quote:Approximately 160 sets of human skeletal remains were examined. Of these, 77 from sites HK6 (n=16), HK27 (n=1), and HK43 (n=60) were complete enough for detailed dental morphometric analyses. Amongst them, 14 possessed complete—or nearly complete—skulls, which allowed for further craniometric studies... Because this report is preliminary, statistical analyses have not yet been undertaken. However, based on a qualitative inspection of the dentitions, it appears that: 1) dental phenetic homogeneity was prevalent among the Hierakonpolis inhabitants; and 2) they exhibit dental traits that ally them with other post-Pleistocene populations in greater North Africa. Prior work shows North Africans have morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth. This dental pat-tern was shown to be ubiquitous among samples, regardless of distance—from the Canary Islands to Egypt and Nubia— or time—from 8,000 year-old Capsians to recent Berbers in western North Africa. This pattern, termed the “North African Dental Trait Complex,” includes high frequencies of several traits such as an interruption groove on UI2, M3 agenesis, and rocker jaw, plus a low occurrence of LM2 Y-5 groove pattern. All of these features are also present in Europeans and West Asians to some degree, but are uncommon in sub-Saharan peoples. Craniometric indicators appear to support these results, and European-like discrete traits, such as alveolar orthognathism, dolichocephaly, rhomboid orbits, narrow nasal aperture, and nasal sill, are prevalent.
I thought that Keita said the crania of similar southern Egyptian sites was more tropical? Irish seems to be saying something else?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are more tropical than Europeans and West Eurasians. Irish is emphasizing the difference to his SSA samples, but doesn't mention differences to his West Eurasian samples.
I would stay away from Irish and researchers like him until you have a firm foundation. They will only confuse you. Been there.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the article you posted Irish only gives descriptions. Descriptions can only tell you so much. What you want is a statistical analysis. Irish has actually done that with those predynastic Hierakonpolis remains. You can see how they cluster compared to various other samples here:
Here is a screenshot of the analysis. Unlike the Lower Egyptian sample (see LEG) and the modern Maghrebi sample (see MAG), the Hierakonpolis sample (HRK) is not closely related to Europeans (see EUR), nor is it closely related to the West Asian sample (see MEA). But it's not exactly close to the pooled SSA sample either (see SAF). That is what Irish was saying in your quote. Except that he "forgot" to say they have a degree of distance to modern Europeans as well.
posted
Don't SSA have the highest phenotypic diversity on the planet? Why would he average East Africans below the Sahara with West Africans and Central Africans? That would make East Africans like Somali appear a lot further in terms of phenetic relationship because they are being lumped in with Africans that look fairly different. Maybe I missed it while I was trying to read it, but do they specify what tribes or countries they used for SAF?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not about having diversity. It's about having diversity of the right kind. Diversity in groceries doesn't ensure you have all the ingredients to cook what you want. It is the same with ancestry components and the non-metric features Irish listed. Diversity doesn't ensure you have the right kind to have affinities with a particular population.
Irish didn't pool Somalis in his SAF sample. Irish's Ethiopian sample (see ETH) is unpooled and it clusters near his Upper Egyptian sample (see UEG). You can pursue this issue in your research if you feel unpooling that SSA sample would bridge the gap in between his pooled SSA sample and his other African samples.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Precisely. Compared to most of Sub Saharan Africa, most other places sampled are more homogenous in phenotype. So when he pools Africans with similar phenotype to Egyptian samples with Africans that are much farther from east/northest Africa it's using Africa's diversity to statistically eject the significance of the African populations that contain features in Egypt, Europe and Asia. A Somali having to have their scores averaged against a Yoruba is going to appear far less relevant than a European or Near Easterner who doesn't have to worry about the levels of diversity being so high that it gives such dramatic results.
One thing I was curious about with the ETH was whether or not that was a modern population or ancient sample, and if ancient, would the ethiopian sample still fit within modern tropical diversity. I wasn't sure what he was getting at with that.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Although these samples are teeth only, so I don’t know the specifics of the Ethiopian sample you’re asking about. It’s modern through. It’s either the same as the Ethiopians in the link I just posted or it’s another modern Ethiopian sample. Ethiopia doesn’t have ancient samples with large sample size, so it’s not an ancient sample.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow lookit page 9. They used NO horners in the original sample. All East African samples are below the horn. Most of the original samples were west African too. Even with updated samples, the horn and anything north of it is mostly ignored.
They say: "This composite includes disparate, yet dentally similar populations who originated in the western, central, and eastern parts of the continent just south of the Sahara. All told, 2,347 dentitions were analyzed."
Meaning any likelier samples that didn't fit the "True Negro" grouping of SAF wouldn't have been counted anyway. Swenet, how do we know it was this sample in particular that they used? Because for the Gebel Ramlah study they didn't mention South African samples. I still wonder about the ETH might be older, because they say: "Among others, a sample from Ethiopia also shows some phenetic similitude."
They make it sound like they may have only used one for comparison? IDK. But if that was their SAF sample then I can see why the results look as dramatic as they do. It's even worse than I originally imagined.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Meaning any likelier samples that didn't fit the "True Negro" grouping of SAF wouldn't have been counted anyway.
Yes. Irish's pooled SSA sample is based primarily on affinity, and only secondarily on geography. This is why he shows Jebel Sahaba on p9's map, but not mid-holocene samples from that same 1st cataract area. If Irish had teeth from, say, Luxmanda's population he would likely create a new category for intermediate samples because her population is geographically Sub-Saharan African, but would show reduced affinity to his "SSA dental trait complex". Just like Jebel Sahaba is geographically North African, but shows among the least affinity to his "NA dental trait complex". To be fair, you can't really blame Irish for that. Irish is in the business of grouping samples based on dental trait population affinity. He is not a geographer and so he will have geography as less important in his criteria than affinity. This is why his "SSA dental trait complex" reminds you of True Negro. But he's not doing that. That is how the affinities of these populations are structured.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Swenet, how do we know it was this sample in particular that they used? Because for the Gebel Ramlah study they didn't mention South African samples. I still wonder about the ETH might be older, because they say: "Among others, a sample from Ethiopia also shows some phenetic similitude.
You can't be certain unless the authors specifically describe their sample. In all of his work I've read, I only recall him using Ethiopians a couple of times. In the papers already discussed above and in the paper below, where he identifies his Ethiopian samples as modern (19th and 20th century). I can't prove that he used this sample in the Gebel Ramlah paper, if that's what you're asking. But it's highly likely.
posted
Anthropologists generally group populations north of the Sahara as having a separate population history from those South of the Sahara. And almost all of these papers stick to that mode of thinking even when going back prior to OOA. It is purely a result of historical precedent in treating North Africa as different and separate from the rest of Africa.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is purely a result of historical precedent in treating North Africa as different and separate from the rest of Africa.
I know you think that. That was your argument in the "when to use black" thread: that treating NA as different from SSA is a conspiracy that's not based on data.
But none of the North African admixed aDNA that has come out since then (Luxmanda, IAM, Taforalt, Abusir, Natufian) supports your claim that it's all a conspiracy. With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans.
But I get what you're going to say next. "That's not what I mean: what I mean is (insert totally different argument from what was argued initially)".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judging by the timestamp of your post, I think you may have read an early version of that post that was still being edited. I certainly didn't mean to say Luxmanda is genetically North African. But a minority of her ancestry is.
quote:As expected, all individuals in the study were found to be members of haplogroup T1. Only half of the sub-haplogroups of T1 (T1a-T1f) are represented in our sample and the overwhelming majority (94%) in this study belong to subhaplogroup T1b. A previous study of African cattle found frequencies of T1b of 27% in Egypt and 69% in Ethiopia. These results are consistent with serial multiple founder effects significantly shaping the gene pool as cattle were moved from north to south across the continent.
In other words, the cattle spread by Luxmanda's people would have carried a subset of the DNA of North African cattle. Which in turn tells you about the population history of Luxmanda's people.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: But none of the North African admixed aDNA that has come out since then (Luxmanda, IAM, Taforalt, Abusir, Natufian) supports your claim that it's all a conspiracy. With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans.
One more edit. The bolded below should have been added:
"With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans who don't have that component."
Meaning, IAM, Taforalt etc. are expected to group with each other before grouping with Eurasians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So who would you suggest to get a firm foundation?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: They are more tropical than Europeans and West Eurasians. Irish is emphasizing the difference to his SSA samples, but doesn't mention differences to his West Eurasian samples.
I would stay away from Irish and researchers like him until you have a firm foundation. They will only confuse you. Been there.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is purely a result of historical precedent in treating North Africa as different and separate from the rest of Africa.
I know you think that. That was your argument in the "when to use black" thread: that treating NA as different from SSA is a conspiracy that's not based on data.
But none of the North African admixed aDNA that has come out since then (Luxmanda, IAM, Taforalt, Abusir, Natufian) supports your claim that it's all a conspiracy. With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans.
But I get what you're going to say next. "That's not what I mean: what I mean is (insert totally different argument from what was argued initially)".
People writing these papers use these terms because of a historical precedent which has absolutely nothing to do with "valid biological science" going all the way back to the 1700s. Implicitly almost every reference to North Africa implies "Non African" back migration from Eurasia in scholarly papers. There is no other basis for the division of Africa in this way.
Modern day papers do not have to go all the way back to the 1700s though. They can just use papers like this one as their precedent and hence the basis of the distinction between North Africans as primarily being of Eurasian ancestry and Sub Saharan Africans being "true" Africans without any non African mixture......
That is how this works. How you look at the data and interpret it is one thing, how these people who write the papers look at the data is different. It is two totally and separate things.
All of this is based on a-priori assumptions not hard facts as evidenced here:
These people are not talking about indigenous African diversity or DNA divergence as the basis for such a distinction. And this can be seen in the fact that all "North African" DNA lineages are labeled as Eurasian in origin including U5 and U6. And there are no MtDNA lineages in Africa labeled as African outside the "Sub Saharan" labeled L lineages.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I hear you say is that because they're racists, have racist motives and methods, they can't be correct on the specific issue that African populations are assymmetrically related to Eurasians, with some actually being closer to Eurasians than they are to most Africans.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So who would you suggest to get a firm foundation?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: They are more tropical than Europeans and West Eurasians. Irish is emphasizing the difference to his SSA samples, but doesn't mention differences to his West Eurasian samples.
I would stay away from Irish and researchers like him until you have a firm foundation. They will only confuse you. Been there.
To get a good foundation I would suggest getting everything you can get your hands on about backmigration and OOA migrations. Once you know that, they can't hoodwink you anymore. When there is a closeness to Eurasians, or a closeness of Eurasians to Africans, you will know why and what it is they're not telling you.
The problem is this type of information is scattered. There is no one single book that will bring you fully up to speed. But some sources are better to start with than others. Irish is not one of them.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone should do the honors and make a thread compiling all those studies ^
Posts: 44 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What I hear you say is that because they're racists, have racist motives and methods, they can't be correct on the specific issue that African populations are assymmetrically related to Eurasians, with some actually being closer to Eurasians than they are to most Africans.
No, what I said was clear as related to the historical and current day usage of the terms "SSA" and "NOrth Africa" as being primarily derived from presumed ancient Eurasian ancestry of the latter and African ancestry of the former.
This is clearly documented in numerous papers on the subject.
Not sure why you feel there is some "other" basis for this terminology when these papers consistently and clearly say these things in plain english for anybody to read them.
These terms are not designed to designate one branch of indigenous pre/post OOA ancestry from another.
That is my point. I said nothing about any other relationship to Eurasians other than the point that indigenous African ancestry has always been present in North Africa and that ancient and modern Africans all carry various ancestries that related them together as "African" which is not based on some arbitrary dividing line somewhere to the south of the Sahara.
Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations. That doesn't make an arbitrary dividing line between the Sahara and the rest of Africa based on some ancient pan European migration scenario any more valid.
Establishing a precedent is based on references and bibliographies when looking at these papers. When one or more paper states clearly that many of the DNA lineages in "North Africa" are Eurasian in origin going back anywhere from a few thousand to tens of thousands of years ago, then it becomes an established precedent or "citation of proof" for other papers. Hence, this distinction of North Africa vs Sub Saharan Africa as being based on Eurasian ancestry in the North is clearly based on precedent and reference to other papers published which are used as justification for said categorizations.......
So no, this isn't an issue of individual scientists just using terms on their own outside that larger context is what I am saying.
As for the racism aspect, as I mentioned, this division of Africa goes back long before any use of DNA in history or anthropology and yes, at that time it was clearly based on a "racial" categorization scheme and hierarchy for Africans. Since that time, the use of speculative DNA models about the ancient history of populations in Africa have supported this, due primarily to the lack of ancient DNA that is equivalent in age to Eurasian DNA. Speculative models are not superior to actual ancient DNA from the time periods in question, which is why the Iberomaurisan DNA paper is significant as it contradicts this arbitrary division of Africa based on the Sahara.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.
Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:
a) that the AE were 'black' b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data
Now you don't want to have the same energy.
Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's
"Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"
or it's:
"it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Someone should do the honors and make a thread compiling all those studies ^
If someone starts one and puts in some of the effort I will help.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Someone should do the honors and make a thread compiling all those studies ^
If someone starts one and puts in some of the effort I will help.
That project is an excellent idea and may introduce some collective work and responsibility evolving ES beyond showdowns and protected trolling.
I had started doing that on Africana21 in two parts.
Part 1 a thread that just lists titles authors pub info and a link to Part 2.
Part 2 a thread with the above + abstract open to analysis and discussion.
posted
That'd be quite helpful because reading Irish left me thoroughly confused.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.
Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:
a) that the AE were 'black' b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data
Now you don't want to have the same energy.
Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's
"Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"
or it's:
"it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"
Maybe he's taken the Lioness position: Some blacks aren't African but are black as long as they look "black enough." Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Someone should do the honors and make a thread compiling all those studies ^
If someone starts one and puts in some of the effort I will help.
That project is an excellent idea and may introduce some collective work and responsibility evolving ES beyond showdowns and protected trolling.
I had started doing that on Africana21 in two parts.
Part 1 a thread that just lists titles authors pub info and a link to Part 2.
Part 2 a thread with the above + abstract open to analysis and discussion.
That's a good idea. But also sounds like a lot of work. I'm ready if multiple people are willing to contribute.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean Nile Valley Studies? No because it's a very complex topic and people new to this will have to mow through 9 pages and will likely give up trying to find it in the midst of all of the other things it covers. Plus it's probably not going to be in a data dump post format at first, but a conversation topic to sort out how to put forth the information. Maybe someone could put the info on there once it's been streamlined in an easier format, if possible.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I THINK I created a thread similar to what you guys are asking for here.
^^But in the thread above it was just my own personal thoughts. Basically just a summary of what was going on in these debates to people who were not as informed than a thread about the data being posted.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Judging by the timestamp of your post, I think you may have read an early version of that post that was still being edited. I certainly didn't mean to say Luxmanda is genetically North African. But a minority of her ancestry is.
Yeah, I believe this was the case.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.
Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:
a) that the AE were 'black' b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data
Now you don't want to have the same energy.
Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's
"Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"
or it's:
"it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"
Forgive me for asking this question... but couldn't the predynastic, Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Upper AE be reasonably described as 'black' just as other Northeast Africans are recognised as black?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you going by the Lioness: Phenotype makes black model? You're in Australia, so would Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders count? or are you the type that thinks that it's being African that makes people black? What defines blackness to you when you ask that.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Are you going by the Lioness: Phenotype makes black model? You're in Australia, so would Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders count? or are you the type that thinks that it's being African that makes people black? What defines blackness to you when you ask that.
The Australian Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders, Papuans, Negritos, Fijians, Melanesians, Sri Lankans, South Indians and more, are black --they're just not African.
Africans obviously don't have a monopoly on black skin. The AE (Upper Egyptians) were African and black, and I don't see how this has been refuted. If North Sudanese and Lower "Nubians" are recognised as black, then why and how would Upper Egyptians be exempt when these populations share a common origin in the Predynastic?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can’t call a spade a spade unless you point out specifically that AE are a peculiar form of african. you have to somehow highlight the distinction between ancient Egyptians and everybody else who you’d refer to as african. So black african can’t be a term used for them because other Africans are also black... and african.
... though the debate we should be focused on is whether or not AE were African and to what extent.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Are you going by the Lioness: Phenotype makes black model? You're in Australia, so would Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders count? or are you the type that thinks that it's being African that makes people black? What defines blackness to you when you ask that.
The Australian Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders, Papuans, Negritos, Fijians, Melanesians, Sri Lankans, South Indians and more, are black --they're just not African.
Africans obviously don't have a monopoly on black skin. The AE (Upper Egyptians) were African and black, and I don't see how this has been refuted. If North Sudanese and Lower "Nubians" are recognised as black, then why and how would Upper Egyptians be exempt when these populations share a common origin in the Predynastic?
Well it'd seem Irish is saying he doesn't think they're Sub Saharan African and has created this generalized pooled phenotype to characterize the entire area to postulate affinities. Even in the best situation where he included Sudan and the Horn that pooled sample also added places like West Africa. It never really stood much chance for Egyptians to carry much "affinity." But then.. if you don't think SSA affinity is required to be black in the first place then this and even the Abusir genetic data wouldn't really matter to you then I guess.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ... though the debate we should be focused on is whether or not AE were African and to what extent.
Agreed. Unfortunately "black" has become a subjective term with unclear boundaries, which is one of the reasons it isn't really useful in an anthropological context. What we can evaluate is where the roots of AE culture and ethnicity lie. But then, I'm damn tired of all these conversations about the meaning of certain terminology.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.
Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:
a) that the AE were 'black' b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data
Now you don't want to have the same energy.
Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's
"Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"
or it's:
"it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"
Forgive me for asking this question... but couldn't the predynastic, Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Upper AE be reasonably described as 'black' just as other Northeast Africans are recognised as black?
What I meant to say in that post has nothing to do with taking a stance on whether AE are 'black' or not. I'm simply pointing out how incongruent both points are. Either it's automatically racist to disagree, or he admits the data is not clear-cut and can be somewhat open to more than one interpretation depending on the information you have at your disposal. If you only work with, say, non-metric data it's very easy to come to the conclusion that AE were backmigrants. You have to use language, archaeology and other data to know what "closeness to Eurasians" means. Does it mean backmigration or does it mean a Basal Eurasian scenario involving African ancestry in Eurasia and Africa? Someone can argue that is a valid debate, without being racist or part of a racist conspiracy.
As for my take on the term 'black', you can review the "when to use black" thread for clarification.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ... though the debate we should be focused on is whether or not AE were African and to what extent.
Agreed. Unfortunately "black" has become a subjective term with unclear boundaries, which is one of the reasons it isn't really useful in an anthropological context. What we can evaluate is where the roots of AE culture and ethnicity lie. But then, I'm damn tired of all these conversations about the meaning of certain terminology.
.
Race science never declared any boundaries but that races merge one with another where in geographic proximity.
Yeah nobody knows what a black is. That's why police field existing while black calls.
I don't understand the fear/confusion that supposed blacks have of black identity for anybody outside the imaginary negro slave pool.
How come no issue defining white? No, they don't call Greece and Rome white. They don't have to. Some common sense taken for granted. But Negroes want to run from black Egypt despite how many eye witness Greek and Roman authors say so. And they saw 'em only after the New Kingdom.
Refering to AEs as African is meaningless except to credit white Mediterranean or north Sahara Libyans/ Berbers with the foundation of AE state&civ when it was black Nile or Nile's Western Desert Sudanese.
How come nobody says it's best to call Kerma Kushites African not black.
How come nobody says its best to call Hausas African not black.
Sorry we unabashed blacks ain't goin back to euphamisms and won't still for shamed onesv weak compromises.
Northerners were forced into the state. There was no Lower Egypt state until Southerners created it.
Immigrants came and kowtowed to black culture. All the immigrants or in the world don't make the US or GB other than what they are, white countries.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: How come no issue defining white? No, they don't call Greece and Rome white. They don't have to. Some common sense taken for granted. But Negroes want to run from black Egypt despite how many eye witness Greek and Roman authors say so. And they saw 'em only after the New Kingdom.
There has always been an issue with 'white', ever since ancient Greek and Roman times when they said they are intermediate 'races', not closely related to depigmented barbarians. Even today southern, eastern and northern Euros have their own complexes, insecurities and grudges about not being considered white enough by Germanic speaking northwest Europeans.
Not that Euro reservations on who is white are comparable in scope to the same conversation in Africa. Euros have comparatively little variation and are easier to lump into a 'white' population than Africans are.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
White is not defined by being privileged in America.
No American classroom teaches AG and AR were anything but white even in the face of Romes cosmopolitan makeup.
Outside of arguing semantics all Europeans are classed white caucasian.
This is a physical reality, not worth debating.
Have it any way you wanna in a world where Duchess Megan Markle is black but AE is not.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Are you going by the Lioness: Phenotype makes black model? You're in Australia, so would Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders count? or are you the type that thinks that it's being African that makes people black? What defines blackness to you when you ask that.
The Australian Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders, Papuans, Negritos, Fijians, Melanesians, Sri Lankans, South Indians and more, are black --they're just not African.
Africans obviously don't have a monopoly on black skin. The AE (Upper Egyptians) were African and black, and I don't see how this has been refuted. If North Sudanese and Lower "Nubians" are recognised as black, then why and how would Upper Egyptians be exempt when these populations share a common origin in the Predynastic?
Well it'd seem Irish is saying he doesn't think they're Sub Saharan African and has created this generalized pooled phenotype to characterize the entire area to postulate affinities. Even in the best situation where he included Sudan and the Horn that pooled sample also added places like West Africa. It never really stood much chance for Egyptians to carry much "affinity." But then.. if you don't think SSA affinity is required to be black in the first place then this and even the Abusir genetic data wouldn't really matter to you then I guess.
The AE were not "Sub-Saharan", and this would also be true of Lower "Nubians" and even Kushites, so I don't understand the purpose of emphasising this fact at every turn.
The Nile Valley (Saharan) populations of Lower Nubia and North Sudan are the groups I expect predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians to align with.
The Abusir data is a relatively late era sample from one locality in Northern Egypt;it's also from a period in which Levantines had entrenched themselves demographically in that part of Egypt.
Do the Abusir results somehow speak for ancient Egypt in all periods all the way back to the predynastic cultures in Southern Egypt?
I obviously concede that later dynastic AE differed from predynastic and early dynastic AE and that Northern Egyptians may had historical affinities to the Levant as far back as the predynastic...
..But that still does not counter that AE was established by "Nubian" aligned Southern populations in Lower "Nubia" and North Sudan.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: White is not defined by being privileged in America.
No American classroom teaches AG and AR were anything but white even in the face of Romes cosmopolitan makeup.
Outside of arguing semantics all Europeans are classed white caucasian.
This is a physical reality, not worth debating.
Have it any way you wanna in a world where Duchess Megan Markle is black but AE is not.
In other words, you saw what was posted on 'white' not being self-evident and without reservations, but don't care. Got it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ... though the debate we should be focused on is whether or not AE were African and to what extent. [/qb]
Agreed. Unfortunately "black" has become a subjective term with unclear boundaries, which is one of the reasons it isn't really useful in an anthropological context. What we can evaluate is where the roots of AE culture and ethnicity lie. But then, I'm damn tired of all these conversations about the meaning of certain terminology.
Same here. The problem is that people engage in conversation on the term and give off the impression that they go by what's reasonable, even though they already have their minds made up. This is not something you can get agreement on if you give explanations. You're just pouring your efforts in a bottomless pit.
Notice that I didn't even mean to argue the topic of black. I just summed up Doug's position and contrasted it with another position he has.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.
Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:
a) that the AE were 'black' b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data
Now you don't want to have the same energy.
Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's
"Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"
or it's:
"it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"
Forgive me for asking this question... but couldn't the predynastic, Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Upper AE be reasonably described as 'black' just as other Northeast Africans are recognised as black?
What I meant to say in that post has nothing to do with taking a stance on whether AE are 'black' or not. I'm simply pointing out how incongruent both points are. Either it's automatically racist to disagree, or he admits the data is not clear-cut and can be somewhat open to more than one interpretation depending on the information you have at your disposal. If you only work with, say, non-metric data it's very easy to come to the conclusion that AE were backmigrants. You have to use language, archaeology and other data to know what "closeness to Eurasians" means. Does it mean backmigration or does it mean a Basal Eurasian scenario involving African ancestry in Eurasia and Africa? Someone can argue that is a valid debate, without being racist or part of a racist conspiracy.
As for my take on the term 'black', you can review the "when to use black" thread for clarification.
Thanks for the clarification, mate.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
as I suspected
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Are you a mind reader?
I took a course in US multi-ethnic society before you were born. Tier in Euro society is not race. Saco & Venzetti and the like, may be news to you, glad you finally found out.
I don't care for silly "how the nameyoureuroethnicity became white" literature. Literature designed with coloured people in mind to tablecloth worldwide conservative nationalism.
This "How white non-NW Euros became white American" literature? Theyre talking social privilege not anthropology and you know it.
Ever read Stoddard or Grant written before the US Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Compile race science lists of whites from Blumenbach on up to see if physical anthropology matches non-scientific How the whites became white popular literature.
But I not trying to convince you, that's impossible.
When did Irish become white in the Brit Isles? When Americans said so? When did Italians become white in Italy? Not until Ameicans said so, forget Mussolini and Hitler.
Forget an Englishman descibed his Italian heroine as a white ewe tupped by a black ram Othello.
Gotta send an American back in time to inform Shakespeare Venetians won't be white for another 350 years until the Americans say so.
Got it?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: White is not defined by being privileged in America. And you're not going to convince me because I was alive before the civl rights act of 1964 and in my school and work experience in the white world I interacted with various types of Italians. None claimed anything but Caucasian. White privilege? Yes denied to dark Italians even in Italy.
What census by what country ever excluded Portuguese Spaniards Italians Greeks Albanians etc from the white category if race is on the census?
Again its not worth debating, better uses of resource like cooperating to build an index of gen reports.
No American classroom teaches AG and AR were anything but white even in the face of Romes cosmopolitan makeup.
Outside of arguing semantics all Europeans are classed white caucasian.
This is a physical reality, not worth debating.
Have it any way you wanna in a world where Duchess Megan Markle is black but AE is not.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.
Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:
a) that the AE were 'black' b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data
Now you don't want to have the same energy.
Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's
"Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"
or it's:
"it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"
Stop mixing up different conversations. I said nothing about racism in this particular discussion and nothing about the word black.
Again, my point was that within anthropology there is a historical precedent for distinguishing between North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa. This is not about them recognizing different lineages of African descent in DNA or different groupings of indigenous African biological diversity. It has always primarily been a distinction based on the presence of Eurasian ancestry.
I think what I said right here is pretty clear not sure why that isn't relevant enough to the discussion.
And yes, historically the division of Africa into North African "Eurasian back migrants", "hamites" or whatever you want to call them was based on racist ideologies long before DNA studies existed. That is simply a historical fact. But my point doesn't require a discussion of the history of racism in European anthropology. Nor does it require a discussion of the contradictions within the same fields of anthropology surrounding the use of the word black as a reference to phenotype. My point here is that it is easy enough to show that the division of ancient Africans between North Africa and Sub Sahara is purely incongruous with the facts of African history itself. Is it likely that racism still exists within these fields, of course. But I don't need to focus on that to show that such concepts are contradictory and illogical.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why you always behind on everyone's positions yet blaming it on other people. How is it my fault you're confused about things I've already spoken on many times?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic