...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Saharan blacks: slave descendents or carriers of ancestral phenotype?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evergreen: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Evergreen: [qb] [QUOTE]The rest of your post is jibberish, which anyone on here can pick apart. But this I want to address. Please point me to the Peer-Reviewed source for this claim. Brace can ASSUME anything, but the scientific method calls for peer-review. In addition, it is not unusual that AE would tie in with Pliestocene North Africans, especially since the Pliestocene runs all the way up to the Dynastic era. The Badarians were North Africans and would fit into this picture. What Brace is using is known as 'double-talk'. Pliestocene North Africans migrated from LGM tropical East Africa as Brace himself knows and has admitted. So tieing Dynastic Africans to other Dynastic Africans tells us nothing. Now if we go back further in time we know that Joel Irish conducted phenetic analysis on early Holocene North East Africans and they clustered with modern Sub-Saharan Africans phenetically. This WAS a peer-reviewed study. In addition most of North Africa and many parts of the Arabian penninsula were depopulated until the early Holocene when there was a repopulation by the predecessors of the Badarians and Natufians. All of this is from peer-reviewed sources unlike Braces COMMENT via a email to you.[/qb][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [qb] [QUOTE]BRACE: It should be noted that the Natufian is not the source of the European Neolithic. The pottery and agriculture of the Natufian came down from Anatolia and was adopted by the Natufian in Israel. Our data do show whiffs of sub-Saharan Africa in the Natufian but not in the Neolithic skeletal material from Greece, Italy, or elsewhere in Europe. [/qb][/QUOTE]Evergreen Writes: The question of the introduction of African phenetic characteristics during the European Neolithic should be evaluated within the context of the overall introduction of the European Neolithic. The “gateway” of the European Neolithic was SE Europe (i.e., Albania, Greece, etc.). The African Neolithic was introduced from the Nile Valley, into the Levant, on into Anatolia and then into Greece. Note that the **ONLY** Neolithic Greek sample in Brace’s study is from Nea Nikomedia. Also, note that we do not know if the Neolithic Greek sample was from the early Greek Neolithic or the later Greek Neolithic, when we see Danubian back-flow that swamped the African phenetic traits that were introduced into Europe during the EARLY NEOLITHIC. We do know from Figure 1 and 2 in Brace’s study how closely Nea Nikomedia clusters with the Algerian Neolithic (as in Algeria AFRICA). There is no surprise in this African affinity. Brace Paper: http://majorityrights.com/images/uploads/brace_paper.pdf There were no early Neolithic Anatolian samples in Brace’s study. However, a full assessment of **EARLY** Neolithic Greek and Anatolian remains was conducted by JL Angel. Here are the results: Lawrence Angel Journal of Human Evolutiom 1972 1, Pg 307 "Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". [QUOTE]Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [qb] [QUOTE]IRISH: Here is an excerpt from my 2006 Egyptian paper. Beyond the citations below, Hendrickx and Vermeersh (2000) also suggest influence on the Badari culture from the Levant.[/qb][/QUOTE]Evergreen Writes: Influence was never in question. There was two-way evidence of influence. Large-scale, pre-Dynastic back-flow was the real question. [QUOTE]Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [qb] [QUOTE]IRISH: The source of any heterogeneity is thought to have stemmed from the make-up of the "proto-predynastic" (Keita, 1992, p. 251) founding population that may have comprised many biologically distinct peoples, including Saharan, Nilotic, AND LEVANT GROUPS (Hassan, 1988; Keita, 1990, 1992; Prowse and Lovell, 1996).[/qb][/QUOTE]Evergreen Writes: No one questions that African derived Levantine groups [b]sporadically [/b] entered North Africa prior to the Dynastic period. The issue is there is no evidence that it was substantial. Irish quoting Keita is no substitute. Use original sources. [QUOTE]Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [qb] [QUOTE]IRISH: In other words, Egypt "became a melting pot" for the founding groups (Hassan, 1988, p. 135) by the predynastic period and beyond.)[/qb][/QUOTE]Evergreen Writes: I have said all along that Egypt was a intra-African melting pot. This is evidenced by the presence of E3a and E3b in high frequencies in the Ancient Egyptian geographic spread. [QUOTE]Originally posted by maa'-kherew: [qb] [QUOTE]Di Lernia: All these elements concur to define a composite society, probably the fruit of mixing and relations with surrounding regions : also rock art, considered with caution, seems to indicate a mixture of 'races', with configurations of individuals with negroid ‘characters’, but also with ‘mediterranean’ or ‘nilotic’ peoples(Fig. 6).[/qb][/QUOTE]Evergreen Writes: Hey, I thought you didn’t believe in ‘Races’…..Anyway, ‘Negroid’ is a form of outdated taxonomic jargon; ‘Mediterranean’ is a location as is ‘Nilotic’. Shame on Di Lernia for responding with such a confused charcaterization and shame on you for supporting this racialist position.....hypocrite! :cool: [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3