Why garbage ? Their faces match their genetic profiles and they actually look like modern egyptians again no surprises
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
This should be done on modern people and compared with what they actually look like, of course the researchers shouldn't see the subjects face beforehand and only create a model based on their DNA, this could be a good way to see how valid this is
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
Why garbage ? Their faces match their genetic profiles and they actually look like modern egyptians again no surprises
i wouldn't call this garbage, but craniofacial development is strongly influenced by environment, things like width of the alars, perceived length of the nasal bridge, lip eversion and width etc... these are all influenced by maxillary and mandibular development, also im pretty sure scientists can't accurately predict skin color, only a range.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
Why garbage ? Their faces match their genetic profiles and they actually look like modern egyptians again no surprises
i wouldn't call this garbage, but craniofacial development is strongly influenced by environment, things like width of the alars, perceived length of the nasal bridge, lip eversion and width etc... these are all influenced by maxillary and mandibular development, also im pretty sure scientists can't accurately predict skin color, only a range.
it's one factor among the others and even if you want them to be extremely pale or dark they'll still look very egyptian especially the two from the left and right
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Parabon NanoLabs, Inc. (Parabon) is a vertically integrated DNA technology company that develops next-generation therapeutic and forensic products by leveraging the enormous power of DNA. Staffed by a uniquely qualified team of scientists and technologists whose expertise ranges from bioinformatics and immunology to chemistry and computer science. Our team is bringing to market revolutionary new products and services made possible by recent advances in DNA sequencing, analysis, and manufacturing technologies.
Organized in the State of Delaware, Parabon is a for-profit, C-Corporation with headquarters in Reston, Virginia and a nanotechnology laboratory in Huntington, WV. Although we work heavily on technologies for the medical industry, the company is most widely known for revolutionizing the field of DNA forensics with our Snapshot® Advanced DNA Analysis Platform. In 2017, Parabon received the Tibbetts Award, presented by the Small Business Administration (SBA), which honors small businesses that exhibit excellence in technology innovation. Winners are considered "the best of the best" from the thousands of firms that participate in the Federal SBIR program. The company was also named one of the "Top 5 Most Innovative Companies of 2018" by Inc. Magazine.
Placing ancient DNA sequences into reference phylogenies Rui Martiniano, 2020
E1b1b1a1-M78, which has a broad geographical range which encompasses North and East Africa, Europe and Western Asia [32]. All Morocco Iberomaurusian were positioned in this clade [25] as well as a Jordan Pre-pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) individual (Figure 5A). A single East African Pastoral Neolithic sample was placed in the E1b1b1a1a1b-V32 clade, together with a Luo, a Luhya and an Iranian individual. The Egypt Ptolemaic sample, a Late Stone Age and a Pastoral Neolithic individual were placed in the E1b1b1a1b2-L677 clade, which can be found in the present day in the Horn of Africa and Egypt [32]. In our data, this clade is represented by Palestinians, one Bedouin, two Balochi and one Iranian.
This subclade of E-M78 is "relatively common"[2] in the Middle East, Horn of Africa and Egypt, with higher microsatellite variance (0.35 vs. 0.46, respectively) in Egypt. In the article announcing this first information, Cruciani et al. (2007) described it as uncommon in Western Asia and they proposed Northeast Africa and/or East Africa as this subclade's likely place of origin.
The highest frequency of E-V22 has thus far been observed among the Samaritan Levites at 100% frequency,[15] followed by Cushitic-speaking Saho population of central Eritrea at a rate of 88%.[9] The Saho are known to be organized in strict patrilineal and patrilocal clans. It has been hypothesized that this kind of social structure can explain patterns of variability characterized by low Y-chromosome diversity within groups and large difference between groups.[44]
Hassan et al. (2008) also reported a significant presence in neighboring Sudan, making up about 30% of the diverse range of the country's E-M78 lineages in their study, including 8 out of 26 Fulani (about 31%), a widely-dispersed pastoral people.[Note 8] E-V22 was also present in much smaller frequencies amongst the Shilluk (2 of 15 samples, 13%) and Dinka (3 of 26, 11.5%) Nilotes of Southern Sudan. Hassan et al. suggest that E-V22, like E-V12, might have entered Sudan from North Africa "after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000–8,000 years ago". They add that the gene flow to Sudan "is not only recent (Holocene onward) but also largely of focal nature", and that "most speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages, the major linguistic family spoken in the country, show very little evidence of gene flow and demonstrate low migration rate, with exception of the Nubians, who appear to have sustained considerable gene flow from Asia and Europe together with the Beja."
Other frequencies reported by Cruciani et al. (2007) include Asturians (4.44% out of 90 people), Sicilians (4.58% out of 153 people), Moroccan Arabs (7.27%, 55 people), Moroccan Jews (8%, 50 people), Istanbul Turkish (5.71% out of 35 people), and Palestinians (6.9% out of 29 people). Cadenas et al. (2007) found a 6.7% presence in the UAE.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
These are younger Egyptian samples and from Abusir el Meleq.
To recap:
-Abusir is Lower Egypt (whose predynastic 'Mediterranean' looking peoples were assimilated to Egyptian culture). They did not make Egypt, so they could be from Mars and it'd be just as relevant.
-The mummies date LONG after NE immigrants had been pouring in from their native lands to Egypt for centuries (AND got so influential they took part of it over). Their conquest extended well into Upper Egypt.
-Authors of the original Abusir study admit the site was sparsely populated until the late period. So no earlier (pre immigration) samples.
-Site was right next to an immigrant community of weavers.
-Even as many immigrants adopted Egyptian culture, some maintained their original traditions. Authors of the study also admitted foreign names were found in the tombs of Abusir.
All things considered, I'm not at all surprised by the results. What I dislike is their removal of the above context to create the impression that their samples would likely have the phenotype of the original Egyptians. These Egyptians would've lived in an Egypt filled with the descendants of NE immigrants and northerners who'd adopted the dominant southern culture. If they wanted a representative sample, they should at least try older southern samples. Northern ones of any era could be confounding because of the different peoples living in the northern lands that were conquered
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Why garbage ? Their faces match their genetic profiles and they actually look like modern egyptians again no surprises
I would the one in the center is more European looking than the average modern Egyptian
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
It is garbage because it follows a pattern of Europeans intentionally and deliberately misrepresenting facts from the Nile Valley.
This is a company that is promoting their own propriety algorithm which is based on data science and large data sets. There is no data set on the phenotype of the ancient Nile Valley. So it is impossible for them to accurately predict or model what someone from the ancient Nile Valley looked like. In order for this to work best, you need large amounts of data for all relevant populations in any specific area to even begin to get an accurate prediction. Not to mention in the paper itself they say there wasn't enough SNP data preserved in the DNA so they had to compute SNP values statistically. And of course, that means they used modern DNA data sets and SNP values to compute these results which of course will skew the data towards modern populations. And this is the same issue seen with most DNA studies of ancient Africa. So it is literally promoting theoretical statistical calculations as somehow more relevant than the facts on the ground, such as Tut's face mask, artwork from the ancient Nile and so forth. And more importantly, this does not mean that genotype as in haplogroups equate with phenotype. https://snapshot.parabon-nanolabs.com/phenotyping
No other ancient culture is said to be defined by "foreign" mixture as much the Nile Valley. Because the whole point here is to say that while the Nile Valley is completely in Africa, the civilization of Kmt couldn't have been primarily made up of Africans. So you don't see ancient DNA samples from foreign cemeteries in ancient Rome to prove the ancient Romans were not Europeans. Even though Rome controlled more territory in Africa than the Italian peninsula proper.
This is just another example of scientists using selective data to promote a false historical narrative that will be used online and in other works claiming that "science" suggests the people of the ancient Nile Valley were not Africans.
The way the Abusir El-Meleq articles have been written reinforce this:
quote: The study, published on 30 May in Nature communications, includes data from 90 mummies buried between 1380 Bc, during Egypt's New KIngdom, and AD 425, in the Roman era. The findings show that the mummies' closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from Central Africans.
Note the half truths implied in the above statement which is typical of the double talk they will use to take limited data and try to provide 'plausible support' for nonsense claims. Central Africa isn't the basis of what defines being African. North East Africans are not Central Africans. Somalians, Ethiopians and most Especially Sudanese are not Central Africans. So why are the introducing something that is irrelevant to the fact that the Nile Valley is completely within Africa and does not flow through Central Africa?
Not only that the time period of the Abusir El-Meleq mummies covers the Late New Kingdom, Ramessid and 25th Dynasty. So are they seriously trying to claim that all of these people were descended from Levantines? Amenhotep III, Tiye ad Tut were not "closely related" to Levantines.
And there is nothing in the culture of the ancient Nile Valley that shows the people as claiming they saw the Levant as their place of origin. In fact the opposite is true, everything in the culture and history shows a connection to the Nile and Africa. So this is simply selective data in support of an invalid premise, which is that the people of the ancient Nile Valley primarily did NOT look like Africans.
Yet there are tombs from the New Kingdom through 25th dynasty that show mostly African people with some variation but none of them looking like Levantines.
And even more to the point, the time frame of the mummies used in this "reconstruction" falls within the 25th dynasty, when Sudanese ruled KMT. So you know these people are trolling if they want to claim no "blacks" in the Nile during that time.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
I for one want them to keep doing this. Older data shows that the phenotype of the original southerners was Ethiopian-like. These reconstructions look nothing like the original people. So the more they keep attributing phenotype to these DNA studies, the more obvious it will be that northerners and immigrants are being represented as the face of AE over the original southern Egyptians. Hopefully people will begin asking why these people's features look so different from the original southern samples.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: I for one want them to keep doing this. Older data shows that the phenotype of the original southerners was Ethiopian-like. These reconstructions look nothing like the original people. So the more they keep attributing phenotype to these DNA studies, the more obvious it will be that northerners and immigrants are being represented as the face of AE over the original southern Egyptians. Hopefully people will begin asking why these people's features look so different from the original southern samples.
Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
quote:There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again).
nothing "ethiopian-like", ethiopians are craniometrically caucasoid and modern upper egyptians already cluster with lower nubians and ancient egyptians craniometrically.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
These are the individuals, MtDNA included of the Parabon reconstruction Two are Third Intermediate period and we see Meshwesh and Nubian rulership in that period The other mummy is late, Ptolemaic-Roman period
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
quote:There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again).
nothing "ethiopian-like", ethiopians are craniometrically caucasoid and modern upper egyptians already cluster with lower nubians and ancient egyptians craniometrically. [/QB]
he goes on to say:
quote:
p4, 1st century Nubian mercenary genome from Serbia (Roman Empire) Thread starterApollo Start dateSep 9, 2021
The old kingdom people are probably the so far closest we're gonna get to Horners' non-Yemeni MENA ancestors. Some sort of intermediate in Egypt between Iberomaurusians and Natufians with a little bit of proto-Nilotic. Though I wager our ancestors lacked that Iran-Chalcolithic (Seh_Gabi) stuff. Now, I would never rule out that some ancient Masris on the border with Nubia like in Luxor were more proto-Nilotic for sure but the majority probably were mostly MENA with the only really significant "SSA" in them being "Ancestral North-African" that has mostly survived haplogroup wise in the form of their dominant Y-DNA E-M35.
see further remarks in post lower on page
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
The old kingdom people are probably the so far closest we're gonna get to Horners' non-Yemeni MENA ancestors. Some sort of intermediate in Egypt between Iberomaurusians and Natufians with a little bit of proto-Nilotic. Though I wager our ancestors lacked that Iran-Chalcolithic (Seh_Gabi) stuff. Now, I would never rule out that some ancient Masris on the border with Nubia like in Luxor were more proto-Nilotic for sure but the majority probably were mostly MENA with the only really significant "SSA" in them being "Ancestral North-African" that has mostly survived haplogroup wise in the form of their dominant Y-DNA E-M35.
Yes he's talking about the nature of their west eurasian ancestry, he's not saying they would be close to modern day horners
reread it again :
"the so far closest we're gonna get to Horners' non-Yemeni MENA ancestors. Some sort of intermediate in Egypt between Iberomaurusians and Natufians with a little bit of proto-Nilotic."
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
quote:There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again).
Your source says nothing about where in Egypt these new samples come from. They could be more Lower Egyptian mummies for all we know (in fact, that seems likely to me since the quoted passage mentions a shift towards Near Eastern affinities during the Middle Kingdom, which correlates with the increased migration of Levantines into Lower Egypt leading up to the Hyksos takeover).
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
quote:There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again).
Your source says nothing about where in Egypt these new samples come from. They could be more Lower Egyptian mummies for all we know (in fact, that seems likely to me since the quoted passage mentions a shift towards Near Eastern affinities during the Middle Kingdom, which correlates with the increased migration of Levantines into Lower Egypt leading up to the Hyksos takeover).
Wait and see. I suppose when the results will come out you all will bring the excuse "not enough samples" as usual.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ase: I for one want them to keep doing this. Older data shows that the phenotype of the original southerners was Ethiopian-like. These reconstructions look nothing like the original people. So the more they keep attributing phenotype to these DNA studies, the more obvious it will be that northerners and immigrants are being represented as the face of AE over the original southern Egyptians. Hopefully people will begin asking why these people's features look so different from the original southern samples.
Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
quote:There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again).
quote:nothing "ethiopian-like", ethiopians are craniometrically caucasoid and modern upper egyptians already cluster with lower nubians and ancient egyptians craniometrically.
1. "Caucasoid" is not a race. This is an academic imagining of how race works, not how it does in real life. Blacks can have facial features you people call "Cacausoid."
And on that note race is also not a genetic grouping that can be defined as simply "Sub Saharan African." Blacks are native to Eurasia, Australia, etc. The most you're going to get is debating whether the founders of Egyptian civilization were more to SSA or Arabs. But "Ethiopians" are still Black and that was the original phenotype.
2. Near total replacement of the original southern phenotype (in Upper Egypt) was already being reported by older Egyptology studies in the New Kingdom. However this replacement was already starting in the Old Kingdom and accelerated further at around 2,000 BC when the Sahara started drying further. The poster you reference actually affirms this acceleration in a separate part of their post:
quote: ....then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period.
3. I also believe I said "southern." So where in Upper Egypt are you talking about? Your source mentions that yes SSA ancestry would probably be found in the south close to Nubia:
quote:Now, I would never rule out that some ancient Masris on the border with Nubia like in Luxor were more proto-Nilotic for sure but the majority probably were mostly MENA with the only really significant "SSA" in them being "Ancestral North-African" that has mostly survived haplogroup wise in the form of their dominant Y-DNA E-M35.
....Huh? So is he saying the OK samples don't include the deep south? Uh....that presents a big problem (for you) because Thebes, Nekhen, Abydos and Ta Seti were precisely where the dominant culture behind Egyptian civilization was developing. In the old Kingdom, population distribution was not spread equally throughout Egypt either to put it mildly. Personally, I imagine southerners began mixing with northern types fairly early into the unified state's history.However phenotypically the creators of Egypt were still a Black people. You guys are just scraping the barrel on genetics for whatever fools still hold race to be genetic in construct.
And before anyone goes there, just keep in mind that two SSA can have very large genetic distances. Some can even be more closely related to a spatially proximal group of non-Africans than a geographically distant group of Black Africans. However racially the two Black Africans would be expected to identify with one another over appearance.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
The old kingdom people are probably the so far closest we're gonna get to Horners' non-Yemeni MENA ancestors. Some sort of intermediate in Egypt between Iberomaurusians and Natufians with a little bit of proto-Nilotic. Though I wager our ancestors lacked that Iran-Chalcolithic (Seh_Gabi) stuff. Now, I would never rule out that some ancient Masris on the border with Nubia like in Luxor were more proto-Nilotic for sure but the majority probably were mostly MENA with the only really significant "SSA" in them being "Ancestral North-African" that has mostly survived haplogroup wise in the form of their dominant Y-DNA E-M35.
Yes he's talking about the nature of their west eurasian ancestry, he's not saying they would be close to modern day horners
reread it again :
[b]"the so far closest we're gonna get to Horners' non-Yemeni MENA ancestors. Some sort of intermediate in Egypt between Iberomaurusians and Natufians with a little bit of proto-Nilotic." [/QB]
lmao
We get this already with just MK samples!? nice It's quite problematic that we're brushing aside the fact that we now see a clear gradation towards the Coptic profile and Abusir mummies due to "Asiatic influence" as some (including I) had already predicted.
As for their phenotype (since this thread is about phenotype) I'm quite certain they'll be dark skinned.
They'll look north African with Anatolian (C_gebi) ancestry?? Quite interesting that one half of the equation is meaningless in a vacuum but we're going to side step it.. the mention of them resembling N.African doesn't say much in the context of the conversation. Which north Africans?? Kehf_El_Baroud? Guanches? or Ifri_N_Amr? If they're being compared to Modern north Africans and it isn't Douriet Berbers that'll lack resolution and I'd be quite upset.
Also ANA isn't a stand in for Non-African/Basal Eurasian.... ANA is shared by most "SSA's"
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: 1. "Caucasoid" is not a race. This is an academic imagining of how race works, not how it does in real life. Blacks can have facial features you people call "Cacausoid."
Depends how you define "race" but "Caucasoid" is a definitely valid category easily recognized by forensic anthropologists and many sub-saharan populations are described as such because they have consistent amount of west eurasian ancestry like people from the Horn of africa or fulanis.
"blacks" is a social construct, an ethiopian has nothing to do with a khoisan or igbo. You have to appreciate africa's diversity instead of projecting your american racial labels.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: And on that note race is also not a genetic grouping that can be defined as simply "Sub Saharan African." Blacks are native to Eurasia, Australia, etc. The most you're going to get is debating whether the founders of Egyptian civilization were more to SSA or Arabs. But "Ethiopians" are still Black and that was the original phenotype.
Like I said there is no such thing as "black" what does a negrito from south-east asia or a dravidian from india has to do with west african bantus like yourself ? Except similar level of melanins I don't see anything else. Ethiopians are not "black" nor similar to afro-americans, they have important amount of west eurasian ancestry :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: 2. Near total replacement of the original southern phenotype (in Upper Egypt) was already being reported by older Egyptology studies in the New Kingdom. However this replacement was already starting in the Old Kingdom and accelerated further at around 2,000 BC when the Sahara started drying further. The poster you reference actually affirms this acceleration in a separate part of their post:
....then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period.
there has been no replacement, people like badarians and old kingdom upper egyptians were described as intermediate between caucasoid and negroid and they all had straight hair something very similar to modern day fellahin from upper egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: ....Huh? So is he saying the OK samples don't include the deep south? Uh....that presents a big problem (for you) because Thebes, Nekhen, Abydos and Ta Seti were precisely where the dominant culture behind Egyptian civilization was developing. In the old Kingdom, population distribution was not spread equally throughout Egypt either to put it mildly. Personally, I imagine southerners began mixing with northern types fairly early into the unified state's history.However phenotypically the creators of Egypt were still a Black people. You guys are just scraping the barrel on genetics for whatever fools still hold race to be genetic in construct.
And before anyone goes there, just keep in mind that two SSA can have very large genetic distances. Some can even be more closely related to a spatially proximal group of non-Africans than a geographically distant group of Black Africans. However racially the two Black Africans would be expected to identify with one another over appearance. [/QB]
Phenotypically the founders of Egypt were absolutely not black, they probably looked like modern upper egyptians and lower nubians. You're not related to any of them nor were they "black africans". the recent migrations of sudanese tribes into egypt + the trans-saharan slave trade probably also affected partially the modern egyptian population.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QUOTE]Originally posted by HotepBoy: [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
We get this already with just MK samples!? nice It's quite problematic that we're brushing aside the fact that we now see a clear gradation towards the Coptic profile and Abusir mummies due to "Asiatic influence" as some (including I) had already predicted.
As for their phenotype (since this thread is about phenotype) I'm quite certain they'll be dark skinned.
They'll look north African with Anatolian (C_gebi) ancestry?? Quite interesting that one half of the equation is meaningless in a vacuum but we're going to side step it.. the mention of them resembling N.African doesn't say much in the context of the conversation. Which north Africans?? Kehf_El_Baroud? Guanches? or Ifri_N_Amr? If they're being compared to Modern north Africans and it isn't Douriet Berbers that'll lack resolution and I'd be quite upset.
Also ANA isn't a stand in for Non-African/Basal Eurasian.... ANA is shared by most "SSA's"
You seem to avoid the increase of SSA ancestry during the new kingdom too...and what does "dark skinned" even mean ? like modern egyptians ? in that case yes.
KEB, guanches and IAM all looked nothing like modern blacks nor were they genetically related to any black population so it doesn't matter which one at least we're sure these egyptians were west eurasian genetically.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: You seem to avoid the increase of SSA ancestry during the new kingdom too...and what does "dark skinned" even mean ? like modern egyptians ? in that case yes.
KEB, guanches and IAM all looked nothing like modern blacks nor were they genetically related to any black population so it doesn't matter which one at least we're sure these egyptians were west eurasian genetically.
It's more like you don't know the scope of what you're discussing. According to your source these A.Egyptians didn't even look like modern Egyptians genetically ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...Why would I "compare" them to "modern black".
And I'm not avoiding the so called increase in SSA ancestry... You might be though. Contextualize what you're trying to convey. Do you perceive that the mummies from Abusir el melek have increased SSA admixture in comparison the OK samples? IF not then there's nothing to discuss especially if you are smart enough to think about the implications of these samples truly being an Iberomaurasian - Natufian intermediate.
We won't know this for sure or not after getting the OK samples but what we'll eventually see is that West Eurasians have North east African Ancestry (most likely A.Egyptian or pre A.Egyptian ancestry). Claiming they're West Eurasians (at this point at least) is malininformed.
And it does matter a lot which group of N.Africans they resemble. One ancient group represents resident outliers with Autochthonous admixture closely resembling North African admixed southern Europeans. Another group represents a group best modeled as punic or late calcholithic Southern Europeans mixed with the aforementioned Autochthonous component and best represent non Arab North-African ancestry, the third group is a population representing up to five millenia of continuity in the region with most of what could be a North African Autochthonous component.
You have to be a lil more intellectual here if this discussion is going to be worth having my friend.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
Depends how you define "race" but "Caucasoid" is a definitely valid category easily recognized by forensic anthropologists and many sub-saharan populations are described as such because they have consistent amount of west eurasian ancestry like people from the Horn of africa or fulanis.
No, Caucasoid is not a term that means west eurasian ancestry It is a term referring to phenotype not genotype, not ancestry
Even if one assumes that Caucasoids originate in West Eurasia that is not what the term Caucasoid means.
If it meant that somebody could take a DNA tess and it would show if they were Caucasoid or not but that is not what a DNA tests is for
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
"blacks" is a social construct, an ethiopian has nothing to do with a khoisan or igbo. You have to appreciate africa's diversity instead of projecting your american racial labels.
"Black" is colloquial term. In America it means one of two things
1) a person of predominant deep indigenous African ancestry
OR when in reference to skin
2) a medium to dark skinned person
this is OR not "and" although it could be at the same time
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
It's more like you don't know the scope of what you're discussing. According to your source these A.Egyptians didn't even look like modern Egyptians genetically ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...Why would I "compare" them to "modern black".
And I'm not avoiding the so called increase in SSA ancestry... You might be though. Contextualize what you're trying to convey. Do you perceive that the mummies from Abusir el melek have increased SSA admixture in comparison the OK samples? IF not then there's nothing to discuss especially if you are smart enough to think about the implications of these samples truly being an Iberomaurasian - Natufian intermediate.
We won't know this for sure or not after getting the OK samples but what we'll eventually see is that West Eurasians have North east African Ancestry (most likely A.Egyptian or pre A.Egyptian ancestry). Claiming they're West Eurasians (at this point at least) is malininformed.
And it does matter a lot which group of N.Africans they resemble. One ancient group represents resident outliers with Autochthonous admixture closely resembling North African admixed southern Europeans. Another group represents a group best modeled as punic or late calcholithic Southern Europeans mixed with the aforementioned Autochthonous component and best represent non Arab North-African ancestry, the third group is a population representing up to five millenia of continuity in the region with most of what could be a North African Autochthonous component.
You have to be a lil more intellectual here if this discussion is going to be worth having my friend. [/QB]
If we have to follow your logic, ancient egyptians were only "egyptian" before the new kingdom. For thousands of years, people there showed similar profiles to modern day egyptians but even these old kingdom samples seem to be well into the north african spectrum nothing more "black" about them.
As for the increase of SSA, Abusir samples were I presume more northern samples in comparison. I really don't understand how you process all of this since you're well aware of back-to-africa migrations going back to the paleolithic, you literally have horners being half west eurasian same for the kulubnarti samples but yet you want us to believe egyptians were somewhat similar to people like you ? Lmao
The level of dishonesty here is unbelievable smh :
KEB is simply the proof of late neolithic anatolian ancestry in NW Africa which explain why modern berbers are around 30-45% EEF, this was also confirmed by archeology (cardial artifacts).
Guanches can be modelled with punic samples simply because punics had north african admixture, they were not simply phoenician settlers. Guanches cluster with modern north africans despite all of your fancy theories about arabs, romans or white slaves but I suppose that's simply a coincidence huh ?
and again IAM were far from being "blacks" whether physically or genetically. We never see you discussing the impact of the trans-saharan slave trade which probably brought more foreigners to north africa than any other kind of conquest or slave trade ...
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
West Eurasian related =/= actual West Eurasian ancestry
That supposed leak isn't even suprising in the slightest, i don't think i've seen any one here arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were predominantly SSA, the question is how much of this West Eurasian related ancestry is really West Eurasian in origin or North African in origin.
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
It's more like you don't know the scope of what you're discussing. According to your source these A.Egyptians didn't even look like modern Egyptians genetically ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...Why would I "compare" them to "modern black".
And I'm not avoiding the so called increase in SSA ancestry... You might be though. Contextualize what you're trying to convey. Do you perceive that the mummies from Abusir el melek have increased SSA admixture in comparison the OK samples? IF not then there's nothing to discuss especially if you are smart enough to think about the implications of these samples truly being an Iberomaurasian - Natufian intermediate.
We won't know this for sure or not after getting the OK samples but what we'll eventually see is that West Eurasians have North east African Ancestry (most likely A.Egyptian or pre A.Egyptian ancestry). Claiming they're West Eurasians (at this point at least) is malininformed.
And it does matter a lot which group of N.Africans they resemble. One ancient group represents resident outliers with Autochthonous admixture closely resembling North African admixed southern Europeans. Another group represents a group best modeled as punic or late calcholithic Southern Europeans mixed with the aforementioned Autochthonous component and best represent non Arab North-African ancestry, the third group is a population representing up to five millenia of continuity in the region with most of what could be a North African Autochthonous component.
You have to be a lil more intellectual here if this discussion is going to be worth having my friend.
If we have to follow your logic, ancient egyptians were only "egyptian" before the new kingdom. For thousands of years, people there showed similar profiles to modern day egyptians but even these old kingdom samples seem to be well into the north african spectrum nothing more "black" about them.
As for the increase of SSA, Abusir samples were I presume more northern samples in comparison. I really don't understand how you process all of this since you're well aware of back-to-africa migrations going back to the paleolithic, you literally have horners being half west eurasian same for the kulubnarti samples but yet you want us to believe egyptians were somewhat similar to people like you ? Lmao
The level of dishonesty here is unbelievable smh :
KEB is simply the proof of late neolithic anatolian ancestry in NW Africa which explain why modern berbers are around 30-45% EEF, this was also confirmed by archeology (cardial artifacts).
Guanches can be modelled with punic samples simply because punics had north african admixture, they were not simply phoenician settlers. Guanches cluster with modern north africans despite all of your fancy theories about arabs, romans or white slaves but I suppose that's simply a coincidence huh ?
and again IAM were far from being "blacks" whether physically or genetically. We never see you discussing the impact of the trans-saharan slave trade which probably brought more foreigners to north africa than any other kind of conquest or slave trade ... [/QB]
Being "far from blacks" doesn't equal being non-African an indigenous north African population will have Eurasian affinities despite being devoid of Eurasian ancestry, why in your opinion do Dinkas pull towards Eurasians relative to West Africans, despite having less neanderthal DNA than West Africans do?
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Being "far from blacks" doesn't equal being non-African an indigenous north African population will have Eurasian affinities despite being devoid of Eurasian ancestry, why in your opinion do Dinkas pull towards Eurasians relative to West Africans, despite having less neanderthal DNA than West Africans do? [/QB]
That's mental gymnastic lol why do you pretend you don't know what are the motives behind some statements here ?
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Being "far from blacks" doesn't equal being non-African an indigenous north African population will have Eurasian affinities despite being devoid of Eurasian ancestry, why in your opinion do Dinkas pull towards Eurasians relative to West Africans, despite having less neanderthal DNA than West Africans do?
That's mental gymnastic lol why do you pretend you don't know what are the motives behind some statements here ? [/QB]
I don't know what your talking about, elaborate please. You didn't address what i said.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Depends how you define "race" but "Caucasoid" is a definitely valid category easily recognized by forensic anthropologists
The term is not so common now in anthropology articles. It's more common in criminal forensics since America has particular demographics proportions
Looking at the company of the thread topic Parabon
here is the press release on this Egyptian analysis:
Caucasoid, Negroid or Mongoloid are not even mentioned on the poster or press releases about it
not here either, they do not use those "oid" terms even though their analysis is oriented towards criminal investigation
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: If we have to follow your logic, ancient egyptians were only "egyptian" before the new kingdom. For thousands of years, people there showed similar profiles to modern day egyptians but even these old kingdom samples seem to be well into the north african spectrum nothing more "black" about them.
As for the increase of SSA, Abusir samples were I presume more northern samples in comparison. I really don't understand how you process all of this since you're well aware of back-to-africa migrations going back to the paleolithic, you literally have horners being half west eurasian same for the kulubnarti samples but yet you want us to believe egyptians were somewhat similar to people like you ? Lmao
I don't know what you're trying to say here overall. I think i've mistaken you for someone who knows what their talking about. I'll just adress the north Africans and be outta here.
quote:KEB is simply the proof of late neolithic anatolian ancestry in NW Africa which explain why modern berbers are around 30-45% EEF, this was also confirmed by archeology (cardial artifacts).
KEB was a bell beaker site and like the material associated with the burials came to a dead end. Most models using them to model modern North Africans are poor fits for that reason.
quote:Guanches can be modelled with punic samples simply because punics had north african admixture, they were not simply phoenician settlers. Guanches cluster with modern north africans despite all of your fancy theories about arabs, romans or white slaves but I suppose that's simply a coincidence huh ?
I'm not sure what you're saying... but I also mention late calcholithic samples who don't have much N.African ancestry. granted I mispoke. I meant to shout out Late bronze age meds, as they would likely correspond to the spread of said ancestry around the dates which M183 coalesced. IAM Punic_2 Mende
quote:and again IAM were far from being "blacks" whether physically or genetically. We never see you discussing the impact of the trans-saharan slave trade which probably brought more foreigners to north africa than any other kind of conquest or slave trade ...
IAM had ancestral alleles for the genes primarily responsible for light pigmentation. Why would I address the slave trade when we're talking about populations upwards of 1500 years old? I can hardly follow you at this point.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
^^^^ ah the shih ES must put up with for activity sigh
I have to wonder why say the great Roman empire subjects of Italy are never examined or spoken of in the same spotlight as AE?
No talk of supra-Pyrenees /supra- Alps as a region or population. Nevr flame-on article titles like Imperial Roman Italians are Admixed with Fill-in-the-blank non-European peoples. Littoral African but more frequently phenotypes resembling southern Arabians appear in today's Italians.
Well when I look at a man and his name is Stripoli and he looks "Middle-Eastern" does he in fact derive from Tripoli far distant parentage?
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
KEB was a bell beaker site and like the material associated with the burials came to a dead end. Most models using them to model modern North Africans are poor fits for that reason.
Nope bell beaker stuff appeared later (and explain the steppe component among iron age and modern NAs) and the paper never concluded about a dead end that's why they ended up saying this :
quote:"By 3,000 BCE, a continuity in the Neolithic spread brought Mediterranean-like ancestry to the Maghreb, most likely from Iberia. Other archaeological remains, such as African elephant ivory and ostrich eggs found in Iberian sites, confirm the existence of contacts and exchange networks through both sides of the Gibraltar strait at this time. Our analyses strongly support that at least some of the European ancestry observed today in North Africa is related to prehistoric migrations, and local Berber populations were already admixed with Europeans before the Roman conquest. Furthermore, additional European/Iberian ancestry could have reached the Maghreb after KEB people; this scenario is supported by the presence of Iberian-like Bell-Beaker pottery in more recent stratigraphic layers of IAM and KEB caves. Future paleogenomic efforts in North Africa will further disentangle the complex history of migrations that forged the ancestry of the admixed populations we observe today."
I don't see why you don't consider KEB being part of the early phases of these migrations and then being gradually absorbed by the locals rich in IAM ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm not sure what you're saying... but I also mention late calcholithic samples who don't have much N.African ancestry. granted I mispoke. I meant to shout out Late bronze age meds, as they would likely correspond to the spread of said ancestry around the dates which M183 coalesced. IAM Punic_2 Mende
IAM had ancestral alleles for the genes primarily responsible for light pigmentation. Why would I address the slave trade when we're talking about populations upwards of 1500 years old? I can hardly follow you at this point. [/QB]
These late chalcolithic influences you mention are not a source for the "med" ancestry but like I said the source of the steppe ancestry guanches and north africans like me have that's why the two copper age north africans I posted below lack it but already had similar level of EEF ancestry as us :
Moreover I hope you're at least aware these punic samples were mixed with the local sardinians.
talking about chalcolithic (more copper age but whatever) , it seems you missed these ones :
quote:Our Copper Age dataset includes a newly reported male (I4246) from Camino de las Yeseras (14) in central Iberia, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 calibrated years BCE, who clusters with modern and ancient North Africans in the PCA (Fig. 1C and fig. S3) and, like ~3000 BCE Moroccans (8) , can be well modeled as having ancestry from both Late Pleistocene North Africans (15) and Early Neolithic Europeans (tables S9 and S10). His genome-wide ancestry and uniparental markers (tables S1 and S4) are unique among Copper Age Iberians, including individuals from sites with many analyzed individuals such as Sima del Ángel, and point to a North African origin.
quote:The most surprising is Sardinia_Chalcolithic15940 from the site of Anghelu Ruju, for whom we obtained a radiocarbon date of 2345– 2146 cal. bc from the same bone sample that we analysed for DNA. We modelled this individual as 22.7±2.4% Anatolia_Neolithic and 77.3±2.4% Morocco_EN (P=0.321). This individual is similar in ancestry composition to the approximately contemporary Iberian individual I4246 from the site of Camino de las Yeseras, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 cal. bc, who also had North-African related ancestry as well as the same mtDNA haplogroup M1a1b1 and Y-chromosome haplogroup E1b1b1, which are both typical of North Africans25 (Supplementary Table 14). The finding of African to-European gene flow in both individuals shows that such movement was widespread across the Mediterranean long before the classical period when such gene flow became intensive and the ancestries had a larger demographic impact.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm not sure what you're saying... but I also mention late calcholithic samples who don't have much N.African ancestry. granted I mispoke. I meant to shout out Late bronze age meds, as they would likely correspond to the spread of said ancestry around the dates which M183 coalesced. IAM Punic_2 Mende
How should this statistical table be read and interpreted? What is it saying?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
I don't see why you don't consider KEB being part of the early phases of these migrations and then being gradually absorbed by the locals rich in IAM ancestry.
I would naturally... but they have such bad fits when modeling N.Africans overall. Nonetheless it doesn't help to pretend like they're == to all other N.Africans as if there's a rigid continuum. Which speaks to my initial point which will be elaborated in the last sentence.
Though some of the Guanches show minor steppe like ancestry. samples with sizable steppe ancestry (medieval sards and so forth) are bad fits. If you're to claim that the detectable steppe ancestry in N.Africa is owed to a chalcolithic expansion, it'd have to come from Iberia not chl Sardinia. Steppe ancestry wasn't represented in any of my runs.
And I didn't miss anything. those samples were irrelevant to the conversation. They weren't included in my runs. ..and their SSA are elevated in comparison to the other ancient post-neolithic N.Africans.
It's a huge difference between saying OK egyptians resemble I15940 + Anatolian and Guanche + Anatolian. much less IAM + a small amount of Anatolian.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Ignoring HotepBoy for the time being...
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm not sure what you're saying... but I also mention late calcholithic samples who don't have much N.African ancestry. granted I mispoke. I meant to shout out Late bronze age meds, as they would likely correspond to the spread of said ancestry around the dates which M183 coalesced. IAM Punic_2 Mende
How should this statistical table be read and interpreted? What is it saying?
p value first the last three are admixture coefficients. The order is written above. So for instance in the first run Guanches were 43% IAM 53% Punic_2 and 4% Mende. the best fit was with late bronze age sardinians (p-value closest to 1).
Mende isn't the best fit for SSA related ancestry but i wanted to model as little SSA as possible and still get a decent fit.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: p value first the last three are admixture coefficients. The order is written above. So for instance in the first run Guanches were 43% IAM 53% Punic_2 and 4% Mende. the best fit was with late bronze age sardinians (p-value closest to 1).
Mende isn't the best fit for SSA related ancestry but i wanted to model as little SSA as possible and still get a decent fit.
I see. If West African Mende aren't the best fit for sub-Saharan ancestry in these populations, which sub-Saharan populations would you consider a better fit?
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I would naturally... but they have such bad fits when modeling N.Africans overall. Nonetheless it doesn't help to pretend like they're == to all other N.Africans as if there's a rigid continuum. Which speaks to my initial point which will be elaborated in the last sentence.
Obviously we face bad fits since like I said KEB was representative of these first waves of Iberia_N making them to be more northern shifted than the later north africans. I never talked about a rigid continuum but what we see is that the current berber profile was already present back then around the bronze age/early iron age I'd say (even though copper age north africans don't differ much)
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Though some of the Guanches show minor steppe like ancestry. samples with sizable steppe ancestry (medieval sards and so forth) are bad fits. If you're to claim that the detectable steppe ancestry in N.Africa is owed to a chalcolithic expansion, it'd have to come from Iberia not chl Sardinia. Steppe ancestry wasn't represented in any of my runs.
I should have be more explicit. I'm actually well aware of sardinians being bad examples since they are mostly EEF+WHG and barely score steppe but actually we do have archeological evidence of iberian and italian bell beakers settlements in north africa (in the case of italy, it mostly came from Sicily) and that's why imo during the new kindgom era egyptians started to depict some berbers as blonde haired.
Bell beakers artifacts :
Italian megalithic sites in the eastern maghreb :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: And I didn't miss anything. those samples were irrelevant to the conversation. They weren't included in my runs. ..and their SSA are elevated in comparison to the other ancient post-neolithic N.Africans.
It's a huge difference between saying OK egyptians resemble I15940 + Anatolian and Guanche + Anatolian. much less IAM + a small amount of Anatolian. [/qb]
Their SSA is not elevated at all compared to modern NAs and guanches, it's their Middle eastern ancestry that is elevated (and this should tell you something about egypt) probably capsian admixture that got diluted later. And I'm not saying egyptians resemble this but it was already the profiles of the western neighbours of egyptians back then...
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:BrandonP I see. If West African Mende aren't the best fit for sub-Saharan ancestry in these populations, which sub-Saharan populations would you consider a better fit?
Overall the Dinka... but that'll open up a tub of worms I might be too tired to get into tonight.
@HotepBoy
quote:Their SSA is not elevated at all compared to modern NAs and guanches, it's their Middle eastern ancestry that is elevated (and this should tell you something about egypt) probably capsian admixture that got diluted later. And I'm not saying egyptians resemble this was already the profiles of the western neighbours of egyptians back then...
I feel like I should be the one telling you this... SSA ancestry can very well be used as a partial stand in for some of their Natufian-like ancestry chuck. That's because of the ANA-Natufian cline I alluded to earlier.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I feel like I should be the one telling you this... SSA ancestry can very well be used as a partial stand in for some of their Natufian-like ancestry chuck. That's because of the ANA-Natufian cline I alluded to earlier. [/QB]
That's really going too far and very speculative...Capsians literally came from the near east and according to some brought the proto-berber culture to NA, it can't be a coincidence. Especially that they found many capsian types living along side IBM types on the same places.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Overall the Dinka... but that'll open up a tub of worms I might be too tired to get into tonight.
So if the figures for Mende-like ancestry represent the bare minimum of sub-Saharan ancestry in the Guanche samples you analyzed, what would the figures for Dinka-like ancestry in those samples look like?
Also, what about Mota? I recall them being related to modern Omotic-speakers in Ethiopia, and Omotic is a branch of Afroasiatic like Berber. It would make sense to me if a little Mota-like ancestry was present in proto-Afroasiatic speakers from the beginning and was then spread to the Maghreb by proto-Berbers.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
archaeology anthropology pre-history interpreting population genetics w/o them at the base is a worthless exercise.
Most damaging? Individual discrete site data undergoing RANDOM CONFLATION of geography, eras/ages, and cultural technologies to arrive at a FrankenNorthAfrican, a stitchwork of personally approved skewed bits and pieces viewed as though a naturally occuring phenomenom, though in fact existing nowhere but in somebody's feverish imagination.
with no include/ignore criteria methodology other than whim
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
. . .
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
. . . .
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: 1. "Caucasoid" is not a race. This is an academic imagining of how race works, not how it does in real life. Blacks can have facial features you people call "Cacausoid."
Depends how you define "race"
I'm using it the way it is used within mainstream Euro dominated societies that were the ones that produced race as a social construct. Race as it is applied around the world involves the Horn. Nobody cares whether you apply the structure of their features to mixture or not. They're treated as a Black people.
quote:"Caucasoid" is a definitely valid category easily recognized by forensic anthropologists and many sub-saharan populations are described as such because they have consistent amount of west eurasian ancestry like people from the Horn of africa or fulanis.
Again Caucasoid isn't a race. If you can be Black and Caucasoid then Caucasoid is not describing race. "Caucasoid" is a descriptor of a set of facial features common to Whites, but it's not exclusive to them.
quote:"blacks" is a social construct, an ethiopian has nothing to do with a khoisan or igbo. You have to appreciate africa's diversity instead of projecting your american racial labels.
Hi the Aboriginals of Australia just rang in, asked to remind you that race is applied outside of America. Blacks are not the ones who set up entire global economies on stupidass judgements towards people's appearances.
So there's nothing wrong with reviewing such labels to debunk the idiotic ideas often attributed to them. A Khoisan, Ethiopian and Aboriginal Autralian are NOT going to have the same aptitude for intelligence because of a "Black gene." That is nonsensical.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: And on that note race is also not a genetic grouping that can be defined as simply "Sub Saharan African." Blacks are native to Eurasia, Australia, etc. The most you're going to get is debating whether the founders of Egyptian civilization were more to SSA or Arabs. But "Ethiopians" are still Black and that was the original phenotype.
Like I said there is no such thing as "black" what does a negrito from south-east asia or a dravidian from india has to do with west african bantus like yourself ?[/QB]
Black is a real social construct and experience that is based on appearance. I never argued it was a valid genetic construct, so I'm not understanding why I'm being asked this question. But a historicaland social experience of mistreatment rooted in stupidass psuedoscientific beliefs attributed to how people look deserves review. To admonish Black people who are so much as interested in investigating the scientific validity of such ideas is gaslighting to protect racist ideology while feigning as though one is not.
quote:Except similar level of melanins I don't see anything else. Ethiopians are not "black" nor similar to afro-americans, they have important amount of west eurasian ancestry
Ethiopians are generally regarded by most of the world as a Black people, so no one cares what you think. You have whole ass non Africans that are not only celebrating their own Black history month, they haven't had contact with Africans in thousands of years.
If they can be Black, so can North Africans and SSA with Eurasian mixture. It's not my job to make sense of racialist beliefs. If they do have a lot of Eurasian proximity but are still regarded by the world as a Black people you're only furthering my case for me. Thanks!
quote:
Eh...African Americans have on average more Eurasian ancestry than some of these groups and are still Black. Obama had more Eurasian ancestry than most groups here, was widely known to have a White mother and is still more often regarded as the U.S' first Black president. His own damn wiki page describes him as both the first African American president and the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. And there are many Blacks in America with higher than average Eurasian ancestry like Skip Gates that are treated as Black.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: 2. Near total replacement of the original southern phenotype (in Upper Egypt) was already being reported by older Egyptology studies in the New Kingdom. However this replacement was already starting in the Old Kingdom and accelerated further at around 2,000 BC when the Sahara started drying further. The poster you reference actually affirms this acceleration in a separate part of their post:
....then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, [b]this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period.
there has been no replacement, people like badarians and old kingdom upper egyptians were described as intermediate between caucasoid and negroid and they all had straight hair something very similar to modern day fellahin from upper egypt.
Racially speaking there was a replacement in terms of phenotype. The Ethiopian-like Black phenotypes were replaced with the more modern Mediterranean look. Looser hair and straighter features than is stereotypical for Blacks doesn't change that phenotypically the average southerner would've been Black. How the Upper Egyptians of the deeper south changed genetically however is anyone's guess. It doesn't seem as though your source's Old Kingdom data will likely provide the answer to that though.
quote:Phenotypically the founders of Egypt were absolutely not black, they probably looked like modern upper egyptians and lower nubians. You're not related to any of them nor were they "black africans".
I don't have to be related to someone to point out whether or not they're Black. Again, you keep clinging to this notion that race is of valid genetic construct only to jump back when when it's not convenient. If you know I'm aware it is not a valid genetic construct, why do you keep talking to me about my genetic relationship to other groups? Saying we're all Black doesn't mean we're all closely related. Even outside of the Horn SSA can have genetic distances so large to where one group of Blacks are more closely related to non Africans. And yet, to investigate the Black phenotyes of those Africans is never met with the whining of how closely related we are.
Cranial studies place the Ancient Upper Egyptians and Lower Nubians with modern Ethiopians. If memory serves me, some of the Ancient southern Egyptians may have even looked more like Ethiopians than they resembled Nubians. Ethiopians and Horners in general are broadly regarded as Black throughout out the world. Bark about your own isolated definitions if you'd like. But I really don't care.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: I'm using it the way it is used within mainstream Euro dominated societies that were the ones that produced race as a social construct. Race as it is applied around the world involves the Horn. Nobody cares whether you apply the structure of their features to mixture or not. They're treated as a Black people.
So you admit your worldview is eurocentric ? You simply follow what your ex-masters imposed on your ancestors ? Medieval arabs for example clearly made the distinction between habashi and zanj...see how it can vary ? Why don't you ask people from the Horn of Africa what they think of your black label ?
You're mentally enslaved it seems, sorry but no africans think this way.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again Caucasoid isn't a race. If you can be Black and Caucasoid then Caucasoid is not describing race. "Caucasoid" is a descriptor of a set of facial features common to Whites, but it's not exclusive to them.
You forget that just based on a skull we can determine if the person was mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid and most east africans fall into the caucasoid category that's it.
Even a child would recognize such obvious fact :
Haven't you met any somalian/ethiopian IRL or on the internet ? They clearly don't view themselves as similar to folks like you nobody cares about what europeans think.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Hi the Aboriginals of Australia just rang in, asked to remind you that race is applied outside of America. Blacks are not the ones who set up entire global economies on stupidass judgements towards people's appearances.
So there's nothing wrong with reviewing such labels to debunk the idiotic ideas often attributed to them. A Khoisan, Ethiopian and Aboriginal Autralian are NOT going to have the same aptitude for intelligence because of a "Black gene." That is nonsensical.
We're no more in 1890...
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Black is a real social construct and experience that is based on appearance. I never argued it was a valid genetic construct, so I'm not understanding why I'm being asked this question. But a historicaland social experience of mistreatment rooted in stupidass psuedoscientific beliefs attributed to how people look deserves review. To admonish Black people who are so much as interested in investigating the scientific validity of such ideas is gaslighting to protect racist ideology while feigning as though one is not.
Therefore what's the point of spending years here trying to figure if ancient egyptians were black ? It's a social construct after all and you admit being not related to them. As far as I know no north africans claim persian or turkish history because of muh appearance.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Ethiopians are generally regarded by most of the world as a Black people, so no one cares what you think. You have whole ass non Africans that are not only celebrating their own Black history month, they haven't had contact with Africans in thousands of years.
If they can be Black, so can North Africans and SSA with Eurasian mixture. It's not my job to make sense of racialist beliefs. If they do have a lot of Eurasian proximity but are still regarded by the world as a Black people you're only furthering my case for me. Thanks!
Again this is in america, here no one will ever put an ethiopian and a nigerian in the same bag.
hahahah now even north africans can be black ...smh with that logic everyone is black as long as we make the choice to identify as such. This again shows how ridiculous your "black" label is.
A black person is someone of mostly west african ancestry (this generally includes most bantu speakers in Africa) that's it stop with your mental gymnastic trying to lump together people who are vastly different.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Eh...African Americans have on average more Eurasian ancestry than some of these groups and are still Black. Obama had more Eurasian ancestry than most groups here, was widely known to have a White mother and is still more often regarded as the U.S' first Black president. His own damn wiki page describes him as both the first African American president and the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. And there are many Blacks in America with higher than average Eurasian ancestry like Skip Gates that are treated as Black.
not surprised in america myself could identify as black lmao
Obama is not black but mixed and that's how he's seen in most of the world.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Racially speaking there was a replacement in terms of phenotype. The Ethiopian-like Black phenotypes were replaced with the more modern Mediterranean look. Looser hair and straighter features than is stereotypical for Blacks doesn't change that phenotypically the average southerner would've been Black. How the Upper Egyptians of the deeper south changed genetically however is anyone's guess. It doesn't seem as though your source's Old Kingdom data will likely provide the answer to that though.
I don't have to be related to someone to point out whether or not they're Black. Again, you keep clinging to this notion that race is of valid genetic construct only to jump back when when it's not convenient. If you know I'm aware it is not a valid genetic construct, why do you keep talking to me about my genetic relationship to other groups? Saying we're all Black doesn't mean we're all closely related. Even outside of the Horn SSA can have genetic distances so large to where one group of Blacks are more closely related to non Africans. And yet, to investigate the Black phenotyes of those Africans is never met with the whining of how closely related we are.
Cranial studies place the Ancient Upper Egyptians and Lower Nubians with modern Ethiopians. If memory serves me, some of the Ancient southern Egyptians may have even looked more like Ethiopians than they resembled Nubians. Ethiopians and Horners in general are broadly regarded as Black throughout out the world. Bark about your own isolated definitions if you'd like. But I really don't care. [/QB]
There wasn't any replacement and they certainly didn't look like modern ethiopians :
quote:To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
quote:The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43 (Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt, c.3500 BC) were cymotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times. (…) Although most of the hair found is the natural dark brown color, natural red hair was also discovered ... samples were examined microscopically
It's a big world out there and BLACK spans the white people defined science of physical anthropology forensics and its negro/negroids caucasian/caucasoids mongol/mongoloids nevermind Malays, AmerInds, etc.
The Indian Ocean environ is home to all the various black peoples. Africa, Asia, and Oceanea all house physical anthropology forensic negro/negroids.
NW Euros don't claim SE Euros the same as them nevertheless both are considered white people. No Euros claim Ethiopia's Semetic speakers as their own or even as fellow 'caucasians'. Fact is Semetic Abyssinians are noted as black peoples in all encounters with neighboring Arabians and their Persian Irani cohabitors, as well as the Portuguese and the Italians that invaded the place. Only certain books try to wash the ethiopian white.
BTW Abyssinia is south of the Sahara while Sudan is in the Sahara.
I've used the term physical anthropology forensics because there is autosomal STR forensics too. The twain don't always meet in individual blacks.
Autosomal STRs point geographic population origins inerrantly regardless a people's various phenotypes.
Ain't nobody nowhere going back to the old outdated physical anthropology concept all blx r negro/negroids. Never worked out here in the real world only in textbooks.
quote:You forget that just based on a skull we can determine if the person was mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid and most east africans fall into the caucasoid category that's it.
Even a child would recognize such obvious fact :
Meanwhile ... a negroid caucasian Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: There wasn't any replacement and they certainly didn't look like modern ethiopians :
quote:To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
From that paper: Upper Egypt is right next to Ethiopia on this craniometric graph. That would appear to support Ase's argument that, at least on a craniometric level, ancient Upper Egyptians would have resembled modern Ethiopians.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: There wasn't any replacement and they certainly didn't look like modern ethiopians :
quote:To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
From that paper: Upper Egypt is right next to Ethiopia on this craniometric graph. That would appear to support Ase's argument that, at least on a craniometric level, ancient Upper Egyptians would have resembled modern Ethiopians.
That simply supports what I said about ancient upper egyptians being similar to modern upper egyptians.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: I'm using it the way it is used within mainstream Euro dominated societies that were the ones that produced race as a social construct. Race as it is applied around the world involves the Horn. Nobody cares whether you apply the structure of their features to mixture or not. They're treated as a Black people.
So you admit your worldview is eurocentric ? You simply follow what your ex-masters imposed on your ancestors ? Medieval arabs for example clearly made the distinction between habashi and zanj...see how it can vary ? Why don't you ask people from the Horn of Africa what they think of your black label ?
You're mentally enslaved it seems, sorry but no africans think this way.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again Caucasoid isn't a race. If you can be Black and Caucasoid then Caucasoid is not describing race. "Caucasoid" is a descriptor of a set of facial features common to Whites, but it's not exclusive to them.
You forget that just based on a skull we can determine if the person was mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid and most east africans fall into the caucasoid category that's it.
Even a child would recognize such obvious fact :
Haven't you met any somalian/ethiopian IRL or on the internet ? They clearly don't view themselves as similar to folks like you nobody cares about what europeans think.
The point is both of those people have black skin. You are spouting nonsense in claiming that somehow ancient Upper Egyptians and Lower Sudanese were more similar in complexion to Europeans than Africans. This picture contradicts everything you are saying and supports what people here and elsewhere have been saying for years which is that skin color is not limited by craniofacial features and Africans don't all look the same. You are simply talking absurd nonsense. Ancient Upper Egyptians, Lower Sudanese and Ethiopians were Africans closer to each other than they were to Europeans. This is what Europeans are desperate to try and contradict by these bogus factoids. They don't use the diversity of African features and phenotypes when making these reconstructions and this is why they always come out looking similar to Europeans. Ancient Upper Egyptians and modern Upper Egyptians do not look like Europeans. And what this boils down to is Europe is not the birthplace of human feature diversity, Africa is. So the point of using caucasoid and other similar terminologies is to suggest that ancient African features originate in Europe when they don't. It is backwards.
Again, according to the company who made these reconstructions, they require massive data sets to generate these forensic models. What data are they using from Africa?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is garbage because it follows a pattern of Europeans intentionally and deliberately misrepresenting facts from the Nile Valley.
BINGO
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The point is both of those people have black skin. You are spouting nonsense in claiming that somehow ancient Upper Egyptians and Lower Sudanese were more similar in complexion to Europeans than Africans. This picture contradicts everything you are saying and supports what people here and elsewhere have been saying for years which is that skin color is not limited by craniofacial features and Africans don't all look the same. You are simply talking absurd nonsense. Ancient Upper Egyptians, Lower Sudanese and Ethiopians were Africans closer to each other than they were to Europeans. This is what Europeans are desperate to try and contradict by these bogus factoids. They don't use the diversity of African features and phenotypes when making these reconstructions and this is why they always come out looking similar to Europeans. Ancient Upper Egyptians and modern Upper Egyptians do not look like Europeans. [/QB]
so having higher level of melanins makes someone automatically related to a nigerian or a congolese ? Africa is not america. Ancient upper egyptians were physically similar to modern upper egyptians deal with it and these people are certainly not related to afro-americans like yourself. An ethiopian is physically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than west africans and genetically they are closer to west eurasians.
You try to bring a social construct such as "black" in order to claim their civilization as yours and we all know how this end up :
And why do you even brought europeans into this ?? wtf ? You speak as if there were only whites/blacks. Indeed ancient egyptians didn't look european nor like bantus from the united states.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
Ancient upper egyptians were physically similar to modern upper egyptians deal with it and these people are certainly not related to afro-americans like yourself. An ethiopian is physically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than west africans and genetically they are closer to west eurasians.
You try to bring a social construct such as "black" in order to claim their civilization as yours and we all know how this end up :
What about "Western civilization" where people in various places in Western and Northern Europe imply Greece and Rome as their ancestors and copy their architecture and view their philosophy as part of their own? -when those cultures were largely forgotten until the Renaissance
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
dupe pls delete
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Gee not a chance in the world any ESers are * male inlaws to Ethiopians * go to synagogue with Ethiopians * reciprocate housecalls with Ethiopians * been in personal touch with Ethiopians since 1969
and don't depend on YouTubes for Ethiopian bias and prejudice and even know Shankala are as much or even more Ethiopian than the imagined all-of- -them-Ethiopians are only narrow featured types of Africans.
But the thing supremist and negrophobes alike don't like to think of is the Bronze/Iron SW Asians going to the Horn were predominantly female. There was no male war conquest or colony implant from the Arabian Peninsula.
Not even 1% of the American Freedmen Descent population is into any of the below
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
<< of course the 6 pointed star has nothing to do with Hebrews or the Israel&Judah monarchies --Tu >>
<< Despite his profound levels of knowledge and nation building skills this man is well know nutjob sexual offender and control freak par exellance with never more than a 50,000 official membership following __Tu >>
What of the entire entertainment media producing movie after movie and show after show of Euro yte ppl cast as everything from the king of Siam to Nabta Playa/Bir Kesiba originators of cattle herding?
Can have lotsa fun with race baiter stupidities, bring on more, please.
[img][/img]
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: So if the figures for Mende-like ancestry represent the bare minimum of sub-Saharan ancestry in the Guanche samples you analyzed, what would the figures for Dinka-like ancestry in those samples look like?
Also, what about Mota? I recall them being related to modern Omotic-speakers in Ethiopia, and Omotic is a branch of Afroasiatic like Berber. It would make sense to me if a little Mota-like ancestry was present in proto-Afroasiatic speakers from the beginning and was then spread to the Maghreb by proto-Berbers.
Wait wait wait... gotta stop you here lol. Lemme clarify, The fits with Mende are good. Which is why I picked them. Others are better and/or have higher contribution. Mende don't represent the "bare minimum." universally.
Omotic related ancestry in that context would predate Iberomaurasians. Therefore their ancestry would hint towards the presence of ANA in N.Africa and the Near east. With the availability of pleistocene and Neolithic North African genomes, Omotic related ancestry for this purpose is obsoleted. The Dinka however harbor downstream ANA-related ancestry that was available in North east Africa or east Sahara (western desert), hence the tub of worms.
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: That's really going too far and very speculative...Capsians literally came from the near east and according to some brought the proto-berber culture to NA, it can't be a coincidence. Especially that they found many capsian types living along side IBM types on the same places.
What the...
Do you have any new evidence on the subject to support the first half of this statement. Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Please respect the OP's topic.
Have your fun but don't cut out the race baiting and unnecessary tribalism
/////////////MOD Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I don't get it.
I was 3rd in line on a DougM & Hotep interchange I didn't start it and yes it is not only off topic but off forum before my last post.
Well I thought we all knew genetics can't reconstruct either metrical nor non-metrical facial features or hair textures. They don't teach that in schools no more?
Oh, OK, I'll go away.
EDIT Whoops, had a Sr moment. Of course the Abusir 3 are mummified heads permitting the given craniology.
Interesting is a few years back Xyyman established continental African identity for JK2134 using ADMIXTURE @ K=5.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Punic1 IAM Dinka
Omotic related ancestry in that context would predate Iberomaurasians. Therefore their ancestry would hint towards the presence of ANA in N.Africa and the Near east. With the availability of pleistocene and Neolithic North African genomes, Omotic related ancestry for this purpose is obsoleted. The Dinka however harbor downstream ANA-related ancestry that was available in North east Africa or east Sahara (western desert), hence the tub of worms.
Thanks. Gotta say the 14% Dinka ancestry in one of your tests on the Guanche mummies (the one with p = 0.82) is rather impressive. You think this could have been ancestry brought to the Maghreb by proto-Berber populations (possibly the so-called Capsians) coming in from eastern North Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: What the...
Do you have any new evidence on the subject to support the first half of this statement.
What I have seen suggested before is that the Capsian culture represents a movement of proto-Afroasiatic speakers coming into the Maghreb to form proto-Berbers. But if that were the case, their origin would be in Northeast Africa alongside all the other proto-Afroasiatic speakers rather than West Eurasia.
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
By Hotep Boy: "There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again)."
How is OK Egyptians being related NAs some kind of win for you exactly? Are we talking about ancient N. Africans? Ancient North Africans are defined by ANA, which contributed widely into the ancestors of modern SSAs.
You people switch from one narrative to the next with these OK samples. First, it was these OK samples show a clear Eurasian shift; now, ya'll claiming it's N. African.
So now we know that the God-forsaken Schuenemann et al.(2017) study which used Ancient DNA from a clearly defined Greek-Roman colonial gravesite and from samples probably having Hyksos ancestry does not deserve to be taken seriously as representing indigenous AE ancestry.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:How is OK for Egyptians being related NAs some kind of win for you exactly? Are we talking about ancient N. Africans? Acient North Africans are defined by ANA, which contributed widely into the ancestors of modern SSAs.
You people switch from one narrative to the next with these OK samples. Fist, it was these OK samples show a clear Eurasian shift; now, ya'll claiming its N. African.
I haven't forgotten how certain Euronuts were making a big deal out of these AE samples supposedly plotting near PPNB on a PCA over a year ago. Now that the majority of their ancestry has been described as "North African", that might not be the win the Euros think it is.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Sorry to lie about going away but this intrigues me so I just gotta ask.
Why would Dinka be more Gafsian than Sahra-Sudanese?
And isn't Gafsian Green Sahara early Holocene while Berber is Dry Sahara late Holocene?
I do understand Tamazight originated in Jebel Marra Sudan vicinity.
What is it I'm missing?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Thanks. Gotta say the 14% Dinka ancestry in one of your tests on the Guanche mummies (the one with p = 0.82) is rather impressive. You think this could have been ancestry brought to the Maghreb by proto-Berber populations (possibly the so-called Capsians) coming in from eastern North Africa?
Possibly, or it could just be ANA substructure captured by the Dinka. We need more data to be sure.
Sorry to lie but this intriques me so I gotta ask.
Why would Dinka be more Gafsian than Sahra-Sudanese?
...If it's me you're asking. I haven't put forth evidence to make that claim. Which stat suggests this?
And isn't Gafsian Green Sahara early Holocene while Berber is Dry Sahara late Holocene?
Yeah, & I don't personally see the discrepancy with anything I've said. but I will say that I do believe theirs a cultural and biological discrepancy between Berber and Capsian/gasfian (and protoberber). So most of the components I spoke about predates the Modern Berber profile and were absorbed over by local populations. So for example: I wouldn't be suggesting that Dinka related ancestry traveled with Berber languages, M183 or EEF related ancestry coming from wherever.
I do understand Tamazight originated in Jebel Marra Sudan vicinity. What is it I'm missing?
IDK
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
It's not a challenge. Does everything have to be a battle? It's not about who said it, it's about the concepts.
OK reposting with what it was in reply to like I shoulda first done
=======
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: 14% Dinka ancestry in one of your tests on the Guanche mummies (the one with p = 0.82) is rather impressive.
<A> You think this could have been ancestry brought to the Maghreb by proto-Berber populations <B> (possibly the so-called Capsians) <C> coming in from eastern North Africa?
.
Sorry to lie about going away but this intrigues me so I just gotta ask.
<A> Why would Dinka be more Gafsian than Sahra-Sudanese? <B> And isn't Gafsian Green Sahara early Holocene while Berber is Dry Sahara late Holocene? <C> I do understand Tamazight originated in Jebel Marra Sudan vicinity.
What is it I'm missing?
=-=
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [there's] a cultural and biological discrepancy between Berber and Capsian/gasfian [...].
<< Yes. U6 women escorted E-M81 men from Sudan to Maroc >>
So most of the components I spoke about predates the Modern Berber profile and were absorbed over by local populations.
<< naturally >>
=-= EDIT FOR BELOW POST Nah, not combative. Defensive. Acquaintances call me combative. I don't see it, but they do.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] It's not a challenge. Does everything have to be a battle?
I'm just answering your questions lol.
I'm not being combative at all.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Yeah, & I don't personally see the discrepancy with anything I've said. but I will say that I do believe theirs a cultural and biological discrepancy between Berber and Capsian/gasfian (and protoberber). So most of the components I spoke about predates the Modern Berber profile and were absorbed over by local populations.
Out of curiosity, how do you think the modern Berber profile formed? Your runs on the Guanches suggests a major Punic contribution to me.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Yeah, & I don't personally see the discrepancy with anything I've said. but I will say that I do believe theirs a cultural and biological discrepancy between Berber and Capsian/gasfian (and protoberber). So most of the components I spoke about predates the Modern Berber profile and were absorbed over by local populations.
Out of curiosity, how do you think the modern Berber profile formed? Your runs on the Guanches suggests a major Punic contribution to me.
You tell me...
quote:Regarding E-M183, as mentioned above, we cannot discard an expansion from the Near East and, if so, according to our time estimates, it could have been brought by the Islamic expansion on the 7th century, but definitely not with the Neolithic expansion, which appeared in NW Africa ~7400 BP and may have featured a strong Epipaleolithic persistence31. Moreover, such a recent appearance of E-M183 in NW Africa would fit with the patterns observed in the rest of the genome, where an extensive, male-biased Near Eastern admixture event is registered ~1300 ya, coincidental with the Arab expansion20. An alternative hypothesis would involve that E-M183 was originated somewhere in Northwest Africa and then spread through all the region. Our time estimates for the origin of this haplogroup overlap with the end of the third Punic War (146 BCE), when Carthage (in current Tunisia) was defeated and destroyed, which marked the beginning of Roman hegemony of the Mediterranean Sea. About 2,000 ya North Africa was one of the wealthiest Roman provinces and E-M183 may have experienced the resulting population growth
Tunisia Chenini Berbers (almost fixed for M81) Punic1 IAM Mende
I'm not ruling out European (possibly EEF admixture) of some sort predating this though. Think about V88. I just caution against attributing the KEB site as Berber though those types of people could have been absorbed locally.
Don't want to get too deep into this atm.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
According to the source Evergreen cited, they used samples from the same Late Period Abusir el-Meleq mummies that has been in much contention since we know that more than likely they were foreigners and NOT indigenous Egyptians so is anyone really surprised that their reconstructions turned out the way they did?
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: I'm using it the way it is used within mainstream Euro dominated societies that were the ones that produced race as a social construct. Race as it is applied around the world involves the Horn. Nobody cares whether you apply the structure of their features to mixture or not. They're treated as a Black people.
So you admit your worldview is eurocentric ? You simply follow what your ex-masters imposed on your ancestors ?
More gaslighting bullshit. Why am I hearing this nonsense when my primary aim is to weigh the beliefs sustaining anti-blackness against science? How is deconstructing the beliefs of racist whites and their ancestors "following" what they impose? To me, following would be accepting the beliefs they've had about Black peoples without question.
Black people acknowledge a common history and set of human experiences that have come with our appearances. Regardless of what whites believe, Black peoples will be connected because our appearances are subject to a certain set of attitudes. We are also posthumously connected to ancient peoples of Egypt in a similar manner. The peoples of southern Egypt/Northern Sudan (and their history) are subject to racism in death. Egyptians of the deep south were originally declared not to have even made the culture they founded. They were said to be conquered by foreign Mediterraneans, and even today remain underrepresented in a lot of the research which is determined to establish the identity of Egypt. "Nubia" which did not exist as historical location has been used to obscure the cultural continuity and civilization that was broadly shared with Egypt the way Western Europe has a common sense of civilization. All this to denigrate and deny them a history because of their appearance.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again Caucasoid isn't a race. If you can be Black and Caucasoid then Caucasoid is not describing race. "Caucasoid" is a descriptor of a set of facial features common to Whites, but it's not exclusive to them.
You forget that just based on a skull we can determine if the person was mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid and most east africans fall into the caucasoid category that's it.
Which is to say Blacks can be Caucasoid as I said.
quote: Even a child would recognize such obvious fact :
Haven't you met any somalian/ethiopian IRL or on the internet ? They clearly don't view themselves as similar to folks like you nobody cares about what europeans think.
But the discussion is about race. You've basically gone from saying they aren't Black to "race doesn't matter!111" because you know they are. I didn't ask whether they thought they look the same outside of racial constructs. Many Black Americans don't think they look all that much a alike either. What I've said is that they have some similarities in history because of judgements made about how they look. You can't just imagine away the invasion of Aborginal peoples simply because they may not look like African Khoisan.
If you don't care about it, stop responding to me. You are wasting your time and mine. You don't have a multi trillion economy and military backing your ideas of people's appearances so it is you whose opinion means nothing here.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Black is a real social construct and experience that is based on appearance. I never argued it was a valid genetic construct, so I'm not understanding why I'm being asked this question. But a historical and social experience of mistreatment rooted in stupidass psuedoscientific beliefs attributed to how people look deserves review. To admonish Black people who are so much as interested in investigating the scientific validity of such ideas is gaslighting to protect racist ideology while feigning as though one is not.
Therefore what's the point of spending years here trying to figure if ancient egyptians were black ? It's a social construct after all and you admit being not related to them.
I haven't been spending years figuring that part out. That part I figured out long ago. And though I'm not related to them, my experience as a Black person enhances my ability to empathize with the situations. White supremacists and their allies are attempting to strip ancient southern Egyptians and northern Sudanese of the civilization they built (and yes, due to how they looked).
quote: As far as I know no north africans claim persian or turkish history because of muh appearance.
Most Black peoples are not adopting Egyptian culture as their own and do not adopt Egyptian history as something that is directly related to them. Most Blacks outside of Africa have adopted West African cultures. Egypt when referenced is usually regarded as inspiration to deconstruct ideas of our appearance.
Many of us also feel defensive about Egypt because we know about the historical obscuring of Egypt's connection to Ethiopian looking people. There's the dynastic race theory and invention of Nubia (which is not a historical term for northern Sudan). This has been a form of posthumous attack against people that made the civilization Egypt because they had an appearance judged as Black in today's world. Even now people like you want to say race doesn't matter and no one cares, but then say they weren't Black because some alternative definition nearly no one employs says so. If no one cares you wouldn't have bothered discussing this.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Ethiopians are generally regarded by most of the world as a Black people, so no one cares what you think. You have whole ass non Africans that are not only celebrating their own Black history month, they haven't had contact with Africans in thousands of years.
If they can be Black, so can North Africans and SSA with Eurasian mixture. It's not my job to make sense of racialist beliefs. If they do have a lot of Eurasian proximity but are still regarded by the world as a Black people you're only furthering my case for me. Thanks!
Again this is in america, here no one will ever put an ethiopian and a nigerian in the same bag.
It's not just America unless you're too stupid to realize Australia isn't part of America. Invasions of Africa (including the Horn), theft of Aboriginal land, etc have all happened because people were "put in the same bag." This produced a common treatment or experience. You say it won't ever happen but it already did. Read a proper history book.
quote: hahahah now even north africans can be black ...smh with that logic everyone is black as long as we make the choice to identify as such.
No that's not really how that works. You have to have the phenotype.
quote:A black person is someone of mostly west african ancestry (this generally includes most bantu speakers in Africa) that's it stop with your mental gymnastic trying to lump together people who are vastly different.
How were Aboriginal Australians labeled Black then if only West Africans are Black people? Peoples that are very different were posthumously denigrated or forced to experience a denigrated status for having a "Black appearance." All I've done is acknowledge the common history.
quote:Obama is not black but mixed and that's how he's seen in most of the world.
Not in the West he's not.
quote:There wasn't any replacement and they certainly didn't look like modern ethiopians :
quote:To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
Yea except when you see the graph you notice that the Upper Egyptian samples plot right next to the Ethiopian samples. How he intends to interpret his data doesn't change that his data says they looked like Ethiopians.
quote: [b]The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43 (Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt, c.3500 BC) were cymotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times.
Don't care. For one, Black people as a whole have a wider diversity of hair textures. Aboriginals can have loose hair and that didn't spare them from white supremacy. Europeans in this generation are just starting to learn many Black people have natural hair textures that are different (and not just an unkept version of theirs) when seen naturally. However when previously less informed of natural hair textures due to the wig wearing, weaves or chemical straightening, this didn't change race relations at all. This is because features like skin tone and cranial structure will be more likely to determine race than hair texture.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
Ancient upper egyptians were physically similar to modern upper egyptians deal with it and these people are certainly not related to afro-americans like yourself. An ethiopian is physically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than west africans and genetically they are closer to west eurasians.
You try to bring a social construct such as "black" in order to claim their civilization as yours and we all know how this end up :
What about "Western civilization" where people in various places in Western and Northern Europe imply Greece and Rome as their ancestors and copy their architecture and view their philosophy as part of their own? -when those cultures were largely forgotten until the Renaissance
Because roman and greek civilizations are at the core of western civilization and from a strictly genetic point of view an irish or romanian are closer to these greco-romans than a nigerian is to Egyptians or Ethiopians.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
What the...
Do you have any new evidence on the subject to support the first half of this statement. [/QB]
I thought this was common knowledge :
quote:It would be a branch of the Chamito-Semitic languages, probably born in the Nile valley, and which also include Egyptian, Kushitic and Semitic. Indeed, lexical analogies (and even the triliteral structure of the roots) and verbal analogies (in the conjugation) are noted. It is to a similar conclusion that E.Lipinski prudently arrives on the basis, undoubtedly narrow, of the funerary vocabulary that can be identified: it presents similarities with Egyptian and Semitic. Linguistics thus seems to make lean towards an Eastern origin, which could be that of the Capsians.
Jean-Marie Lassère, Africa quasi Roma, p. 31-32
quote:Obviously, the man of mechta el-arbi could not give birth to the proto-Mediterranean men. The latter, which gradually replaced him, appeared first in the east, while the men of Mechta el-arbi were still, in the Neolithic, the most numerous in the west of the country. This progression from east to west clearly indicates the appearance of this proto-Mediterranean human type. The anthropologists and prehistorians specialists, are today in agreement to admit that it came from the Near East.
Gabriel Camps, Les Berbères, p. 57
He also talks about a very clear link between capsian art and the first stages of berber art.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: What I have seen suggested before is that the Capsian culture represents a movement of proto-Afroasiatic speakers coming into the Maghreb to form proto-Berbers. But if that were the case, their origin would be in Northeast Africa alongside all the other proto-Afroasiatic speakers rather than West Eurasia. [/QB]
More like a near eastern migration that split in two in the delta area one going south to the Horn and the other to the maghreb.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa:
How is OK Egyptians being related NAs some kind of win for you exactly? Are we talking about ancient N. Africans? Ancient North Africans are defined by ANA, which contributed widely into the ancestors of modern SSAs.
You people switch from one narrative to the next with these OK samples. First, it was these OK samples show a clear Eurasian shift; now, ya'll claiming it's N. African.
So now we know that the God-forsaken Schuenemann et al.(2017) study which used Ancient DNA from a clearly defined Greek-Roman colonial gravesite and from samples probably having Hyksos ancestry does not deserve to be taken seriously as representing indigenous AE ancestry. [/QB]
Ancient NAs being defined by ANA ?? Ancient NAs were already similar to modern day north africans with components such as EEF, IAM, natufian, SSA.
This would be "old kingdom" berbers from the maghreb :
ANA ancestry only partially composed the IAM profile but you want late neolithic/copper age North africans to be mostly defined by it ? lol
And do not exaggerate with the abusir samples : they are three mummies from different eras and yet show similar profiles and are similar to modern egyptians so no they weren't "greco-romans" or foreigners.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] According to the source Evergreen cited, they used samples from the same Late Period Abusir el-Meleq mummies that has been in much contention since we know that more than likely they were foreigners and NOT indigenous Egyptians so is anyone really surprised that their reconstructions turned out the way they did?
Haplogroup J and E1b1b1 carriers are foreigners ?
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: According to the source Evergreen cited, they used samples from the same Late Period Abusir el-Meleq mummies that has been in much contention since we know that more than likely they were foreigners and NOT indigenous Egyptians so is anyone really surprised that their reconstructions turned out the way they did?
They were not foreigners :
quote:Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55.
I suppose it's a pure coincidence that they are genetically similar to modern egyptians and look like them ?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: I thought this was common knowledge :
quote:It would be a branch of the Chamito-Semitic languages, probably born in the Nile valley, and which also include Egyptian, Kushitic and Semitic. Indeed, lexical analogies (and even the triliteral structure of the roots) and verbal analogies (in the conjugation) are noted. It is to a similar conclusion that E.Lipinski prudently arrives on the basis, undoubtedly narrow, of the funerary vocabulary that can be identified: it presents similarities with Egyptian and Semitic. Linguistics thus seems to make lean towards an Eastern origin, which could be that of the Capsians.
Jean-Marie Lassère, Africa quasi Roma, p. 31-32
quote:Obviously, the man of mechta el-arbi could not give birth to the proto-Mediterranean men. The latter, which gradually replaced him, appeared first in the east, while the men of Mechta el-arbi were still, in the Neolithic, the most numerous in the west of the country. This progression from east to west clearly indicates the appearance of this proto-Mediterranean human type. The anthropologists and prehistorians specialists, are today in agreement to admit that it came from the Near East.
Gabriel Camps, Les Berbères, p. 57
He also talks about a very clear link between capsian art and the first stages of berber art.
You said the Capsians "litteraly came from the near east."
I'm looking for clear evidence of that claim. Proto-Meds as defined by your second quote were that of late neolithic individuals. At the time it was written the gasfian weren't considered a neolithic civilization but a mesolithic one.
With both the genomes of Taforalt and IAM sequenced you'd have to come better than that.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: roman and greek civilizations are at the core of western civilization
It could be argued that during medieval Europe Roman and Greek civilization was not it's core
yet, medieval Europe came well after
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
and from a strictly genetic point of view an irish or romanian are closer to these greco-romans than a nigerian is to Egyptians or Ethiopians. [/QB]
there is only one Y-DNA haplogroup of Mycenaeans, J2a1 Modern Greeks also carry J and E-V13 which is the only E clade more common outside Africa Uncommon in Ireland
R1b-M269 haplogroup is 70% or more in Ireland There was discontinuity between mesolithic central Europe and modern European populations mainly due to an extremely high frequency of haplogroup U (particularly U5) types in mesolithic central European sites.
......
Romanians according to genetic origin by Y-DNA haplogroup Haplogroup I2 28% Haplogroup R1a 18% Haplogroup R1b 15% Haplogroup E1b1b 14% Haplogroup J2 14%
______________________________
Nigeria about 75% E1b1a, African Americans largely
--Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death ofRamesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological,and genetic study Zahi Hawass, Albert R Zink et al 2012
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You said the Capsians "litteraly came from the near east."
I'm looking for clear evidence of that claim. Proto-Meds as defined by your second quote were that of late neolithic individuals. At the time it was written the gasfian weren't considered a neolithic civilization but a mesolithic one.
With both the genomes of Taforalt and IAM sequenced you'd have to come better than that. [/qb]
These are the opinions of specialists, I don't understand what do you need more since their genomes haven't been sequenced. Maybe something like this :
quote:The internal structure of Afroasiatic is far from resolved, and the literature contains many competing models (cf. review in Blench 2006). Nonetheless, the grammar of Berber aligns it strongly with Semitic, and most genealogical trees place these two branches in proximity. Berber verbal affixes are strikingly similar to those of Semitic, both in form, function and position as prefixes or suffixes, and must be inherited from the common ancestor of Berber and Semitic (Lipinski 2001:44).
Roger Blench, Linguistic and archaeological evidence for berber prehistory, p. 2
These two branches split exactly during the time-frame of capsians.
Or this :
quote:The Mediterranean and European origin has no more defender in spite of the presence of a pre-ceramic industry recently recognized in Corsica proving the existence of very old navigations. One would rather lean towards an African and Near Eastern ancestry because of the anthropological data. The Mediterranean human type to which the Capsians belong, exists in the Near East and appears first in the eastern Maghreb when the west is still populated exclusively by Mechta el-Arbi type populations. The lithic industry of the Natoufian of Palestine and especially that of the Haua Fteah cave in Cyrenaica, are not without common points with that of the Capsian.
quote:The proto-Mediterranean men of the Capesian deposits of North Africa are not comparable to the Mesolithic men of southern Europe, notably those of Muge and the Pyrenean region of Montardit, characterized by a much less robust skeleton, a face of average height and rather low orbits. They would be close to the robust proto-Mediterranean men of the Terminal Natoufian of Palestine.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: According to the source Evergreen cited, they used samples from the same Late Period Abusir el-Meleq mummies that has been in much contention since we know that more than likely they were foreigners and NOT indigenous Egyptians so is anyone really surprised that their reconstructions turned out the way they did?
They were not foreigners :
quote:Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55.
I suppose it's a pure coincidence that they are genetically similar to modern egyptians and look like them ?
No. But older Egyptologists would even admit demographic changes were happening to where most of Egypt resembled the modern era by the New Kingdom. This meant demographic changes began long before, with a sweeping influx of immigration and NE conquest happening towards the second Millennium B.C.
But you don't have to just take my word for it:
quote:Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54
The source you posted acknowledges that prior to the birth of any of their sampled mummies, was large scale immigration that took place over a long period of time. Since this is so, continuity post-dating that immigration is rather irrelevant to proving who the AE were originally. And for that matter northern samples in general wouldn't be a great place to start.
Many of those people in the north descended primarily from immigrants and predynastic tribes that adopted southern culture. But when it comes to who made the culture, that resulted from people living deep in Southern Egypt and northern Sudan. And it'd seem these studies, and posters online that have seen unpublished data always leave open the possibility that the most significant people to the founding of Egypt are still largely unknown.
Your source even says:
quote: “However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa 51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made."
Only thing they left out is that even before dynastic Egypt, southern Egypt and northern Sudan shared contacts. Ta Seti was an emerging power or developing kingdom in the predynastic. The northern portion of Ta Seti was absorbed by the dynastic era, but it differed from the northern tribes, because it shared a similar culture to the southern Egyptians prior to this.
So far all I've seen is genetic data on northerners, the descendants of immigrants, and genetically drifted peoples of the Dakleh Oasis that mixed primarily with northerners and Libyans. The most quintessential people that formed Egypt however, have still not been sampled. I could imagine they had some NE mixture in the predynastic, especially after contact with the north. But somehow, I doubt their genetic profiles looked quite like Abusir in the deep south towards northern Sudan.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: No. But older Egyptologists would even admit demographic changes were happening to where most of Egypt resembled the modern era by the New Kingdom. This meant demographic changes began long before, with a sweeping influx of immigration and NE conquest happening towards the second Millennium B.C.
But you don't have to just take my word for it:
I am not sure why you keep repeating this, because Egyptology has always been saying that the Nile Valley was made up primarily of Eurasian "backmigrants". There is no middle ground in this. Again the Abusir paper states bluntly that mixture with "central Africans" is a recent phenomena in the Nile Valley. So they are blatantly suggesting that Africans were never present in the Nile Valley to begin with. And the issue boils down to how you define "African". First it was based on craniofacial categories, which was part of an older "racial" construct. Then it moved on to DNA but in either case the goal is the same, define some characteristic such as narrow noses or DNA lineages as "Eurasian" and then use that to say the Nile Valley was not African because of the presence of said features. And again, for these people there is no middle ground as far as they are concerned the Nile Valley civilization of KMT was never African to begin with. Hawass keeps saying this, various Egyptologists keep saying this and these bogus papers keep suggesting it, yet people swear that there is some "middle ground" to this line of thinking. There is not.
The reconstruction of these mummy faces follows the pattern of many other reconstructions of mummies which always presents them as light skinned, totally in contradiction of how the ancients portrayed themselves. This isn't a data issue or a science issue, it totally an issue of them wanting to promote that regardless of facts and science.
The issue with this reconstruction is the same as the issue with DNA assignment and other kinds of studies being done and that is lack of African data. All of these are using statistical models based on data sets largely either from selected modern populations and ancient DNA from Europe while Africa is relatively under sampled, even from modern populations. The standard dataset for African DNA always uses Central African or West African as the standard for "African" DNA. Not Ethiopia Sudan, Upper Egypt, Mali, Niger or Upper Libya. So it is always going to be skewed away from Africa and towards the predominant data set which is mostly modern "North African" which is coastal North African and Europe.
And again, keep in mind that the 2 of the 3 mummies used in this paper are from generally the time period of the 25th Dynasty. So how are they going to spin this as "proof" that there were no blacks in the Nile Valley when the 25th dynasty is called the dynasty of the so-called 'black' pharaohs?
Not only that where is the DNA analysis and reconstruction of the 21st dynasty mummies which are some of the best preserved of any time period in the Nile Valley with obvious black features? Such as Hennutawy and Queen Nodjmet? If there were no "blacks" in the Nile Valley and thy were mostly mixed, then how does this make sense? Because the reality is that southerners were present and dominant all the way into the Late period and didn't just vanish due to mixing in the New Kingdom because the Southern borders of KMT went all the way to the 5th or 6th cataract so obviously there would have been large numbers of migrants from the South. But again, these inconvenient facts keep getting ignored in order to promote a false narrative.
quote: Some time after 1080 BCE, the Tanite Nesbanebded still had some control over Upper Egypt, Egypt split between a northern 21st Dynasty claiming national recognition reigning from Tanis, and a line of Theban generals and high priests of Amen, who actually controlled the South from Thebes. Relations between the two authorities were peaceful. The Tantes were driven from power by Libyan warriors who established their own Twenty Second Dynasty.
There was a tradition of representing the high priest as the King's representative: Herihor did not claim royal dignity. During this period they called (the) Reinaissance (whm.msw.t) Herihor and his successors Pinedjem, Masaharta and Menkheperre, with the exception of Piankh all usedthe title of High Priest of Amun as their principle title.
Of course High Priest of Amun is the high priest of the deity the said originated in Gebel Barkal, far to the South in Sudan.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: No. But older Egyptologists would even admit demographic changes were happening to where most of Egypt resembled the modern era by the New Kingdom. This meant demographic changes began long before, with a sweeping influx of immigration and NE conquest happening towards the second Millennium B.C.
But you don't have to just take my word for it:
quote:Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54
The source you posted acknowledges that prior to the birth of any of their sampled mummies, was large scale immigration that took place over a long period of time. Since this is so, continuity post-dating that immigration is rather irrelevant to proving who the AE were originally. And for that matter northern samples in general wouldn't be a great place to start.
Many of those people in the north descended primarily from immigrants and predynastic tribes that adopted southern culture. But when it comes to who made the culture, that resulted from people living deep in Southern Egypt and northern Sudan. And it'd seem these studies, and posters online that have seen unpublished data always leave open the possibility that the most significant people to the founding of Egypt are still largely unknown.
So far all I've seen is genetic data on northerners, the descendants of immigrants, and genetically drifted peoples of the Dakleh Oasis that mixed primarily with northerners and Libyans. The most quintessential people that formed Egypt however, have still not been sampled. I could imagine they had some NE mixture in the predynastic, especially after contact with the north. But somehow, I doubt their genetic profiles looked quite like Abusir in the deep south towards northern Sudan. [/QB]
That doesn't mean old kingdom egyptians were more SSA (see the quote I posted about these old kingdom profiles). You think west eurasian migrations to North Africa only started with the Hyksos ?
Anyway no data confirms the idea of an original black egyptian population :
quote:However, there is also one major difference; Mukherjee and associates placed their Badarian Egyptian sample within the sub-Saharan cluster, while puzzling over this unexpected affinity (Mukherjee et al., 1955: 86). Inspection of the original D2 matrix (their Table 5.6: 84) does, in reality, indicate a Badarian affiliation to North Africans, not sub-Saharan samples. It is therefore likely that an error was made in construction of their original figure when converting inter-sample distances to x- and y-coordinates. A similar plotting inaccuracy would have taken place in Figure 4 if the Badarian (BAD) sample had erroneously received a negative rather than positive x-coordinate.
quote:The body shape of the terminal Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba population is tropical-adapted, with elongated limbs, especially in the distal segments, and is most similar to living sub-Saharan Africans and less similar to late Pleistocene and Holocene North Africans (including Egyptians and Nubians). The sample’s body shape likely reflects elevated gene flow up the Nile Valley from areas further south, but may also be due in part to the tropical hot conditions present at the site, even during glacial periods. The Jebel Sahaba sample are distinct in body shape from penecontemporary humans from Afalou-BouRhummel (Algeria) and El Wad Natufians from the southern Levant—a result consistent with the results of both Irish (2000, 2005) using dental data and Franciscus (1995, 2003) using nasal data.
quote:Comparisons of C-Group and Pan-Grave Nubians to Badari and Hierakonpolis separate Badari from the other samples, indicating no biological affinities with these earlier Nubian groups (Godde, 2009b). The reoccurring notation of Kerma affinities with Egyptian groups is not entirely surprising. Kerma was an integral part of the trade between Egypt and Nubia. Collett (1933) concluded that Kerma was originally inhabited by Egyptians with neighboring Nubian settlements.
quote:In addition, the predynastic sample from Badari (bad) is consistently positioned near the other two predynastic samples, particularly Hierakonpolis (hrk); early dynastic Abydos (aby) is plotted nearby. Badari and Hierakonpolis are both adjacent to the centroid in MDS space, suggesting they may be similar to many of the other diachronic samples—either through shared ancestry or a significant genetic contribution to subsequent groups. The Roman Period (AD 50–600) samples of Hawara (haw) and El Hesa (hes), but not Kharga (kha), form a loose cluster, with Hawara consistently positioned near the centroid of all three MDS plots; as above, this location suggests there was considerable affinity with the other groups. It is important to point out that Roman Period burial samples do not necessarily include actual Romans.
You're just desesperate at this point. They clearly were very different to west africans like yourself but yet you still want them to be "black" like you lmao
These upper Egyptians always looked like this :
Now stop obsessing over their race, it's their history not yours.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote: What about "Western civilization" where people in various places in Western and Northern Europe imply Greece and Rome as their ancestors and copy their architecture and view their philosophy as part of their own? -when those cultures were largely forgotten until the Renaissance
Because roman and greek civilizations are at the core of western civilization
Yes but "westerners" chose to adopt Greek and Roman culture as the core of their civilization WELL before they had any understanding of genetics. Hell many mainstream ideas about genetics in Europe are still wrong. So why not make northwestern Europeans the core of their civilization?
quote:from a strictly genetic point of view an irish or romanian are closer to these greco-romans than a nigerian is to Egyptians or Ethiopians.
So what if they're relatively more closely related than a Nigerian and Ethiopian? A Nigerian could be more closely related to an Ethiopian or Egyptian than a South African and yet I'll bet you wouldn't be here crying your asses off it that Nigerian paid homage to South African peoples. The extent to which a people are too distant or close enough in relationship to identify with one another is arbitrary.
Who decides what's too small or too large a distance? And why is their decision valid but not another's?
They keep trying to act like race has nothing to do with it, but RACE is the social construct that is telling people these two groups are close enough to assume each other's history. Oh no, nevermind if the group of ancients in question had little to no respect for their northern ancestors. They're both white now, which means they can now be defended as close enough in relationship. No matter how these people sell it, their feelings are not objective. Many of the same people that practice this behavior or watch people do it without care get mad when certain people (often Black) do it.
...Oh. and since we're going there, I'll ask again: why is it permissible that Black Americans are constantly battling the appropriation of FBA/ADOS culture and history for the profits of white businesses? How come Blacks made jazz and rock but are not the ones primarily benefiting? With rock especially, many people around the world still think Europeans made it. They attribute the genre itself to people like the Elvis. Hate Black Americans to the core of their being while playing rock music.
I've come to notice that often times whatever Blacks create something, it often can belong to "everyone" if people like it enough. I get annoyed when I see MENA mad over Blacks wearing ankhs while permitting their own people to make it to Forbes profiting off of FBA/ADOS culture. Why are you mad at a few cherrypicked people in Egyptian garb but not the billions MENA make off our people? They actually affect our economy and livelihoods but not once has this person posting said anything. Didn't last time either.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
1st lemme get this out th way.
Ancient Egyptians were never a monolithic breeding population anytime in history. AEL texts mark nuances like Elephantine south regionals contrasted to north delta dwellers. One look at a map's enough evidence Egypt's Nile is quite easy to access from east south west or north. The nation-state was formed when Africans from the south forced delta Africans from the west and delta 'Asians' from the east & northeast to become the northern kingdom labeled Lower Egypt.
The majority or plurality group shifted in time from African and mixed to mixed and African. In the Old Kingdom era 'Libyan' or 'SW Asian' ancestry had no detrimental effect on Egyptian identity. They didn't have a pure blood concept that they applied to the populace. Ethnicity is cultural. Some ethnic groups have narrow or limited phenotype choices, not all. A nation can be represented by any of its minor or sub-ethnicities from anywhere in the country. The Abusir data can't be dismissed because unliked. That's not science. But yes, its correct and of the essence to qualify samples' provenances and known backgrounds but declaring them true or indigenous in a way the subjects never did themselves is subjective bias. None of the Abusir 3 are foreigners anymore than Keshli affinitied southern Upper Egypt citizens. It is the mixed brood, of whatever percentages of whatever far ancestral geographic origins, that rep Ancient Egypt solidly since the Ramesside New Kingdom.
=-=-=
Xyyman's Abusir 3 original ADMIXTURE run of 30 populations, mentioned earlier, detected JK2134 as overwhelming of Casamanse to Great Lakes African ancestry. Here's a redux of his self-abridged work to compare to Parabon's result.
After seeing this, ones either flat out denouncing Abusir samplings as totally Aamw biased or those touting them as absent inner African genomes display personal prejudice centricity.
I have to say Parabon's non-peer reviewed ADMIXTURE work though not proprietary, is accurately described as GIGO or EIEO Expectations In Expectations Out.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Yes but "westerners" chose to adopt Greek and Roman culture as the core of their civilization WELL before they had any understanding of genetics. Hell many mainstream ideas about genetics in Europe are still wrong. So why not make northwestern Europeans the core of their civilization?
They didn't chose anything, most of western europe was part of the roman empire and followed its culture/institutions. While such thing never happened between Egypt and the rest of Africa (except lower Nubia)
quote:Originally posted by Ase: So what if they're relatively more closely related than a Nigerian and Ethiopian? A Nigerian could be more closely related to an Ethiopian or Egyptian than a South African and yet I'll bet you wouldn't be here crying your asses off it that Nigerian paid homage to South African peoples. The extent to which a people are too distant or close enough in relationship to identify with one another is arbitrary.
Who decides what's too small or too large a distance? And why is their decision valid but not another's?
They keep trying to act like race has nothing to do with it, but RACE is the social construct that is telling people these two groups are close enough to assume each other's history. Oh no, nevermind if the group of ancients in question had little to no respect for their northern ancestors. They're both white now, which means they can now be defended as close enough in relationship. No matter how these people sell it, their feelings are not objective. Many of the same people that practice this behavior or watch people do it without care get mad when certain people (often Black) do it.
...Oh. and since we're going there, I'll ask again: why is it permissible that Black Americans are constantly battling the appropriation of FBA/ADOS culture and history for the profits of white businesses? How come Blacks made jazz and rock but are not the ones primarily benefiting? With rock especially, many people around the world still think Europeans made it. They attribute the genre itself to people like the Elvis. Hate Black Americans to the core of their being while playing rock music.
I've come to notice that often times whatever Blacks create something, it often can belong to "everyone" if people like it enough. I get annoyed when I see MENA mad over Blacks wearing ankhs while permitting their own people to make it to Forbes profiting off of FBA/ADOS culture. Why are you mad at a few cherrypicked people in Egyptian garb but not the billions MENA make off our people? They actually affect our economy and livelihoods but not once has this person posting said anything. Didn't last time either. [/QB]
Because she asked me about north and west euros who view the Greco-roman civilization as their own which makes of course much more sense than Afro-americans claiming Ancient Egypt as a "black" civilization therefore a heritage they can be proud of. People like Nigerians or Senegalese literally have nothing to do with ethiopians let alone Egyptians while we can't really say such thing if we have to compare romans/italians to let's say Germans or british people.
They literally speak indo-european languages, share common lineages + Autosomal results are very similar, shared many cultural codes : architecture in Europe was for a long time influenced by greco-roman canons same for sculpture, their law is mostly based on the roman code of law, Catholicism used latin for its liturgy, etc etc while there are zero egyptian influences in west africa whether culturally or genetically.
Stop whining with your ADOS "culture" while easily 99% of your cultural background, way of thinking, etc found their roots in western culture.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: That doesn't mean old kingdom egyptians were more SSA (see the quote I posted about these old kingdom profiles).
I never said all Old Kingdom samples would be different everywhere in Egypt. Some of that is the result of predynastic settlers (especially northern). However all peoples living in Egypt are not equal in their contribution to the development of Egyptian civilization. Your own quote admits that samples deeper south in the Old Kingdom may yield different results. A strange statement to make. Why would your source say that if their data extended that far to prove otherwise? Southern Egyptian and Northern Sudan is where the civilization formed. You can't omit the most important component of the story for immigrants, and foreign tribes forcibly assimilated. You tried that last time. It didn't work then, it won't now.
quote:Anyway no data confirms the idea of an original black egyptian population :
quote:However, there is also one major difference; Mukherjee and associates placed their Badarian Egyptian sample within the sub-Saharan cluster, while puzzling over this unexpected affinity (Mukherjee et al., 1955: 86). Inspection of the original D2 matrix (their Table 5.6: 84) does, in reality, indicate a Badarian affiliation to North Africans, not sub-Saharan samples. It is therefore likely that an error was made in construction of their original figure when converting inter-sample distances to x- and y-coordinates. A similar plotting inaccuracy would have taken place in Figure 4 if the Badarian (BAD) sample had erroneously received a negative rather than positive x-coordinate.
Is there a reason why you decided to reference Irish's older works once it was made apparent to you that the paper you posted from him earlier found Ethiopian likeness? Why did you ignore the study from 2010 when the Ethiopian data was pointed out to you? Now you're hunkering down on something published 3 years prior?
Why are the modern Ethiopians (ETH) closer to the Ancient Upper Egyptians than Nubians, Lower Egyptians or the Maghreb? You said no data exists supporting what I said and then turn to older data when people pointed out from a more recent study you posted where you dun goofed.
quote:In addition, the predynastic sample from Badari (bad) is consistently positioned near the other two predynastic samples, particularly Hierakonpolis (hrk); early dynastic Abydos (aby) is plotted nearby. Badari and Hierakonpolis are both adjacent to the centroid in MDS space, suggesting they may be similar to many of the other diachronic samples—either through shared ancestry or a significant genetic contribution to subsequent groups.
Again, without comparisons with modern samples this doesn't say much. We found for example Ethiopians to be more similar to the pooled Upper Egyptian sample than they were to Lower Egyptians of the Maghreb.
quote: You're just desesperate at this point. They clearly were very different to west africans like yourself but yet you still want them to be "black" like you lmao
The one who has been shifting goalposts and making definitions for race that aren't used by many people is you. No one said all Blacks are carbon copies of one another. Nor do I have to want them to be anything. Black is how the sum of their phenotypes would be evaluated in modern times. Blacker ancients have also faced denigration and theft of their achievements because of how they look (racism). I never "wanted" that to happen but it did/is happening. Even now so called "MENA" return here insisting they don't care about race but will deny the original Egyptians were Black. Hell, now they post data showing they cluster with Ethiopians more than one another but denial denial denile. Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Is there a reason why you decided to reference Irish's older works once it was made apparent to you that the paper you posted from him earlier found Ethiopian likeness? Why did you ignore the study from 2010 when the Ethiopian data was pointed out to you? Now you're hunkering down on something published 3 years prior?
Why are the modern Ethiopians (ETH) closer to the Ancient Upper Egyptians than Nubians, Lower Egyptians or the Maghreb? You said no data exists supporting what I said and then turn to older data when people pointed out from a more recent study you posted where you dun goofed.
Did you at least read the paper ? UEG is modern upper egyptians lmao and the pre-dynastic samples from hierakonpolis plot far from ethiopians so it confirms what I said about modern UEG being already close to modern ethiopians but you want us to believe they "changed" and are supposedly more "arab/levantine".
Moreover you seem to avoid this quote from their paper :
quote: To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again, without comparisons with modern samples this doesn't say much. We found for example Ethiopians to be more similar to the pooled Upper Egyptian sample than they were to Lower Egyptians of the Maghreb.
It shows continuity between the different egyptian eras despite what you previously said and as for ethiopians it's still the case today with upper egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: The one who has been shifting goalposts and making definitions for race that aren't used by many people is you. No one said all Blacks are carbon copies of one another. Nor do I have to want them to be anything. Black is how the sum of their phenotypes would be evaluated in modern times. Blacker ancients have also faced denigration and theft of their achievements because of how they look (racism). I never "wanted" that to happen but it did/is happening. Even now so called "MENA" return here insisting they don't care about race but will deny the original Egyptians were Black. Hell, now they post data showing they cluster with Ethiopians more than one another but denial denial denile. [/QB]
Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
Ethiopians are not blacks and are genetically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than bantus like you :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Haplogroup J and E1b1b1 carriers are foreigners?
Haplogroup J originated in Asia. As for E1b1b1, although the clade itself originated in Africa some downstream subclades like E-M34 did develop in Asia and even some subtypes of E-M78 as well where upon they could have backtracked to Egypt. Of course you've been in this forum long enough to know this lioness so quit playing dumb.
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: They were not foreigners:
quote:Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55.
Your ignorance of Egyptian history betrays you. You seem equate foreign presence or rule to Greco-Roman periods even though the Abusir mummies date to the time prior to that in the Late Period.
Just to help you out here is a time line of ancient Egyptian history just before the Medieval Era:
Dynastic Egyptian Era:
Early Dynastic Period 3150–2686 BC Old Kingdom 2686–2181 BC 1st Intermediate Period 2181–2055 BC Middle Kingdom 2055–1650 BC 2nd Intermediate Period 1650–1550 BC New Kingdom 1550–1069 BC 3rd Intermediate Period 1069–664 BC Late Period 664–332 BC
Greco-Roman Era:
Argead dynasty 332–310 BC Ptolemaic dynasties 310–30 BC Roman and Byzantine Egypt 30 BC–641 AD Sasanian Egypt 619–629
What you don't understand is that foreign immigration to Middle Egypt especially in the Abusir area has been going on since at least the Middle Kingdom times.
quote:I suppose it's a pure coincidence that they are genetically similar to modern Egyptians and look like them?
Not at all. The Abusir sample represents a mixture of foreigners and indigenous Egyptians and the majority of today's Egyptian populace is exactly that!
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Your ignorance of Egyptian history betrays you. You seem equate foreign presence or rule to Greco-Roman periods even though the Abusir mummies date to the time prior to that in the Late Period.
Just to help you out here is a time line of ancient Egyptian history just before the Medieval Era:
Dynastic Egyptian Era:
Early Dynastic Period 3150–2686 BC Old Kingdom 2686–2181 BC 1st Intermediate Period 2181–2055 BC Middle Kingdom 2055–1650 BC 2nd Intermediate Period 1650–1550 BC New Kingdom 1550–1069 BC 3rd Intermediate Period 1069–664 BC Late Period 664–332 BC
Greco-Roman Era:
Argead dynasty 332–310 BC Ptolemaic dynasties 310–30 BC Roman and Byzantine Egypt 30 BC–641 AD Sasanian Egypt 619–629
What you don't understand is that foreign immigration to Middle Egypt especially in the Abusir area has been going on since at least the Middle Kingdom times.
quote:I suppose it's a pure coincidence that they are genetically similar to modern Egyptians and look like them?
Not at all. The Abusir sample represents a mixture of foreigners and indigenous Egyptians and the majority of today's Egyptian populace is exactly that! [/QB]
Wait so you don't consider them indigenous or "real" egyptians because they are apparently not similar to egyptians who lived before 2000 BC ? Is that a joke ? With that kind of logic most humans are not indigenous to their region. Moreover you don't have any genetic data about old kingdom egyptians. So additional near eastern migrations during the middle/New kingdom won't tell us much about the previous profile. You also don't seem to be bothered by nubian migrations while it's also well attested.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ What part of mixture between foreigners and indigenous populations do you not understand??! Are you saying that there is no difference between pristine indigenous Egyptians and foreigners who intermixed with them?? This is like saying there are no genetic differences between and ancient Aztec and a modern day Mestizo Mexican. LOL
quote:Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
Ethiopians are not blacks and are genetically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than bantus like you :
So you're one of those simpletons who cling to the fallacy of "true negro" when it comes to identifying Africans as black or not. The term 'black' is simply a descriptor of skin color with many Africans including North Africans fitting exactly that description. Using West African/Congoid/ type as "true negro" to represent blacks is like using Scandinavian Nordic types as representative of "true whites". It is a ridiculous and hypocritical argument and one that lead to the downfall of racial typology in physical anthroplogy.
As for your appeal to false authority by citing that Eritrean guy, apparently he doesn't realize that Horn Africans like him are actually closer related to West and Central Africans than they are to South African aboriginals according to the 2018 van de Loosdrecht et al. paper published by Science
This is why people like him and you need to educate yourselves more before making stupid assertions.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ What part of mixture between foreigners and indigenous populations do you not understand??! Are you saying that there is no difference between pristine indigenous Egyptians and foreigners who intermixed with them??
What about haplogroup R-V88 and U5 do you consider those foreign?
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What part of mixture between foreigners and indigenous populations do you not understand??! Are you saying that there is no difference between pristine indigenous Egyptians and foreigners who intermixed with them??
Old kingdom egyptians were not necessarily more "black", near eastern settlers or not. That's my point. Also These abusir mummies were genetically similar to each other throughout 6 centuries of history and are similar to modern day egyptians therefore were indigenous to Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So you're one of those simpletons who cling to the fallacy of "true negro" when it comes to identifying Africans as black or not. The term 'black' is simply a descriptor of skin color with many Africans including North Africans fitting exactly that description. Using West African/ Congoid/ type "true negro" to represent blacks is like using Scandinavian Nordic types as representative of "true whites". It is ridiculous argument.
As for your appeal to false authority by citing that Eritrean guy, apparently he doesn't realize that Horn Africans like him are actually closer related to West and Central Africans than they are to South African aboriginals according to the 2018 van de Loosdrecht et al. paper published by Science
The fallacy ? Were these genetic distances also a fallacy ? West eurasian admixture and migrations into the Horn are also fallacies ? That some ignorant europeans considered negrito or ethiopians "black" doesn't mean they described an objective reality.
And yes scandinavian nordics can be seen as true whites since they lack the IBM, natufian, iran_N, CHG and black ancestry of southern europeans.
And why do you compare this eritrean to khoisans a tiny minority of southern africa ? He's still closer to North africans and middle eastern people than bantus from Congo, Nigeria or Senegal.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: What about haplogroup R-V88 and U5, do you consider those foreign?
If the parent clades of those groups originated outside Africa then yes they are foreign. Do you consider E-M78 and N1 foreign to Europe?
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: The fallacy? Were these genetic distances also a fallacy? West eurasian admixture and migrations into the Horn are also fallacies? That some ignorant europeans considered negrito or ethiopians "black" doesn't mean they described an objective reality.
Will you stop obfuscating my argument with straw dolls? The only fallacy I was referring to is your argument of using the label 'black' as a euphemism for "true negro". Again the label 'black' is descriptive one referring to skin color. Yes Eurasian 'Negritos' and Australian Aborigines are as equally black as Ethiopians but sharing the same skin pigment does not make them all closely genetically related. Meanwhile Ethiopians and West Africans who inhabit the same continent are closer related as the PCA graph I posted show!
quote:And yes scandinavian nordics can be seen as true whites since they lack the IBM, natufian, iran_N, CHG and black ancestry of southern europeans.
LOL Okay so I take it you are a Nordicist. So all the other Europeans are somehow not 'white' then? Also, what about the ANE ancestry they share with some Siberians and Indigenous Americans? If 'true white' to you means being pristine European with no admixture non-Europeans since the Holocene, then you are hard press to find such a group my ignorant friend.
quote:And why do you compare this eritrean to khoisans a tiny minority of southern africa ? He's still closer to North africans and middle eastern people than bantus from Congo, Nigeria or Senegal.
LOL First off, your comments on the Khoisan are irrelevant. The point is that the Khoisan and Horn Africans are BOTH 'Sub-Saharan' geographically yet the genetic distance between them is great. 2nd, Eritrea is a nation inhabited by several ethnic groups one of which (the Rashaida) are immigrants from Arabia. I don't know which ethnicity that Eritrean ignoramus is part of but the van de Loosdrech et al. PCA graph shows the Eritrean Afar people as being genetically closer to West Africans than Khoisan. Also, notice how the same paper groups North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans together. Don't you think this is due to the Levant Neolithic-- Natufian & black ancestry found in all three groups which you just admitted?
You just need to accept the monumental fact that you are desperate to deny which is indigenous Africans are genetically diverse so pigeonholing them can be easy, but using one group as representative of what is "black" despite that the other groups are also "black" is ridiculous. And yes not just North Africans but Middle Easterners and Europeans have African admixture even from Sub-Sahara as well.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
If there really is a widespread sentiment among Horn Africans that they don't qualify as Black, surely you can find one saying so without that individual also calling West African people "apes"? This image choice alone seems like a racist insult on your part.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Yes but "westerners" chose to adopt Greek and Roman culture as the core of their civilization WELL before they had any understanding of genetics. Hell many mainstream ideas about genetics in Europe are still wrong. So why not make northwestern Europeans the core of their civilization?
They didn't chose anything, most of western europe was part of the roman empire and followed its culture/institutions.
Oh bullshit. America absorbed Native Americans and Australia has an Aboriginal population too. All have to follow the institutions to some degree. But being forced to follow those institutions doesn't mean you are compelled to establish it as the core of your civilization upon acquiring greater freedom. They CHOSE to ramp up their association with southern Europe and many years after the fall of Rome at that.
quote: While such thing never happened between Egypt and the rest of Africa (except lower Nubia)
Northern Sudan's common culture with southern Egypt predates the dynastic age. Ta Seti had it's own pharoahs before the dynastic period. Meanwhile the northern tribes didn't have a pharonic culture until it was colonized by Abydos. Do NOT compare their similarities with Egypt as a result of mere conquest. They are not the same as northwestern Europeans adopting southern European culture.
quote:[quote]...she asked me about north and west euros who view the Greco-roman civilization as their own which makes of course much more sense than Afro-americans claiming Ancient Egypt as a "black" civilization therefore a heritage they can be proud of.
Arguing that what you're talking about makes relatively more sense doesn't prove it is a sensible concept. Again WHAT objective metric decides a people are closely related "enough" to claim a culture or when they're too far? Deciding that some genetic distances that aren't directly related are "close enough" but not others is an opinion. While it's true that deciding culture by ideas of direct lineage is more objective, Greeks and Romans weren't the direct ancestors of north Western Euros.
And yet...! You guys have decided it's okay. So why are these genetic distances arbitrarily accepted as "close enough" for all of Europe to be claiming? The geopolitical unity and economic benefit race provides Europe is the only explanation. I've yet to hear another explanation for why a bunch of north western Europeans are adopting the culture of ancients that considered their ancestors to be inferior. The fall of Rome happened LONG before Western Europe's rise to prominence. They were not even a newly freed people and built their civilization around southern Europe. But of course you'll give them a pass.
Meanwhile MOST Black Diaspora Africans are claiming WESTERN AFRICA. We are not claiming heritage from Egypt. Egypt has become a symbol of what people designated with a Black appearance can achieve, but that's not the same as heritage. When most people say Black history, we're talking about the collective events of all peoples with a a phenotype labeled Black. People having a connected history do not require a common sense of heritage. Do you have the same energy for people who discuss the history of Communists because they're a diverse group of people? No? Okay then! You'd look like a fool crying over genetics whenever Chinese and Russians are discussed in a historical review of communism.
So in summary, you are CHERRYPICKING a handful of Blacks conflating ideas of heritage with a shared history of denigration to manufacture outrage. Meanwhile an entire population of Europeans get to adopt the culture of people that hated their ancestors.
quote: People like Nigerians or Senegalese literally have nothing to do with ethiopians let alone Egyptians while we can't really say such thing if we have to compare romans/italians to let's say Germans or british people.
We can't say they had no contact, but that contact involved southern Europeans considering northerners inferior or sub human. So that is fine? To adopt large sums of the culture of those that hate you, even when free to do otherwise? Generations to reconnect with your roots? You really think that's better than two groups of people that had nothing to do with each other genetically, but have a common experience of having survived something? That's...so stupid. Only modern ideas of race could justify the extent Northwestern Europe adopted Southern European culture. No one else in their right mind would willingly adopt so extensively the ways of a people who lacked respect for their ancestors.
quote:They literally speak indo-european languages, share common lineages + Autosomal results are very similar, shared many cultural codes : architecture in Europe was for a long time influenced by greco-roman canons same for sculpture, their law is mostly based on the roman code of law, Catholicism used latin for its liturgy, etc etc while there are zero egyptian influences in west africa whether culturally or genetically.
Again most of this was a choice. Western European Catholics did not need to adopt Latin but did. They did mot need to adopt southern Europe's architecture but did. Same goes for any other aspect of the southern European culture they took. These adaptations of southern Europe to "western civilization" occur after a relationship of oppression from Southern Europe. Without race there is no reason to adopt so much from them when they could've focused on northern Europe. Why does their having a similar language family make them "close enough" to do this beyond the mere opinion it does?
quote: Stop whining with your ADOS "culture" while easily 99% of your cultural background, way of thinking, etc found their roots in western culture.
Oh ho wow! Look at the shitty justification you've come with. MENA making it to Forbes change their bodies to more closely resemble Black people, take ideas with clear ties to Africa-- most particularly by attaching themselves to our music and the base it's created. Regardless of who you're attributing our culture to, it's still not YOURS. But you've no problems with MENA using it for BILLIONS in profits. Your response is not refuting the double standard of assigning yourselves to large profits from another culture while bitching over cherry picked Blacks wearing ankhs, AE clothing etc. Honestly, how many people of any race made to Forbes tattooing ankhs on a few Black guys? No one.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
If there really is a widespread sentiment among Horn Africans that they don't qualify as Black, surely you can find one saying so without that individual also calling West African people "apes"? This image choice alone seems like a racist insult on your part.
What's funny but also sad is when those same Horn Africans and even the lighter skinned North Africans travel to Europe or even play soccer there, look at how they're treated and the type of names their called! Trust me, that Eritrean dude will be no less of an ape in the eyes of the racist Euros.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Hey Ase, don't waste your time and energy on the boy calling himself 'Hotep'. He is obviously an ignoramus who uses the "true black" fallacy. That's the basic flawed argument that put an end to racial typology in the first place.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Will you stop obfuscating my argument with straw dolls? The only fallacy I was referring to is your argument of using the label 'black' as a euphemism for "true negro". Again the label 'black' is descriptive one referring to skin color. Yes Eurasian 'Negritos' and Australian Aborigines are as equally black as Ethiopians but sharing the same skin pigment does not make them all closely genetically related. Meanwhile Ethiopians and West Africans who inhabit the same continent are closer related as the PCA graph I posted show!
If there is no such thing as "true negro" why are these "black" horners closer to us and many of them are also closer to europeans lmao :
Look again at your PCA graph, nobody cares about khoisans who are light skinned btw but you still consider them black...another contradiction.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL Okay so I take it you are a Nordicist. So all the other Europeans are somehow not 'white' then? Also, what about the ANE ancestry they share with some Siberians and Indigenous Americans? If 'true white' to you means being pristine European with no admixture non-Europeans since the Holocene, then you are hard press to find such a group my ignorant friend.
If your definition of "white" is based on genetics then yes we're clearly confronted with a european cluster with some europeans being outside of it like south italians and aegean greeks who plot in an intermediate position between the euro cluster and the west asian one making them less "white" than scandinavians.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL First off, your comments on the Khoisan are irrelevant. The point is that the Khoisan and Horn Africans are BOTH 'Sub-Saharan' geographically yet the genetic distance between them is great. 2nd, Eritrea is a nation inhabited by several ethnic groups one of which (the Rashaida) are immigrants from Arabia. I don't know which ethnicity that Eritrean ignoramus is part of but the van de Loosdrech et al. PCA graph shows the Eritrean Afar people as being genetically closer to West Africans than Khoisan. Also, notice how the same paper groups North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans together. Don't you think this is due to the Levant Neolithic-- Natufian & black ancestry found in all three groups which you just admitted?
Thanks for admitting "black" doesn't make any sense and isn't based on any objective criteria. And no it's not due to Natufian nor black ancestry wtf are you talking about ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You just need to accept the monumental fact that you are desperate to deny which is indigenous Africans are genetically diverse so pigeonholing them can be easy, but using one group as representative of what is "black" despite that the other groups are also "black" is ridiculous. And yes not just North Africans but Middle Easterners and Europeans have African admixture even from Sub-Sahara as well. [/QB]
Indeed indigenous africans are genetically diverse hence why they look so diverse. Ancient egyptians looked nothing like nigerians nor did the latter looked like ancient malagasies. You only base this on look/phenotype because at the end that's only what you can claim ...quite funny because only you do this, you'll never see an iranian claiming greek or moroccan history because of light skin only afrocentrists do this. So at the end, the only desesperate here is you, always trying to twist the results so they can fit your narrative.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What's funny but also sad is when those same Horn Africans and even the lighter skinned North Africans travel to Europe or even play soccer there, look at how they're treated and the type of names their called! Trust me, that Eritrean dude will be no less of an ape in the eyes of the racist Euros.
Honestly, that's probably why guys like him are so insistent on distancing themselves from Blackness to begin with. They think that doing so will let them curry favor with racist White people, or at least ameliorate any racist damage they get. It's also why you have all these North African ethno-nationalists who demand to be seen as White or "Caucasoid" and want to keep their heritage as far away from Black people as possible. They think that being associated with Black people makes them more vulnerable.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
If there really is a widespread sentiment among Horn Africans that they don't qualify as Black, surely you can find one saying so without that individual also calling West African people "apes"? This image choice alone seems like a racist insult on your part.
What kind of short cut is this ? It doesn't tell anything about me nor about my opinions. I just used it so members here understand that horners don't usually identify as "black" nor do they view west africans as their own kin.
Not my fault if most of them are racist on social media but don't start lying about me. I'm probably the least racist member rn in this place full of black supremacists. I literally fight against the usual stereotype of sub-saharans being all the same and fight against the racist views some have here about north africans.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Oh bullshit. America absorbed Native Americans and Australia has an Aboriginal population too. All have to follow the institutions to some degree. But being forced to follow those institutions doesn't mean you are compelled to establish it as the core of your civilization upon acquiring greater freedom. They CHOSE to ramp up their association with southern Europe and many years after the fall of Rome at that.
It is not even comparable since both native americans/aboriginals were almost exterminated and reduced to tiny communities + Englos always made sure they were isolated. Such thing never happened with Rome where italians were a minority outside Italy and actually integrated the elites of every provinces giving them the chance to participate in political life that explains why some emperors were illyrians, arab, north african, gallic, etc and this explain why even after the fall of the Empire many germanic tribes still viewed themselves as the legitimate heirs of romans. Why do you think we talk about the "Holy roman empire" ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)
You clearly haven't read much about it.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Northern Sudan's common culture with southern Egypt predates the dynastic age. Ta Seti had it's own pharoahs before the dynastic period. Meanwhile the northern tribes didn't have a pharonic culture until it was colonized by Abydos. Do NOT compare their similarities with Egypt as a result of mere conquest. They are not the same as northwestern Europeans adopting southern European culture.
lmao now you try to make nubians the founders of ancient egypt while they literally owe most of their civilization to Egyptians and shout out to their nilo-saharan dialect btw.
Reality is that nubians have always been viewed as foreigners and eternal ennemies of Egypt along with libyans and asiatics but they didn't express such feeling with the "white" lower egyptians...
Anyway even if we have to follow your lies, it still doesn't contradict what I said since nubia isn't all of sub-saharan africa.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Arguing that what you're talking about makes relatively more sense doesn't prove it is a sensible concept. Again WHAT objective metric decides a people are closely related "enough" to claim a culture or when they're too far? Deciding that some genetic distances that aren't directly related are "close enough" but not others is an opinion. While it's true that deciding culture by ideas of direct lineage is more objective, Greeks and Romans weren't the direct ancestors of north Western Euros.
Mental gymnastic. There is no comparison stop being so desesperate with your relativism, north-west euros share way way more in common with italians than an ancient egyptian and nigerian do and I will not repeat myself again and again as to why they are.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: And yet...! You guys have decided it's okay. So why are these genetic distances arbitrarily accepted as "close enough" for all of Europe to be claiming? The geopolitical unity and economic benefit race provides Europe is the only explanation. I've yet to hear another explanation for why a bunch of north western Europeans are adopting the culture of ancients that considered their ancestors to be inferior. The fall of Rome happened LONG before Western Europe's rise to prominence. They were not even a newly freed people and built their civilization around southern Europe. But of course you'll give them a pass.
Meanwhile MOST Black Diaspora Africans are claiming WESTERN AFRICA. We are not claiming heritage from Egypt. Egypt has become a symbol of what people designated with a Black appearance can achieve, but that's not the same as heritage. When most people say Black history, we're talking about the collective events of all peoples with a a phenotype labeled Black. People having a connected history do not require a common sense of heritage. Do you have the same energy for people who discuss the history of Communists because they're a diverse group of people? No? Okay then! You'd look like a fool crying over genetics whenever Chinese and Russians are discussed in a historical review of communism.
Hahaha you're attempting to depict these euros as the poor victims of roman imperialism as if they were aframs or abos while Rome literally never could conquer most of Germania and later got their asses kicked by these north euros. But they did have a consequent cultural impact on these northern euros and no it didn't only started with the Renaissance ,you're simply showing your ignorance here.
And do not lie, most black diaspora africans don't claim western africa except the very smart ones (I only met one or two like this), the rest when they care about history start claiming Egypt, the moors, ancient israelites, etc etc you're not fooling anyone here.
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
We can't say they had no contact, but that contact involved southern Europeans considering northerners inferior or sub human. So that is fine? To adopt large sums of the culture of those that hate you, even when free to do otherwise? Generations to reconnect with your roots? You really think that's better than two groups of people that had nothing to do with each other genetically, but have a common experience of having survived something? That's...so stupid. Only modern ideas of race could justify the extent Northwestern Europe adopted Southern European culture. No one else in their right mind would willingly adopt so extensively the ways of a people who lacked respect for their ancestors.
Almost all ancient civilizations described their neighbours as inferior including many african civilizations but did it prevent germans to reach the highest political and military spheres of Rome ? Did it prevent them to claim to be the legitimate successor of Rome ? No it didn't and at the end the cultural exchange is real while it's nonexistent between Egypt and west africa.
You clearly don't know anything about roman history if you think Rome was as discriminatory as for instance British in America.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again most of this was a choice. Western European Catholics did not need to adopt Latin but did. They did mot need to adopt southern Europe's architecture but did. Same goes for any other aspect of the southern European culture they took. These adaptations of southern Europe to "western civilization" occur after a relationship of oppression from Southern Europe. Without race there is no reason to adopt so much from them when they could've focused on northern Europe. Why does their having a similar language family make them "close enough" to do this beyond the mere opinion it does?
A culture of oppression ?? This is embarassing at this point SMH
Rome always assimilated the nations she conquered and certainly not by "oppression", she had foreign senators/emperors/soldiers, gave citizenship to many foreigners especially after the edict of Caracalla, always respected the gods of foreign nations and even borrowed some cults like the mithra one, etc
My initial point was that they share more in common with italians than west africans do with egyptians that it was by "choice" or not.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Oh ho wow! Look at the shitty justification you've come with. MENA making it to Forbes change their bodies to more closely resemble Black people, take ideas with clear ties to Africa-- most particularly by attaching themselves to our music and the base it's created. Regardless of who you're attributing our culture to, it's still not YOURS. But you've no problems with MENA using it for BILLIONS in profits. Your response is not refuting the double standard of assigning yourselves to large profits from another culture while bitching over cherry picked Blacks wearing ankhs, AE clothing etc. Honestly, how many people of any race made to Forbes tattooing ankhs on a few Black guys? No one. [/QB]
Which MENA ? DJ khaled XD yes I forget we all want to make billions and be gangbangers. You literally profit everything from western culture and yet dare to complain about them or MENA doing some rap songs lmao
Without european instruments, technology, medias, fashion, wigs, etc there would be no ADOS "culture" ...it's more of a syncretic "culture" but certainly not a real and unique culture like the ancient egyptian one that your people like to adopt the symbology.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What's funny but also sad is when those same Horn Africans and even the lighter skinned North Africans travel to Europe or even play soccer there, look at how they're treated and the type of names their called! Trust me, that Eritrean dude will be no less of an ape in the eyes of the racist Euros. [/QB]
I literally live in Europe and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. We're doing fine here and even if what you wrote was true what does that even mean ? Being victim of racism won't make people less racist regarding other communities. Have some pride instead of constantly playing the poor victims ffs.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Is there a reason why you decided to reference Irish's older works once it was made apparent to you that the paper you posted from him earlier found Ethiopian likeness? Why did you ignore the study from 2010 when the Ethiopian data was pointed out to you? Now you're hunkering down on something published 3 years prior?
Why are the modern Ethiopians (ETH) closer to the Ancient Upper Egyptians than Nubians, Lower Egyptians or the Maghreb? You said no data exists supporting what I said and then turn to older data when people pointed out from a more recent study you posted where you dun goofed.
Did you at least read the paper ? UEG is modern upper egyptians lmao and the pre-dynastic samples from hierakonpolis plot far from ethiopians
UEG is described a pooled post Neolithic Upper Egyptian sample, and NUB is a post Neolithic pooled Nubian sample. Where did you read that to mean modern? Also, HRK's closest modern sample for phenotype is also Ethiopian. Hierakonopolians (a group of non pooled Southerners) align with them before they do the pooled Upper Egyptian and Nubian samples. They are also closer to Ethiopians than they are the Maghreb or Lower Egyptians.
quote: Moreover you seem to avoid this quote from their paper :
quote: To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
Because I'm not seeing where it disproves what I've said.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again, without comparisons with modern samples this doesn't say much. We found for example Ethiopians to be more similar to the pooled Upper Egyptian sample than they were to Lower Egyptians of the Maghreb.
It shows continuity between the different egyptian eras despite what you previously said and as for ethiopians it's still the case today with upper egyptians.
Again continuity in what way? Racial continuity? You can't define whether samples are close or far enough in appearance without modern samples as a point of reference.For example Ethiopians are Black which means even if one were to argue a genetic continuity throughout Egyptian history, the fact that the post neolithic peoples of Upper Egypt and Nekhen cluster with Blacks before modern whites (Unlike the lower Egyptians) would suggest the absence of racial continuity. That, was MY point. The lower Egyptian type became dominant throughout Egypt by the New Kingdom.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: The one who has been shifting goalposts and making definitions for race that aren't used by many people is you. No one said all Blacks are carbon copies of one another. Nor do I have to want them to be anything. Black is how the sum of their phenotypes would be evaluated in modern times. Blacker ancients have also faced denigration and theft of their achievements because of how they look (racism). I never "wanted" that to happen but it did/is happening. Even now so called "MENA" return here insisting they don't care about race but will deny the original Egyptians were Black. Hell, now they post data showing they cluster with Ethiopians more than one another but denial denial denile. [/qb]
Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans [/qb][/quote]
Most Sub Saharan Africans are not Black in the same sense as one another. SSA has some of the greatest genetic and phenotypical diversity on the planet. Never argued that.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Honestly, that's probably why guys like him are so insistent on distancing themselves from Blackness to begin with. They think that doing so will let them curry favor with racist White people, or at least ameliorate any racist damage they get. It's also why you have all these North African ethno-nationalists who demand to be seen as White or "Caucasoid" and want to keep their heritage as far away from Black people as possible. They think that being associated with Black people makes them more vulnerable. [/QB]
BS horners and north africans are simply aware of the differences that exist between them and other communities whether they are victim of racism or not.
" North African ethno-nationalists who demand to be seen as White or "Caucasoid"" What kind of american reasoning is this ? North Africans are proud people and yes they obviously look "white" compared to their bantu neighbours.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Honestly, that's probably why guys like him are so insistent on distancing themselves from Blackness to begin with. They think that doing so will let them curry favor with racist White people, or at least ameliorate any racist damage they get. It's also why you have all these North African ethno-nationalists who demand to be seen as White or "Caucasoid" and want to keep their heritage as far away from Black people as possible. They think that being associated with Black people makes them more vulnerable.
BS horners and north africans are simply aware of the differences that exist between them and other communities whether they are victim of racism or not.
[/QB]
Most of the African Diaspora is not claiming Horners or MENA. Claiming to be the same race isn't the same as saying we have the same ancestors. Most people in the Diaspora are claiming West Africa. It's like trying to explain to an idiot how someone can be anarchist, socialist, communist or capitalist without being related to one another and the fool still doesn't get it.
"CAPiTaLiStT DuN HaE A HeEstoRIe CuAS TheEY NAwT ReaLeEtED"
And if a person has to acknowledge differences while referring to racist motifs, then that only makes people further suspect the real reason isn't to note difference, but to distance oneself towards Blacks they think inferior. Meanwhile China is all but ready to devour all of the dumbasses.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Most of the African Diaspora is not claiming Horners or MENA. Claiming to be the same race isn't the same as saying we have the same ancestors. Most people in the Diaspora are claiming West Africa. It's like trying to explain to an idiot how someone can be anarchist, socialist, communist or capitalist without being related to one another and the fool still doesn't get it.
"CAPiTaLiStT DuN HaE A HeEstoRIe CuAS TheEY NAwT ReaLeEtED"
And if a person has to acknowledge differences while referring to racist motifs, then that only makes people further suspect the real reason isn't to note difference, but to distance oneself towards Blacks they think inferior. Meanwhile China is all but ready to devour all of the dumbasses. [/QB]
They actually do claim horners and MENA on a daily basis + harassing us constantly complaining about horners not identifying as black or saying north africans are invaders.
And why do you compare concepts such as capitalism or communism to physical features induced by genes ? Acknowledging our differences/specificities doesn't necessarily mean we view "blacks" as inferior or want to distance ourselves. It's simply a normal human behavior but I can understand if afro-americans struggle to understand it.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
??? This is Egyptology ???
This is sociology w/t still extant Euro faking Red Sea African identity in order to spread stormfront points
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Exactly! He's basically trying to white-wash Africans using the same broken and debunked logic others before him have tried.
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: BS horners and north africans are simply aware of the differences that exist between them and other communities whether they are victim of racism or not.
Yet nobody is denying there are differences between African populations from different parts of the continent. Such is a moot point.
The point we are making is simply whatever genetic and phenotypic differences exists does not take away from the fact that both Horn Africans and even many North Africans are still considered BLACK due to their skin color and still share a genetic relation with West and Central Africans.
quote: " North African ethno-nationalists who demand to be seen as White or "Caucasoid"" What kind of american reasoning is this ? North Africans are proud people and yes they obviously look "white" compared to their bantu neighbours.
Again that depends on what you mean by "white". I have seen vintage postcards of women from Libya and Chad who are clearly 'black' but were described as "beautiful women of the white race". You also have yet to respond to my reply regarding what "gracile Mediterranean" actually entails here.
Meanwhile if you want to call all these ancient Egyptians...
... 'white' caucasoids then be our guest.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The same holds true for rural Baladi (indigenous) Egyptians who maintain their ancient phenotype.
Of course only someone deluded would call these people 'white'. LOL Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:
"CAPiTaLiStT DuN HaE A HeEstoRIe CuAS TheEY NAwT ReaLeEtED"
And if a person has to acknowledge differences while referring to racist motifs, then that only makes people further suspect the real reason isn't to note difference, but to distance oneself towards Blacks they think inferior. Meanwhile China is all but ready to devour all of the dumbasses.
They actually do claim horners and MENA on a daily basis + harassing us constantly complaining about horners not identifying as black or saying north africans are invaders.
And why do you compare concepts such as capitalism or communism to physical features induced by genes ? Acknowledging our differences/specificities doesn't necessarily mean we view "blacks" as inferior or want to distance ourselves. It's simply a normal human behavior but I can understand if afro-americans struggle to understand it. [/QB]
I think that many people in the USA can't comprehend that Africans from the continent traditionally never identified themselves by skin color. And they didn't consider other Africans from other ethnic groups their kin or fellow men. The point is, African Americans identify by skin color, thus consider all black/African people as family, because of historical reasons. However, Africans are usually wired differently since regardless of their skin tone and ethnic background they have a very tribal mindset. Many folks don't know that Ethiopia alone contains over 80 different ethnic groups. Their ancestries vary, with some tracing back to Nilotic/Nilosaharan tribes whilst others have closer heritage to Afro-Asiatic speakers from the Horn and the Middle East.
Hence, you can't lump an Ethio-Semite from the Tigray region, who is closely related to Eritreans, like this man
together with a Mursi from the Omo-Valley just because they're both Ethiopians who live in same country. Ethiopia has a long history of ethnic tensions for a reason.
[B][/B] That said, we can all agree on that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was born on African soil and Egyptians are ultimately African, no matter their genetic make up.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yet nobody is denying there are differences between African populations from different parts of the continent. Such is a moot point.
The point we are making is simply whatever genetic and phenotypic differences exists does not take away from the fact that both Horn Africans and even many North Africans are still considered BLACK due to their skin color and still share a genetic relation with West and Central Africans.
If there are differences why can't horners acknowledge it ? Why should they feel close to the west african diaspora ? And there is no such thing as a black north african the same way there is no such thing as a black or north african german except by nationality.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Meanwhile if you want to call all these ancient Egyptians...
amenhotep III
That's of course a photoshopped picture, here the original depiction of him :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: tiye
That's not an accurate representation of queen tiye but simply an unpainted, darkened yew wood bust
But apparently these old kingdom egyptians were more "ethiopian looking" therefore "black" :
must surely be a pure coincidence that they looked like modern egyptians or maybe asiatic invaders were already there during the early dynasties ?
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The same holds true for rural Baladi (indigenous) Egyptians who maintain their ancient phenotype.
Of course only someone deluded would call these people 'white'. LOL
That's exactly the people I defend and they definitely don't look black nor are they black.
Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf:
I think that many people in the USA can't comprehend that Africans from the continent traditionally never identified themselves by skin color. And they didn't consider other Africans from other ethnic groups their kin or fellow men. The point is, African Americans identify by skin color, thus consider all black/African people as family, because of historical reasons. However, Africans are usually wired differently since regardless of their skin tone and ethnic background they have a very tribal mindset. Many folks don't know that Ethiopia alone contains over 80 different ethnic groups. Their ancestries vary, with some tracing back to Nilotic/Nilosaharan tribes whilst others have closer heritage to Afro-Asiatic speakers from the Horn and the Middle East.
Hence, you can't lump an Ethio-Semite from the Tigray region, who is closely related to Eritreans, like this man
together with a Mursi from the Omo-Valley just because they're both Ethiopians who live in same country. Ethiopia has a long history of ethnic tensions for a reason.
[B][/B] That said, we can all agree on that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was born on African soil and Egyptians are ultimately African, no matter their genetic make up. [/QB]
Yes they don't really understand how it works in Africa or the old world in general that's why they keep saying "that's how whites view them/us" and can't really grasp what we mean, they reduce everything to skin color unfortunately.
This tigray looks very middle eastern compared to the other eritreans I've seen, interesting.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Exactly! He's basically trying to white-wash Africans using the same broken and debunked logic others before him have tried.
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: BS horners and north africans are simply aware of the differences that exist between them and other communities whether they are victim of racism or not.
Yet nobody is denying there are differences between African populations from different parts of the continent. Such is a moot point.
The point we are making is simply whatever genetic and phenotypic differences exists does not take away from the fact that both Horn Africans and even many North Africans are still considered BLACK due to their skin color and still share a genetic relation with West and Central Africans.
Surely, for racist folks, all Non-Europeans are not welcomed and considered inferior no matter the shade and hue of their skin. However, we have to try to go by objective standards in order to determine who the Ancient Egyptians genetically speaking were. It's a matter of fact, that the genetic diversity within Africans is also caused by different waves of back migrations of Western Eurasian populations. A mostly western Eurasian component is observed in the majority of northern African populations. Even Horners, the Beja folks who lived since ancient times in Upper Egypt, are part Western Eurasian. I think, that Egyptologists never denied but noted that so-called "black people" or SSA-like folks were present in Egypt. However, they do believe that the bulk of the Ancient Egyptians was overwhelmingly Western Eurasian/Caucasoid since Neolithic times. Overall, genetically Northern Africans can clearly be distinguished from West Africans and other African populations dwelling south of the Sahara.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: If there are differences why can't horners acknowledge it? Why should they feel close to the west african diaspora ? And there is no such thing as a black north african the same way there is no such thing as a black or north african german except by nationality.
Did you read anything I wrote or are you illiterate and can't read it. Nobody is arguing so-called 'Horners' or any group of Africans for that matter can't acknowledge anything or feel close to West Africans. What the hell does any of that have to do with the label of 'black' which is a description of color?!! Many North Africans including Egyptians and Nubians and yes Horn Africans are black because that is the general description of their color! The same holds true for Australian Aborigines and Melanesians even though they have nothing to do with Africa! Again 'black' was never limited to West Africans you idiot!
quote:That's of course a photoshopped picture, here the original depiction of him :
LOL No. What I posted is not photoshopped but an actual section from the mural of his tomb. Apparently you don't realize how large his mural depiction is.
quote:That's not an accurate representation of queen tiye but simply an unpainted, darkened yew wood bust
LMAO Yeah, like the pupils and lining of eyes and eyebrows are unpainted yet darkened
quote:her mummy :
Yes, I've seen photos of her mummy countless times. As if photos of her dried out corpse refutes what she looked like in her portraits.
Here is an assessment of her mummy: "The Elder Lady", First identified as Queen Tiye The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.
That is just one mural depicting her in the conventional yellow color that many Egyptian women were portrayed in. Apparently you don't know about his basic fact of Egyptian art either.
"..Male and female skin colors were probably not uniform among the entire population of Egypt, with pigmentation being darker in the south [closer to sub-saharan Africans] and lighter in the north [closer to Mediterranean Near Easterners] A woman from the south would probably have had darker skin than a man from the North. Thus, the colorations used for skin tones in the art must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic; the clear gender distinction encoded in that scheme may have been based on elite ideals relating to male and female roles,in which women's responsibilities kept them indoors, so that they spent less time in the sun than men. Nevertheless, the significance of the two colors may be even deeper, making some as yet unknown but fundamental difference between men and women in Egyptian worldview..."-- Egyptologist, Gay Robins
But there are exceptions to the rule as seen in this damaged mural of Tiye painted with the same complexion as her husband.
Yes "good" in your twisted view. Were the people who did the reconstruction double-blinded? I doubt that. Do you know how many reconstructions were done with Tut or the Younger Lady? Too many already! LOL
quote:But apparently these old kingdom egyptians were more "ethiopian looking" therefore "black" :
[...........]
Yes, because Ethiopians in your irrational view are not black either!
quote:must surely be a pure coincidence that they looked like modern egyptians or maybe asiatic invaders were already there during the early dynasties ?
What they look like to YOU doesn't really matter since nobody in Africa is black excact Guinea West Africans. So :rollleyes:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The same holds true for rural Baladi (indigenous) Egyptians who maintain their ancient phenotype.
Of course only someone deluded would call these people 'white'. LOL
That's exactly the people I defend and they definitely don't look black nor are they black. [/QB]
Yeah exactly what I said, you're deluded!!
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf:
I think that many people in the USA can't comprehend that Africans from the continent traditionally never identified themselves by skin color. And they didn't consider other Africans from other ethnic groups their kin or fellow men. The point is, African Americans identify by skin color, thus consider all black/African people as family, because of historical reasons. However, Africans are usually wired differently since regardless of their skin tone and ethnic background they have a very tribal mindset. Many folks don't know that Ethiopia alone contains over 80 different ethnic groups. Their ancestries vary, with some tracing back to Nilotic/Nilosaharan tribes whilst others have closer heritage to Afro-Asiatic speakers from the Horn and the Middle East.
Hence, you can't lump an Ethio-Semite from the Tigray region, who is closely related to Eritreans, like this man
together with a Mursi from the Omo-Valley just because they're both Ethiopians who live in same country. Ethiopia has a long history of ethnic tensions for a reason.
[/B] That said, we can all agree on that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was born on African soil and Egyptians are ultimately African, no matter their genetic make up.
Yes they don't really understand how it works in Africa or the old world in general that's why they keep saying "that's how whites view them/us" and can't really grasp what we mean, they reduce everything to skin color unfortunately.
This tigray looks very middle eastern compared to the other eritreans I've seen, interesting. [/QB]
You are right this priest could pass almost in the Levant and definitely in Yemen.
Anyway, there are plenty of Ethio-Semites, especially from Eritrea and the Tigray Ehiopia, that have retrained some of the facial features of their Southern Arabian ancestors.
The thing is, that those light skinned Ethio-Semites are becoming a minority due to their Westernized very low birth rates. So there is a natural selection going on. Plus, wars and famine reduced the population of the Ethio-Semites from the Tigray region, thus they are being big time outnumbered by other ethnic groups to a point, where these groups from the South moved to the North, and now live among them. Furthermore, I have seen many childless Eritreans/Northern Ethiopians and many of them were very light skinned folks with Caucasoid facial features to the extent that people didn't believe that they were Africans.
In addition, countless Ethio-Semites are assimilated Oromos or Omotic Ethiopians that were added to the family, so to speak. Thus you find also very atypical looking Ethio-Semites.
Here some pics of Ethio-Semites where their Middle Eastern admixture shows.
[ 19. September 2021, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
Whichever of you stretched the page FIX that now.
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Most of the African Diaspora is not claiming Horners or MENA. Claiming to be the same race isn't the same as saying we have the same ancestors. Most people in the Diaspora are claiming West Africa. It's like trying to explain to an idiot how someone can be anarchist, socialist, communist or capitalist without being related to one another and the fool still doesn't get it.
"CAPiTaLiStT DuN HaE A HeEstoRIe CuAS TheEY NAwT ReaLeEtED"
And if a person has to acknowledge differences while referring to racist motifs, then that only makes people further suspect the real reason isn't to note difference, but to distance oneself towards Blacks they think inferior. Meanwhile China is all but ready to devour all of the dumbasses.
They actually do claim horners and MENA on a daily basis + harassing us constantly complaining about horners not identifying as black or saying north africans are invaders. [/QB]
Again MOST Black people DO NOT care. Sorry if you're having trouble with a small but very vocal community of people online, but stop pushing that shit on the rest of us.
quote:And why do you compare concepts such as capitalism or communism to physical features induced by genes ?
To illustrate the fact that people can have a common historical connection tied to social constructs.
quote:Acknowledging our differences/specificities doesn't necessarily mean we view "blacks" as inferior or want to distance ourselves. It's simply a normal human behavior but I can understand if afro-americans struggle to understand it. [/QB]
Yeah right that's why the person in you posted is referencing apes.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Oh bullshit. America absorbed Native Americans and Australia has an Aboriginal population too. All have to follow the institutions to some degree. But being forced to follow those institutions doesn't mean you are compelled to establish it as the core of your civilization upon acquiring greater freedom. They CHOSE to ramp up their association with southern Europe and many years after the fall of Rome at that.
It is not even comparable since both native americans/aboriginals were almost exterminated and reduced to tiny communities + Englos always made sure they were isolated. Such thing never happened with Rome where italians were a minority outside Italy and actually integrated the elites of every provinces giving them the chance to participate in political life that explains why some emperors were illyrians, arab, north african, gallic, etc and this explain why even after the fall of the Empire many germanic tribes still viewed themselves as the legitimate heirs of romans. Why do you think we talk about the "Holy roman empire" ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)
The United States also has politicians that are Arab, East Asian, Native American and Black. You don't see Native Americans for example centering Euro American civilization as their own. Even Black Americans have been trying to integrate more west African influences to center our identity away from Anglo America. It' why you're more likely to see Black Americans wear Dashiki, or Kente and styling our hair in more traditionally insspired way. Integrating people into the political affairs of Rome doesn't mean that it's their culture.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Northern Sudan's common culture with southern Egypt predates the dynastic age. Ta Seti had it's own pharoahs before the dynastic period. Meanwhile the northern tribes didn't have a pharonic culture until it was colonized by Abydos. Do NOT compare their similarities with Egypt as a result of mere conquest. They are not the same as northwestern Europeans adopting southern European culture.
lmao now you try to make nubians the founders of ancient egypt while they literally owe most of their civilization to Egyptians and shout out to their nilo-saharan dialect btw.
I didn't say Nubians "founded" Egypt. I said that their culture had a common origin. Egypt and Ta Seti had local variations of a similar sense of civilization.
quote:Reality is that nubians have always been viewed as foreigners and eternal ennemies of Egypt along with libyans and asiatics but they didn't express such feeling with the "white" lower egyptians...
Much of Ta Seti was absorbed into Egypt by the dynastic period, so a lot of them were of similar status from the start. But even if they weren't the point is that the Ta Seti were not a people whose culture was the result of Egyptian invasion. They shared a common origin from the predynastic. Northern Egypt was culturally distinct from the south and differed because it adopted it later.
quote:Anyway even if we have to follow your lies, it still doesn't contradict what I said since nubia isn't all of sub-saharan africa.
Never argued that.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Arguing that what you're talking about makes relatively more sense doesn't prove it is a sensible concept. Again WHAT objective metric decides a people are closely related "enough" to claim a culture or when they're too far? Deciding that some genetic distances that aren't directly related are "close enough" but not others is an opinion. While it's true that deciding culture by ideas of direct lineage is more objective, Greeks and Romans weren't the direct ancestors of north Western Euros.
Mental gymnastic. There is no comparison stop being so desesperate with your relativism, north-west euros share way way more in common with italians than an ancient egyptian and nigerian do and I will not repeat myself again and again as to why they are.
Saying they've "way more in common" doesn't explain why they are ultimately considered close enough to claim one another's culture. What connects Black people isn't a common genetic relationship. So deflecting from the question of how Euros are "same enough" without race as a social construct is meaningless. Blacks have a common history and treatment. We get it's not rooted in genetics but I'm already past that and don' care. So again I'll ask: why are you sill defending northwestern Euros claiming southern Europe? Saying "there's an idea more stupid than mine!111"doesn't mean your idea isn't stupid.
Headache inducing stupidity. This is like having a discussion about the genetic distances between Chinese and Russians to argue they can't both share a communist history because they're not related. And then using THAT as a deflection to justify why northwest Europeans are using Southern European culture. The only thing I've heard you argue in your defense is that West Africans claiming Egyptian heritage is more irrational than your irrational idea.
quote:Hahaha you're attempting to depict these euros as the poor victims of roman imperialism as if they were aframs or abos while Rome literally never could conquer most of Germania and later got their asses kicked by these north euros.
Didn't argue whether or not they conquered all of Germania. I said that you're trying to justify the adoption of an ancient people who did not respect your-- I mean their ancestors. Again Northwestern Europe's rise happened LONG after Rome fell, which means LONG after Rome had a direct influence over northwestern Europe. In that respect, they were FREE to adopt the culture of their ancestors and had YEARS to get back to that but are getting a pass for not doing so and adopting the cultures of people that didn't respect them instead. Why? Because whiteness says they're "same enough" to overlook all that. No other reason has been given besides diverting attention to ideas you insist are more ridiculous. If "race" is all that you have to justify what familial distances are far or short enough, then you have a big problem ahead of you.
quote:But they did have a consequent cultural impact on these northern euros and no it didn't only started with the Renaissance ,you're simply showing your ignorance here.
I'm discussing the portion in time where northwesten Euros had the most sociopolitcal freedom in history to determine WHO they wanted to emulate culturally. They chose to adopt the Greeks and the Romans. It's one thing when cultural influences are forcibly imposed. But again this was willfully done, BEYOND any extent necessary.
quote:And do not lie, most black diaspora africans don't claim western africa except the very smart ones (I only met one or two like this)
How are you trying to school me on how Blacks in the Diaspora understand west Africa when I am one? That's a losing battle, I'm not even listening to that bullshit.
quote:Almost all ancient civilizations described their neighbours as inferior including many african civilizations but did it prevent germans to reach the highest political and military spheres of Rome ?
So what? Claim the ancient peoples who directly descend from you then and leave other ancients that hated your ancestors alone. Why does it matter that Germanns reached high positions in Rome? Non whites have reached some of the highest political and military spheres of the U.S. That doesn't mean you see native Americans claiming Anglo cultures as the core of their civilization. Besides whiteness there is no justification for the EXTENT northwestern Europeans adopted southern European culture. You're straining to justify why using RACE as the arbritrary judge of acceptable distances between peoples can be applied for Euros but not Blacks.
quote:You clearly don't know anything about roman history if you think Rome was as discriminatory as for instance British in America.
Again you weave in and out of race as it suits. Why does it matter that they weren't AS discriminatory as the Brits in America? That they hated most northwestern Euros should've been reason enough to justify northwestern Euros sticking to their culture and what it made. Again race is the only thing that stipulates all these people are similar ENOUGH to where they can claim one another's culture whenever they like. The extent Southern Europe has been integrated by northern Europe has relied heavily on ideas of race to justify it.
quote:Rome always assimilated the nations she conquered and certainly not by "oppression", she had foreign senators/emperors/soldiers, gave citizenship to many foreigners especially after the edict of Caracalla, always respected the gods of foreign nations and even borrowed some cults like the mithra one, etc
Again Rome's relationship to northwestern Europe was one where their intention was to strip the native peoples of agency independent of the empire. America offers people much of the same shit, this doesn't mean they are equals. The constitution grants religious freedom, non whites have been appointed as senators, president, are on the Supreme court, serve soldiers and are becoming increasingly represented as citizens. This doesn't mean "equality" and many northern peoples weren't seen as equals. You already confessed this, but tried justifying it by saying it was common among ancient peoples. Again, so what? If that's so then why not just identify with where most of your ancestors came from while leaving alone the ancient peoples that knew of and looked down on them? Selective adoption and discarding of race as a social construct to suit one's agenda. I'm starting to think you're probably a Euro pretending to be MENA because you think it'll win arguments online. A real MENA with no pony in the race could've declared both notions to be stupid by now but you are a lot more defensive of this stupidity than I expected.
quote: My initial point was that they share more in common with italians than west africans do with egyptians that it was by "choice" or not.
Again arguing they share "more in common" doesn't mean you've shown WHAT decides they're "common enough" to use one another's ancient cultures. RACE is what justifies the practice of that in modern times, but don't let Blacks reflect on the matter.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Oh ho wow! Look at the shitty justification you've come with. MENA making it to Forbes change their bodies to more closely resemble Black people, take ideas with clear ties to Africa-- most particularly by attaching themselves to our music and the base it's created. Regardless of who you're attributing our culture to, it's still not YOURS. But you've no problems with MENA using it for BILLIONS in profits. Your response is not refuting the double standard of assigning yourselves to large profits from another culture while bitching over cherry picked Blacks wearing ankhs, AE clothing etc. Honestly, how many people of any race made to Forbes tattooing ankhs on a few Black guys? No one. [/QB]
Which MENA ? DJ khaled XD yes I forget we all want to make billions and be gangbangers. [/quote]
Didn't say what you ALL want to be. I said what you PERMIT while whining and complaining about needing to defend your history/culture/whatever.
quote: You literally profit everything from western culture and yet dare to complain about them or MENA doing some rap songs lmao
Correction asshat, my people were the economic backbone for the western nation I live in. The country I'm in wouldn't be anywhere close to the world power they are without the wealth they took from Blacks and the land that was taken from Native peoples.
We "profit?" from western culture? That's the dumbest shit you've said today. We were forced to make trillions for the U.S but the average Black American has 1.7k wealth at the median (removing depreciating assets) while whites have over 100k in wealth. 1 in 7 whites are already past millionaire status. No we're NOT profiting. But you've no problem watching people from MENA make it to Forbes using us.
And while I get that not everyone from MENA is doing this, it's the fact you can cherrypick Blacks to complain about the entire group. But you will not do that to your so-called own that are making shitloads of money and messing up our economy. I personally think you're white now, but I'll play along for a bit longer.
quote:Without european instruments, technology, medias, fashion, wigs, etc there would be no ADOS "culture"
Your point being? This doesn't change the fact you're bitching about historical or cultural theft while permitting your own to make billions off things they had nothing to do with. Trying to argue we have no "culture" to justify your double standard isn't going to work. Either come get the MENA making money in other peoples stuff since you care so much about keeping to one's business, or shut the fuck up. No, you can't have it both ways. I mean you're likely going to say whatever makes you feel better about it, but if that's how it is we've nothing to discuss anymore as I'd find zero integrity behind what you're saying.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, thanks for posting pics of non-black caucasian Ethiopians. Here are some from Eritrea
Such beautiful people of the white race! Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: You are right this priest could pass almost in the Levant and definitely in Yemen.
Anyway, there are plenty of Ethio-Semites, especially from Eritrea and the Tigray Ehiopia, that have retrained some of the facial features of their Southern Arabian ancestors.
The thing is, that those light skinned Ethio-Semites are becoming a minority due to their Westernized very low birth rates. So there is a natural selection going on. Plus, wars and famine reduced the population of the Ethio-Semites from the Tigray region, thus they are being big time outnumbered by other ethnic groups to a point, where these groups from the South moved to the North, and now live among them. Furthermore, I have seen many childless Eritreans/Northern Ethiopians and many of them were very light skinned folks with Caucasoid facial features to the extent that people didn't believe that they were Africans.
In addition, countless Ethio-Semites are assimilated Oromos or Omotic Ethiopians that were added to the family, so to speak. Thus you find also very atypical looking Ethio-Semites.
Here some pics of Ethio-Semites where their Middle Eastern admixture shows.
[/QB]
Very interesting I didn't know it could go that far in terms of west eurasian leaning phenotypes. Do the ethiopian aristocracy belong to another ethnicity or are they related to these ethio-semites ?
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Exactly! He's basically trying to white-wash Africans using the same broken and debunked logic others before him have tried.
These are pics from Coptic Egyptian people. The young woman with the white veil and the man in the first pic, strongly resemble the people from the Fayum depictions. The man also has a similar phenotype as these Abusir guys.
May I ask you, do you think that these Copts in the posted pics are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians or not? Keep in mind, that Copts are mostly from Upper Egypt.
By the way, I do believe that some Ancient Egyptians were what is deemed as black, but they were a minority.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Is there a reason why you decided to reference Irish's older works once it was made apparent to you that the paper you posted from him earlier found Ethiopian likeness? Why did you ignore the study from 2010 when the Ethiopian data was pointed out to you? Now you're hunkering down on something published 3 years prior?
Why are the modern Ethiopians (ETH) closer to the Ancient Upper Egyptians than Nubians, Lower Egyptians or the Maghreb? You said no data exists supporting what I said and then turn to older data when people pointed out from a more recent study you posted where you dun goofed.
Did you at least read the paper ? UEG is modern upper egyptians lmao and the pre-dynastic samples from hierakonpolis plot far from ethiopians so it confirms what I said about modern UEG being already close to modern ethiopians but you want us to believe they "changed" and are supposedly more "arab/levantine".
Moreover you seem to avoid this quote from their paper :
quote: To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again, without comparisons with modern samples this doesn't say much. We found for example Ethiopians to be more similar to the pooled Upper Egyptian sample than they were to Lower Egyptians of the Maghreb.
It shows continuity between the different egyptian eras despite what you previously said and as for ethiopians it's still the case today with upper egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: The one who has been shifting goalposts and making definitions for race that aren't used by many people is you. No one said all Blacks are carbon copies of one another. Nor do I have to want them to be anything. Black is how the sum of their phenotypes would be evaluated in modern times. Blacker ancients have also faced denigration and theft of their achievements because of how they look (racism). I never "wanted" that to happen but it did/is happening. Even now so called "MENA" return here insisting they don't care about race but will deny the original Egyptians were Black. Hell, now they post data showing they cluster with Ethiopians more than one another but denial denial denile.
Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
Ethiopians are not blacks and are genetically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than bantus like you :
Man you don't have a clue what you are talking about. First off the literal Horn of Africa is covered by a nation called Somalia. Are you seriously claiming those people aren't black? And keep in mind that MOST African countries have been fighting ethnically for years. So Ethiopians aren't unified as a group and if they can't stand each other, what makes you think they love fellow Africans elsewhere? There are terms like "monkey" used for other Ethiopians in Ethiopia. In fact you got an ongoing conflict right now in Ethiopia with the Tigray fighting the Ahmara. Surely you are mistaken if you think all Ethiopians, Eritreans or Somalis are some bastion of "unified" identity when surely they are not. Just like Sudan just split in half and then had another war in South Sudan after the split. So your random posting of some Ethiopian on twitter means nothing as these people are not a monolith and there is no single Ethiopian "look" and Horners include Somalis who are litrally on the horn of Africa. But sure go cherry pick some of those expatriates on youtube from Somalia who live in the West that are light skinned and claim that they represent Somali features while most Somalis in the streets around them don't look like that.
Look at any of the many articles about the Tigray war in Ethiopia today and most of those people don't look like that twitter user you posted. So you are making up nonsense. These people aren't closer to whites idiot.
These people do indeed match ancient and modern Upper Egyptians and on that point you are correct, but they aren't white and only silly people claim otherwise. And Africa is and has always been diverse and that doesn't come from Europeans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
What about haplogroup R-V88 and U5, do you consider those foreign? [/qb]
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: If the parent clades of those groups originated outside Africa then yes they are foreign. Do you consider E-M78 and N1 foreign to Europe?
So Amenhotep, Tutankhamun and Akhenaten were foreigners?
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
Coptic derives from Demotic, ancient Egyptian script based on forms of hieratic used in the Nile Delta. There are many regional variants of Coptic that are yes in both upper and lower Egypt. However I think it's more or less wishful thinking that Coptic emerged as something especially indicative of southern Egypt.
While I think most Egyptians to some degree descend from the ancients, The prevailing northern phenotype isn't how the original Egyptians looked. No matter how closely or distantly related we find out they are later, the data seems to show they didn't look the same.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, thanks for posting pics of non-black caucasian Ethiopians. Here are some from Eritrea
You're right, these people are beautiful. Nobody here is saying that Horners have European blood, they don't. They're East Africans, but also part Western Eurasian. Don't be deceived by their dark skin.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: You are right this priest could pass almost in the Levant and definitely in Yemen.
Anyway, there are plenty of Ethio-Semites, especially from Eritrea and the Tigray Ehiopia, that have retrained some of the facial features of their Southern Arabian ancestors.
The thing is, that those light skinned Ethio-Semites are becoming a minority due to their Westernized very low birth rates. So there is a natural selection going on. Plus, wars and famine reduced the population of the Ethio-Semites from the Tigray region, thus they are being big time outnumbered by other ethnic groups to a point, where these groups from the South moved to the North, and now live among them. Furthermore, I have seen many childless Eritreans/Northern Ethiopians and many of them were very light skinned folks with Caucasoid facial features to the extent that people didn't believe that they were Africans.
In addition, countless Ethio-Semites are assimilated Oromos or Omotic Ethiopians that were added to the family, so to speak. Thus you find also very atypical looking Ethio-Semites.
Here some pics of Ethio-Semites where their Middle Eastern admixture shows.
Very interesting I didn't know it could go that far in terms of west eurasian leaning phenotypes. Do the ethiopian aristocracy belong to another ethnicity or are they related to these ethio-semites ? [/QB]
Well, the founders of the ancient kingdom of Aksum were Ethio-Semites with cultural ties to the Sabaens in Yemen. Hence, in spite of the fact, that the Oromo people who are largely Cushitic, are by far the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, the Ethio-Semites dominated the culture and history of Ethiopia almost throughout history. They did that to a point where people equate Ethio-Semites with being Ethiopian. Overall, most of the Ethiopian dynasties and aristocracy were of Ethio-Semitic stock, although some rulers/Kings came from the Oromo group. If you go by DNA results, in terms of genotype, some Eritreans are on the 65% Western Eurasian range, but the average is around 50%. Actually if you look at Ethio-Semites which have additional Southern Arabian admixture from 3000 years ago, the claim that the original Arabs were black, seems highly unlikely. At least those Arabs who went to Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia were sure as hell light skinned folks, since the African component in the Ethio-Semites is Nilotic- like. And Nilotes are one if not the darkest people in Africa. That tells you something.
PS: I hope the Ancient Egyptian paper will be published soon and that we all be more enlightened. Whatever the outcome will be, I'll embrace it.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
That's not an accurate representation of queen tiye but simply an unpainted, darkened yew wood bust
her mummy :
how she was painted :
.
.
HotepBoy I know you won't answer this but the below is the same painting of Tiye you posted above with more of the scene showing, her husband King Amenhotep III So if you are going to propose Tiye was of this color then you would also have to propose that Amenhotep III was this dark brown color
Amenhotep III, with the blue crown (the Khepresh) with wife Queen Tiye with two feathered crown tomb of Ameneminet
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Is there a reason why you decided to reference Irish's older works once it was made apparent to you that the paper you posted from him earlier found Ethiopian likeness? Why did you ignore the study from 2010 when the Ethiopian data was pointed out to you? Now you're hunkering down on something published 3 years prior?
Why are the modern Ethiopians (ETH) closer to the Ancient Upper Egyptians than Nubians, Lower Egyptians or the Maghreb? You said no data exists supporting what I said and then turn to older data when people pointed out from a more recent study you posted where you dun goofed.
Did you at least read the paper ? UEG is modern upper egyptians lmao and the pre-dynastic samples from hierakonpolis plot far from ethiopians so it confirms what I said about modern UEG being already close to modern ethiopians but you want us to believe they "changed" and are supposedly more "arab/levantine".
Moreover you seem to avoid this quote from their paper :
quote: To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again, without comparisons with modern samples this doesn't say much. We found for example Ethiopians to be more similar to the pooled Upper Egyptian sample than they were to Lower Egyptians of the Maghreb.
It shows continuity between the different egyptian eras despite what you previously said and as for ethiopians it's still the case today with upper egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: The one who has been shifting goalposts and making definitions for race that aren't used by many people is you. No one said all Blacks are carbon copies of one another. Nor do I have to want them to be anything. Black is how the sum of their phenotypes would be evaluated in modern times. Blacker ancients have also faced denigration and theft of their achievements because of how they look (racism). I never "wanted" that to happen but it did/is happening. Even now so called "MENA" return here insisting they don't care about race but will deny the original Egyptians were Black. Hell, now they post data showing they cluster with Ethiopians more than one another but denial denial denile.
Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
Ethiopians are not blacks and are genetically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than bantus like you :
Man you don't have a clue what you are talking about. First off the literal Horn of Africa is covered by a nation called Somalia. Are you seriously claiming those people aren't black? And keep in mind that MOST African countries have been fighting ethnically for years. So Ethiopians aren't unified as a group and if they can't stand each other, what makes you think they love fellow Africans elsewhere? There are terms like "monkey" used for other Ethiopians in Ethiopia. In fact you got an ongoing conflict right now in Ethiopia with the Tigray fighting the Ahmara. Surely you are mistaken if you think all Ethiopians, Eritreans or Somalis are some bastion of "unified" identity when surely they are not. Just like Sudan just split in half and then had another war in South Sudan after the split. So your random posting of some Ethiopian on twitter means nothing as these people are not a monolith and there is no single Ethiopian "look" and Horners include Somalis who are litrally on the horn of Africa. But sure go cherry pick some of those expatriates on youtube from Somalia who live in the West that are light skinned and claim that they represent Somali features while most Somalis in the streets around them don't look like that.
Look at any of the many articles about the Tigray war in Ethiopia today and most of those people don't look like that twitter user you posted. So you are making up nonsense. These people aren't closer to whites idiot.
These people do indeed match ancient and modern Upper Egyptians and on that point you are correct, but they aren't white and only silly people claim otherwise. And Africa is and has always been diverse and that doesn't come from Europeans.
I think you have to be carefully here, I can show random youtube clips with Eritrean or Tigray crowd where most of the people look the people you see on Twitter/Facebook or are so-called light skinned. As I already said, not all people who live in the Tigray province or identify as Tigray, are proper Ethio-Semites.
Plus, you show random soldiers and people in distress and heat. There are millions of Ethio-Semites in the diaspora, thus I saw sizable communities of them, and they were largely light skinned folks with a biracial look, some show their Middle Eastern admix more, while others more their East African side. Here and there I saw Eritreans who could pass for Indians due to their wavy hair and dark brown skin. And yes Horners can be very dark too, what do you expect their East African genetic component is Nilotic like?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That is just one mural depicting her in the conventional yellow color that many Egyptian women were portrayed in. Apparently you don't know about his basic fact of Egyptian art either.
Please show us one queen
not a Goddess or a noble > but a queen
whose skin is depicted
in a painting , not a sculpture
yellow or yellowish to some degree
and not Tiye
Tutankhamun with wife Ankhesenamon
Nefertari
____________________________
At the same time Hotepboy, this is dismantling your gimmicks
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
This thread divulged into an anti-intellectual mess.
Purpose: Criticisms of the reconstruction of the Mummies of Abusir-el-Meleq
Result: dishonest interactions regarding the genotypic and phenotypic origin of various Africans.
We wont further promote anti-intellectual back and forth. This thread was barely above guidelines from the get go.
The OP can appeal to reopen this thread by sending me a PM. For now this piece is closed.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It's quite problematic that we're brushing aside the fact that we now see a clear gradation towards the Coptic profile and Abusir mummies due to "Asiatic influence" as some (including I) had already predicted.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Trust me, that Eritrean dude will be no less of an ape in the eyes of the racist Euros.
