posted
@Itoli @LoStranger Btw... You should also check out the source for the notes on the top of this very page left by me. Is that a mixed sample? Anywho, I think Kisese II will be important in the next coming days.
Posts: 1815 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Itoli @LoStranger Btw... You should also check out the source for the notes on the top of this very page left by me. Is that a mixed sample? Anywho, I think Kisese II will be important in the next coming days.
I did answer your question, by pointing out its based on a fallacious premise. Nothing I said is a "true negro argument" (whether you call it that or dance around it). Before I left the forum I even pointed to some evidence suggesting that looser hair textures predate Eurasian back migration. I've always acknowledged there's a diversity of features on the African continent owed to indigenous selective pressures, I simply noted that a certain *combination* (operative word) of features is a hallmark of Eurasian admixture. You clearly have some contention in regards to that because you claimed what I said is simplistic so whether that contention is something you believe to be true, or something you believe to NOT be true, what is it? You can't simply point to the evidence then assume everyone is going to come to the same conclusion as you. The reason I asked is because I dont want us to waste time talking past each other.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you're know what you're talking about... I wouldn't know where to begin as far as a premise goes. I'm trying to ironman your perspective. Reread my comments and questions with a level head, think a lil bit then answer.
Posts: 1815 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you're know what you're talking about... I wouldn't know where to begin as far as a premise goes. I'm trying to ironman your perspective. Reread my comments and questions with a level head, think a lil bit then answer.
Why do you guys do this? All this cryptic sideways speak and innuendo is not necessary. The KGB is not after you. You claim I'm missing large pieces of the puzzle. Maybe so. I don't have a huge ego around this. So what now? Can you lay out what's missing? I wouldn't even be asking if I didn't respect your analysis. I looked at what you pointed to and from what I surmised it doesn't exactly contradict nor complicate what I said.
You have to remember that while some of you post here frequently and don't even notice the white noise while it's happening, the rest of us pop in occasionally and when we try to catch up, we find pages and pages of mostly bickering. If you can't make room for that difference I promise my feelings won't be hurt if you stop engaging.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you're know what you're talking about... I wouldn't know where to begin as far as a premise goes. I'm trying to ironman your perspective. Reread my comments and questions with a level head, think a lil bit then answer.
Why do you guys do this? All this cryptic sideways speak and innuendo is not necessary. The KGB is not after you. You claim I'm missing large pieces of the puzzle. Maybe so. I don't have a huge ego around this. So what now? Can you lay out what's missing? I wouldn't even be asking if I didn't respect your analysis. I looked at what you pointed to and from what I surmised it doesn't exactly contradict nor complicate what I said.
You have to remember that while some of you post here frequently and don't even notice the white noise while it's happening, the rest of us pop in occasionally and when we try to catch up, we find pages and pages of mostly bickering. If you can't make room for that difference I promise my feelings won't be hurt if you stop engaging.
I'll just ask the questions again more clearly.
Which features are hallmarks of a mixed african and which are not Itoli? And what do you think is going on with Kisese II physically? does it correspond to your philosophy?
Let's start there. If this is too cryptic to answer then I'm afraid I'll have to end this convo.
Posts: 1815 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you're know what you're talking about... I wouldn't know where to begin as far as a premise goes. I'm trying to ironman your perspective. Reread my comments and questions with a level head, think a lil bit then answer.
Why do you guys do this? All this cryptic sideways speak and innuendo is not necessary. The KGB is not after you. You claim I'm missing large pieces of the puzzle. Maybe so. I don't have a huge ego around this. So what now? Can you lay out what's missing? I wouldn't even be asking if I didn't respect your analysis. I looked at what you pointed to and from what I surmised it doesn't exactly contradict nor complicate what I said.
You have to remember that while some of you post here frequently and don't even notice the white noise while it's happening, the rest of us pop in occasionally and when we try to catch up, we find pages and pages of mostly bickering. If you can't make room for that difference I promise my feelings won't be hurt if you stop engaging.
I'll just ask the questions again.
Which features are halmarks of a mixed african and which are not Itoli? And what do you think is going on with Kisese II physically? does it correspond to your philosophy?
Let's start there. If this is too cryptic to answer then I'm afraid I'll have to end this convo.
A combination of thin features, higher rooted and longer noses, lighter coloration (skin, eyes, hair), and loosely coiled to straight hair. I already answered that.
To my understanding, that area (north to south east Africa has generally been a corridor for minor gene flow between Eurasia and Africa to varying degrees but there was a large influx of Eurasian associated ancestry starting around the PN. So in your post you noted there were cranial measurements from the Kisese II sample that overlapped with the Egyptian samples - am i following you thus far?
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you're know what you're talking about... I wouldn't know where to begin as far as a premise goes. I'm trying to ironman your perspective. Reread my comments and questions with a level head, think a lil bit then answer.
Why do you guys do this? All this cryptic sideways speak and innuendo is not necessary. The KGB is not after you. You claim I'm missing large pieces of the puzzle. Maybe so. I don't have a huge ego around this. So what now? Can you lay out what's missing? I wouldn't even be asking if I didn't respect your analysis. I looked at what you pointed to and from what I surmised it doesn't exactly contradict nor complicate what I said.
You have to remember that while some of you post here frequently and don't even notice the white noise while it's happening, the rest of us pop in occasionally and when we try to catch up, we find pages and pages of mostly bickering. If you can't make room for that difference I promise my feelings won't be hurt if you stop engaging.
I'll just ask the questions again.
Which features are hallmarks of a mixed african and which are not Itoli? And what do you think is going on with Kisese II physically? does it correspond to your philosophy?
Let's start there. If this is too cryptic to answer then I'm afraid I'll have to end this convo.
A combination of thin features, higher rooted and longer noses, lighter coloration (skin, eyes, hair), and loosely coiled to straight hair. I already answered that.
To my understanding, that area (north to south east Africa has generally been a corridor for minor gene flow between Eurasia and Africa to varying degrees but there was a large influx of Eurasian associated ancestry starting around the PN. So in your post you noted there were cranial measurements from the Kisese II sample that overlapped with the Egyptian samples - am i following you thus far?
I wanted to understand how you'd reconcile with old samples who have the traits you considered "Non African." For example, Kisese II clusters with PN samples physically and share dental traits with Egyptians. This is one of the few samples with physical and DNA analysis done to establish biological affinity. That sample has no Eurasian ancestry (I'll get back to that sample in a few btw). Other samples in that general region also exhibited traits that you point out; elongated features, maybe reduced prognathism, high bridge etc. Samples such as olduvai and the succeeding Elmentietan series. And the more we look the more we find out that a lot of traits we associate with non African ancestry today, were found in Africa before their presence outside. So retroactively attributing the modern genetic landscape, (known Eurasian ancestry in east Africa) to ancient samples will fuel a flawed perspective. Most African ancestors whether west, north or south would indeed be mixed if we do that. Therefore we have to look at specific traits relative to environment or known evolutionary history for a hint. Traits such as post cranial metrics are a huge clue. With that example alone we can see for a fact that the Iberomaurasians, for example were mixed and that some series in Egypt if you care were indeed mixed or straight up implanted. But eyeballing traits like the nasal bridge and elongated features and claiming a series is mixed because of the modern genetic landscape will get all of us nowhere.
So countering Djehuti claims about ancient Nubians (whether he's correct or not), by using modern east Africans who show evidence of admixture will come across as annoying. It's what every arm chair bioanthro guy does once they read a few blogs and a handful of studies. And no one yet is sure about the actual genetic impact from non Africans on phenotype and genotype. Most of it is conjecture just repeated. The same can be said about skin color and hair texture though for the former genetics made lightwork of most questions there, as the genes responsible for lighter skin in Eurasia have been well investigated. And those same genes are shared by people who are indeed mixed in Africa... However as it turns out, the further back we go the lower the frequencies of the genes despite the autosome and Cranial shapes "suggesting" admixture by the eyeball metrics. This is one example of why the conversation needs to change if you actually care about what you're learning or suggesting.
I don't think you're know what you're talking about... I wouldn't know where to begin as far as a premise goes. I'm trying to ironman your perspective. Reread my comments and questions with a level head, think a lil bit then answer.
Why do you guys do this? All this cryptic sideways speak and innuendo is not necessary. The KGB is not after you. You claim I'm missing large pieces of the puzzle. Maybe so. I don't have a huge ego around this. So what now? Can you lay out what's missing? I wouldn't even be asking if I didn't respect your analysis. I looked at what you pointed to and from what I surmised it doesn't exactly contradict nor complicate what I said.
You have to remember that while some of you post here frequently and don't even notice the white noise while it's happening, the rest of us pop in occasionally and when we try to catch up, we find pages and pages of mostly bickering. If you can't make room for that difference I promise my feelings won't be hurt if you stop engaging.
I'll just ask the questions again.
Which features are hallmarks of a mixed african and which are not Itoli? And what do you think is going on with Kisese II physically? does it correspond to your philosophy?
Let's start there. If this is too cryptic to answer then I'm afraid I'll have to end this convo.
A combination of thin features, higher rooted and longer noses, lighter coloration (skin, eyes, hair), and loosely coiled to straight hair. I already answered that.
To my understanding, that area (north to south east Africa has generally been a corridor for minor gene flow between Eurasia and Africa to varying degrees but there was a large influx of Eurasian associated ancestry starting around the PN. So in your post you noted there were cranial measurements from the Kisese II sample that overlapped with the Egyptian samples - am i following you thus far?
I wanted to understand how you'd reconcile with old samples who have the traits you considered "Non African." For example, Kisese II clusters with PN samples physically and share dental traits with Egyptians. This is one of the few samples with physical and DNA analysis done to establish biological affinity. That sample has no Eurasian ancestry (I'll get back to that sample in a few btw). Other samples in that general region also exhibited traits that you point out; elongated features, maybe reduced prognathism, high bridge etc. Samples such as olduvai and the succeeding Elmentietan series. And the more we look the more we find out that a lot of traits we associate with non African ancestry today, were found in Africa before their presence outside. So retroactively attributing the modern genetic landscape, (known Eurasian ancestry in east Africa) to ancient samples will fuel a flawed perspective. Most African ancestors whether west, north or south would indeed be mixed if we do that. Therefore we have to look at specific traits relative to environment or known evolutionary history for a hint. Traits such as post cranial metrics are a huge clue. With that example alone we can see for a fact that the Iberomaurasians, for example were mixed and that some series in Egypt if you care were indeed mixed or straight up implanted. But eyeballing traits like the nasal bridge and elongated features and claiming a series is mixed because of the modern genetic landscape will get all of us nowhere.
So countering Djehuti claims about ancient Nubians (whether he's correct or not), by using modern east Africans who show evidence of admixture will come across as annoying. It's what every arm chair bioanthro guy does once they read a few blogs and a handful of studies. And no one yet is sure about the actual genetic impact from non Africans on phenotype and genotype. Most of it is conjecture just repeated. The same can be said about skin color and hair texture though for the former genetics made lightwork of most questions there, as the genes responsible for lighter skin in Eurasia have been well investigated. And those same genes are shared by people who are indeed mixed in Africa... However as it turns out, the further back we go the lower the frequencies of the genes despite the autosome and Cranial shapes "suggesting" admixture by the eyeball metrics. This is one example of why the conversation needs to change if you actually care about what you're learning or suggesting.
Yes I understand all that. As I said previously, many of these traits are part of native African diversity but what I’m pointing to isn’t the individual traits but the specific combination of traits not just among modern populations, but ancient populations who also share the Eurasian associated ancestry. An African sample having light skin isn’t out of the norm, but light skin, lighter eyes, loose hair, longer noses, thinner features annd elevated Neanderthal ancestry occurring in conjunction across an entire population? How do you square that and how do populations who pop up with ALL the cranial traits we associate with Eurasian population after the PN fit into African population history prior to that? If the disparity is due to greater diversity in the past, where do you hypothesize the parent population was located and when could they have come about?
And I know looser textured hair may be native but it's absence among the some of the most divergent SSA populations indicates it was bred out fairly early on in the same way dark skin was in Europe i.e. when it does appear, it's statistically more likely to be due to admixture, than not. Kinky hair isn't just something that comes about easily in mammals, it's a novel feature that would've taken a lot of selective pressure.
Thanks, i'll look into the threads you suggested.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The only evidence of Eurasian admixture in Nubians comes from the Early Christian Era and only increases during the Medieval and Islamic Periods. There is no confirmed evidence of Eurasian admixture in ancient Nubian remains. Some people like to claim the 'Natufian' autosomal DNA marker as such but as explained earlier in this thread there is more evidence to suggest that Natufians are themselves of African origin.
Also, your assumption of craniofacial features is based on outdated racial typological thinking. The fact that the Irish dental data shows ancient Nubians to approximate closer to Sub-Saharans than Egyptians as well as the fact that their skeletal structure is "super-negroid" (as are the Egyptians) as well as having darker complexions nullifies your whole argument completely. In fact geneticists have discovered a variety of genes responsible for such facial features in East Africans as shown here: Study of East Africans illuminates new genetic factors underlying human faces. This is why prehistoric skulls dating to the Epipaleolithic as far south as Kenya in the Rift Valley were originally classified as 'Caucasoid'. We now know this doesn't mean they had Eurasian ancestry.
Wasn't there a Kerma study from a hair sample that showed affinities to Pastoral groups from the Rift Valley? I'm pretty sure those showed notable Eurasian (West Eurasian) ancestry or was that Luxmanda (Tanzania)?? There's a possibility I could be mixing the two up here....
Posts: 8872 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Yes I understand all that. As I said previously, many of these traits are part of native African diversity but what I’m pointing to isn’t the individual traits but the specific combination of traits not just among modern populations, but ancient populations who also share the Eurasian associated ancestry. An African sample having light skin isn’t out of the norm, but light skin, lighter eyes, loose hair, longer noses, thinner features annd elevated Neanderthal ancestry occurring in conjunction across an entire population? How do you square that and how do populations who pop up with ALL the cranial traits we associate with Eurasian population after the PN fit into African population history prior to that? If the disparity is due to greater diversity in the past, where do you hypothesize the parent population was located and when could they have come about?
And I know looser textured hair may be native but it's absence among the some of the most divergent SSA populations indicates it was bred out fairly early on in the same way dark skin was in Europe i.e. when it does appear, it's statistically more likely to be due to admixture, than not. Kinky hair isn't just something that comes about easily in mammals, it's a novel feature that would've taken a lot of selective pressure.
Thanks, i'll look into the threads you suggested.
If you understand, then why don't you answer the question? You randomly throw out these "combinations of features unique to Europeans" yet where are these features specifically documented as such in any anthropology literature? Because all I see you doing is waffling. Yes, wavy to curly hair is not unique to Africa, neither are thin noses, thin lips and so forth, so where are the metric breakdowns of such combinations unique to Europeans in the ancient Nile. Keeping in mind you mentioned the PN or pottery neolithic, but omit the fact that pottery in Africa predates the pottery neolithic of the Euphrates river valley. So technically pottery in Africa has a different chronology related to the neolithic than the PPN and PN. And the evidence shows the spread of pottery in the ancient Nile from South to North. So what populations would have introduced this "Eurasian" cluster of features among these pottery bearing cultures coming from within Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: It’s not outdated at all - it’s right in front of our faces. There are Africans with thin features that aren’t mixed. There are Africans with light skin that aren’t mixed. There are even Africans with light eyes that aren’t mixed. However in every single population where all those features are COMMON, that also coincides with significant Eurasian admixture. The high rooted nose in particular is a Neanderthal trait. You’re free to point me to any exceptions.
You clearly misunderstood what I wrote. Yes, a high incidence of light skin in conjunction with light eyes and certain other traits does indicate admixture but what does that have to do with ancient Nubians??! Yes, modern Nubians are mixed primarily with Arabs. There is also a small community of Nubians that are of Albanian descent from Albanian Janissaries from the Ottoman Empire and these are the ones where both light skin and light eye color occur but what do any of these have to do with ancient Nubians who have thin facial features only??
The Nubian's nose is longer than the Eurasian yet he is darker/blacker than a typical Egyptian, and according to studies, share the same skeletal build as the Egyptians which is tropically adapted.
quote:And didn’t that graph also show Egyptians and Nubians in close proximity to med populations? That begs the question WHICH Nubians were sampled. “Nubian” isn’t an ethnic group. Populations from lower Nubia always clustered with Upper Egyptians. As to their skin color, we don’t know that and can’t accurately conclude it via ethnic caricatures - the very role of which is to portray foreigners, especially enemies, as an alien other.
Which graph? You mean the odontic one from Irish?? You realize that populations will cluster based on genetic relation. So North Africans are going to cluster more closely to West Eurasians than say West Africans that does not mean North Africans are themselves of Eurasian descent since all Eurasians ultimately descend from North Africa. What's more is that modern 'Med' populations show *recent* African admixture which is confirmed by genetics.
^ As you can see in the above graph, Lower Egyptians are closer to the 'Med' pool sample while Upper Egyptians are closer to the Sub-Saharan pooled sample. This does not mean Lower Egyptians are "mixed" with 'Mediterraneans' anymore that Upper Egyptians are mixed with Sub-Saharans. In fact it's more likely the Mediterraneans are the ones who are mixed. What I find especially interesting is that the Egyptian sample that appears closest to the Sub-Saharan pool is the Abydos one. I recall Swenet mentioning how the Abydos crania also display certain facial characters that are Sub-Saharan in likeness.
As Irish stated about the North African dental complex: "Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which parallels that of Europeans, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. *North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans.*"
The last sentence by Irish implies that Europeans (as well as Southwest Asians) inherited their Carabelli's trait from North Africans and in one paper he even states that the Natufians had this and other Sub-Saharan traits held by North Africans.
Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Wasn't there a Kerma study from a hair sample that showed affinities to Pastoral groups from the Rift Valley? I'm pretty sure those showed notable Eurasian (West Eurasian) ancestry or was that Luxmanda (Tanzania)?? There's a possibility I could be mixing the two up here....
You are referring to the Kadruka study that was discussed here.
The so-called 'West Eurasian' autosomal ancestry is identified as Jordanian Pre-Pottery Neolithic which is synonymous with Natufian.
^ As you can see just like the Luxmanda sample almost half of the genome is Jordan PPN, does this mean they are 'half Eurasian'?? Of course we know from how the Natufians looked, their uniparental lineages, as well as other genetic traits that many experts are realizing that anthropologists have been guessing at all along that the Natufians were originally not Eurasian at all but African.
^ The hair sample comes from a male and is dated to approximately 4,033 BP or 2,033 BC which is the very year that Nebhepetra a.k.a. Mentuhotep II, defeats the Heracleopolitan kings of Lower Egypt unifies the country to continue the Eleventh Dynasty ending the 1st Intermediate Period and starting the Middle Kingdom. According to Egyptian records Kerma arose around 2500 BC, meaning that the Kadruka man lived at the time that Kerma was expanding its power as an empire and he himself was likely a Kerman Kushite.
Below you can see the Kadruka man's position in the PCA.
posted
It says a lot to me that one of the common denominators in ancestry between so-called "Caucasoid" or "West Eurasian" populations is Lazaridis's Basal Eurasian component, one of the defining characteristics of which is a lack of Neanderthal admixture. If this ghost population was indeed concentrated in northeastern Africa, it would suggest that what we think of as "Caucasoid" traits actually originated in that region (and, yes, among black-skinned people).
That of course doesn't necessarily negate the presence of Eurasian ancestry in modern or historical Northeast Africans, which should be expected since the region has always been a geographic crossroads. But it does say to me that so-called "Caucasoid" or "non-Negroid" facial features aren't enough to diagnose a given African population as Eurasian-admixed.
Posts: 7433 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That's the thing, from what I've read the highest amounts of Basal Eurasian is found thus far in modern Arabians. Ancestral North African has its highest frequency today I think in Maghrebi populations. (Check me on this) The Natufians had both.
As far as looks that depends on what early West Eurasians looked like. We have an idea with the likes of Cromagnon and Predmost men. I think Swenet said that early West Eurasians had more robust facial traits that likened them to Australian Aborigines whereas recent OOA migrants were more gracile i.e. 'EurAfrican' or 'Proto-Mediterranean' types.
Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Yes I understand all that. As I said previously, many of these traits are part of native African diversity but what I’m pointing to isn’t the individual traits but the specific combination of traits not just among modern populations, but ancient populations who also share the Eurasian associated ancestry. An African sample having light skin isn’t out of the norm, but light skin, lighter eyes, loose hair, longer noses, thinner features annd elevated Neanderthal ancestry occurring in conjunction across an entire population? How do you square that and how do populations who pop up with ALL the cranial traits we associate with Eurasian population after the PN fit into African population history prior to that? If the disparity is due to greater diversity in the past, where do you hypothesize the parent population was located and when could they have come about?
And I know looser textured hair may be native but it's absence among the some of the most divergent SSA populations indicates it was bred out fairly early on in the same way dark skin was in Europe i.e. when it does appear, it's statistically more likely to be due to admixture, than not. Kinky hair isn't just something that comes about easily in mammals, it's a novel feature that would've taken a lot of selective pressure.
Thanks, i'll look into the threads you suggested.
If you understand, then why don't you answer the question? You randomly throw out these "combinations of features unique to Europeans" yet where are these features specifically documented as such in any anthropology literature? Because all I see you doing is waffling. Yes, wavy to curly hair is not unique to Africa, neither are thin noses, thin lips and so forth, so where are the metric breakdowns of such combinations unique to Europeans in the ancient Nile. Keeping in mind you mentioned the PN or pottery neolithic, but omit the fact that pottery in Africa predates the pottery neolithic of the Euphrates river valley. So technically pottery in Africa has a different chronology related to the neolithic than the PPN and PN. And the evidence shows the spread of pottery in the ancient Nile from South to North. So what populations would have introduced this "Eurasian" cluster of features among these pottery bearing cultures coming from within Africa?
Those are extreme examples to drive home the point, not a description of either the Egyptians or Nubians. I'm referencing superficial features because I'm not trying to get into the weeds. The point is that even if certain features are indigenous to Africa, that does not matter much if their *incidence* is higher in other populations or the *combination* of features isn't indigenous. light skin *for example* occurs indigenously in Africa and some groups can get VERY light - but that's relatively rare. Thin noses, also occur indigenously in Africa, but also relatively rare. In fact, the groups that tend to have lighter skin among black Africans tend to have wider features.
So, if we see a SSA group *for example* who have an incidence of light skin and thin noses that's between what we see among their neighbors and what's typical in Eurasia, and 50% of that group's ancestry is Eurasian like, and the archaeological record shows intermingling with a Eurasian culture around the same time the admixture event occurred, odds are, in all seriousness, that group is Eurasian mixed. What that ties back to is that around the pastoral neolithic we see a "package" of features increase dramatically instead of gradually in populations where they were previously rare or entirely absent. That indicates admixture with a homogenous group that already went through the selective pressures to develop that specific combination of features. That leaves two possibilities: the obvious Eurasian admixture, or admixture with an extremely isolated and divergent group in Africa that sexually selected for features which either coincidentally converged with the package of features developed in Eurasia, or passed on that package of features to Eurasians.
Now I know some of you are placing all your bets on the existence of a yet discovered ancestral population in North Africa who fits the bill of the second possibility, and it is a possibility... but I don't think it'd mean much if the ancestry is extremely divergent from all other African populations, most closely related to Eurasian populations, but originating on the periphery of Africa. For one, it's splitting hairs because those border are imaginary in the context of population genetics. Two, if it developed on the periphery at a time where there was distinct groups in Eurasia, more than likely it's the result of input from both African and Eurasian gene pools.
BUT for purpose good discussion and trying to understand you guys position better: if you think it's some variation of the latter possibility, what bolsters it in your opinion? What period of interest would you say is most consequential in how this came about? Those aren't adversarial questions btw, so if the position is based on ongoing research I believe that's valid as well. I'm just interested in your opinion.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: It’s not outdated at all - it’s right in front of our faces. There are Africans with thin features that aren’t mixed. There are Africans with light skin that aren’t mixed. There are even Africans with light eyes that aren’t mixed. However in every single population where all those features are COMMON, that also coincides with significant Eurasian admixture. The high rooted nose in particular is a Neanderthal trait. You’re free to point me to any exceptions.
You clearly misunderstood what I wrote. Yes, a high incidence of light skin in conjunction with light eyes and certain other traits does indicate admixture but what does that have to do with ancient Nubians??! Yes, modern Nubians are mixed primarily with Arabs. There is also a small community of Nubians that are of Albanian descent from Albanian Janissaries from the Ottoman Empire and these are the ones where both light skin and light eye color occur but what do any of these have to do with ancient Nubians who have thin facial features only??
The Nubian's nose is longer than the Eurasian yet he is darker/blacker than a typical Egyptian, and according to studies, share the same skeletal build as the Egyptians which is tropically adapted.
quote:And didn’t that graph also show Egyptians and Nubians in close proximity to med populations? That begs the question WHICH Nubians were sampled. “Nubian” isn’t an ethnic group. Populations from lower Nubia always clustered with Upper Egyptians. As to their skin color, we don’t know that and can’t accurately conclude it via ethnic caricatures - the very role of which is to portray foreigners, especially enemies, as an alien other.
Which graph? You mean the odontic one from Irish?? You realize that populations will cluster based on genetic relation. So North Africans are going to cluster more closely to West Eurasians than say West Africans that does not mean North Africans are themselves of Eurasian descent since all Eurasians ultimately descend from North Africa. What's more is that modern 'Med' populations show *recent* African admixture which is confirmed by genetics.
^ As you can see in the above graph, Lower Egyptians are closer to the 'Med' pool sample while Upper Egyptians are closer to the Sub-Saharan pooled sample. This does not mean Lower Egyptians are "mixed" with 'Mediterraneans' anymore that Upper Egyptians are mixed with Sub-Saharans. In fact it's more likely the Mediterraneans are the ones who are mixed. What I find especially interesting is that the Egyptian sample that appears closest to the Sub-Saharan pool is the Abydos one. I recall Swenet mentioning how the Abydos crania also display certain facial characters that are Sub-Saharan in likeness.
As Irish stated about the North African dental complex: "Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which parallels that of Europeans, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. *North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans.*"
The last sentence by Irish implies that Europeans (as well as Southwest Asians) inherited their Carabelli's trait from North Africans and in one paper he even states that the Natufians had this and other Sub-Saharan traits held by North Africans.
Those were examples. The point is you guys are using a plaster for every sore approach to these discrepancies by pointing to presence of individual features in the context of wider variation. Nasal aperture in question? point to samples that have that trait but lack all the others. Zygomatic arches in question? point to sample that has that trait but lacks a slew of others. On and on it goes. The problem is, the pattern of how these features are expressed in the groups in question isn't indicative of simple variation, but rather admixture with a group where those features are homogenous because when they're expressed they're almost always expressed TOGETHER and to a degree that that matches the degree of Eurasian like ancestry. Not to mention the incidence coincidentally radiates with proximity to Eurasian groups i.e. it has always been most common near the delta and gradually decline the further you go south, and even the graph you're referencing shows an instance of that. So, what is the parent population?
and yes, I'm aware that proximity in cranial traits doesn't equal admixture, but you were using the proximity of the Nubians to the Egyptians in the graph to try and bolster a claim about Egyptian identity. I pointed out that both groups are close to the Mediterranean using that metric and asked for clarification on where the Nubians were sampled. If the metric can’t indicate any meaningful relationship in light of that, then why reference it in the first place?
I also pointed out that you can't reliably use ethnic caricatures to make minute conclusions on features because their purpose is to differentiate, not provide accuracy. With ethnic caricatures the artist almost always references at least one key feature that sets the group apart so those "thin featured" Nubians could have been lower Nubians who looked exactly like the Egyptians but were still portrayed with pitch black skin more akin to the groups in upper Nubia because the artist needed to communicate that they weren't Egyptian.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
Now I know some of you are placing all your bets on the existence of a yet discovered ancestral population in North Africa who fits the bill of the second possibility, and it is a possibility... but I don't think it'd mean much if the ancestry is extremely divergent from all other African populations, most closely related to Eurasian populations, but originating on the periphery of Africa. For one, it's splitting hairs because those border are imaginary in the context of population genetics. Two, if it developed on the periphery at a time where there was distinct groups in Eurasia, more than likely it's the result of input from both African and Eurasian gene pools. [/QB]
Exactly, that's what some of these stubborn people don't understand. Many of them fail to grasp Africa's vast diversity, mistakenly believing that labeling something as "African" automatically implies cultural and genetic closeness with all Africans. This perspective ignores the significant connections many African groups have with their neighboring regions, including Eurasia. They wrongly assume that acknowledging these connections endorses the outdated Hamitic hypothesis. This emotional investment overshadows the reality that Egyptians, regardless of their skin color or African heritage, were distinct. They fail to grasp that you can be dark skinned and "100 % african" yet being genetically related and closer to populations outside Africa.
Posts: 20 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2024
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can you write this after Maestro's and DJ's replies plus Mestro posting two threads where DJ literally breaks down such diversity..
Who is your argument against because at this point it seems discussion is pointless...(Im honestly not trying to be rude, but trying to keep the discussion from going in circles.)
No one here is saying that Africa=One type or look or that there was no interaction with "Eurasians" between population esp. with proximities..etc.
So again what are you even arguing?
quote:Originally posted by Sarapis:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
Now I know some of you are placing all your bets on the existence of a yet discovered ancestral population in North Africa who fits the bill of the second possibility, and it is a possibility... but I don't think it'd mean much if the ancestry is extremely divergent from all other African populations, most closely related to Eurasian populations, but originating on the periphery of Africa. For one, it's splitting hairs because those border are imaginary in the context of population genetics. Two, if it developed on the periphery at a time where there was distinct groups in Eurasia, more than likely it's the result of input from both African and Eurasian gene pools.
Exactly, that's what some of these stubborn people don't understand. Many of them fail to grasp Africa's vast diversity, mistakenly believing that labeling something as "African" automatically implies cultural and genetic closeness with all Africans. This perspective ignores the significant connections many African groups have with their neighboring regions, including Eurasia. They wrongly assume that acknowledging these connections endorses the outdated Hamitic hypothesis. This emotional investment overshadows the reality that Egyptians, regardless of their skin color or African heritage, were distinct. They fail to grasp that you can be dark skinned and "100 % african" yet being genetically related and closer to populations outside Africa. [/QB]
Posts: 8872 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find funny is that you guys will talk about how diversity/distinction from other Africans etc. but treat "Eurasian" is some sort of monolith, when folks like the Negritos, Australian Aboriginees, Socotrans etc. are Eurasians
quote:So, if we see a SSA group *for example* who have an incidence of light skin and thin noses that's between what we see among their neighbors and what's typical in Eurasia, and 50% of that group's ancestry is Eurasian like, and the archaeological record shows intermingling with a Eurasian culture around the same time the admixture event occurred, odds are, in all seriousness, that group is Eurasian mixed. What that ties back to is that around the pastoral neolithic we see a "package" of features increase dramatically instead of gradually in populations where they were previously rare or entirely absent. That indicates admixture with a homogenous group that already went through the selective pressures to develop that specific combination of features.
The fact is no one population is that easily presented, Eurasian admixure ranges and can be as low as the 30-20s in certain populations and people will still focus on their "Kakazoid" features..Fact is many of these Eurasian back migrations and admixtures took place so long ago no one can tell which feature came from Eurasians which is the point of Maestro's questions that you considered vague and dismissive...point is the history/interaction is so complicated that anyone trying to paint a pretty picture of Got-cha Feelgoodism is talking out their arse(both Afrocentrics and Eurasanists)
quote:That leaves two possibilities: the obvious Eurasian admixture, or admixture with an extremely isolated and divergent group in Africa that sexually selected for features which either coincidentally converged with the package of features developed in Eurasia, or passed on that package of features to Eurasians. Now I know some of you are placing all your bets on the existence of a yet discovered ancestral population in North Africa who fits the bill of the second possibility, and it is a possibility... but I don't think it'd mean much if the ancestry is extremely divergent from all other African populations, most closely related to Eurasian populations, but originating on the periphery of Africa. For one, it's splitting hairs because those border are imaginary in the context of population genetics. Two, if it developed on the periphery at a time where there was distinct groups in Eurasia, more than likely it's the result of input from both African and Eurasian gene pools.
I dont think it "Placing bets" but rather what the evidence seems to be showing, also I don't think your latter explanation is really explaing the complexity of the situation many of us are thinking happened...it was'nt a one way street but possibly thousands of years of interaction...some of the features and genetic ancestry could have developed in Africa, migrated to Eurasian and Back Migrated back into such African populations at a later date further complicating the situation.
The truth is not going to be clean cut, for no side which is why folks like Maestro or DJ etc are coming off as Vague...Eurasianists and Biodiversity google cholarars chest bumping and making bold conclusions to own hoteps are just as misinformed and agenda driven as Afrocntrics...IMO at least
Posts: 8872 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: What I find funny is that you guys will talk about how diversity/distinction from other Africans etc. but treat "Eurasian" is some sort of monolith, when folks like the Negritos, Australian Aboriginees, Socotrans etc. are Eurasians
quote:So, if we see a SSA group *for example* who have an incidence of light skin and thin noses that's between what we see among their neighbors and what's typical in Eurasia, and 50% of that group's ancestry is Eurasian like, and the archaeological record shows intermingling with a Eurasian culture around the same time the admixture event occurred, odds are, in all seriousness, that group is Eurasian mixed. What that ties back to is that around the pastoral neolithic we see a "package" of features increase dramatically instead of gradually in populations where they were previously rare or entirely absent. That indicates admixture with a homogenous group that already went through the selective pressures to develop that specific combination of features.
The fact is no one population is that easily presented, Eurasian admixure ranges and can be as low as the 30-20s in certain populations and people will still focus on their "Kakazoid" features..Fact is many of these Eurasian back migrations and admixtures took place so long ago no one can tell which feature came from Eurasians which is the point of Maestro's questions that you considered vague and dismissive...point is the history/interaction is so complicated that anyone trying to paint a pretty picture of Got-cha Feelgoodism is talking out their arse(both Afrocentrics and Eurasanists)
quote:That leaves two possibilities: the obvious Eurasian admixture, or admixture with an extremely isolated and divergent group in Africa that sexually selected for features which either coincidentally converged with the package of features developed in Eurasia, or passed on that package of features to Eurasians. Now I know some of you are placing all your bets on the existence of a yet discovered ancestral population in North Africa who fits the bill of the second possibility, and it is a possibility... but I don't think it'd mean much if the ancestry is extremely divergent from all other African populations, most closely related to Eurasian populations, but originating on the periphery of Africa. For one, it's splitting hairs because those border are imaginary in the context of population genetics. Two, if it developed on the periphery at a time where there was distinct groups in Eurasia, more than likely it's the result of input from both African and Eurasian gene pools.
I dont think it "Placing bets" but rather what the evidence seems to be showing, also I don't think your latter explanation is really explaing the complexity of the situation many of us are thinking happened...it was'nt a one way street but possibly thousands of years of interaction...some of the features and genetic ancestry could have developed in Africa, migrated to Eurasian and Back Migrated back into such African populations at a later date further complicating the situation.
The truth is not going to be clean cut, for no side which is why folks like Maestro or DJ etc are coming off as Vague...Eurasianists and Biodiversity google cholarars chest bumping and making bold conclusions to own hoteps are just as misinformed and agenda driven as Afrocntrics...IMO at least
Why are we feigning ignorance about what Eurasians are being referenced? How does that serve the conversation except to stonewall? The broad term “Eurasian” is being used because we’re referencing features shared between Europe, West Asia and Central Asia.
Also, You're acting like 20-30% isn't a lot to influence phenotype lol. 1% neanderthal ancestry was enough to influence nose height in Eurasians so 20-30% is more than enough wiggle room to sexually select for novel features. That of course ignores the fact that the groups you guys appeal to are more like 40-50% Eurasian. If you believe it's of no consequence, why not use the groups with little to no levels of that ancestry to carry the argument? Right. Because the incidence of those features correlates to the levels of that ancestry.
I know you guys have your own variations of that theory which is why I said some variation of. Regardless, I completely agree that's where the evidence is pointing. Where I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment, is that they're holding out for something that looks fundamentally African when the *best* case scenario is looking more and more messy every time a new paper drops. I've lurked this forum for years and years and I've seen folks be pushed more and more into these god of the gaps arguments as time went on while still pretending they were right all along. It's becoming very unserious. Looking at the trajectory of the ancient DNA studies in relation to the modern genetic landscape, when these features proliferate in the fossil record, where the the region of interest is located, the patterns in which these features are expressed in relation to ancestry... and a lot of these arguments are no longer tenable.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
Not the typical facial profile of Sudanese of the jet black type depicted in the New Kingdom generally or in the other Book of Gates scenes, it's bordering on anomaly
Actual skull analysis is a separate issue
Posts: 43388 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: [QB][quote]]Why are we feigning ignorance about what Eurasians are being referenced? How does that serve the conversation except to stonewall?
No one is feigning Ignorance or trying to stonewall anything, If a damn herd of blue eyed blond pasty people gave Africans their features, Provid evidence of STFU, the only people "Feigning " anything are the ones making claims without providing evidence.
quote:The broad term “Eurasian” is being used because we’re referencing features shared between Europe, West Asia and Central Asia.[/qoute]
So its acceptable for you to use broad sweeping terms and use people who range in appearance but when Afrocentrism do the same you break into fits or rage and disgust. Its ironic to say the least.
[quote]Also, You're acting like 20-30% isn't a lot to influence phenotype lol. 1% neanderthal ancestry was enough to influence nose height in Eurasians so 20-30%
WTF are you even talking about, post where I said 20-30 does'nt influence I was referencing your scenario of trying to use 50+ as the standard admixture when that isn't the case.
quote:is more than enough wiggle room to sexually select for novel features. That of course ignores the fact that the groups you guys appeal to are more like 40-50% Eurasian. If you believe it's of no consequence, why not use the groups with little to no levels of that ancestry to carry the argument? Right. Because the incidence of those features correlates to the levels of that ancestry.
Who is appealing to what? What are you even talking about? You're getting upset and trying to start arguments for nothing. Is anyone here really arguing that no Eurasian influence is responible for distinct looks in Africans? I personlly don't give two sh$ts, but folks like DJ, Swenet, Maestro are literally trying to explain to you that its not that black and white, its more complicated than that...
I also find it funny the same people who will use the Mantra that "AfRiCaNs ArE ThE MoSt DiVeRsE" will say BS like
quote:If you believe it's of no consequence, why not use the groups with little to no levels of that ancestry to carry the argument?
I mean what are you even saying, that SSA have no variation in looks or that SSA are the monolith on what you call "Black"
So basically a True Negro...
Got it, glad we're done wasting time..
quote:I know you guys have your own variations of that theory which is why I said some variation of. Regardless, I completely agree that's where the evidence is pointing.
No one has any variation of anything, its just where the evidence seems to point, we could be wrong, stop acting like its some desperate grasp at straws or anything...As far as I can tell we don't have enough evidence to do anything but make educated guesses.
quote:Where I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment, is that they're holding out for something that looks fundamentally African when the *best* case scenario is looking more and more messy every time a new paper drops.
What is looking messy? Did not the Natufians themselves have an "African" appearance, are'nt their variations in appearance(of African remains)continent ranging from more roboust to narrow features already? Is anyone here hinging on the Ancestral N/A/Afro-Asiatic being Negroid? Who?
quote:I've lurked this forum for years and years and I've seen folks be pushed more and more into these god of the gaps arguments as time went on while still pretending they were right all along. It's becoming very unserious. Looking at the trajectory of the ancient DNA studies in relation to the modern genetic landscape, when these features proliferate in the fossil record, where the the region of interest is located, the patterns in which these features are expressed in relation to ancestry... and a lot of these arguments are no longer tenable.
What "God of The Gaps" arguments are you even talking about? The "God of the Gaps" about A. Egyptian material culture and origin originating in Arabia or the Levant because of faulty DNA leaks...or Maybe "God of the Gaps" about Dynastic Race theories being true..
Posts: 8872 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: [QB][quote]]Why are we feigning ignorance about what Eurasians are being referenced? How does that serve the conversation except to stonewall?
No one is feigning Ignorance or trying to stonewall anything, If a damn herd of blue eyed blond pasty people gave Africans their features, Provid evidence of STFU, the only people "Feigning " anything are the ones making claims without providing evidence.
quote:The broad term “Eurasian” is being used because we’re referencing features shared between Europe, West Asia and Central Asia.[/qoute]
So its acceptable for you to use broad sweeping terms and use people who range in appearance but when Afrocentrism do the same you break into fits or rage and disgust. Its ironic to say the least.
[quote]Also, You're acting like 20-30% isn't a lot to influence phenotype lol. 1% neanderthal ancestry was enough to influence nose height in Eurasians so 20-30%[quote]
WTF are you even talking about, post where I said 20-30 does'nt influence I was referencing your scenario of trying to use 50+ as the standard admixture when that isn't the case.
[quote]is more than enough wiggle room to sexually select for novel features. That of course ignores the fact that the groups you guys appeal to are more like 40-50% Eurasian. If you believe it's of no consequence, why not use the groups with little to no levels of that ancestry to carry the argument? Right. Because the incidence of those features correlates to the levels of that ancestry.
Who is appealing to what? What are you even talking about? You're getting upset and trying to start arguments for nothing. Is anyone here really arguing that no Eurasian influence is responible for distinct looks in Africans? I personlly don't give two sh$ts, but folks like DJ, Swenet, Maestro are literally trying to explain to you that its not that black and white, its more complicated than that...
I also find it funny the same people who will use the Mantra that "AfRiCaNs ArE ThE MoSt DiVeRsE" will say BS like
quote:If you believe it's of no consequence, why not use the groups with little to no levels of that ancestry to carry the argument?
I mean what are you even saying, that SSA have no variation in looks or that SSA are the monolith on what you call "Black"
So basically a True Negro...
Got it, glad we're done wasting time..
quote:I know you guys have your own variations of that theory which is why I said some variation of. Regardless, I completely agree that's where the evidence is pointing.
No one has any variation of anything, its just where the evidence seems to point, we could be wrong, stop acting like its some desperate grasp at straws or anything...As far as I can tell we don't have enough evidence to do anything but make educated guesses.
quote:Where I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment, is that they're holding out for something that looks fundamentally African when the *best* case scenario is looking more and more messy every time a new paper drops.[quote]
What is looking messy? Did not the Natufians themselves have an "African" appearance, are'nt their variations of appearance across the continent ranging from more roboust to narrow features already? Is anyone here hinging on the Ancestral N/A/Afro-Asiatic being Negroid? Who?
[quote]I've lurked this forum for years and years and I've seen folks be pushed more and more into these god of the gaps arguments as time went on while still pretending they were right all along. It's becoming very unserious. Looking at the trajectory of the ancient DNA studies in relation to the modern genetic landscape, when these features proliferate in the fossil record, where the the region of interest is located, the patterns in which these features are expressed in relation to ancestry... and a lot of these arguments are no longer tenable.
What "God of The Gaps" arguments are you even talking about? The "God of the Gaps" about A. Egyptian material culture and origin originating in Arabia or the Levant because of faulty DNA leaks...or Maybe "God of the Gaps" about Dynastic Race theories being true..
claiming I'm getting upset while cussing, swinging at strawmen and getting irate in the very same post is actually hilarious lol. Show me where I said anything about a heard of "blue eyed pasty blonde people" being the real Egyptians. Show me where I broke into a "rage of disgust" over people using a general geographic term to refer to a general region. Show me where I said 50% is the standard admixture. Show me where I said Egyptian culture originated in Arabia. Good sir, I think you're mad at somebody that's not me. Maybe some enemy you concocted in your head or some netizen that left you traumatized, but definitely not me. You need to stop fighting with the imaginary and start fighting your very real literacy issues.
Moreover, how do you even get "true negro" from that statement? Even if we ignore the fact that I've acknowledged many of these features are indigenous to Africa as part of natural variation, The only way you can get "true negro" from that statement, is if YOU are under the impression that African diversity is carried by Caucasoid and Caucasoid-lite features. The embarrassing self snitching aside, you downplayed the role of that ancestry in how frequently these features are expressed in these groups:
"Eurasian admixure ranges and can be as low as the 30-20s in certain populations and people will still focus on their "Kakazoid" features."
so why can't you make an argument without appealing to them? Should be a very simple task, no? Better yet, 20-30 is still high. Some groups have the ancestry in single digits. Surely they express the traits with similar frequency, right?
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: [claiming I'm getting upset while cussing and swinging at strawmen and getting irate in the very same post is actually hilarious lol. Show me where I said anything about a heard of "blue eyed pasty blonde people" being the real Egyptians. Show me where I broke into a "rage of disgust" over people using a general geographic term to refer to a general region.
So then what are you even talking about, What Eurasians are you using when you say "We all know what Eurasians"...are Light Skinned/Straight and Light Haired/Eyed Eurasians not what you are talking about.
Why don't you say exactly what you mean and stop hiding behind vague and open ended arguments.
Im not swearing at you because Im angry, Im using language that expresses exactly what they of arguments you are using.
quote:Show me where I said 50% is the standard admixture.
You used 50 plus as your example, I said that high is not the common admixture, if you don't believe so then we can move on..
quote:Show me where I said Egyptian culture originated in Arabia. Good sir, I think you're mad at somebody that's not me.
Did I say you believed that? Or was that a reference to people using "God of the Gaps" arguments
quote:Maybe some enemy you concocted in your head or some netizen that left you traumatized, but definitely not me. You need to stop fighting with the imaginary and start fighting your very real literacy issues.
Im not fighting anyone, Im not even arguing with you just trying to keep this discussion from going in circles. You're not saying anything to really even come close to question what folks like Maestro, DJ, Swenet are proposing, you think you are but you're not and if anything you're just going to ignored or go into circular arguments that get the topic closed.
quote:Moreover, how do you even get "true negro" from that statement?
Then what am I supposed to conclude when you say stuff like what I quoted, how do you not see how your comment is coming off as endorsing that ideology when you say stuff like that.
quote:Even if we ignore the fact that I've acknowledged many of these features are indigenous to Africa as part of natural variation, The only way you can get "true negro" from that statement, is if YOU are under the impression that African diversity is carried by Caucasoid and Caucasoid-lite features.
This comment just confirms what I was trying to avoid. This is just circular argument and finger pointing and chest bumping. There is no intelligent response to this accusation.
quote:The embarrassing self snitching aside, you downplayed the role of that ancestry in how frequently these features are expressed in these groups:
No one is down playing anything, Im of the belief that its way more complicated that what people are trying to let on, so I have no firm argument or conclusion on the subject matter.
quote:"Eurasian admixure ranges and can be as low as the 30-20s in certain populations and people will still focus on their "Kakazoid" features."
so why can't you make an argument without appealing to them? Should be a very simple task, no? Better yet, 20-30 is still high. Some groups have the ancestry in single digits. Surely they express the traits with similar frequency, right?
Who is "Them"?
Who am I "Appealing" to? and in What context? Can you provide evidence of me doing so?
What even is your argument?
Posts: 8872 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So then what are you even talking about, What Eurasians are you using when you say "We all know what Eurasians"...are Light Skinned/Straight and Light Haired/Eyed Eurasians not what you are talking about.
Why don't you say exactly what you mean and stop hiding behind vague and open ended arguments.
Im not swearing at you because Im angry, Im using language that expresses exactly what they of arguments you are using.
You used 50 plus as your example, I said that high is not the common admixture, if you don't believe so then we can move on..
Did I say you believed that? Or was that a reference to people using "God of the Gaps" arguments
Im not fighting anyone, Im not even arguing with you just trying to keep this discussion from going in circles. You're not saying anything to really even come close to question what folks like Maestro, DJ, Swenet are proposing, you think you are but you're not and if anything you're just going to ignored or go into circular arguments that get the topic closed.
Then what am I supposed to conclude when you say stuff like what I quoted, how do you not see how your comment is coming off as endorsing that ideology when you say stuff like that.
quote:Even if we ignore the fact that I've acknowledged many of these features are indigenous to Africa as part of natural variation, The only way you can get "true negro" from that statement, is if YOU are under the impression that African diversity is carried by Caucasoid and Caucasoid-lite features.
This comment just confirms what I was trying to avoid. This is just circular argument and finger pointing and chest bumping. There is no intelligent response to this accusation.
quote:The embarrassing self snitching aside, you downplayed the role of that ancestry in how frequently these features are expressed in these groups:
No one is down playing anything, Im of the belief that its way more complicated that what people are trying to let on, so I have no firm argument or conclusion on the subject matter.
quote:"Eurasian admixure ranges and can be as low as the 30-20s in certain populations and people will still focus on their "Kakazoid" features."
so why can't you make an argument without appealing to them? Should be a very simple task, no? Better yet, 20-30 is still high. Some groups have the ancestry in single digits. Surely they express the traits with similar frequency, right?
Who is "Them"?
Who am I "Appealing" to? and in What context? Can you provide evidence of me doing so?
What even is your argument?
My brother, you need to read to understand instead of reading to reply. I've said TWICE those are not descriptions of Egyptians or Nubians but just extreme examples to drive the point home... at the very damn top of the posts you're referencing. I also explicitly stated that I agree there was bidirectional gene flow and that the real picture is messy directly to YOU. Aint enough specificity in the world that can overcome a grown man that's intent on letting simple words beat his ass. It's like some of you are used to arguing with a certain kind of person on the opposing side and you have these canned talking points set and read to go where they're not even applicable. The reason you're having trouble grasping my argument is because you're not even arguing with ME. Respond to what I said instead of regurgitating your usual diatribe, thanks.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:My brother, you need to read to understand instead of reading to reply. I've said TWICE those are not descriptions of Egyptians or Nubians but just extreme examples to drive the point home... at the very damn top of the posts you're referencing. I also explicitly stated that I agree there was bidirectional gene flow and that the real picture is messy directly to YOU. Aint enough specificity in the world that can overcome a grown man that's intent on letting simple words beat his ass.
Its becoming clear that at this point this is becoming exactly what I wanted to prevent, I honestly hesitated to even respond initially and now I see I was correct.
You are saying all of this but reread my initial response to you in this thread and how you responded.
I made 3 claims to you
1) That Eurasians are not a monolith so why are people using "Eurasian" as a justification for looks when these same people stress diversity in Africans
2) that the Admixture and interaction between Africans/Eurasians is complicated, old, drawn out and does not easily fit into Chest Bumping Two Sentence conclusions be it made from AfroCentrist or Eurasanists
3) The "Cluster" is simply what the evidence seems to be showing, its not a matter of us clutching and praying it comes true, We could very well be wrong, and I think most posters here would admit that if they were being honest.
If you don't disagree with that then why respond the way you did, why bring up appealing to this and that and down playing this and that...
A simple "I agree" but let me clairify what my issue is could have save us both precious time.
quote:It's like some of you are used to arguing with a certain kind of person on the opposing side and you have these canned talking points set and read to go where they're not even applicable.
Again reread what I posted to you, if anything my comment to you was not even an argument but me trying to clarify certin positions I think folks like Maestro has, if anything any "argument" if it can be called that was with the other guy
quote:The reason you're having trouble grasping my argument is because you're not even arguing with ME. Respond to what I said instead of regurgitating your usual diatribe, thanks.
Im not having trouble grasping anything because as far as I can tell you are not arguing anything concrete. Maybe you're playing devils advocate? I already told you what my position what on Eurasian admixture in terms of African Phenotype, so what exactly am I not responding to?
Posts: 8872 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:My brother, you need to read to understand instead of reading to reply. I've said TWICE those are not descriptions of Egyptians or Nubians but just extreme examples to drive the point home... at the very damn top of the posts you're referencing. I also explicitly stated that I agree there was bidirectional gene flow and that the real picture is messy directly to YOU. Aint enough specificity in the world that can overcome a grown man that's intent on letting simple words beat his ass.
Its becoming clear that at this point this is becoming exactly what I wanted to prevent, I honestly hesitated to even respond initially and now I see I was correct.
You are saying all of this but reread my initial response to you in this thread and how you responded.
I made 3 claims to you
1) That Eurasians are not a monolith so why are people using "Eurasian" as a justification for looks when these same people stress diversity in Africans
2) that the Admixture and interaction between Africans/Eurasians is complicated, old, drawn out and does not easily fit into Chest Bumping Two Sentence conclusions be it made from AfroCentrist or Eurasanists
3) The "Cluster" is simply what the evidence seems to be showing, its not a matter of us clutching and praying it comes true, We could very well be wrong, and I think most posters here would admit that if they were being honest.
If you don't disagree with that then why respond the way you did, why bring up appealing to this and that and down playing this and that...
A simple "I agree" but let me clairify what my issue is could have save us both precious time.
quote:It's like some of you are used to arguing with a certain kind of person on the opposing side and you have these canned talking points set and read to go where they're not even applicable.
Again reread what I posted to you, if anything my comment to you was not even an argument but me trying to clarify certin positions I think folks like Maestro has, if anything any "argument" if it can be called that was with the other guy
quote:The reason you're having trouble grasping my argument is because you're not even arguing with ME. Respond to what I said instead of regurgitating your usual diatribe, thanks.
Im not having trouble grasping anything because as far as I can tell you are not arguing anything concrete. Maybe you're playing devils advocate? I already told you what my position what on Eurasian admixture in terms of African Phenotype, so what exactly am I not responding to?
Holyyy
Sir, one post ago you were claiming I argued an array of things I explicitly did not - things I explicitly contradicted multiple times in black and white. You're not just having trouble grasping my argument, you're having trouble with the English language itself. My initial post in this thread was was to argue a point that just because a certain feature is indigenous to Africa doesn't mean that admixture can't increase it's frequency i.e. pointing to simple variation isn't an explanation for groups who express traits in a pattern more characteristic of admixture with another groups where those features are homogenous - to answer if the frequency is an indigenous development, we first have to identify the group or groups they mixed with. I then used an extreme example of light hair, light skin light eyes and loosely curled hair to drive the point home. I don't know where you got all that other mess you're talking about. If that summary is also causing you trouble, perhaps we should end this here. Truthfully, we should have ended it when you started cursing and getting irate.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok Lets move on then...
Posts: 8872 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for this DJ, This is very interesting in regards of Kadruka, who was being touted in some circles as some token "Own the Hoteps" wandering "Eurasian" Kakazoids... When clearly they were nothing but run of the mill Nile Valley/East Africans..
Even Antalas tried to do that with me, and I knew he was quote mining/distorting because the study is behind a paywall..
Just shows these people lie and distort to push their "own the hoteps" agenda..
(BTW DJ I sent you a PM any help would be appreciated)
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Below you can see the Kadruka man's position in the PCA.
Meanwhile
Posts: 8872 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Itoli @LoStranger I think Kisese II will be important in the next coming days.
Kisese II huh? Is that a brand new study about to come out soon? I honestly didn't know anything about it. What do the preliminary information state about this supposed study?
Posts: 76 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Kisese II is a rock shelter in Tanzania that held human remains from the Terminal Pleistocene to the Early Holocene. A 2021 metric craniofacial and dental study (here) was done showing they had affinities to Neolithic Pastoralists. If that's true then it totally blows out the claim of the African Pastoral Neolithic being the result of "Eurasian admixed" immigrants. We already see the smoking gun with the Terminal Pleistocene Al-Khiday remains of Upper Nubia. So if they sequenced a genetic sample from Kisese II, I can only wonder what the results will show. But I'm guessing it won't be good news for the Euronuts.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Those were examples. The point is you guys are using a plaster for every sore approach to these discrepancies by pointing to presence of individual features in the context of wider variation. Nasal aperture in question? point to samples that have that trait but lack all the others. Zygomatic arches in question? point to sample that has that trait but lacks a slew of others. On and on it goes. The problem is, the pattern of how these features are expressed in the groups in question isn't indicative of simple variation, but rather admixture with a group where those features are homogenous because when they're expressed they're almost always expressed TOGETHER and to a degree that that matches the degree of Eurasian like ancestry. Not to mention the incidence coincidentally radiates with proximity to Eurasian groups i.e. it has always been most common near the delta and gradually decline the further you go south, and even the graph you're referencing shows an instance of that. So, what is the parent population?
I'm trying my best not to be rude either but what the hell are you talking about?? You have yet to present a single example of an ancient Egyptian showing admixture let alone a Nubian. Having affinities for certain traits is not alone proof for genetic relations.
Lower Egyptians in certain cranial traits and dental traits show the closest affinities to West Eurasians but in skeletal body traits we see the following: "..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." --Donald Redford, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001)
quote:and yes, I'm aware that proximity in cranial traits doesn't equal admixture, but you were using the proximity of the Nubians to the Egyptians in the graph to try and bolster a claim about Egyptian identity. I pointed out that both groups are close to the Mediterranean using that metric and asked for clarification on where the Nubians were sampled. If the metric can’t indicate any meaningful relationship in light of that, then why reference it in the first place?
I don't need to "bolster" my claim at all. It's a fact plain and simple that Egyptians as Nile Valley Africans are closest related to Nubians and all the experts agree. It seems that YOU are trying to bolster your claim with the statement that both groups are close to the Mediterranean, yet as you can see in the graph the Sub-Saharan pooled sample is closer to Upper Egyptians and some Nubians than the Mediterranean pooled sample. So geographic position alone doesn't mean much especially since the Sahara didn't always exist and thus no 'Sub-Sahara' to speak of during the Holocene wet period. Or the fact that Sub-Saharan lineages are found as far north as Europe.
quote:I also pointed out that you can't reliably use ethnic caricatures to make minute conclusions on features because their purpose is to differentiate, not provide accuracy. With ethnic caricatures the artist almost always references at least one key feature that sets the group apart so those "thin featured" Nubians could have been lower Nubians who looked exactly like the Egyptians but were still portrayed with pitch black skin more akin to the groups in upper Nubia because the artist needed to communicate that they weren't Egyptian.
The same can be said about artistic portrayals of lighter skinned Asiatics or white Nordic looking Libyans etc. By the way, as I've pointed out multiple times the more "negroid" looking foes were not Upper Nubians but tribal peoples from further south who were under Kushite imperial rule. In fact, if you look at Irish's chart, the Kerman, Pharaonic, and X-Group samples all from Upper Nubia are closer to the Mediterranean pooled sample! LOLPosts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: What I find funny is that you guys will talk about how diversity/distinction from other Africans etc. but treat "Eurasian" is some sort of monolith, when folks like the Negritos, Australian Aboriginees, Socotrans etc. are Eurasians.
It's funny you mentioned this. I noticed it in the closed thread when I saw the following:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: but we're playing incredulous about how dark MENA people can tan? hm, okay.
It took me a while to remember that MENA means 'Middle East & North Africa'. Funny how these same Eurasiocentrics love to divide the African continent into North and Sub-Sahara but then group the former with 'the Middle East' which more accurately is Southwest Asia. The geopolitical grouping of MENA is based solely on shared Arab-Islamic culture NOT biology! Even most Arabs will admit to this. The same reason why after Somalia's Islamic revolution they joined the Arab Union. So is Somalia a MENA people too??
He pretty much confirms stuff we've been saying for years in this forum such as how many of the genetic markers initially classified as 'Eurasian' were in fact really African in disguise due to the fact that Eurasian genetics is derived from Africa to begin with.
As you can see in the global PCA above utilizing autosomal DNA and basically 166,000 SNPs; West Asian and North African "Arab" populations such as Yemenite Muslims, Saudis, Palestinians, Moroccans, Egyptians and so on; all display a clear northward pull towards populations in Africa, away from from the orange cluster whom Southern Europeans such as Sardinians are within.
This explains why despite his 'Jordan PPN' marker making up almost half of his sample, the Kadruka individual still clustered closer to East Africans than with Levantine groups.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Not the typical facial profile of Sudanese of the jet black type depicted in the New Kingdom generally or in the other Book of Gates scenes, it's bordering on anomaly
Actual skull analysis is a separate issue
That depends on which Sudanese people. I remember back when I was high school I knew a girl from Somalia who was telling me and some friends about the diversity of looks in East Africa and she says that North Sudanese look very different from South Sudanese in facial appearance with the former having long narrow noses and thin lips but their complexion is still jet black like South Sudanese.
Plus, I'm sure that portrait of the Nubian man is not an anomaly at all and there are likely others like it that are either damaged or don't get as much attention.
Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also the famous "Nubian archer" painted models from the tomb of Mesehti. If you compare them to the models of Egyptian spearmen from the same tomb, their facial features are similar despite their darker skin tone. I don't remember exactly where I read it, but I believe the archer models may represent C-Group people (aka Wawatians) from Lower Nubia, so they're basically how I imagine most Lower Nubian people from that time period to have looked.
^ As you can see just like the Luxmanda sample almost half of the genome is Jordan PPN, does this mean they are 'half Eurasian'?? Of course we know from how the Natufians looked, their uniparental lineages, as well as other genetic traits that many experts are realizing that anthropologists have been guessing at all along that the Natufians were originally not Eurasian at all but African.
Below you can see the Kadruka man's position in the PCA.
^ Obviously the guy was not 'Half-Eurasian'. LOL
Just a couple of questions in regards to this post Djehuti given that Kadruka plots outside of but closer to East Africa in the PCA graph below how much Eurasian admixture do you think Kadruka may have had if you had to guess? And furthermore do you think Christian Period Nubians and Modern day Nubians have more or less Eurasian admix compared to Kadruka?
Also another thing that stands out to me in the top graph is that Kadruka lacks the Dinka related ancestry that seems to show up later in Christian Period Era Nubian samples why do you believe this is??
Posts: 76 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Itoli @LoStranger I think Kisese II will be important in the next coming days.
Kisese II huh? Is that a brand new study about to come out soon? I honestly didn't know anything about it. What do the preliminary information state about this supposed study?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Itoli @LoStranger I think Kisese II will be important in the next coming days.
Kisese II huh? Is that a brand new study about to come out soon? I honestly didn't know anything about it. What do the preliminary information state about this supposed study?
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: There's also the famous "Nubian archer" painted models from the tomb of Mesehti. If you compare them to the models of Egyptian spearmen from the same tomb, their facial features are similar despite their darker skin tone. I don't remember exactly where I read it, but I believe the archer models may represent C-Group people (aka Wawatians) from Lower Nubia, so they're basically how I imagine most Lower Nubian people from that time period to have looked.
Considering that Mesehti dates to the 11th Dynasty whose kings had a close relationship with Wawati including Mentuhotep who had Wawati wives, it is most likely that's what these Nubians were.
Kemaui spearmen vs. Wawati archers
Note that in the 2010 Irish study C-Group (Wawati) are positioned very close to the Christian period sample and not far from the Mediterranean pooled samples.
Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Just a couple of questions in regards to this post Djehuti given that Kadruka plots outside of but closer to East Africa in the PCA graph below how much Eurasian admixture do you think Kadruka may have had if you had to guess? And furthermore do you think Christian Period Nubians and Modern day Nubians have more or less Eurasian admix compared to Kadruka?
Judging by the sample alone I would say the Kadruka has NONE at all or at least very little since I believe the Jordan PPN or Natufian ancestry is African to begin with. The Christian Period is different because they show admixture with Egyptians who do have Asiatic admixture and definitely modern Nubians have more considering both the Arab invasion and Turkish Ottoman Empire. I just mentioned that there is a community of Nubians with Albanian ancestry from Janissaries used by the Ottoman Empire.
quote:Also another thing that stands out to me in the top graph is that Kadruka lacks the Dinka related ancestry that seems to show up later in Christian Period Era Nubian samples why do you believe this is??
That's because Kadruka represents genuine Nubian ancestry and as I've explained countless times South Sudanese peoples like the Dinka are NOT Nubian just because they were under the Nubian Empire. I brought up the fact here that anthropologists have noted from cranial features alone that starting by the Late Period which is after the end of the New Kingdom, there was an influx of Sub-Saharan peoples into Nubia. This likely explains the Dinka-like ancestry you see in the Christian Period.
As to what Elmaestro is referring to in regards to Kisese II, I don't know but I agree with Brandon that we should let him reveal it to us.
Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Kisese II is a rock shelter in Tanzania that held human remains from the Terminal Pleistocene to the Early Holocene. A 2021 metric craniofacial and dental study (here) was done showing they had affinities to Neolithic Pastoralists. If that's true then it totally blows out the claim of the African Pastoral Neolithic being the result of "Eurasian admixed" immigrants. We already see the smoking gun with the Terminal Pleistocene Al-Khiday remains of Upper Nubia. So if they sequenced a genetic sample from Kisese II, I can only wonder what the results will show. But I'm guessing it won't be good news for the Euronuts.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Those were examples. The point is you guys are using a plaster for every sore approach to these discrepancies by pointing to presence of individual features in the context of wider variation. Nasal aperture in question? point to samples that have that trait but lack all the others. Zygomatic arches in question? point to sample that has that trait but lacks a slew of others. On and on it goes. The problem is, the pattern of how these features are expressed in the groups in question isn't indicative of simple variation, but rather admixture with a group where those features are homogenous because when they're expressed they're almost always expressed TOGETHER and to a degree that that matches the degree of Eurasian like ancestry. Not to mention the incidence coincidentally radiates with proximity to Eurasian groups i.e. it has always been most common near the delta and gradually decline the further you go south, and even the graph you're referencing shows an instance of that. So, what is the parent population?
I'm trying my best not to be rude either but what the hell are you talking about?? You have yet to present a single example of an ancient Egyptian showing admixture let alone a Nubian. Having affinities for certain traits is not alone proof for genetic relations.
Lower Egyptians in certain cranial traits and dental traits show the closest affinities to West Eurasians but in skeletal body traits we see the following: "..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." --Donald Redford, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001)
quote:and yes, I'm aware that proximity in cranial traits doesn't equal admixture, but you were using the proximity of the Nubians to the Egyptians in the graph to try and bolster a claim about Egyptian identity. I pointed out that both groups are close to the Mediterranean using that metric and asked for clarification on where the Nubians were sampled. If the metric can’t indicate any meaningful relationship in light of that, then why reference it in the first place?
I don't need to "bolster" my claim at all. It's a fact plain and simple that Egyptians as Nile Valley Africans are closest related to Nubians and all the experts agree. It seems that YOU are trying to bolster your claim with the statement that both groups are close to the Mediterranean, yet as you can see in the graph the Sub-Saharan pooled sample is closer to Upper Egyptians and some Nubians than the Mediterranean pooled sample. So geographic position alone doesn't mean much especially since the Sahara didn't always exist and thus no 'Sub-Sahara' to speak of during the Holocene wet period. Or the fact that Sub-Saharan lineages are found as far north as Europe.
quote:I also pointed out that you can't reliably use ethnic caricatures to make minute conclusions on features because their purpose is to differentiate, not provide accuracy. With ethnic caricatures the artist almost always references at least one key feature that sets the group apart so those "thin featured" Nubians could have been lower Nubians who looked exactly like the Egyptians but were still portrayed with pitch black skin more akin to the groups in upper Nubia because the artist needed to communicate that they weren't Egyptian.
The same can be said about artistic portrayals of lighter skinned Asiatics or white Nordic looking Libyans etc. By the way, as I've pointed out multiple times the more "negroid" looking foes were not Upper Nubians but tribal peoples from further south who were under Kushite imperial rule. In fact, if you look at Irish's chart, the Kerman, Pharaonic, and X-Group samples all from Upper Nubia are closer to the Mediterranean pooled sample! LOL
DJ, you don't need to tell me that you're "trying" not to be rude. Remove your emotions from the debate and just present your argument.
Something tells me it's gonna be a pointless discussion if we litigate admixture while having two different understandings of what constitutes admixture, so please specify what you think admixture is, and is not. almost every Egyptian mummy genome to date has been dominated by levantine related ancestry in addition to Eurasian uniparentals. Them being mixed isn't even in question, what's in question is the nature of that levantine-like ancestry and what percent of it is Ancient North African. However, as I've said previously, I don't think it'd count for much if the ancestry is "North African" whilst being deeply intertwined with the Eurasian genepool due to long term bidirectional gene flow because geographic borders are imaginary in the context of population genetics - divergence and relatedness is not. Gradual admixture, is still admixture. bi-directional gene flow is still admixture. That's my position on that. The cline not extending smoothly into the levant by that date doesn't disprove genetic input if the majority of that input occurred prior to that time period and both populations experienced input from separate sources past that point - but just for clarification, are you denying there was a cline of Eurasian ancestry from North to South, yes or no?
Also, I never specified "tribal nubians" nor did I say "thin featured" nubians couldn't have that kind of black skin. I'm sure many did as many Sudanese do today. What I'm pointing out is that your argument in relation to that ethnic caricature isn't logically sound. Ethnic caricatures are a hodgepodge of general, differentiating characteristics, so they can't be used to make conclusions about specific phenotypes, let alone ancestry. An ethnic caricature of Nepalese can look like someone who has Sino-Tibetan facial features with dark skin and Indian cultural wear. Are there people in Nepal that fit that bill? yes. Do most Nepalese look like that? No. The same IS true for other Egyptian ethnic caricatures. The only thing they're good for is giving us a general idea of what features Egyptians saw as "different". We don't know what they're portraying accurately, what they're exaggerating, what they're mixing or what they're matching.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Those are extreme examples to drive home the point, not a description of either the Egyptians or Nubians. I'm referencing superficial features because I'm not trying to get into the weeds. The point is that even if certain features are indigenous to Africa, that does not matter much if their *incidence* is higher in other populations or the *combination* of features isn't indigenous. light skin *for example* occurs indigenously in Africa and some groups can get VERY light - but that's relatively rare. Thin noses, also occur indigenously in Africa, but also relatively rare. In fact, the groups that tend to have lighter skin among black Africans tend to have wider features.
Evidence of ancient African populations moving around in Africa and being related to each other is not extreme. You are making up nonsense "rules" that you expect people to follow based on fantasy speculation and absurd logic. The pottery traditions in Africa and the evolution of the Neolithic emerged in between the Sahara, Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan. Those are simply facts and the evidence of human habitation in this region extends back tens of thousands of years. No theoretical Eurasian populations in this prehistory. And that is where dynastic Nile Valley culture emerged from, not the Lower Nile and not anywhere near Eurasia. So the point is why do you keep ignoring those facts? Just like most of the animals depicted in dynastic art are African animals: African Nile Catfish; African Lions, The Lappet Faced Vulture (nubian vulture), African humped cattle, Hippopotamus, Nile Crocodiles, etc all of inner African origin.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: So, if we see a SSA group *for example* who have an incidence of light skin and thin noses that's between what we see among their neighbors and what's typical in Eurasia, and 50% of that group's ancestry is Eurasian like, and the archaeological record shows intermingling with a Eurasian culture around the same time the admixture event occurred, odds are, in all seriousness, that group is Eurasian mixed. What that ties back to is that around the pastoral neolithic we see a "package" of features increase dramatically instead of gradually in populations where they were previously rare or entirely absent. That indicates admixture with a homogenous group that already went through the selective pressures to develop that specific combination of features. That leaves two possibilities: the obvious Eurasian admixture, or admixture with an extremely isolated and divergent group in Africa that sexually selected for features which either coincidentally converged with the package of features developed in Eurasia, or passed on that package of features to Eurasians.
Why do you keep going back to theoreticals? Where is this population documented in the ancient historical record of the predynastic in Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan where these cultures emerged from? Show me the evidence of such population and then we can talk. Otherwise, all you are doing is waffling and stalling using theoretical populations to avoid the actual evidence that exists that goes against your theoretical logic.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Now I know some of you are placing all your bets on the existence of a yet discovered ancestral population in North Africa who fits the bill of the second possibility, and it is a possibility... but I don't think it'd mean much if the ancestry is extremely divergent from all other African populations, most closely related to Eurasian populations, but originating on the periphery of Africa. For one, it's splitting hairs because those border are imaginary in the context of population genetics. Two, if it developed on the periphery at a time where there was distinct groups in Eurasia, more than likely it's the result of input from both African and Eurasian gene pools.
Nobody is waiting for proof that ancient Africans are the ancestral populations of ancient Nile Valley groups on the Upper Nile or Saharan Populations before and after the last wet phase. This is you again using fantasy logic and speculation to deny facts and insert made up theories that are not proven and based on nothing but made up rhetoric. Find me the evidence of these ancient Eurasians in the Sahara during the last wet phase 10,000 years ago. There is none.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: BUT for purpose good discussion and trying to understand you guys position better: if you think it's some variation of the latter possibility, what bolsters it in your opinion? What period of interest would you say is most consequential in how this came about? Those aren't adversarial questions btw, so if the position is based on ongoing research I believe that's valid as well. I'm just interested in your opinion.
The only thing anybody is waiting for is you to stop arm waving and posturing instead of providing said evidence of an ancient ancestral Eurasian population in Northern Africa from 10,000 years ago that somehow gave birth to these "Eurasian like" features in the Nile Valley and made it separate from the Africans on the Nile and in the Sahara going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Recalling that humans have been in Africa longer than any other place on earth. So there is no debate about the antiquity of Africa and the diversity of African features that arises from that fact.
Posts: 8940 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Those are extreme examples to drive home the point, not a description of either the Egyptians or Nubians. I'm referencing superficial features because I'm not trying to get into the weeds. The point is that even if certain features are indigenous to Africa, that does not matter much if their *incidence* is higher in other populations or the *combination* of features isn't indigenous. light skin *for example* occurs indigenously in Africa and some groups can get VERY light - but that's relatively rare. Thin noses, also occur indigenously in Africa, but also relatively rare. In fact, the groups that tend to have lighter skin among black Africans tend to have wider features.
Evidence of ancient African populations moving around in Africa and being related to each other is not extreme. You are making up nonsense "rules" that you expect people to follow based on fantasy speculation and absurd logic. The pottery traditions in Africa and the evolution of the Neolithic emerged in between the Sahara, Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan. Those are simply facts and the evidence of human habitation in this region extends back tens of thousands of years. No theoretical Eurasian populations in this prehistory. And that is where dynastic Nile Valley culture emerged from, not the Lower Nile and not anywhere near Eurasia. So the point is why do you keep ignoring those facts? Just like most of the animals depicted in dynastic art are African animals: African Nile Catfish; African Lions, The Lappet Faced Vulture (nubian vulture), African humped cattle, Hippopotamus, Nile Crocodiles, etc all of inner African origin.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: So, if we see a SSA group *for example* who have an incidence of light skin and thin noses that's between what we see among their neighbors and what's typical in Eurasia, and 50% of that group's ancestry is Eurasian like, and the archaeological record shows intermingling with a Eurasian culture around the same time the admixture event occurred, odds are, in all seriousness, that group is Eurasian mixed. What that ties back to is that around the pastoral neolithic we see a "package" of features increase dramatically instead of gradually in populations where they were previously rare or entirely absent. That indicates admixture with a homogenous group that already went through the selective pressures to develop that specific combination of features. That leaves two possibilities: the obvious Eurasian admixture, or admixture with an extremely isolated and divergent group in Africa that sexually selected for features which either coincidentally converged with the package of features developed in Eurasia, or passed on that package of features to Eurasians.
Why do you keep going back to theoreticals? Where is this population documented in the ancient historical record of the predynastic in Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan where these cultures emerged from? Show me the evidence of such population and then we can talk. Otherwise, all you are doing is waffling and stalling using theoretical populations to avoid the actual evidence that exists that goes against your theoretical logic.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Now I know some of you are placing all your bets on the existence of a yet discovered ancestral population in North Africa who fits the bill of the second possibility, and it is a possibility... but I don't think it'd mean much if the ancestry is extremely divergent from all other African populations, most closely related to Eurasian populations, but originating on the periphery of Africa. For one, it's splitting hairs because those border are imaginary in the context of population genetics. Two, if it developed on the periphery at a time where there was distinct groups in Eurasia, more than likely it's the result of input from both African and Eurasian gene pools.
Nobody is waiting for proof that ancient Africans are the ancestral populations of ancient Nile Valley groups on the Upper Nile or Saharan Populations before and after the last wet phase. This is you again using fantasy logic and speculation to deny facts and insert made up theories that are not proven and based on nothing but made up rhetoric. Find me the evidence of these ancient Eurasians in the Sahara during the last wet phase 10,000 years ago. There is none.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: BUT for purpose good discussion and trying to understand you guys position better: if you think it's some variation of the latter possibility, what bolsters it in your opinion? What period of interest would you say is most consequential in how this came about? Those aren't adversarial questions btw, so if the position is based on ongoing research I believe that's valid as well. I'm just interested in your opinion.
The only thing anybody is waiting for is you to stop arm waving and posturing instead of providing said evidence of an ancient ancestral Eurasian population in Northern Africa from 10,000 years ago that somehow gave birth to these "Eurasian like" features in the Nile Valley and made it separate from the Africans on the Nile and in the Sahara going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Recalling that humans have been in Africa longer than any other place on earth. So there is no debate about the antiquity of Africa and the diversity of African features that arises from that fact.
This isn't a matter of rhetorical, it's a matter of deductive reasoning. If you say the answer to this question has to be this because it's the only possibility given xyz, when there are in fact other possibilities given those facts, then the argument isn't logically sound. You're doing the same right here by pre-supposing that because Egyptian *culture* was a local development, that means there was no geneflow from elsewhere. The only way this argument makes sense is if you're addressing a dramatic population replacement, not gradual bidirectional gene flow spanning millennia before dynastic Egypt even began or before the populations in the area were sedentary for that matter.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Those are extreme examples to drive home the point, not a description of either the Egyptians or Nubians. I'm referencing superficial features because I'm not trying to get into the weeds. The point is that even if certain features are indigenous to Africa, that does not matter much if their *incidence* is higher in other populations or the *combination* of features isn't indigenous. light skin *for example* occurs indigenously in Africa and some groups can get VERY light - but that's relatively rare. Thin noses, also occur indigenously in Africa, but also relatively rare. In fact, the groups that tend to have lighter skin among black Africans tend to have wider features.
Evidence of ancient African populations moving around in Africa and being related to each other is not extreme. You are making up nonsense "rules" that you expect people to follow based on fantasy speculation and absurd logic. The pottery traditions in Africa and the evolution of the Neolithic emerged in between the Sahara, Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan. Those are simply facts and the evidence of human habitation in this region extends back tens of thousands of years. No theoretical Eurasian populations in this prehistory. And that is where dynastic Nile Valley culture emerged from, not the Lower Nile and not anywhere near Eurasia. So the point is why do you keep ignoring those facts? Just like most of the animals depicted in dynastic art are African animals: African Nile Catfish; African Lions, The Lappet Faced Vulture (nubian vulture), African humped cattle, Hippopotamus, Nile Crocodiles, etc all of inner African origin.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: So, if we see a SSA group *for example* who have an incidence of light skin and thin noses that's between what we see among their neighbors and what's typical in Eurasia, and 50% of that group's ancestry is Eurasian like, and the archaeological record shows intermingling with a Eurasian culture around the same time the admixture event occurred, odds are, in all seriousness, that group is Eurasian mixed. What that ties back to is that around the pastoral neolithic we see a "package" of features increase dramatically instead of gradually in populations where they were previously rare or entirely absent. That indicates admixture with a homogenous group that already went through the selective pressures to develop that specific combination of features. That leaves two possibilities: the obvious Eurasian admixture, or admixture with an extremely isolated and divergent group in Africa that sexually selected for features which either coincidentally converged with the package of features developed in Eurasia, or passed on that package of features to Eurasians.
Why do you keep going back to theoreticals? Where is this population documented in the ancient historical record of the predynastic in Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan where these cultures emerged from? Show me the evidence of such population and then we can talk. Otherwise, all you are doing is waffling and stalling using theoretical populations to avoid the actual evidence that exists that goes against your theoretical logic.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Now I know some of you are placing all your bets on the existence of a yet discovered ancestral population in North Africa who fits the bill of the second possibility, and it is a possibility... but I don't think it'd mean much if the ancestry is extremely divergent from all other African populations, most closely related to Eurasian populations, but originating on the periphery of Africa. For one, it's splitting hairs because those border are imaginary in the context of population genetics. Two, if it developed on the periphery at a time where there was distinct groups in Eurasia, more than likely it's the result of input from both African and Eurasian gene pools.
Nobody is waiting for proof that ancient Africans are the ancestral populations of ancient Nile Valley groups on the Upper Nile or Saharan Populations before and after the last wet phase. This is you again using fantasy logic and speculation to deny facts and insert made up theories that are not proven and based on nothing but made up rhetoric. Find me the evidence of these ancient Eurasians in the Sahara during the last wet phase 10,000 years ago. There is none.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: BUT for purpose good discussion and trying to understand you guys position better: if you think it's some variation of the latter possibility, what bolsters it in your opinion? What period of interest would you say is most consequential in how this came about? Those aren't adversarial questions btw, so if the position is based on ongoing research I believe that's valid as well. I'm just interested in your opinion.
The only thing anybody is waiting for is you to stop arm waving and posturing instead of providing said evidence of an ancient ancestral Eurasian population in Northern Africa from 10,000 years ago that somehow gave birth to these "Eurasian like" features in the Nile Valley and made it separate from the Africans on the Nile and in the Sahara going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Recalling that humans have been in Africa longer than any other place on earth. So there is no debate about the antiquity of Africa and the diversity of African features that arises from that fact.
This isn't a matter of rhetorical, it's a matter of deductive reasoning. If you say the answer to this question has to be this because it's the only possibility given xyz, when there are in fact other possibilities given those facts, then the argument isn't logically sound. You're doing the same right here by pre-supposing that because Egyptian *culture* was a local development, that means there was no geneflow from elsewhere. The only way this argument makes sense is if you're addressing a dramatic population replacement, not gradual bidirectional gene flow spanning millennia before dynastic Egypt even began or before the populations in the area were sedentary for that matter.
Deductive reasoning only makes sense when there are objective facts and evidence to reason about. You have provided none and simply are wasting peoples time with theory crafting for the sake of theory crafting instead of actually dealing with reality.
Posts: 8940 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Those are extreme examples to drive home the point, not a description of either the Egyptians or Nubians. I'm referencing superficial features because I'm not trying to get into the weeds. The point is that even if certain features are indigenous to Africa, that does not matter much if their *incidence* is higher in other populations or the *combination* of features isn't indigenous. light skin *for example* occurs indigenously in Africa and some groups can get VERY light - but that's relatively rare. Thin noses, also occur indigenously in Africa, but also relatively rare. In fact, the groups that tend to have lighter skin among black Africans tend to have wider features.
Evidence of ancient African populations moving around in Africa and being related to each other is not extreme. You are making up nonsense "rules" that you expect people to follow based on fantasy speculation and absurd logic. The pottery traditions in Africa and the evolution of the Neolithic emerged in between the Sahara, Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan. Those are simply facts and the evidence of human habitation in this region extends back tens of thousands of years. No theoretical Eurasian populations in this prehistory. And that is where dynastic Nile Valley culture emerged from, not the Lower Nile and not anywhere near Eurasia. So the point is why do you keep ignoring those facts? Just like most of the animals depicted in dynastic art are African animals: African Nile Catfish; African Lions, The Lappet Faced Vulture (nubian vulture), African humped cattle, Hippopotamus, Nile Crocodiles, etc all of inner African origin.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: So, if we see a SSA group *for example* who have an incidence of light skin and thin noses that's between what we see among their neighbors and what's typical in Eurasia, and 50% of that group's ancestry is Eurasian like, and the archaeological record shows intermingling with a Eurasian culture around the same time the admixture event occurred, odds are, in all seriousness, that group is Eurasian mixed. What that ties back to is that around the pastoral neolithic we see a "package" of features increase dramatically instead of gradually in populations where they were previously rare or entirely absent. That indicates admixture with a homogenous group that already went through the selective pressures to develop that specific combination of features. That leaves two possibilities: the obvious Eurasian admixture, or admixture with an extremely isolated and divergent group in Africa that sexually selected for features which either coincidentally converged with the package of features developed in Eurasia, or passed on that package of features to Eurasians.
Why do you keep going back to theoreticals? Where is this population documented in the ancient historical record of the predynastic in Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan where these cultures emerged from? Show me the evidence of such population and then we can talk. Otherwise, all you are doing is waffling and stalling using theoretical populations to avoid the actual evidence that exists that goes against your theoretical logic.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Now I know some of you are placing all your bets on the existence of a yet discovered ancestral population in North Africa who fits the bill of the second possibility, and it is a possibility... but I don't think it'd mean much if the ancestry is extremely divergent from all other African populations, most closely related to Eurasian populations, but originating on the periphery of Africa. For one, it's splitting hairs because those border are imaginary in the context of population genetics. Two, if it developed on the periphery at a time where there was distinct groups in Eurasia, more than likely it's the result of input from both African and Eurasian gene pools.
Nobody is waiting for proof that ancient Africans are the ancestral populations of ancient Nile Valley groups on the Upper Nile or Saharan Populations before and after the last wet phase. This is you again using fantasy logic and speculation to deny facts and insert made up theories that are not proven and based on nothing but made up rhetoric. Find me the evidence of these ancient Eurasians in the Sahara during the last wet phase 10,000 years ago. There is none.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: BUT for purpose good discussion and trying to understand you guys position better: if you think it's some variation of the latter possibility, what bolsters it in your opinion? What period of interest would you say is most consequential in how this came about? Those aren't adversarial questions btw, so if the position is based on ongoing research I believe that's valid as well. I'm just interested in your opinion.
The only thing anybody is waiting for is you to stop arm waving and posturing instead of providing said evidence of an ancient ancestral Eurasian population in Northern Africa from 10,000 years ago that somehow gave birth to these "Eurasian like" features in the Nile Valley and made it separate from the Africans on the Nile and in the Sahara going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Recalling that humans have been in Africa longer than any other place on earth. So there is no debate about the antiquity of Africa and the diversity of African features that arises from that fact.
This isn't a matter of rhetorical, it's a matter of deductive reasoning. If you say the answer to this question has to be this because it's the only possibility given xyz, when there are in fact other possibilities given those facts, then the argument isn't logically sound. You're doing the same right here by pre-supposing that because Egyptian *culture* was a local development, that means there was no geneflow from elsewhere. The only way this argument makes sense is if you're addressing a dramatic population replacement, not gradual bidirectional gene flow spanning millennia before dynastic Egypt even began or before the populations in the area were sedentary for that matter.
Deductive reasoning only makes sense when there are objective facts and evidence to reason about. You have provided none and simply are wasting peoples time with theory crafting for the sake of theory crafting instead of actually dealing with reality.
I'm glad you agree. Thing is, I'm not the one that made the claim, you did. I simply pointed out your deduction was fallacious. It's up to you to hold those alternate possibilities up to scrutiny but instead you've been going on about everything but that. If you're good enough to condescend you're good enough to be accountable for your own arguments. I'm just choosing to learn from people who (claim to) have all the answers.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: I'm glad you agree. Thing is, I'm not the one that made the claim, you did. I simply pointed out your deduction was fallacious. It's up to you to hold those alternate possibilities up to scrutiny but instead you've been going on about everything but that. If you're good enough to condescend you're good enough to be accountable for your own arguments. I'm just choosing to learn from people who (claim to) have all the answers.
No, I held up facts that are documented and proven, while you refuse to provide any of your own. There is nothing to deduce other than you are waffling and going in circles and not providing any tangible data to support your argument. This isn't about playing games of theory crafting, it is about what you can or cannot prove.
Posts: 8940 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: I'm glad you agree. Thing is, I'm not the one that made the claim, you did. I simply pointed out your deduction was fallacious. It's up to you to hold those alternate possibilities up to scrutiny but instead you've been going on about everything but that. If you're good enough to condescend you're good enough to be accountable for your own arguments. I'm just choosing to learn from people who (claim to) have all the answers.
No, I held up facts that are documented and proven, while you refuse to provide any of your own. There is nothing to deduce other than you are waffling and going in circles and not providing any tangible data to support your argument. This isn't about playing games of theory crafting, it is about what you can or cannot prove.
Like I said, the problem isn’t the facts, it’s the deductions you made from them. You argue “this is the answer to this question because it’s the only possibility given these facts” - but in actuality, there are other possibilities given those very same facts. You call me pointing out the discrepancy “theory crafting” but it’s very basic logical scrutiny. If there’s no evidence to disqualify it as a possibility on either our parts then your deductions aren’t logically sound and you didn’t “prove” anything - you just put forth a non-sequitur. Like I said in the other thread I don’t have a big ego surrounding these things so I’m willing to accept any arguments that make sense. I wanted to see if you had any explanation for the discrepancy but clearly you don’t, which is fine. Moving on.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: I'm glad you agree. Thing is, I'm not the one that made the claim, you did. I simply pointed out your deduction was fallacious. It's up to you to hold those alternate possibilities up to scrutiny but instead you've been going on about everything but that. If you're good enough to condescend you're good enough to be accountable for your own arguments. I'm just choosing to learn from people who (claim to) have all the answers.
No, I held up facts that are documented and proven, while you refuse to provide any of your own. There is nothing to deduce other than you are waffling and going in circles and not providing any tangible data to support your argument. This isn't about playing games of theory crafting, it is about what you can or cannot prove.
Like I said, the problem isn’t the facts, it’s the deductions you made from them. You argue “this is the answer to this question because it’s the only possibility given these facts” - but in actuality, there are other possibilities given those very same facts. You call me pointing out the discrepancy “theory crafting” but it’s very basic logical scrutiny. If there’s no evidence to disqualify it as a possibility on either our parts then your deductions aren’t logically sound and you didn’t “prove” anything - you just put forth a non-sequitur. Like I said in the other thread I don’t have a big ego surrounding these things so I’m willing to accept any arguments that make sense. I wanted to see if you had any explanation for the discrepancy but clearly you don’t, which is fine. Moving on.
The problem isn't the facts or the deductions, it is you refusing to provide support for your own argument with the relevant facts. You refuse to provide this and yet criticize everyone else for using facts that actually support the argument of African origins for dynastic Nile Valley culture. "Woulda coulda shoulda" is not an argument and that is all you are doing here. I show the proof that pottery on the Nile has an African origin and you spout nonsense about the theory that there could have been some Eurasian features in that population moving UP the Nile from within Africa. You don't make any sense trying to argue against facts with hypothetical scenarios that you cannot show any evidence for is the point. There is plenty of evidence of Africans in the Upper Nile and Sahara in the last wet phase leading up to the predynastic and little to none of Eurasians with specific combinations of features that are distinct from Africans with similar features. Otherwise if the evidence was there you would have shown it to everyone who has been asking for this numerous times. You aren't fooling anybody with your waffling and stalling tactics.
Posts: 8940 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: I'm glad you agree. Thing is, I'm not the one that made the claim, you did. I simply pointed out your deduction was fallacious. It's up to you to hold those alternate possibilities up to scrutiny but instead you've been going on about everything but that. If you're good enough to condescend you're good enough to be accountable for your own arguments. I'm just choosing to learn from people who (claim to) have all the answers.
No, I held up facts that are documented and proven, while you refuse to provide any of your own. There is nothing to deduce other than you are waffling and going in circles and not providing any tangible data to support your argument. This isn't about playing games of theory crafting, it is about what you can or cannot prove.
Like I said, the problem isn’t the facts, it’s the deductions you made from them. You argue “this is the answer to this question because it’s the only possibility given these facts” - but in actuality, there are other possibilities given those very same facts. You call me pointing out the discrepancy “theory crafting” but it’s very basic logical scrutiny. If there’s no evidence to disqualify it as a possibility on either our parts then your deductions aren’t logically sound and you didn’t “prove” anything - you just put forth a non-sequitur. Like I said in the other thread I don’t have a big ego surrounding these things so I’m willing to accept any arguments that make sense. I wanted to see if you had any explanation for the discrepancy but clearly you don’t, which is fine. Moving on.
The problem isn't the facts or the deductions, it is you refusing to provide support for your own argument with the relevant facts. You refuse to provide this and yet criticize everyone else for using facts that actually support the argument of African origins for dynastic Nile Valley culture. "Woulda coulda shoulda" is not an argument and that is all you are doing here. I show the proof that pottery on the Nile has an African origin and you spout nonsense about the theory that there could have been some Eurasian features in that population moving UP the Nile from within Africa. You don't make any sense trying to argue against facts with hypothetical scenarios that you cannot show any evidence for is the point. There is plenty of evidence of Africans in the Upper Nile and Sahara in the last wet phase leading up to the predynastic and little to none of Eurasians with specific combinations of features that are distinct from Africans with similar features. Otherwise if the evidence was there you would have shown it to everyone who has been asking for this numerous times. You aren't fooling anybody with your waffling and stalling tactics.
Doug, I’m sure you legitimately believe that. I didn’t present a counter argument so there’s nothing to argue about. I’m consciously ignoring your silly attempts to shift the burden of proof because it’s inconsequential to what I said. If I don’t have proof it is the case, and you don’t have proof it’s not the case, then that still leaves a hole in YOUR argument. The data over the past few years has shown we’re dealing with something far more complex and wide reaching than we previously thought and you’re still trying to argue about “indigenous pottery” as if you’re arguing with a Euronut from 2005 about wandering Caucasian or dynastic race theories. I highlighted a critical factor you’re not accounting for because I was curious if you omitted something or if it was a legitimate slip in logic. You failed to address the discrepancy and seemingly, you can’t. That’s not to say your position doesn’t have merit, it’s to say your argument was insufficient in showing the merits (perhaps someone else can fill it in). Why you seem more content bickering than addressing it is beyond me but regardless, there’s clearly a lot of ego and emotion here so this is going nowhere fast. Have a nice rest of your day.
Posts: 88 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Doug, I’m sure you legitimately believe that. I didn’t present a counter argument so there’s nothing to argue about. I’m consciously ignoring your silly attempts to shift the burden of proof because it’s inconsequential to what I said.
No, you are ignoring facts that disagree with you and going in circles. What about the fact that the emergence of pottery in the Nile originated in the Sahara and Sudan are you disputing? What evidence do you have that any of these things have to do with Eurasians? You introduced this whole line of thinking with your following post:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: To my understanding, that area (north to south east Africa has generally been a corridor for minor gene flow between Eurasia and Africa to varying degrees but there was a large influx of Eurasian associated ancestry starting around the PN. So in your post you noted there were cranial measurements from the Kisese II sample that overlapped with the Egyptian samples - am i following you thus far?
I provided direct evidence supporting that the rise of pottery and neolithic activities emerged in the Upper Nile and Sudan along with areas in the Sahara and were the direct precursors to such activity on the Nile. You have provided nothing supporting your argument of all these Eurasian population movements into the Nile prior to the dynastic, versus the indigenous African movements along the Nile from the South and Sahara.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: If I don’t have proof it is the case, and you don’t have proof it’s not the case, then that still leaves a hole in YOUR argument. The data over the past few years has shown we’re dealing with something far more complex and wide reaching than we previously thought and you’re still trying to argue about “indigenous pottery” as if you’re arguing with a Euronut from 2005 about wandering Caucasian or dynastic race theories. I highlighted a critical factor you’re not accounting for because I was curious if you omitted something or if it was a legitimate slip in logic. You failed to address the discrepancy and seemingly, you can’t. That’s not to say your position doesn’t have merit, it’s to say your argument was insufficient in showing the merits (perhaps someone else can fill it in). Why you seem more content bickering than addressing it is beyond me but regardless, there’s clearly a lot of ego and emotion here so this is going nowhere fast. Have a nice rest of your day.
No, you are again ignoring facts. The objective facts are that pottery in the Nile emerged between Sudan and Upper Egypt along with early agricultural and pastoral traditions. You haven't disproven that, as opposed to just proposing theories about how Eurasians could have been there or should have been there or would have been there but no actual evidence of them being there.
Posts: 8940 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: DJ, you don't need to tell me that you're "trying" not to be rude. Remove your emotions from the debate and just present your argument.
I thought I did. That's why I was just a tad bit irritated.
quote:Something tells me it's gonna be a pointless discussion if we litigate admixture while having two different understandings of what constitutes admixture, so please specify what you think admixture is, and is not. almost every Egyptian mummy genome to date has been dominated by levantine related ancestry in addition to Eurasian uniparentals. Them being mixed isn't even in question, what's in question is the nature of that levantine-like ancestry and what percent of it is Ancient North African. However, as I've said previously, I don't think it'd count for much if the ancestry is "North African" whilst being deeply intertwined with the Eurasian genepool due to long term bidirectional gene flow because geographic borders are imaginary in the context of population genetics - divergence and relatedness is not. Gradual admixture, is still admixture. bi-directional gene flow is still admixture. That's my position on that. The cline not extending smoothly into the levant by that date doesn't disprove genetic input if the majority of that input occurred prior to that time period and both populations experienced input from separate sources past that point - but just for clarification, are you denying there was a cline of Eurasian ancestry from North to South, yes or no?
Your statement of Levantine uniparentals is obviously not true since from the limited data I've seen the majority of Egyptian lineages-- both paternal and maternal-- were African not Eurasian and even Levantine groups also share some of these African uniparentals like paternal E-M35 and maternal N1. As far as their autosomes showing 'Levantine' affinity, again the problem is that the Levant itself has received admixture from Northeast Africa in earlier periods so the problem is differentiation.
This is why in the earlier Kadruka analysis you see Joranian PPN for Kadruka and other Nile Valley samples but in the more recent analysis you see a distinction between such Levant Neolithic ancestry and a Naqada 1 ancestry in which the latter predominates as the lower Nile Valley ancestry.
quote:Also, I never specified "tribal nubians" nor did I say "thin featured" nubians couldn't have that kind of black skin. I'm sure many did as many Sudanese do today. What I'm pointing out is that your argument in relation to that ethnic caricature isn't logically sound. Ethnic caricatures are a hodgepodge of general, differentiating characteristics, so they can't be used to make conclusions about specific phenotypes, let alone ancestry. An ethnic caricature of Nepalese can look like someone who has Sino-Tibetan facial features with dark skin and Indian cultural wear. Are there people in Nepal that fit that bill? yes. Do most Nepalese look like that? No. The same IS true for other Egyptian ethnic caricatures. The only thing they're good for is giving us a general idea of what features Egyptians saw as "different". We don't know what they're portraying accurately, what they're exaggerating, what they're mixing or what they're matching.
I don't know where you got "tribal Nubians" from. I said there was a difference between actual Nubians proper and those peoples to the south who were under Nubian hegemony. The Persians before the advent of Alexander the Great had a vast empire that included very dark (black) peoples from India, yet nobody confused the latter with actual Iranians let alone Persians. As for ethnic caricatures in artwork, such is actually useful in noting the diversity of people groups. You are correct that the problem comes from making generalizations based on such caricatures but it seems you seem to be more guilty of that.
But back to your query on admixture, here is a perfect example of the issue you don't seem to understand.
quote: Question: Since the Berbers are Middle Eastern people who invaded Africa 10,000 years ago, and they expelled the black people who lived there earlier, does it mean that they are not real Africans?
Answer by Ygor Coelho
That isn't what happened. Berbers are a group of populations — a very heterogeneous one, I add — that emerged in North Africa itself when indigenous North African hunter-gatherers, early Anatolian farmers and later their European descendants, Levantine farmers and herders, West African farmers and East African herders met successively and gradually mixed to form new populations.
Of course, other African population clusters were native to their own core areas (e.g. West Africans, Nilotic East Africans, Horn African hunter-gatherers, Khoisan Southern Africans, at least two highly distinct clusters of Central African rainforest hunter-gatherers so-called “pygmies”). North Africa already had its own distinctive indigenous African population, which mixed with later waves of immigrants from several parts of Eurasia and Africa and is now ancestral to modern North Africans.
In fact, that’s such an ancient process of Eurasia-Africa interaction that the indigenous North African cluster itself was also a combination of an even older North African population (*not* identical nor even ancestral to any other extant African population cluster, either) with an also older and divergent layer of a West Eurasian population — a mixing event that may have happened even before the Last Glacial Maximum around 20,000–25,000 years ago.
No Berber-like population existed in the Middle East at any time in the past, nor even 10,000 years ago. You can’t find any Berber-like people among the ancient DNA samples from the entire Middle East, except, in later times, when they are evident genetic outliers, that is, obvious (i.e because they differ too much from the other samples in ancestry composition) immigrants or unmixed descendants of immigrants.
The typical Berber-like genetic makeup is the result of historical events that took place in North Africa itself from the onset of the Neolithic Period onward, and the modern populations that carry the most ancestral admixture from the Late Paleolithic inhabitants of Northwest Africa are the Berbers (average around ~25–35%), not any other African or non-African people.
Actually, Berbers tend to have MORE ancestry from the Late Paleolithic (i.e. ~10–20 kya) inhabitants of the broad zone where their current homelands are located than the large majority of Western and Central Europeans, Central Africans, East Africans, Southern Africans, Southeast Asians, Central Asians, West Siberians, and North Americans do. That is no small feat in a rapidly changing Holocene Era.
That kind of periodic renovation of the genetic ancestry composition of the inhabitants of a land is no novelty. It’s happened all over the world several times, and it didn’t happen in the last 10,000 years or so only in the most isolated parts of the world (at least not until the contemporary era).
Anyway, is there anything more racist and xenophobic than claiming a people is not “really from here” even if they and their ancestors have been living and evolving in that same area for the last 10,000 years? What's this obsession with racial/ethnogeographic purity? What’s up with this segregation between “real Africans” and “fake/illegitimate Africans” 10,000 years after an alleged invasion? Should then the descendants of African immigrants that moved to Europe, regardless of how mixed they might be, be still considered aliens and non-Europeans even 2,000 years from now? It’s really sad how often the oppressed one just seems to dream of becoming the oppressor eventually.
How long do you think a population needs to be living in some region to be considered native to it and to be viewed by modern foreigners moving to it as the indigenous population of the land that is receiving them? Because, if you think the minimum time required is longer than 2,000 years — or even 3,000 years — , then the overwhelming majority of the Bantu-speaking Africans are not any more indigenous and native to their current lands than the Chinese are native to Iraq just because they both happen to live in Africa.
Now, I bet that would be considered outrageous by a lot of Africans south of the Sahara… and yet we keep hearing those extreme ideas about what makes a people indigenous (or even just native) when it comes to Berbers, obviously just because of their physical appearance that does not fit within the very narrow and originally racist stereotype about what an “African is supposed to be/look like”, whereas everyone finds it perfectly fine that Asia is natively inhabited by totally different people like Georgians, Tamils, Yemenis, Malays and Koreans.
But it happens that the large majority of the ancestors of the Berbers were already living in North Africa before any typical Bantu African was living in, say, Mozambique, Kenya, Tanzania or South Africa. I hope that does not mean that you want us to say that those are not real natives of the lands they have been inhabiting for dozens or even hundreds of generations.
Mind you, the above is in regards to populations of the Maghreb that is Northwest Africa NOT those of Northeast Africa which include Egyptians and Nubians whose biohistory is completely different. That said, unsurprisingly Northeast Africa has greater degree of interaction/admixture with Southwest Asia than the Maghreb does. Another issue which the writer Coelho didn't bring up that complicates things further is just how "Eurasian" is Eurasian. Since we have entities like Basal Eurasian which may in fact originate in Africa to begin with!
^ According to the above graph from Lazaridis which supports Wells Y-DNA findings ancestral so-called 'Non-Africans' or 'Eurasian Adam' as Wells calls it based on Y- haplogroups developed still in the African continent before leaving to Southwest Asia. So when you have back and forth movements including admixture between North Africa and West Eurasia it becomes difficult to differentiate certain lineages or markers.
This is why you have some Eurasiocentrics who go so far as to make the claim that the whole Y chromosomal E clade (P2) came from Eurasia as well as mtDNA clade L3, which then makes the vast majority of Sub-Saharans 'Eurasian'. This is why even though I've never doubted admixture between populations, I always question from where and whom and from what time period. Just because a population is found in West Eurasia does not mean they are devoid of recent African ancestry and 'Eurasia' itself originated in Africa.
Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic