guys are going by superficial stuff like nose width, facial height and flatness, which really does little to inform us about possible non-coincidental relationships. If anything, such criteria can even lead to coincidental similarities between vastly geographically-distant populations with little to no historic interaction. The only time we can infer non-coincidental relationships, is when we know the histories and genealogical background of the populations under study.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to comment further on the dendrogram [above] though. The earlier century modern specimens form a super-cluster with several African and ancient Nile Valley specimens, but the more modern "Giza" sample forms a super-cluster with the Greek samples.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read the entire description. Some sellers are http://www.thomassabocharm-de.com/ claiming thier item is “Auth.” This means absolutely nothing. It does not mean Authentic. Unless the auction specifically states the item is Authentic Tiffany it may not be.Look at the sellers feedback and feedback http://www.thomassabocharm-de.com/ score. Beware of sellers with private feedback. They may be hiding comments made regarding http://www.thomassabocharm-de.com/ fake items they sold. Also, beware of new sellers (less than 1 week) who have lots of Tiffanys for sale at cheap prices. These sellers may have had a previous eBay account suspended for selling fake items and have opened another account.
-------------------- efsdfsdf Posts: 5 | From: ef | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
A while back assorted "biodiversity" types were using Kemp's diagrams to argue the same old "Medit" race nonsense. Kemp notes that the CRANID database used with some studies is skewed, drawing samples from the far north and using them as "representative" Of Egypt. The other points on the diagrams have pretty much been covered above though.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [qb] It depends on what is being measured. Don't know what geographical confines are represented in the relatively recent Egyptian samples, but notice that the more recent Egyptian series were compared with pooled dynastic Egyptian samples, while the predynastic samples formed a closer tie with the Nubian series. We know that change occurs in the Dynastic Egyptian samples when they are not pooled into one, with marked changes in the late Dynastic northern series, like the "E" series.
Here's another dendrogram from Kemp that doesn't pool the Egyptian samples together:
Okay? It proves my point that when the dynastic samples are not pooled, we can see change in patterns. And again, I think these guys are going by superficial stuff like nose width, facial height and flatness, which really does little to inform us about possible non-coincidental relationships. If anything, such criteria can even lead to coincidental similarities between vastly geographically-distant populations with little to no historic interaction. The only time we can infer non-coincidental relationships, is when we know the histories and genealogical background of the populations under study.
Excellent point to show that the non-pooled samples reveal more detail and point to changes in the population. Some still insist that today's Egyptians are virtually identical to the ancients, but if so, how come modern Cairo in the north, seems to cluster more with Greeks? This should not be surprising given the gene flow from the modern Arab era. In the meantime, the ancient samples cluster with Nubians, Tigre and other Africans from east Africa.
The number of "darker" southerly representatives in the super-cluster is also striking- Soleb, Askha, Mirgissia, etc, and Siwa up north, known as a place with a clear showing of so-called Negroid" samples from other studies.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
While this graph nicely illustrates that ancient Egyptians are more closely related to black Northeast Africans than to so-called "Caucasoids", I've also noticed that it positions modern Egyptians very close to ancient Egyptians. Now, while one would expect a mixed population to show some continuity with its ancient ancestors, couldn't this be interpreted as showing that modern Egyptians are just like the ancients?
Its depends on the sample size for the 3rd to 20th AD modern Egyptians, and the distribution among them. 1700 years is a large gap, especially enough time for a population to mix extensively. The ancients are probably more related to a 3rd century Egyptian then a modern one, they were a lot more homogeneous 1700 years ago that only makes sense
Dead on. Tyro, understand that the sample isn't of "modern Egyptians" as you say, but 3rd-20th century Egyptians. Note, that if physical change was gradual, the majority of the pooled sample will predictably cluster with their ancient counterparts. The ones that will not, under the assumption of gradual change, are the most recent specimens, hence, the modern Cairo sample falling outside of the main cluster. Therefore, it is clear that if you were to pool the "modern Egyptian samples", they'd cluster with Greece and the Near east and not as much with the Africans.
I recently saw you posting up on how the Giza 26-30 dynasty samples do not represent ancient Egyptians either, yet modern Cairo falls even further outside of the cluster than they. So by pooling all of the specimens labeled "(modern)" with questionable samples like 26-30 dynasty Giza, the remaining pooled set undoubtedly affiliates much closer with other African groups.
Hey, aren't you taking Bioanth in school? Learn how to create your own aggregate based on the given data. Pool your own samples based on what you know from archaeology and other studies. We have to stop relying on these people.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recently saw you posting up on how the Giza 26-30 dynasty samples do not represent ancient Egyptians either,
^^What study are you referring to that says this?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm referring to the Gizeh E series from Howell's database mentioned by Zakrzewski (2004) to be atypical. Tyro just posted this in another thread:
quote: The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series.
^Which of course is crucial since this is the series Brace (1993) used and that these weirdos keep using over and over.
On another note, I've noticed that in the second dendogram, the Lachish remains from Israel that Keita studied and speculated may actually represent Egyptian and Sudanese migrants during the Kushite dynasty, indeed lie in between Sudanese and Egyptian samples. Interesting, just noticed that.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Great refs all posted, definitely keepers. The Lachish samples seem to link somewhat with those of late period Thebes in the second dendro, and 8th century BC would put samples around the broad era of the 25th dyn Kushite restoration/takeover.
Can't recall Keita's take on it. What did he have to say?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: [QB] ^^Great refs all posted, definitely keepers. The Lachish samples seem to link somewhat with those of late period Thebes in the second dendro, and 8th century BC would put samples around the broad era of the 25th dyn Kushite restoration/takeover.
Can't recall Keita's take on it. What did he have to say?
He speculated that they were perhaps Sudano-Egyptian mercenaries who settled. They would have been part of Shabaka's army. This was further supported by the presence of clearly upper Egyptian artifacts, like the illusive sphinx amulet with a distinctive "Negroid" profile (his words).
posted
Who gives a damn about this dendrogram. The more recent Ricaut 2008 grouped the Egyptians and Nubians with with West Eurasians not with Sub Saharans like Somalis. So ultimately you Afronuts lose!
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Saharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2004) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey(E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinnioglu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintanna-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic. Indeed, the rare and incomplete 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile Valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)-show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."
F. X. Ricaut M. Waelkens Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
White Nord Who gives a damn about this dendrogram. The more recent Ricaut 2008 grouped the Egyptians and Nubians with with West Eurasians not with Sub Saharans like Somalis. So ultimately you Afronuts lose!
You are an idiot here you are in AFRICA at-least mentally.. trying to dissect AFRICANS and group them with Euro-asians in hopes they some how came out like this Eurasian But not like that^Eurasian and lol Somalis got demoted ..you no longer have use for them ain't that right Nordic White man. I wonder how many Somalis and others listen or read your bull-sh!t all these yrs,only to be discarded when on longer needed as props, That's why I am a proponent of culture. Somalis got this And Kemetians had that^..
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Stop lying White Nerd:
quote:"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Saharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2004) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey(E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinnioglu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintanna-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic. Indeed, the rare and incomplete 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile Valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)-show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."
F. X. Ricaut M. Waelkens Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564 [/QB]
LMAO
Perhaps WhiteNerd should read the actual studies before he goes making unfounded comments about them.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^As a matter of fact, White Nerd is just being willfully ignorant. This was discussed before with him and apparently it never sunk in that the Eurasian affinities were due to the fact that the said Eurasian groups had "sub-Saharan" affinity. Basically the point of their paper.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
Sundjata you are the one who misinterprets Ricaut 08. Even if they from Sub Saharans they DID NOT GROUP WITH THEM. They clearly group with West Eurasian populations not with somalis who are Northeast Africans. So afronuts ultimately lose their hard fought battle lol.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Dork: Sundjata you are the one who misinterprets Ricaut 08.
The only one misinterpreting anything is YOU, as Sundjata cited the actual paper. Something you always fail to do!
quote:Even if they from Sub Saharans they DID NOT GROUP WITH THEM...
That they come from Sub-Saharans is the main point that should end the entire argument. Also, it should occur to you that Sub-Saharans vary tremendously in craniofacial form hence they group closer to some Sub-Saharans more than others but even the "Niger-Congo" types still clustered to them idiot!
quote:They clearly group with West Eurasian populations not with somalis who are Northeast Africans. So afronuts ultimately lose their hard fought battle lol.
Again West Eurasians particularly Southwest Asians are also of African ancestry. As for Somalis who only represent one of many groups, their country is located in Sub-Sahara even though their included in the designated region of 'northeast' Africa.
So really, anyone with brains can see YOU lost the hard fought battle whereas we never fought hard at all. Why should we when the FACTS are right there? Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
Does your dumbass not clearly see that both Egyptian samples as well as the Nubians group NOT with black Africans, but with West Eurasians. Save me that bullshit that they had SSA affinities, face the ancient Egyptians were very differientiated from other African populations and closer to non Africans.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Stop lying White Nerd:
quote:"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Saharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2004) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey(E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinnioglu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintanna-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic. Indeed, the rare and incomplete 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile Valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)-show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."
F. X. Ricaut M. Waelkens Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
LMAO
Perhaps WhiteNerd should read the actual studies before he goes making unfounded comments about them. [/QB]
lol.. "Nord" doesnt realize that the Ricaut study he references debunks his argument. But in any event, the Egyptians and Nubians group together. End of story. And the same diagram he offers as "proof" also knocks another central prop out of arguments he has made elsewhere- namely that Somalians are mostly white. His own diagram, again, debunks him, for it groups them with other Africans.
The same type of grouping has been shown on study after study whether it be pooled, or unpooled samples.
And the Nubians and Egyptians usually group together.
Perhaps "Nord" will now unveil Reality's "triple C" model, the dubious "Caucasoid Continuity Construct" in a final, desperate bid to salvage his claims.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You ignorant fucks still keep ignoring the point. Egyptians AND nubians cluster with West Eurasians. You keep trying to use Nubians as a referenced black african population when this new evidence clearly supports that they were not. Unless you consider scandinavians who they group with negroes as well. I wouldnt doubt that some of you do.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
European Journal of Human Genetics 18, 915-923 (August 2010) |
doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.21
Linking the sub-Saharan and West Eurasian gene pools: maternal and paternal heritage of the Tuareg nomads from the African Sahel
Luísa Pereira, Viktor Černý, María Cerezo, Nuno M Silva, Martin Hájek, Alžběta Vašíková, Martina Kujanová, Radim Brdička and Antonio Salas Abstract
The Tuareg presently live in the Sahara and the Sahel. Their ancestors are commonly believed to be the Garamantes of the Libyan Fezzan, ever since it was suggested by authors of antiquity. Biological evidence, based on classical genetic markers, however, indicates kinship with the Beja of Eastern Sudan. Our study of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and Y chromosome SNPs of three different southern Tuareg groups from Mali, Burkina Faso and the Republic of Niger reveals a West Eurasian-North African composition of their gene pool. The data show that certain genetic lineages could not have been introduced into this population earlier than ~9000 years ago whereas local expansions establish a minimal date at around 3000 years ago. Some of the mtDNA haplogroups observed in the Tuareg population were involved in the post-Last Glacial Maximum human expansion from Iberian refugia towards both Europe and North Africa. Interestingly, no Near Eastern mtDNA lineages connected with the Neolithic expansion have been observed in our population sample. On the other hand, the Y chromosome SNPs data show that the paternal lineages can very probably be traced to the Near Eastern Neolithic demic expansion towards North Africa, a period that is otherwise concordant with the above-mentioned mtDNA expansion. The time frame for the migration of the Tuareg towards the African Sahel belt overlaps that of early Holocene climatic changes across the Sahara (from the optimal greening ~10 000 YBP to the extant aridity beginning at ~6000 YBP) and the migrations of other African nomadic peoples in the area.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Funny how these dumb trolls are debunked even before they make their posts.
quote:Originally posted by White Dork: You ignorant fucks still keep ignoring the point. Egyptians AND nubians cluster with West Eurasians. You keep trying to use Nubians as a referenced black african population when this new evidence clearly supports that they were not.
Of course they were not!!
They were all white Eurasians, weren't they. Just keep telling yourself that while you cuss us out if it makes you feel better.
quote:Unless you consider scandinavians who they group with negroes as well. I wouldnt doubt that some of you do.
What, the same way your dental chart groups Somalis closer to Chinese? You are pathetic. LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^lmao.. The pics above are from Madilda's blog, but then she turns around and in other threads says that said Nubians are 60% "Caucasoid"..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I know. Mathilda, Dienekes, and their followers including White Nerd and NonProven are all wacko nutjobs that have nothing else better to do than to white-wash Africans and claim their culture.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
While this graph nicely illustrates that ancient Egyptians are more closely related to black Northeast Africans than to so-called "Caucasoids", I've also noticed that it positions modern Egyptians very close to ancient Egyptians. Now, while one would expect a mixed population to show some continuity with its ancient ancestors, couldn't this be interpreted as showing that modern Egyptians are just like the ancients?
Explanation of the Dendrogram according to Kemp:
quote:Dendrogram which shows the relative closeness to or distance from one another of fourteen human populations from Africa and the Mediterranean region. The 'ancient Egyptian' group is a po...oling of data from twenty-one cemeteries including those at Elaphantine and the Late Period cemetery at Giza. The Egypt, Nubia and Africa (Ethiopic) groups form a cluster at some distance from others. But although the Africa ("Negroid") group is placed next to 'Canary Islands (pre-spanish)' group, the substantial difference between them is indicated by how far one has to travel to the right along the branches of the dendrogram before meeting a linkage line.Indeed, the bottom two African groups could more reasonably (and without violating the overall arrangement) be rotated to the top of the diagram. If a three dimensional display were to be adopted this oddity would be lost. After F.W. Rosing, Qubbet el Hawa und Elaphantine; zur Bevolkerungsgechichte von Agypten, Stuttgart and New York 1990, 209, Abb. 134."
Source: Berry Kemp, Ancient Egypt anatomy of a civilization 2nd edition
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Indeed, the bottom two African groups could more reasonably (and without violating the overall arrangement) be rotated to the top of the diagram. If a three dimensional display were to be adopted this oddity would be lost
Doing so would make the digram look like this:
No doubt definitely "more reasonable".
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Sundjata you are the one who misinterprets Ricaut 08. Even if they from Sub Saharans they DID NOT GROUP WITH THEM. They clearly group with West Eurasian populations not with somalis who are Northeast Africans. So afronuts ultimately lose their hard fought battle lol.
epic fail
quote: 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
And this is only MTdna.. No need to spank ya with Y-DNA. Posts: 558 | From: forum | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: Indeed, the bottom two African groups could more reasonably (and without violating the overall arrangement) be rotated to the top of the diagram. If a three dimensional display were to be adopted this oddity would be lost
Doing so would make the digram look like this:
No doubt definitely "more reasonable".
^^Good find.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic